What Can Be Known Only Through Art?

I do not understand my work as a search for a personal style or an artistic position. I am interested in another question: What can be known only through art?

Many questions can be answered philosophically, scientifically, or through language. Art is not needed for that. For me, art begins where language alone is no longer sufficient—not because language fails, but because it reaches a limit.

A work is therefore neither an illustration of an idea nor a statement. It is the place where a proposition must prove itself. Whether it holds is decided neither by the artist nor by a theory. It is decided only in perception.

I therefore do not begin a work with an answer. I begin with a question. While working, that question changes repeatedly. Some works fail. Others lead to a point I did not know before. For me, this is precisely where art produces knowledge. It does not arise before the work, but within it.

Perhaps this is where art differs from science. Science seeks to prove a proposition. Art can prove nothing. It can only create conditions under which a proposition proves itself in perception—or does not.

I therefore understand each work as part of an ongoing research: not research about art, but through art. The work is not the result of this research. It is its actual site.

I am therefore less interested in the question of what art is than in what can be known only through it.