I'm a product of my training, which is pre post-modern. It was 1960, New York, Abstract Expressionism was the serious art form and the formal elements of art reigned supreme, the underlying structure of art, rather than a recognizable subject matter or technique! Some art historians say that 1964, the year I graduated from Pratt Institute, was the end of modern art. Post-modern art took hold in the mid-sixties, where the formal elements of art then took a secondary role to ideas and the message of the work. I have to admit that for my own art, I never bought into it. To me the formal elements, the structure, the composition, the implied space of the work rang true. I tend to be attracted to pure compositional elements, rather than emphasizing subject matter or mood.
I always felt that on some hidden level, abstract, or even non-objective art did communicate something beyond just their formal qualities. Kandinsky wrote a book in 1914 Called Concerning the Spiritual in Art where he tried to explain what colors and shapes and different compositional elements communicated, without any recognizable references. This book made a lasting impression on me. Even though I don't consider my work narrative, I believe that somehow, they are saying something and just don't ask me what that something is! That's as close as I can get to explain my work. Some things you just accept on faith.
I work out of the working process; I don't approach the canvas with a preconceived idea. I throw something out there, an instinctual gesture, tease it into shape, try different things, erase and refine, as clichéd as it sounds, until it feels right!