Metascope
The Metascope is a concept that encompasses a mode of thinking and a process of explanation, rather than a physical device. It aims to push the limits of our understanding by exploring the underlying patterns and structures that govern the world around us. The concept of the Metascope revolves around the idea that if we can experience smaller events and entities with microscopes and explore the core of free space with telescopes, what new discoveries would we make with a device that enables us to view reality from a meta-level? An illustration of this notion is presently observable in the shape of a room-scale schematic drawing. This graphic representation constitutes a pure explanation for the sake of explanation, portraying a schematic landscape of the invisible movement.
While the Metascope does not yet exist as a physical device, it is still an intriguing concept that challenges us to think beyond our current limits of perception and knowledge. It encourages us to explore the fundamental aspects of our reality and to imagine what we could achieve if we had a tool that allowed us to experience reality from a meta-perspective.
Soft Links
Soft Links is about absent equations and abstract visual notation, presenting a thoughtful connection between reason and imagination. Inspired by relative explanations and object schemes, the selection of works creates the subtle relationships between knowledge and research that tie together seemingly distant concepts into a gap in understanding. I want to evoke speculative scenarios in which expected answers remain elusive, yet they captivate and appeal to our innate curiosity.
Notes from Flakes
Probable Relations
The tools for measuring external realities evolve daily. Our perception reaches access to higher resolutions through the widespread various methods of education models. Is there an amount of knowledge we would consider enough? Who are humans in a relation to science? What does knowledge really want from us?
Another Attempt of Relative Explanation
Culture tries to explain. Science tries to explain. People try to explain. Parents try to explain. Professionals try to explain. Books try to explain. Texts try to explain. Illustrations try to explain. Friends try to explain. Philosophers try to explain. Teachers try to explain. Bloggers try to explain. Astrologists try to explain. Psychologists try to explain. Museums try to explain. Curators try to explain. Moderators try to explain. Universities try to explain. Newspapers try to explain. Television tries to explain. Poets try to explain. Authorities try to explain. Historians try to explain. Forests try to explain. Every tiny representative of the animal kingdom tries to explain. Stars try to explain. Photographers try to explain. Internet tries to explain. Advertisement tries to explain. People on the same train try to explain. Strangers in a supermarket try to explain. Taxi drivers try to explain. Everyone tries to explain. I do not understand.
Total Timeline
We tend to think the moment is almost invisible by the common human perception of time because of the tiny amount of space it’s taking on a timeline. Therefore, our culture is often split in half by the question: should we rely on the moment or not, if it’s that notably small?
By combining the ‘Mapping of the Emptiness’ and ‘Relative Explanations’ methods, daily used in the Inner School of Open Studies, we can zoom in and freeze one random moment for a few days. Probably, it will allow us to make some assumptions about what is happening between reaching and leaving the moment.
The Dust
Dust flies randomly. There is always an observer. The observer amasses the dust into bunches (clouds) with his attention. Established clouds with a proper care term into an idea. The idea gets a framework on the basis of the internal optics of the observer. The developing frame gets the flesh. The behavior of the frame, the matter, and the idea within a time period create an event. A fragment of the event selected by the observer creates a moment. A chain of moments creates a memory. The development of memory results in the change of structure of the idea, frame, and matter. Fragments of memory create knowledge. The knowledge makes the observer’s optics more complicated. The new optics results in the creation of dust clamps and, therefore, frames and shapes. The composition of the dust from broken shapes becomes more complicated over time. That’s how the universe expands. Dust flies randomly.
If the dust bunches are infinitely free at internal connections. Each bunch is unique though it can seem familiar at first glance. The most obvious differences are structural concerning the frame structure. The most complex bunches are considered to be those with similar frames and different matter. The most complicated definition is the bunches with similar frames and matter. This difficulty arises from the features of our optics. The more visual similarity between bunches, the more we recognize them as similar. That’s an error as with a proper increase we’ll be able to identify the differences. This peculiarity affects our vision of the behavior of bunches and derived shapes. We shall remember that seemingly identical shapes can have absolutely different positions on the moment map (of the memory). A sequence of similar shapes is used to be called a pattern. Assuming their uniformity spreads on their behavior. However, the slightest structural difference (and we remember the complexity of each bunch is absolutely unique) can lead to errors in calculation. The situation when the bunches behave predictable way within the experiment is defined in the area of scientific knowledge. Errors with insignificant tolerances at long-time observation also relate to the sphere of scientific knowledge. The most interesting is the situation when an unpredictable result has been gained without a specific reason. Such a result is treated as a miracle, magic, or a deed of the highest order. Bunches of the highest order!
If the dust flies around us, why don’t we see it? Because the dust before taking any shape and becoming a bunch hides away from the observer’s sight. Where is the dust hiding? First of all, the dust hides under the bed. Then it lies up all the horizontal surfaces above the eye level of the observer. Later it covers all static items of the space — kitchenware and friends’ gifts. If you sit still, you can see the dust gathering on the knees. If you stop moving your head, it will gather in the ears. Then the dust gets into your mouth and covers the tongue so it becomes lazy to talk. If you stop blinking, the dust gets into the eyes and the sights get worse. If you stop breathing for several days, it gathers in the nostrils. Then it covers our skin evenly. Then our skin begins to think the dust is the air and begins to breathe it. So the dust covers us from the inside. Then the skin sees the dust id inside and outside so its protective function is not needed. Our skin dissolves and we turn into a bunch of dust.
Visual Dyslexia
Over the course of several years exploring the possibilities of an abstract language for my tasks, I came to understand not only the symbolic possibilities of such an approach, but also came a little closer to understanding specific plastic preferences.
What began as drawing random geometric shapes, the study quickly combined sets of images from earlier series – rocks and other oval bodies, random symbolism, branches and natural linear forms as well as black spot and stardust noise. The very notion of visual dyslexia came up casually in conversation and accurately described what I was aiming for – a demonstration of the inability to count and convey the formal attributes of nature (be it an object or a concept), turning them into compositions of naive scribbles and inept shading reminiscent of childish scribbles.
Put together, the new language has acquired enough complexity to work on any subject. To allow it to evolve, in each of the new micro-series I add or remove significant chunks of imagery in search of the most accurate vibe from the final image.
Having been practiced continuously over the past three years, the approach inevitably adapts to changes in my idea of what the work should look like. Therefore, the overall mood and image system can change a lot within itself. For example, in “Pig” (1) the reference goes more to Keith Haring and his reading of street pop art, while at the same time the series “Body and Spirit” (2) is, for me, closer to a fusion of the approaches of two disparate artists – Hans Arp and Cy Twombly.
After some time of studying, an independent interest in doodling turned into a set of forthcoming series – “Bureaucracy” (3), “Textbook of Abstract Language”, “Archaeology” and a series of one-off works based on conceptual-Dadaist practices.