< BACK
TEXTS
>SUBSTITUTION LOGIC
>LIMINAL FIGURES
>LETTER TO M.
>SOMETIMES
Staging is the only form of creativity that interests me. Since today the documentation of art and artistic contexts constitutes the primary condition for the construction of historical responsibility and for any retrospective reading of the artistic event, my practice takes shape as a continuous investigation into the mediation devices produced by these processes, as well as a critical examination of their modes of operation.
Images, videos, critical texts, and oral narratives do not merely describe the work; they determine its very existence. To intervene in these elements therefore means to act directly upon the work itself, constructing and articulating it without the need for material contact, nor for its presence as a physical object.
From this perspective, does exhibiting today not primarily mean exhibiting the image of the work, rather than the work as such?
Any attempt to withdraw from this media logic is bound to collapse, since it is the gaze itself that produces, at the perceptual level, the fundamental condition that, from here on, we will define as “IMAGE.”
—
A group of people arranges itself in a circle around an empty center.
At the center there is no object, and yet everyone behaves as if something were already there. The object is gradually defined through partial descriptions, hypotheses, disagreements, expectations. There is no shared form, but there is a common tension toward that center, which begins to organize the relationships among the participants.
Over time, it is not the object that gains substance, but the reactions it generates: positions taken, alliances, conflicts, rituals of approach or withdrawal. The center remains empty, yet it becomes functional. When, eventually, a material trace appears, it does not inaugurate the work; rather, it constitutes a residue, a belated consequence, a sediment of dynamics already fully operative.
—
The elimination of the object does not produce a void, but rather a redistribution of responsibility. What would normally be delegated to form—meaning, authority, stability—is taken on by the context and by the subjects who inhabit it. The work is no longer what is shown, but what is continuously negotiated.
The imaginary object at the center of the circle functions as a catalyst: it does not represent something, but activates a series of projections that make it operative while it remains absent. Its effectiveness does not depend on visibility, but on its capacity to organize a shared symbolic space. It is within this space that the work takes shape, in the form of relations, discourses, and expectations.
When a materialization occurs, it does not clarify the work, but reduces it. The physical form is not the origin of the process, but one of its possible outcomes, often the least relevant. Once it appears, the object occupies a position already defined, inheriting meanings that are not intrinsic to it, but retroactively assigned.
—
At this point, it becomes readily apparent that the exhibition assumes the form of a placeholder: a device that occupies a position and immediately activates its consequences. The placeholder, the object we choose to place, organizes the exhibition space as a field of relations, within which expectations, projections, and interpretations become operative.
The work emerges within this field as an effect of the interactions generated by the exhibition. The viewer participates in the construction of the experience through their gaze, their movements, and their interpretive decisions. The exhibition acts as a structure that renders this process visible.
Every exhibition element functions as a variable in an ongoing test. Texts, images, voids, and cues contribute to defining an open system in which the viewer’s reactions acquire formal value. The placeholder operates as a measuring instrument for the production of meaning. The exhibition experience coincides with the test itself, and its duration corresponds to the activation of the device. Within this space, the image takes shape as the result of a continuous negotiation between context and gaze.
The exhibition thus takes shape as a site of verification, in which the work manifests as a shared process in constant redefinition.
The combination of the angle of the path, as viewed from the high window, our melancholic general dissatisfaction with tedious reality, and the swaying/overlapping branches of the two willow trees,
often leads us, at least momentarily, to see figures that aren’t there. That is, on numerous occasions, particularly in dusky light, it seems as if someone is rounding our barn and then walking out of sight.
To be sure, we always go down, with flashlight in hand, never to find anything.
Before you cast us a person more apt to see phantoms than yourself, we ask you to consider the simple question: what is ever really there for us humans?
What isn’t a moiré of mood, temperament, memory, hope and expectation? Some kind of rhythm of preference or the irresistibly sweet path of personal logic? Just think what presumptive apparitions of
bias or predilection rise up as someone says “when young I was kidnapped” or “my grandfather was a close friend of Susan Sontag” or “Venice is sinking” or “she’s actually a singer” or “this was an ancient
burial site” or “you stand to make a lot of money” or “we’d like to offer you the job” or “the first stegosaurus skeleton was found in Colorado” or “I have a barn and some willow trees…”
On the slightest suggestion, something always materializes. But of course it is always wildly incomplete.
Dear M,
1. Have you ever tried staring at yourself in the mirror for more than half an hour? You start to see strange things.
2. This is just one of the principles of the act of observing.
Only when we are truly looking can we transform the reality in front of us. And now, in the persistence and obsession, we can find this principle of distortion amplified.
So, can you see anything? Because here, in the close-up view, objects have lost their contours.
