top of page

As science develops, so does our perception of art. The invention of the camera and the understanding of internal processes such as perception, memory and language require an ever-changing set of values ​​in the world of art in general and painting in particular. How much of our

experience of contemporary painting is based on prior knowledge? And how does it affect the way we are used to and able to see a painting? 

There is no "innocent eye". The eye is not a camera that perceives reality as it is pixel by pixel. It turned out that the brain takes the image of reality, breaks it down into components such as dots, lines, colors, etc., and then rebuilds them in new contexts, according to the previous knowledge we have, stored in memory.

The eye and the brain are a creative machine, which processes reality and art and interprets them. The interpretation is also affected by the internal baggage that each person brings - the personal perceptions, memories, and associations, therefore different people are affected by works of art and experience a shared memory in a different way.

Gestalt psychology is a theory in psychology that deals with the human tendency to identify patterns and use them to fill in "holes" in reality. We know these illusions very well, for example the picture in which you can sometimes see a white vase on a black background and sometimes the silhouettes of two people on a white background. In both cases, the information the eye perceives is the same information: the same lines, the same colors. The image does not change, yet each time the mind experiences it differently: sometimes as a vase and sometimes as people. our brain is not just a passive observer but invents a story from pieces of information it receives from the world.

Stylistically, I return to the pictorial reality of flattening - line, shape, color composition. I am drawn to the works of de Kooning, Pollock, Rothko, and of course Matisse, Mondrian, Cezanne, Kandinsky and Picasso. Artists who explored and changed the different ways in which we are able to experience art.

In a failed attempt beforehand, I try to stick to "dry facts", I divide the canvas into a grid. pixels. Representing the technological perception of the indisputable reality - how a camera captures an image. And at the same time, I break down the logical sequence of the images by using color and texture. When each square creates a composition on its own. I try to force the viewer to "see" that everything is flat shapes. To create confusion between abstract and image and point out that the same image can be deconstructed into infinite variations. 

The end result is a visual expression of the memory experience. and a surrender to the understanding that there is no single "truth". There is no single "reality". The same image is inevitably changed by the person who looks at it. My random choice to deconstruct a certain image in a certain way is based on patterns that my brain recognizes and has learned since the day I was born and throughout my life.

I recommend Eric Kandel's writings: reductionism in art and brain science: bridging the two cultures.

And Ernst Gombrich's - art and illusion: a study in the psychology of pictorial representation.

bottom of page