The main problem I try to deal with in my painting is a narrative of the visible. The natural way to face a spectacle is to interpret it. By doing this, we are prescribing a narrative towards it. That is also a natural way of seeing a picture. By using the word “narrative” I do not imply a story, but rather a meaning, or a message. I like to work with this tendency of facing a spectacle.
In contrast to the classical perspective (where the centre of the perspective is found within the frames of the picture that leads to reading it as an organised universe), I often place the centre of the perspective outside the picture, that makes the viewer realise that what he sees is only a particle of the whole. In this way, the meaning is somewhere between the seen and the unseen and, therefore, it can never be thoroughly read. The everyday objects in my pictures are easy to recognise; they might even resemble illustrations from an encyclopaedia as they hardly have any specific characteristics; and the execution of painting is done in a passionless way. But it is difficult to prescribe a meaning. By doing this I seek the eye of the spectator to be leaping from sign to abstraction. Inability to judge upon the spectacle and, generally, upon the world is the main concept of my painting.
I try to emphasize the voyeuristic gaze of the spectator. Voyeuristic viewer is always alienated with the object of his or her gaze, but it is also a very passionate look. This feeling of alienation is another thing that interests me. I try to combine alienating feeling my paintings create with aesthetic pleasure. It serves as the plastic intensification of previously mentioned idea of inability to judge upon world.
Lately I have been investigating the possibility of relation between two pictures outside linear narrative. I made a few works consisting of two paintings, which might be called “diptychs”. The relation between them is neither based on aesthetic similarity or integration, nor on the story behind them. The placing of two pictures next to each other in space suggests a dimension in which it could possibly be connected, but this dimension is outside the picture and the linear narrative. It is very ephemeral. The first of these “diptychs” consists of two works. One is called 1.1 and the other 1.2. In logic (Wittgenstein in example) it is used to name two separate comments on the first thesis. These comments do not comment on each other, only on the common statement. One picture is a fragment of a roof, possibly somewhere in the mountains, but not necessary, and the other picture is a slalom post in the brightly purple snow. The other work is named “Stadium”, containing two pieces - “Shower” and “Lawn”. It is connected by the general location. But it also refers to different perceptions of human body: 1) “Field” - body operating in football field, moving under no control of the conscious and obeying the nature of the game; 2) “Shower” – a naked body in a public (although acceptable) place. Through the perspective of a viewer it is still a transgressive experience.