Francesco De Prezzo operates within a radically liminal perceptual space, where experiencing the artwork is intimately tied to its apparent disappearance. Perception here is never a passive or linear act; instead, it involves a “derivative” engagement, unfolding through minimal traces, subtle clues, and intentional suggestions carefully constructed by the context encompassing the artwork, the observer, and the dynamic of the viewing experience itself. What the artist triggers is not merely an absence or an erasure but rather a subliminal and paradoxical presence that persists in the space between reality and simulation. Within this framework, the artwork is perceived even before it is rationally understood. It reveals itself most clearly when viewers experience unease or tension stemming from the uncertainty between what they see and what they are told, creating a perceptual friction that compels observers to inhabit an indefinite, uncertain space.
Consequently, the artwork assumes its definitive form through the cognitive process of the viewer, whose perception simultaneously actualizes and preserves it. The radical essence of Francesco De Prezzo's practice lies precisely in redefining the aesthetic experience as a collective mental event: the perception of the artwork is never separated from its surrounding documentation, nor from the narrative, oral, video, or photographic, that endures beyond the artwork’s apparent physical dissolution. Thus, the artist returns to perception the responsibility and power to continuously define, preserve, and shape what otherwise seems irretrievably elusive.
TEXTS
>LIMINAL FIGURES
>LETTER TO M.
>SOMETIMES
Images, videos, critical texts, and oral narratives do not merely describe the work; they determine its very existence. To intervene in these elements therefore means to act directly upon the work itself, constructing and articulating it without the need for material contact, nor for its presence as a physical object.
From this perspective, does exhibiting today not primarily mean exhibiting the image of the work, rather than the work as such?
Any attempt to withdraw from this media logic is bound to collapse, since it is the gaze itself that produces, at the perceptual level, the fundamental condition that, from here on, we will define as “IMAGE.”
—
A group of people arranges itself in a circle around an empty center.
At the center there is no object, and yet everyone behaves as if something were already there. The object is gradually defined through partial descriptions, hypotheses, disagreements, expectations. There is no shared form, but there is a common tension toward that center, which begins to organize the relationships among the participants.
Over time, it is not the object that gains substance, but the reactions it generates: positions taken, alliances, conflicts, rituals of approach or withdrawal. The center remains empty, yet it becomes functional. When, eventually, a material trace appears, it does not inaugurate the work; rather, it constitutes a residue, a belated consequence, a sediment of dynamics already fully operative.
—
The elimination of the object does not produce a void, but rather a redistribution of responsibility. What would normally be delegated to form—meaning, authority, stability—is taken on by the context and by the subjects who inhabit it. The work is no longer what is shown, but what is continuously negotiated.
The imaginary object at the center of the circle functions as a catalyst: it does not represent something, but activates a series of projections that make it operative while it remains absent. Its effectiveness does not depend on visibility, but on its capacity to organize a shared symbolic space. It is within this space that the work takes shape, in the form of relations, discourses, and expectations.
When a materialization occurs, it does not clarify the work, but reduces it. The physical form is not the origin of the process, but one of its possible outcomes, often the least relevant. Once it appears, the object occupies a position already defined, inheriting meanings that are not intrinsic to it, but retroactively assigned.
—
At this point, it becomes readily apparent that the exhibition assumes the form of a placeholder: a device that occupies a position and immediately activates its consequences. The placeholder, the object we choose to place, organizes the exhibition space as a field of relations, within which expectations, projections, and interpretations become operative.
The work emerges within this field as an effect of the interactions generated by the exhibition. The viewer participates in the construction of the experience through their gaze, their movements, and their interpretive decisions. The exhibition acts as a structure that renders this process visible.
Every exhibition element functions as a variable in an ongoing test. Texts, images, voids, and cues contribute to defining an open system in which the viewer’s reactions acquire formal value. The placeholder operates as a measuring instrument for the production of meaning. The exhibition experience coincides with the test itself, and its duration corresponds to the activation of the device. Within this space, the image takes shape as the result of a continuous negotiation between context and gaze.
The exhibition thus takes shape as a site of verification, in which the work manifests as a shared process in constant redefinition.
The combination of the angle of the path, as viewed from the high window, our melancholic general dissatisfaction with tedious reality, and the swaying/overlapping branches of the two willow trees,
often leads us, at least momentarily, to see figures that aren’t there. That is, on numerous occasions, particularly in dusky light, it seems as if someone is rounding our barn and then walking out of sight.
To be sure, we always go down, with flashlight in hand, never to find anything.
Before you cast us a person more apt to see phantoms than yourself, we ask you to consider the simple question: what is ever really there for us humans?
