One might be forgiven

for wondering what the o and dots were meant to mean or to whom or what they were referring.   I can tell you they weren't a reduced form of homage to John Baldessari whose work I do admire.    I've always had a liking for circles.  And ever since art school and reading Roland Barthes' text The Death of the Author I have tended to think quite a bit about ambiguity and the audience.  Intention vs Perception/Reception.  Not that that was specifically why I included them.

Clearly I meant what I wrote in the last post otherwise it wouldn't be there, I'd have erased it (Erasure is something that interests me) or never written it in the first place.   But it was something that needed expressing and you can make of it what you will.

Today I was reading an old interview with J G Ballard written by Simon Sellers in The Internet in Print  that referred, among other things, to people's particular interest in the dust in J G's house.  Then I happened to finally spot a BBC News article on the Turner prize nominees (this had completely passed me by) and Roger Hiorns dust piece.   It occurred to me that perhaps my dots could be perceived as specks of dust which would be topical, but rather odd to say the least and completely co-incidental.  I am including an old image of my own intentional dust for comparison purposes.