As I believe that thinking (critical reflection) and acting (production) depend on each other and have a dynamic relationship, I let theory influence my artistic practice and vice versa.

Reflection over my previous artistic work made me conclude that questioning the dynamic relationship between the individual and the community (collectivity) is very interesting, revealing at times. Analyzing this relationship from various angles is valuable for me as I consider that my ever-increasing interest for language is rooted in it. In this context, questions like “What could be the function of a language spoken by just one individual?” or “ What is the relation between language and violence?” are particularly challenging.

Collectivity can deny individuality or enhance it. I believe that one of the functions of the artist is to increase awareness of this relationship, whatever it might be.

If collectivity and individuality are continuously interacting, what king of relations are they establishing? Sometimes their relationship appeared as problematic to me. For example I continue to be disturbed by institutions like orphanages. I understand their institutional functionality, their intrisic utility. Yet to conceive home as an institution remains a painful understanding to me. I see two radically different languages colliding in here.

I imagine practising art as an instrument of the inert boundaries: negating, affirming or questioning both differences and the boundaries themselves, as they appear. For me, it represents the ideal way of interaction between individuals and communities larger than two people.

*******************************************************************************************************************

ONE DEGREE OF INDEPENDENCE

"There is no solution, because there is no problem." Marcel Duchamp

A number of roughly spherical small bodies – each bounded by a single, reflective membrane - speed along a narrow alley between indistinct objects. Despite friction, they are all somehow avoiding overheating and overcrowding.

Hazardously, one of these bodies hits with force an obstacle, something as firm as a wall or a tree. The entity is wrecked at this moment. Inside-out, its pieces become visible. A team of indisposed divine observers may eventually distinguish some of the constitutive parts. Despite being worn out, many maintained some of their original function: to reflect the indistinct surroundings. Besides, each of the parts acquired a variable degree of independence. The team of observers maintain the same reluctance to believe that a number of roughly spherical small bodies – each bounded by a single, reflective membrane - speed along a narrow alley between indistinct objects. Despite friction, they are all somehow avoiding overheating and overcrowding.

I do not believe that audiences could or want to watch my work in the way I watch it. Nor I believe that a possible act of "understanding" could take place at the site these works are presented. However, I consider, this is not totally excluded.

My work can - and will always -  encourage some „active" viewers to generate their own interpretations of it. Depending on their creativity alone, to those - I can only hope to provide a proper opportunity to discover these abilities and/or practice them.

However, my attention also focuses on a more „passive" viewer, a type a viewer that expects the work to lead, to show, to reveal. The titles, the dialogues, the character(s), the deceits, the images, the actions, the sounds, the assumed mistakes, the editing,  - the ways of „storytelling" - are chosen and related to encourage such viewers to experience and rehearse a certain degree of "activity".

*******************************************************************************************************************