Josh Milani stood in for Eugene Carchesio, speaking eloquently and informedly about the artists' work and his (Carchesio's) belief that the work needn't be articulated because everything one needs to know is there in the work already, which made Josh' position perhaps a little tentative. Nevertheless, the insights into Eugene's beliefs on spirituality and ephemerality revealed much about the work that one would not necessarily be certain about had it not been confirmed in speech. This is not to say that the work isn't in fact imbued with these qualities, rather, it is to say, that they speak in a more mysterious fashion that makes certainties a difficult concept to pin down. For example, the tension between the spirituality of the work and the scientific style with which it is documented. Does this not set up a conflict of beliefs? So which is it? Or does Carchesio offer us the chance to have it both ways? Speaking about having it both ways… One always comes away from an artist talk by Scott Redford feeling as though Scott never really tells you anything. Despite sharing some nice anecdotes and commenting on a work's inception, Scott nevertheless leaves you with more questions than before he began. As he says himself, "Australian queer pop? You don't even know me". That's precisely the problem, or perhaps the charm, depending on how you look at it. His work in the UAM show, particularly, Not the Formula for Population Standard Deviation (1993) evokes a multitude of references, and although it is tempting to seek a full-formulaic if you will-explanation, one can't help but realise that that reading is exactly the one the work is engaged in complicating, and seeks to evade. After all, it's right there in the title. In this, the work comes off like an abstract self-portrait of the artist, at once promising an explanation, but leaving us confused and somehow still needing more.