If I manage to precisely and clearly formulate the subjects surrounding the object I am willing to present, the unspoken will remain the subject of imagination. It will refer to and form the observer's visual dictionary. The "unseen" will be made up of active energy, directed outwards, in contrast to the classical direction of perception, i.e. inwards.
The spoken here functions only as a boundary of the unspoken. We do not come together due to the visual similarity of our ideas, but we come closer due to the similarity of processes and mechanisms of the idea that is evoked…
photo by tomáš brabec
To start with, we must unify material, language and type of coding we are to communicate about and by, then we demark the initial area and then the boundaries within which we will operate, then relations, positions, deduce the lower number from the higher and then compare the difference to something else, define the value with the help of another pre-defined value, which is constantly and pointlessly discussed, then we need to find out what we are looking for, parallels and details, or diversity rather, we long for the result, or name the possibilities, look for harmony, or maybe want to go through the full scale of what is possible, or even to list out the complete alphabet of the impossible, this time we start from the end and that amuses us… and then we sit down at the table and I will cut the onion…
photo by tomáš brabec
…there are a few annoying terms which keep snooping around my art
they skittishly romp tease they are scatter-brained disorganised randomly placed indescribable indefinable and timely unseizable in timelessness and space-wise intuitive they sneak around hassle and tease any order rhythm and structure and it keeps keeps keeps and keeps happening…
The main benefits of a symposium are defined by two very definite, but at the same time barely combinable tendencies. On one hand it is the ability to concentrate on work, undisturbed and intense, in a very well quality equipped area. On the other hand it is sharing. Sharing of all kinds of things: of time, space, food, contacts and thoughts. It is highly impossible for me to synthesize those two currents. The outward-oriented force – pausing, and the creative process, which deals with and brings about all the important things settled down in the readily available parts of the brain. And then the inward force, i.e. accepting new principles, embracing inspiration, which takes me far away into unknown lands of the mind.
Should you choose the first option, work, it is very well possible for you to get very far into the territory of personal space and if you strike lucky, you may end up coming out of you comfort zone. And the main thing is that you end up taking home with you time transformed into matter, reminding you of what happened.
Should you choose the second option and take an adventurous path to the mental spaces of your colleagues, you may expect one of the two basic scenarios to happen. The more desirable option is a beautiful trip to diverse landscapes of perception and acquiring yourself with different approaches to their analysis. You would not need in this case to step out of your comfort zone, you just gracefully go to exist somewhere else. Outcome of such an excursion is sadly not seizeable right away; it will only surface slowly and quietly, very likely unnoticeably. The worst-case scenario then is that nothing at all happens and you leave with the same blissful unawareness you arrived with. To conclude, I would say these trivial criteria divided the participants into those curious and seeking in the first group, and those guarding their own territory in the second group.
Combinations of are course possible, if possible at all.