“I cannot assess to what extent the color of the artwork in the two-dimensional reproduction is relevant to that of the original three-dimensional work.
But I can tell you the story you prefer. As the subject moves away, I am able to perceive it more clearly in its entirety, while it disappears to make way for its narrative. This relates both the color of the original object and that of its pictorial revision.”
Francesco De Prezzo’s work examines some experiential concepts of artistic production, arguing how objects and artworks interact with our vision.
His practice directly engages with the public to subvert the nature of the image, exploring the role of the viewer as a complicit figure in a process of constructing the visible.
His paintings are characterized by overlapping layers of paint that erase or veil the subject, turning the original figurative painting into an open field of visual abstraction on multiple levels.
Many of his interventions challenge the boundaries between expectation and narration / truth and fiction, and explore how our stories can be constructed from a “prosthetic” memory made up of images and stories of the 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. ”
“It is the spectators who make the paintings”, said Duchamp, echoing a phrase that must be related to the intuition of an emergency of the culture of use for which meaning arises from collaboration and a negotiation between the
artist and the one who comes to see the work. Because couldn’t the meaning of a work also come from its multiple images, and not only from the physical object suggested by the artist?
The images of sculpture can change the way we perceive sculpture, to the point of participating in it, distorting it, bending it under new perspectives and meanings attributed.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence. The development of photography in the mid-nineteenth century allowed us to see reality in new ways. At the same time, times were changing, and with the advent of the avant-gardes, it became
increasingly urgent to overcome any traditional representation of the world. With abstraction, we deny for the first time even that art can represent visible reality. This is an important and irreversible step.
Every time we take a photo, in some way, we decide what shape we want to give to what we see. We are creating it again.
We perceive reality on a daily basis with the same precision with which it unfolds in our line of sight. In this way, the representation obtained of the physical world is notexactly the same as that perceived through the senses.
The perception of the emerging world is defined as distal stimuli, or perceived physical objects, enriched with information from the external environment, such as light, shape, color, and other available inputs.