A painting – beyond a surface, beyond a narration and more…
How far can physicality be the pivot of a work of art? Are there any other possibilities of two or three dimensional surface and space for painting? Are there any necessities for meditating an epistemological survey to delineate new thoughts and ideas, or to chance upon a new language of expression and/or process of a work of art, for that matter?
Is there any necessity for producing a narration of a work of art, when every object or phenomenon has a narration of its own?
Are there any contradictions of plasticity with natural organism? If contradictions are there, how do we negotiate plasticity with the organicity of this universe and vice-versa?
Are there any possible ways to combine synthetic, physical, concrete phenomena with natural, fluid and organic appearances?
When two dimensional shapes meet with three dimensional forms in some given plane, what do they convey by their union?
How far could representation work, when we cannot form a definitive picture of what we are seeing, thinking and conversing about?
How could you save your piece from being politicized or becoming pedagogically loaded when every single breath you take would also be subject to scrutiny and contextualization?
Has painting become sufficiently abstract yet? The problem of making an image and of making a painting will forever haunt the way we describe 21st century painting and its history.
Possibility of abstraction in painting will appear only when the idea of abstracting thoughts, not the image, would dawn on us; as is evident in musical compositions.
Can an artist live the life of his materials? Can his piece be aestheticized by associative values attained through the extra-material stuffs a work of art ensnares?
– SOHORAB RABBEY