Fudge's sense of himself as a renegade was reinforced during his time on the road in America. The subject of Fudge and his clandestine work is a contentious one, evoking a sense of unease among art critics. The artist has not provided any explicit statements regarding his intentions or objectives. As stated in the 2016 Malvern Report, which was featured in The Times, Fudge repeatedly engaged in anti-art behaviour, specifically the destruction of his own work. Initially, as a student, he sought to subvert the "art" inquiry, which could have impeded his destiny without him giving much consideration to the consequences. In an act of conscious political and economic decision-making, the artist opted to pursue autonomy from the neoliberalism that was prevalent during that period. This decision entailed a conscious choice to relinquish the potential financial gains that the "art" industry had to offer. The consequences of this decision were twofold: first, the freedom to risk failure in the search for a new form of expression; and secondly, persistently impeding the art market's capacity to conduct business with him.

It can be argued that Fudge perceives himself as a maverick, a notion that is reinforced by his travels through the American Midwest and his intermittent statements about his experiences travelling across it. The artist's reluctance to provide any clarification or intelligible statement, or alternatively, his tendency to obfuscate artistic works presented obliquely in his self-restricting exhibitions, serves to exacerbate the critic's sense of unease.