LandEscape 46 Art Review
between the physical and these social virtual worlds, which I seemed to be constantly navigating between. So over a six month period, I began developing and stitching together these ideas and observing, documenting and uploading my relationship and interaction with these found objects which would cross my path. In his essay, Bryant points out an interesting point about our relationship to objects in that a‘division between the world of nature and the world of the subject and culture’ occurs and that‘the question of the object, of what substancesare, is subtly transformed into the question of how and whether weknowobjects’. When I first happened to get to know The Democracy of Objects Project I tried to relate all the visual and audio information to a single meaning. But I soon realized that I had to fit into the visual unity suggested by the work, forgetting my need for a univocal understanding of its symbolic content: in your work, rather that a conceptual interiority, I can recognize the desire to enabling us to establish direct relations... Would you say that it's more of an intuitive or a systematic process?
Your question raises an interesting point about the project. The work takes both an intuitive and systematic approach in that, the discovery of the objects themselves are not based on any sort of predetermined construct, but are simply being discovered as part of the landscape and part of my daily walks. I had no way of knowing when, where or in what condition the objects would present themselves. This sense of not knowing, of not being able to identify with the objects, of the objects having some sort of existential existence and non subjective relationship with me and the participant/viewer, was a very important part of the project's process and execution. Even the uploading of
the documented objects to a social media site such as Instagram, gave no clues as to the objects subjectivity. This was very important in that, any subjective suggestion or identification would imply a duality and hierarchal positioning of the objects by myself and the viewer. In essence this is what Bryant is driving at in his book, in that, we have this tendency as a species to subjugate the world around us, placing ourselves in a superior position in order to lay judgement. He proposes a concept he calls 'wilderness ontology' in which the notion of being is not an absolute, but part of a pluralization of agency, one which removes the focus on human privilege. One of the features of The Democracy of Objects Project that struck me was that it seems to force the viewer into taking a position: it urged me into some kind of decision. The way you deconstruct and assembly memories in order to create a multilayered point of convergence between past, present and future suggests a process of investigation: maybe that one of the roles of an artist could be to reveal unexpected sides of Nature, especially of our inner Nature... what's your point about this?
An underlying interplay in much of my work has to do with paradoxes, driven by my belief that there can never be any right, wrong or absolute answers - only more questions. Based on this premise, I usually try to coax, awaken and sometimes surprise the viewer/participant regarding the didactic reality in which they may find themselves being pulled into on a daily basis - one which has been socially constructed and imprinted as part of our socialized nature and collective memory. One, whose purpose is ultimately to illicit power and agency from its participants. One in which, the hierarchical and privileged relationship between artist and