A house from paintings | Marek Firek

A house from paintings

17.10.2014 – 07.11.2014


Opening Hours

Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm


Art Agenda Nova
Batorego 2, Krakow

previous arrow
next arrow


Marek Firek


17/10 - 07/11/2014 / opening 17.10. 2014, 8:00 pm

A house with paintings and written pictures
The above title reflects the double nature of the exhibition of my paintings at Galeria Nova in Krakow. On the one hand, we are dealing with a construction covered with paintings, which is supposed to resemble a house. The simplest explanation is: each artist would like to sell paintings in order to be able to live comfortably, for example to build a title house for himself. Of course, from money obtained for paintings, because painting is his job. So what can you do with unsold paintings? Well, to build a literally home from them.
My painting work is inextricably connected with writing theoretical texts explaining my intentions. Hence, the exhibition can not be missing. At the same time, the development of these texts may be images with texts, such a combination of visual art and literature. The texts can be written on the pictures by visitors. At the same time it is about the text that says what someone would like to paint, so what could be intentionally created in the picture. Painting these paintings takes place at the table with garden chairs, as the garden is always accompanied by the house. As the name suggests, the area is fenced.
The word "intentional", which appeared a moment ago, directs the reflection towards the phenomenology and the theory of art of Roman Ingarden. What is the picture (painting), on which the text appears about what will be found in this picture (should it be found? Or is it?). Maybe it is such an intentional meta-being; is this image also fictitious, like a literary work? Maybe such works of art are a confirmation that the phenomenological description is not a description of real works of art, but only pure theoretical possibilities. It is also worth answering statements that a literary work is an intentional work and exists intentionally, and that for its existence the existence of certain material objects is necessary. One must add here the conviction that apart from pure consciousness there is also a "pure ego", ie the subject of acts. I will juxtapose it with my statement that there is no subject in art but only an object. So those who consider themselves entities are objects. In principle, the subject does not exist at all and there are only objects. Such a reversal of statements that everything is alive, and so stone also etc. I think that in this context the "meta" that appeared above is justified. These paintings confirm unless adding (painting) is a concretization of a work of art.
The idea for written images arose from the fact that an image can appear both when we use the sense of sight and when it is generated by processes in the mind after reading the text. The image that arises in this way does not necessarily have to be beautiful and contain positive content. So, culture does not necessarily embody the value of good and beauty. Art, as the name suggests, is artificial, that is, mami, it lies, and so it does evil. The mere presentation of three-dimensional space in the images of the performances, using two dimensions, is an attempt to deceive the viewer.
After adding to my theory of choice, the matter becomes even more complicated. This theory says that everyone can choose what they want from the current resource of knowledge, put together arbitrary theories and two contradictory ones to be considered right. In fact, the construction from different images is such a spatial puzzle (spatial collage) of equally valid contradictions. The choice theory may, in certain circumstances, put under a big question mark (question about rightness) everything that I wrote above.
Finally, I will refer to the word "writing". Well, it occurs when we talk about "writing" icons. I want to clarify that inappropriate interpretations will not occur in the future. In the case of icons, it is assumed that it is the result of a wrong translation. But also the right statements are made that this writing emphasizes the sacred character of the icon. It's pretty neatly connected with writing after pictures. It is what in contemporary art is called action. Therefore, the action character should be emphasized, as action can be a kind of ritual. I have defined it once, adding that in art, the ritual is a ritual.
I painted my first paintings at the end of the 20th century. Present in combination with normal images constitute a whole, being a positive answer to the question about the possibility of a multi-sensory reception of art.

Marek Firek