Despite the opinion of many, the essence of a monochrome doesn’t lie in its monochromness, i.e. in one color scheme, but rather in the fact that monochrome doesn’t represent anything. Or, if you prefer, doesn’t directly represent „anything“. However by not directly representing „anything“, the monochrome automatically refers to „something“. „Nothing“, that is to say, leads to thinking of „something“ by its nature. Our feeling, that somewhere is „nothing“ grows directly from our belief, that there should be „something“. Therefore the exhibition Monocrome offers definition of monochrome as a representation of missing.
Following this conception monochrome doesn’t has to be exclusively monochromatic, or even doesn’t have to especially be of any color. Any monochrome always rather exists in the sphere of unseen and for its core aspect of missing is of the biggest importance only the negation of previously established form. An ideal example of, in such a way negated form, is therefore its total removal. Monochrom par excellence therefore can be Rauschenberg’s Erased de Konning as much as 4 minutes 33 seconds long silence of John Cage.
However we could therefore speak of a certain tradition the aim of this show is not to create, state or underline any movement, style or tendency in a traditional art historical way. As we suggested previously, the essence of monochrome is lying only in what is being unseen and untold. It is only the human mind who unconsciously fulfil this empty negated form and make it be linked to something. This tendency is then also closely related to our urge to categorize, to give order to the things.
Borges once describes „a certain Chinese Encyclopedia“, the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, in which it is written that animals are divided into: „those that belong to the Emperor, embalmed ones, those that are trained, suckling pigs, mermaids, fabulous ones, stray dogs, those included in the present classification (…)“ However nonsense this categorization might seem, it actually points well the week point of categorizations in general. Said with Wittgenstein - „the cow chews its food and then dungs the rose with it, so the rose has teeth in the mouth of a beast.“
Would there actually be a better example of false categorization then exhibition based on what is unseen in the works included? An old joke describes a conversation between mild-mannered woman intellectual and rough countryside macho. „How can you believe in something you have never seen?“ she pose a question upon the existence of God. „I have never seen your pussy too, but I still do believe you have it.“ he replies.
Isn't actually this all the essence of art? The belief of what we dont see, but what we somehow feel? This exhibition doesn't claim for any validity. Its validity, as much as the validity of the works included, lies only in its poeticity.
technical assistance and production: Michal Kindernay