Levon Fljyan, Facebook, 3 june,monday, 15:14
L.F. In general what associations does this word evoke in us?
K.G. It is difficult to give a word definition, bearing in mind also that even in Wikipedia there is no Armenian language material about pixel.
L.F. In the first place we probably start to think about technology, virtual world, photography and in general about image - the visual in a larger sense, viewing pixel as the last point, the unit that lies in the very base.
K.G. Saying image we should understand the images nowadays circulating in absolutely all fields, he ones we use for “getting to know” the world (TV, computer, digital photo equipment, video recorders, electronic books, telephones…).
This would imply that pixel is a final/basic substance on which all the above mentioned technology is based, through which we currently carry on our communication process (virtual space, internet, social networks, exchange and circulation of immense quantity of photos, videos, texts…).
L.F. Thus, the works presented at the exhibition are images composed of pixels, to see which one has to stand at a certain distance from the works. But even in that case the images do not acquire a complete clarity.
K.G. But what do you imply saying “composed of pixels”?
L.F. First of all it should be mentioned, that the works - the pixels are works of visual art/paintings, that is to say traditional canvas, paint, brush are used… but the images are painted in the form of pixels. The real image becomes digital due to or because of the form of the pixels, but the unique language of painting as such has been used. The used technique is coming from centuries and is encompassing features which are thought to be characteristic to the Higher art - game of colours, the mastery of brushing and so on, but the kept form is “digital” - pixel. All these put the viewer in quite a difficult situation. As we know there is a rather common opinion that to look at, study a painting one has to stand rather close to it, to see all the details painted, whereas in this case as opposed, one has to stand far, at least to understand what is painted. Even after doing it one understands that what is seen is not so much of a painting anymore, but rather pixels or more precisely visual images composed in the form of the latter.
K.G. It can be said that the language, especially the visual, can be used not only as a means of communication, but the other way round - in this case as a tool for specially planned miscommunication strategy, in other words a deliberate denial of the communication system. And here, when saying communication, we imply art.
L.F. It is not by chance that the works are involuntarily viewed within the frameworks of the history of arts discourse, imagining/identifying some known forms of thinking, such as op-art, pop-art, abstractionism, minimalism and even conceptualism - outside these forms of thinking.
K.G. Putting aside the paradigms of the Armenian contemporary art, one can say, that the peculiarity in Armenia is that the mentioned forms of thinking have been and still are the most commonly spread ones.
L.F. Explicitly showing certain social codes, among which are those on how the public awards the work of the artist with a “piece of art” status, what are the mechanisms of perceiving a work of art - especially visually, the possibilities to interact with the work, or questions of integrating it (work of art) in own context one way or another... form a “game-like” situation, which in itself is the main aim of the artist.
K.G. The main aim of the given artist, through the given works?
L.F. May be so, may be not.
K.G. After all, if to generalize, the main ideological stress is falling onto the notion, that due to pixel in this case, new practices, methods and models of interaction with usual and already known phenomena are formed.
L.F. - Levon Fljyan
K.G.- Karine Gusarenko