These contemporary paintings do not illustrate coexistence; they enact it.
Rather than using abstract forms as symbols for human relationships, the work allows those relationships to unfold through the behaviour of the painted elements themselves. Circles, squares, gestural marks and fields of colour exist as autonomous entities that continually negotiate their position within the pictorial space. They approach, withdraw, overlap, interrupt and accommodate one another without any single form assuming dominance. Meaning therefore does not reside in the individual shape but in the relationships established between forms.
This distinction is fundamental. The paintings are not representations of harmony, conflict or balance; they are situations in which these conditions are actively performed. The canvas becomes a relational field where every element possesses agency, and where the composition remains open to continual adjustment rather than fixed resolution. The work proposes that order is not imposed from above but emerges through reciprocal exchange.
In this sense, the paintings move beyond formal abstraction. They become propositions about how difference can exist without hierarchy and how coherence can arise without uniformity. The ancient dialogue between the circle and the square is therefore reimagined, not as a problem to be solved, but as an encounter between distinct forms learning to inhabit the same space.
The viewer does not simply observe these negotiations but participates in them. Looking becomes an act of continually reconfiguring relationships between forms, tracing moments of tension, alignment, hesitation and release. The paintings remain deliberately unresolved because coexistence is never a finished state; it is an ongoing process of adjustment and becoming.
Abstraction here is not an escape from the world but a means of engaging it. Through the language of form alone, the paintings suggest that the conditions of living together—negotiation, reciprocity, vulnerability and mutual presence—can be experienced directly rather than described. In doing so, the work proposes painting itself as a relational practice, capable of generating meaning through encounter rather than representation.
The title 'The Circle Found the Square' is therefore not descriptive but active. The forms do not simply meet; they seek one another out. “Found” implies recognition rather than resolution, an encounter in which each form becomes aware of the other through proximity and difference. It suggests that the circle and the square exist independently, yet are drawn into relation through a kind of perceptual or structural attraction. This act of finding is not about completion or solution, but about recognition, where each form registers the presence of the other and is altered by that encounter.
In this sense, “found” becomes the quiet core of the work: a movement towards relation rather than possession, towards awareness rather than resolution, and towards a shared space in which difference is not erased but acknowledged.