What isn’t a moiré of mood, temperament, memory, hope and expectation? Some kind of rhythm of preference or the irresistibly sweet path of personal logic? Just think what presumptive apparitions of
bias or predilection rise up as someone says “when young I was kidnapped” or “my grandfather was a close friend of Susan Sontag” or “Venice is sinking” or “she’s actually a singer” or “this was an ancient
burial site” or “you stand to make a lot of money” or “we’d like to offer you the job” or “the first stegosaurus skeleton was found in Colorado” or “I have a barn and some willow trees…”
On the slightest suggestion, something always materializes. But of course it is always wildly incomplete.
Dear M,
1. Have you ever tried staring at yourself in the mirror for more than half an hour? You start to see strange things.
2. This is just one of the principles of the act of observing.
Only when we are truly looking can we transform the reality in front of us. And now, in the persistence and obsession, we can find this principle of distortion amplified.
So, can you see anything? Because here, in the close-up view, objects have lost their contours.
Francesco De Prezzo operates within a radically liminal perceptual space, where experiencing the artwork is intimately tied to its apparent disappearance. Perception here is never a passive or linear act; instead, it involves a “derivative” engagement, unfolding through minimal traces, subtle clues, and intentional suggestions carefully constructed by the context encompassing the artwork, the observer, and the dynamic of the viewing experience itself. What the artist triggers is not merely an absence or an erasure but rather a subliminal and paradoxical presence that persists in the space between reality and simulation. Within this framework, the artwork is perceived even before it is rationally understood. It reveals itself most clearly when viewers experience unease or tension stemming from the uncertainty between what they see and what they are told, creating a perceptual friction that compels observers to inhabit an indefinite, uncertain space.
Consequently, the artwork assumes its definitive form through the cognitive process of the viewer, whose perception simultaneously actualizes and preserves it. The radical essence of Francesco De Prezzo's practice lies precisely in redefining the aesthetic experience as a collective mental event: the perception of the artwork is never separated from its surrounding documentation, nor from the narrative, oral, video, or photographic, that endures beyond the artwork’s apparent physical dissolution. Thus, the artist returns to perception the responsibility and power to continuously define, preserve, and shape what otherwise seems irretrievably elusive.
Dear M, we are all assured that painting is inherently a two-dimensional affair, yet we invite you to consider an additional relationship: that of the image of the image.
For years, we have meticulously endeavored to destroy every painting created. And we have not taken pleasure in this, quite the contrary, we have felt considerable
contempt. You see, we have never been as interested in painting as much as something akin to it. We pursued the dimension of emulation, and in the end, in the image
of the painting reproduced on the canvas, we found the same aura that characterized the original color, in a vision free and lofty up to the sky.
S.34 Transitory Replacement:
[Temporary Substitution <—-> Interchangeable Elements] <—-> (Shift in Artwork Dynamics <—-> Exploration of Alternate Perspectives)
S.35 Transformative Exchange:
[Artistic Swap <—-> Trade of Ideas] <—-> (Evolution of Artistic Concepts <—-> Renewal of Creative Expression)
S.36 Altered Substitution:
[Modified Replacement <—-> Transposed Elements] <—-> (Shifting Artistic Paradigms <—-> Transformation of Artistic Language)
S.37 Shifted Transference:
[Moved Supplanting <—-> Succession of Influence] <—-> (Change in Artistic Impact <—-> Shaping of Artistic Legacy)
S.38 Interchanged Succession:
[Successive Swap <—-> Alternation of Roles] <—-> (Interplay of Artistic Identities <—-> Evolution of Artistic Practices)
S.39 Metamorphic Switch:
[Artistic Metamorphosis <—-> Transferred Perspectives] <—-> (Redefinition of Artistic Boundaries <—-> Exploration of Hybrid Artforms)
S.1 Act of Exhibition: Auxiliary Elements (Invitations, Flyers, Catalogues, Documentation) <——-> History of the Exhibition
S.2 Artistic Temporal Echo: Artwork Installation views <——-> Viewer’s Anticipations and Interpretative Choices <——-> Historical
Permanence of the Exhibition
A.4. The relationship between the original apple and its reproduction may change when the viewer is no longer observing, as the act of observation itself
can alter our perceptions. This idea raises intriguing questions about the role of the observer in both art and science. To continue this line of thought,
one might ask: how does the interplay between observation and interpretation influence our understanding of reality and artistic expression?
[S.11 Placeholder Element Concreteness and Abstraction] <——-> [(Concrete Object) : (Abstract Placeholder Element)]
[S.12 Media Interface in Placeholder Element Production] <——-> [(Physical Artwork) : (Digital Creative Tools with Placeholder Elements)]
[S.13 The Coexistence of Real and Imaginary Placeholder Elements] <——-> [(Real-World Object) : (Fictional Placeholder Element Concept)]
[S.14Materiality-Immateriality Continuum of Placeholder Elements] <——-> [(Tactile Art Object) : (Intangible Placeholder Element Experience)]
[S.15 Transmedia Storytelling with Placeholder Elements] <——-> [(Object-Based Narrative) : (Placeholder-Based Narrative)]
For years, we have meticulously endeavored to destroy every painting created. And we have not taken pleasure in this, quite the contrary, we have felt considerable
contempt. You see, we have never been as interested in painting as much as something akin to it. We pursued the dimension of emulation, and in the end, in the image
of the painting reproduced on the canvas, we found the same aura that characterized the original color, in a vision free and lofty up to the sky.
