02.07.2016 – 05.09.2016
Аптекарский огород, Москва
The work of Linnaeus allowed the science of plant differentiation to take place, but does modern and timely art history have such a cornerstone in its vault? Or does it have a certain equivalent method or a magic trick? And dowe really need such a strict and detailed research which, possibly, will dominate over creation in favor of a purely technical establishing of types, series and correlations when we tend to opt for a certain irrelevance more and more often? And how should we deal with exceptions then? But at the same time, even with no ephemeral basis, it is not easy to move from a state of parallelism, for example, to a cohensive, concurrent state.
There is one question I would like to ask other artists while wirking together in the garden: what is the morphology of art? To what extent does the presence of a "recognized", attributed object bring us closer to a conscious perception of it?
Here, the search for similarities and differences is sometimes a key cognitive method, say, a model of perception. On the one hand, this is true: distinction and recognition, mapping, landmarks and markers in the world of polymorphism created by artists or created by nature as well as the search for resonances and paradoxes — all this brings together researchers and viewers. And that is why, for sake of consideration and "founding", there will be offered largely specific to its homogeneous, but also absolutely unique phenomena, such asa situation akin to similarity of many orchid species, which sometimes look completely differentdifferent and indistinguishable to a neophyte. But all written above does not reflect the depth of the original idea that encourages artists to turn to the object of art itself beyond its objectivity.