The mythic quality of a work is not found on the surface or in the mimetic nature of marks. The image may be rudimentary. It may fulfil criteria that allow the viewer to conceive of a meaning or understanding of the image or it may not. It may carry a title that gives identity or placement or one that liberates possession. It is the combination of image and title that suggests a context or contexts to the viewer. There can be debate between what is represented or proposed by the work and previous knowledge or history of 'subject'. In this way 'myth' is investigated in the experience of the work. The conceptual nature is to question, or recall to mind, facts associated with the act of looking. A kind of 'false history' may be proposed or interrogated. Engaged with ideas of information/experience, a continuity of thinking re-orders that surety, that most of us possess, that we grasp the 'story'. What may, at first, be linked to previous experience may, by suggesting a dis-continuity to the rationale of easy categorisation, return the viewer to question understanding. In that way a two-fold questioning is set up; a questioning of the image as a 'picture of the world' or illustration, and a questioning of the preconceived notions that set that questioning in motion. The resonance between these twin cultural loci is a motive of my work.