31st january - 9th march 2013
Macro X –From a certain point of view the definition of living space, which in a general way speaks of a concept directly related to human beings, can be also used to talk about the world of objects as an extension of the functions of the former. Like in the case of a human being, the object at rest inhabits within a spatial‐temporal framework in which its existence is predictable. Movement acts as a variable which alters the limits of this table framework, overflowing it and conquering a territory which widens its presence in space.
In Macro X the pool of paint, as an integrated part of the leading object, functions as an expansive element, which with its slow movement exceeds the framework it inhabits. It expands the limits of what we could consider the living space of the object and to the extent that it does so, it increases the uncertainness of this territory and thus the incapacity to predict the becoming of its existence. There in lies the power of movement as an altering variable of the static, of the motionless, of the predictable and its capacity to break the physical and mental limits which the living space enforces.
Abstracting - The unavoidable relationship between the whole and the part. Both stand alone as entities in their own right but at the same time, each one acts as a unit that modifies the sense of the other. The fragmentation of a reality, conducive to a better understanding of its component parts at the same time, enables us to explore the meanings that the whole prevents us from perceiving.
The context here is the dialectic relationship between the abstract and the concrete. As form, the abstract mark and the object that generates it. The fragmentation of this space of relationship reveals the autonomy of each element, together with the close relationship that exists between the two of them. The mark exists as an autonomous plastic object but its origin can only be understood if we view it as a whole that includes the object that created it. Until we reach that point, its validity, or lack thereof, lies in the realm of abstraction but when our vision reaches the object that generates its meaning, it is modified, and remains no longer an abstract work but becomes a realist work, redefined as the realistic interpretation of an abstract mark and not as an abstract mark as such.
In a sense, it is about painting painting. Talking of how painting talks about painting itself, of how what is painted to study the how the painting is actually done. It is also for me a way of expressing in images a whole crossover of meanings …. of staging a kind of game that has been flitting around in my head for some time, the game of a fictitious scenario in which a figurative artist decides to study and paint an abstract work. What happens when a figurative artist decides to paint someone else’s abstract work, treating it like any other object to be observed and painted? What arises from this experience will not be an abstract work of art, although the result might lead us to think so….., on the contrary, it will be a realist study of an abstract work that will throw up another obviously dialectic relationship, that of form and content. It seems clear that they could be identical in form but with radically different contents. We will therefore use completely different formulas to define them although we are confronted by two pieces of work that almost any viewer would consider to be identical.