Zkamenělina13. 4. — 21. 5. 2016
* The relationship between a pre-picture and a picture. The porcelain vase is cast from a form. The photograph is an enlargement of a negative.
* Near the sea, the infinite horizon, I have a tendency to photograph with infinity focus, the surface of the water, which shimmers, differently each time, but always the same. The ‘Moment’ is defined by my presence. When I leave, it will end. ‘That was’, is, and probably will also be there.
* I try to see the photograph as an object regardless of the subject matter depicted. Not to distingish the natural pictoriality, not to read the picture through the context of the original object, but as the materialized nature of what is depicted, that is, a physical presence. Photography does not recall. Fotography is here. Does that make sense?
* Can the photograph emancipate itself from its external pre-picture, which has helped it come into existence?
* The relationship between a pre-picture and a picture. The porcelain vase is cast from a form. The photograph is an enlargement of a negative. The tulips are beginning to grow. In the same place as last year and the year before last. In the same colour and shape.
* I am still wondering about the flower that I planted in the garden. I photographed it, and ended up with only its image. But I didn’t want to talk about the flower. I wanted to talk about the porcelain vase. I photographed it only at the exhibition. That is to say, I documented it in a photograph. The photograph comes from the same context to which it will ultimately return, but no longer as a document of the vase; it bears its own meaning. If I am unable to take a photograph out of its external context, will it be a negation if I keep it?
* And there is something else that isn’t clear to me. A photograph in a photograph. Is that an object or something else?