S.34 Transitory Replacement:
[Temporary Substitution <—-> Interchangeable Elements] <—-> (Shift in Artwork Dynamics <—-> Exploration of Alternate Perspectives)
S.35 Transformative Exchange:
[Artistic Swap <—-> Trade of Ideas] <—-> (Evolution of Artistic Concepts <—-> Renewal of Creative Expression)
S.36 Altered Substitution:
[Modified Replacement <—-> Transposed Elements] <—-> (Shifting Artistic Paradigms <—-> Transformation of Artistic Language)
S.37 Shifted Transference:
[Moved Supplanting <—-> Succession of Influence] <—-> (Change in Artistic Impact <—-> Shaping of Artistic Legacy)
S.38 Interchanged Succession:
[Successive Swap <—-> Alternation of Roles] <—-> (Interplay of Artistic Identities <—-> Evolution of Artistic Practices)
S.39 Metamorphic Switch:
[Artistic Metamorphosis <—-> Transferred Perspectives] <—-> (Redefinition of Artistic Boundaries <—-> Exploration of Hybrid Artforms)
S.1 Act of Exhibition: Auxiliary Elements (Invitations, Flyers, Catalogues, Documentation) <——-> History of the Exhibition
S.2 Artistic Temporal Echo: Artwork Installation views <——-> Viewer’s Anticipations and Interpretative Choices <——-> Historical
Permanence of the Exhibition
A.4. The relationship between the original apple and its reproduction may change when the viewer is no longer observing, as the act of observation itself
can alter our perceptions. This idea raises intriguing questions about the role of the observer in both art and science. To continue this line of thought,
one might ask: how does the interplay between observation and interpretation influence our understanding of reality and artistic expression?
[S.11 Placeholder Element Concreteness and Abstraction] <——-> [(Concrete Object) : (Abstract Placeholder Element)]
[S.12 Media Interface in Placeholder Element Production] <——-> [(Physical Artwork) : (Digital Creative Tools with Placeholder Elements)]
[S.13 The Coexistence of Real and Imaginary Placeholder Elements] <——-> [(Real-World Object) : (Fictional Placeholder Element Concept)]
[S.14Materiality-Immateriality Continuum of Placeholder Elements] <——-> [(Tactile Art Object) : (Intangible Placeholder Element Experience)]
[S.15 Transmedia Storytelling with Placeholder Elements] <——-> [(Object-Based Narrative) : (Placeholder-Based Narrative)]
We believe there is little to be done; lately, we find ourselves more intrigued by the absence of subjects rather than their presence.
It seems to be a constant fixation in our mind, that of a certain removal, even if we’re not yet sure what it applies to.
In the late afternoon, the objects in the study seemed to be wrapped in a strange, fading shadow. They emerged towards us without actually moving.
It was rather the light that highlighted them, that moved them, on the modernist chessboard of perception.
M.1 Use of heavy, non-transparent drapes to completely cover the artwork.
M.2 Placement of a large, blank canvas in front of the artwork, creating an illusion of emptiness.
M.3 The use of mirrored surfaces around the artwork to deflect and confuse the viewer’s gaze.
M.4 A press release or gallery guide that intentionally omits any mention or depiction of the artwork.
M.5 Placement of the artwork in a darkened corner of the gallery, using minimal or no lighting.
M.6 An elaborate written narrative describing a different artwork altogether, diverting attention from the actual piece.
M.7 A barrier or curtain that requires viewers to actively move it aside to see the artwork, discouraging casual observation.
It seems to be a constant fixation in our mind, that of a certain removal, even if we’re not yet sure what it applies to.
In the late afternoon, the objects in the study seemed to be wrapped in a strange, fading shadow. They emerged towards us without actually moving.
It was rather the light that highlighted them, that moved them, on the modernist chessboard of perception.
M.1 Use of heavy, non-transparent drapes to completely cover the artwork.
M.2 Placement of a large, blank canvas in front of the artwork, creating an illusion of emptiness.
M.3 The use of mirrored surfaces around the artwork to deflect and confuse the viewer’s gaze.
M.4 A press release or gallery guide that intentionally omits any mention or depiction of the artwork.
M.5 Placement of the artwork in a darkened corner of the gallery, using minimal or no lighting.
M.6 An elaborate written narrative describing a different artwork altogether, diverting attention from the actual piece.
M.7 A barrier or curtain that requires viewers to actively move it aside to see the artwork, discouraging casual observation.