It is not abnormal that an author does not want to speak of his/her work. Despite possibly claiming otherwise, authors know a little of the their process in making in the same way that the processed food knows little of its origin. But to abstain from fashionable cynicism, I will say a little. I create work with intent to persuade a witness, jury, but not necessarily a conscious viewer, my work is my rhetoric to nudge my neighbor into  the future forming in front of both of us, and for the future audience to be able to reflect. I do not expect to have a broad audience that will grasp my work as the nomenclature and rubrics for art is a permutations of too many variables that have no bearing on its quiddity, but it also is an easy excuse to feel unhindered to create for someone else's expectation , and possibly, in the worst scenario, it may be just flippant arrogance to excuse oneself for not making anything good.  In another word, it is vainglorious to pin "art" to objects created in our lifetime, but it is not so in order to create an effort in order try to persuade . 

  I strive not to be recognized, famous, rich, or venerated otherwise by public, though in bad faith, of course. I promulgate this stance with an attempt not to be arrogant, yet, because it is to be a prerequisite attribute for my position, I am pervicacious to pursue stanchingly this claim. This may sound esoteric and uncanny, but it is a simple dialectic that galvanize nicely an asymptotic progression of each of our existences. 

   I understand, that culturally, it is made possible, partly, since I happen to come from a relatively privileged class. I do want to have audience to experience my work and as an author,  I can gauge whether they have been persuaded to give a right course to their perception or not.  True, my work is made for the future, so perhaps I should not worry about whether there is audience that groks the future, on the other hand, it would be false to think that I have monopoly on the future. Luckily, I do not ... .