“I cannot estimate to what extent the color of the work in the two-dimensional reproduction correlates with that of three-dimensional original. I can only perform a color value analysis.
The last step is a view up to the sky. This makes a thematic connection with “A” and references both the color of the object and that of its painting revision.”
Francesco De Prezzo’s work spans different media, such as painting, to installations and architectural interventions. His practice is connected by an interrogation of the formal language of the
representation in its most familiar theme of monochrome; in painting theory, it is seen as a radical rejection of representation principles. One of his work’s fundamental concerns is the relationship
between image and meaning, expectations, object and content.
And within this relationship, it defines and dismantles a formal language tending to engaged in reduction. His work tests the possibility of a definite visual perception to discuss the image’s role as language.
Re-cognition notoriously marks the transition from ignorance to knowledge. Recognising, therefore, is not the same as coming into contact for the first time, nor does it need words: Recognition is almost always mute.
And recognising does not in any way mean understanding, as understanding has no role in the act of Recognition. The most important aspect of the term “re-cognition” therefore lies in the first syllable, which refers
to something that comes before, a pre-existing awareness that makes the transition from ignorance to knowledge possible. Recognition occurs when an earlier awareness flashes before us, causing a sudden change in our
understanding. And yet that flash cannot happen spontaneously; it cannot flare up without its lost other. Therefore, the resulting knowledge is different from discovering something new; instead, it derives from becoming
aware of yet unexpressed potential. ”
“No figure, then, either; but a limit case of self-imbrication. The perceptual terms are rejected thus, and marked by this rejection as not-figure and not-ground.
But in being canceled they are also preserved. And the logic of that preservation ismade transparent by the graph.
The graph’s circumference holds all its terms in mutual opposition: figure versus ground; ground versus not-ground; not-ground versus not-figure; not-figure versus figure.
Its diagonal axes yield, however, to mirror relations, or rather to mirror restatements (the structuralists’ inverse-of-the-opposite, their double negatives),
with figure in this case being the “same” as not-ground.”
-Rosalind Krauss, The Optical Unconscious, 1993