“I cannot estimate to what extent the color of the work in the two-dimensional reproduction correlates with that of the 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 examines some experiential concepts of artistic production, arguing the way in which objects and works of art interact with our vision.
His practice uses cancellations, erasures and blocks to engage directly with the audience to subvert the nature of the image, exploring the role of the viewer as a complicit figure in a process
of construction and fruition of the visible.
Many of his interventions exhibit a subtle mimetic character, through painting and installation, he questions the boundaries between narrative and perception, disappearance and erasure;
truth and fiction, and explores how our stories can be constructed from a “prosthetic” memory made up of images and tales of things themselves.
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