The gaze resilience

 

The gaze resilience: a duple archaeology

By Abdel Hernández San Juan

Conceived, componed and translated to english by Abdel hernandez San juan

   Light is in nature, this is out of doubt, but light forth participates in our sense of presence, something must thus be presence to us only when light is there, whence, while light is nature, it also participates in the phenomenological assure which made us have a certitude of ourselves, with our subjectivity under it. 

  A river, is a natural phenomenon out of us but as soon as a river made presence to us through light according to our gaze, we can’t simply set aside as easy our subjective impression evolved through our gaze from the pregiven nature of it.

  Remembering that according to barthes, the gaze and the soul grow and born together –the soul born exactly when we must say that the gaze is already formed in the child--, the gaze is not a passive perception of the pregiven neither simply an objective reflection of nature.

  Like in the relation between our subjective sense of presence—which can’t be reduced to simple how light made presence possible to us, between our gaze and the pregiven nature of the objects of perception, we have the formation of something new

   However, such a something new can’t be comply in itself or acceded by simply exteriorizing perception and its objects as we receive it in a mere physical sense, only through the repetition a sign means to us, through the formation of a language from which we exteriorize our gaze as a sign of the gaze in front of us, we are available to perceive to what points something new takes shapes in between us and that which we see.

  To see is not the same than to see seen, we can see of course, another person, for example, far to us seen, a river for example, but in that form we can’t comply his gaze, we can’t simply take his or her eye and set it upon our body, his gaze will ever pertain or belong to another body eyes, to comply his gaze –even to comply our own gaze beyond the mere distinction between the eye and the object, we need to see it exteriorized in a language, we need to see seen while not from outside as a body eye, but acceding the interiority of the gaze which seen.

   It leads us to a language of the internal states of the subject, his, her or our gaze, nothing must thus be considered as internal to subjectivity than the gaze, but by seen the gaze exteriorized in a language in which the gaze is a sign of the gaze, we perceive that to see a river, to look at it is not the same than to see the signs of a gaze seen it, what was external to us a few minutes ago, seen another seen the river, pass by to be internal according to an exteriorized in language sign of the gaze.

  The Cristina Jadick gaze allow us here the internal image of her own gaze exteriorized through a sign of the gaze. The external become internal and in reverse, the internal external.

   This is to me what "into resilience", the recent exhibit of cristina Jadick, shows us in between the gaze, subjectivity and both our internal and external sensibilities on the river, ---to us as singles in subjectivity or to us as plural in the city of Houston.

   That which a minutes ago was external, to see another body seen –without to comply its internal sense of the gaze--or to feel the apperception of seen the river from own body eye without assuring on it, might now be an exteriorized image of the internal gaze and its soul the gaze evolve

 Distributed on a language surface -the beautifull and suggestives photography’s and mix medias of Cristina "into relisience"--we comply a plenty sense of an internalized river to subjectivity, hence language seen as an individuated processing by which we perceive the river now through the internal sign of a gaze, we perceived thus to see the seen. 

   Therefore, from the moment it usually conservate, detonates or better well correlates aspects of the identity of the pregiven to us, --differently to paintings or drawings—photography must thus be a privilege field to discuss this matter, since on the one hand the photographic sign show to us exteriorized as language, the sign of our gaze or our gaze exteriorized as a subject of visual enunciation to a viewer, while on the another hands, it never lost or lack the clues or indicial codes of something pregiven from which the impressions of the gaze source. 

   Let then just define this as a correlate.

   Moreover, the relation between perception and the object of perception is from my point of view often disatended in all its possibilities under contemporary art criticism usually regarded to mere ocular or optical regards.

   To me one of the more interesting results of cristina mix media installations and photography’s installations must be indeed entailed to this original, rich way she have attained to provide images around this matter. 

   What I consider curious about her more recent exhibit "Into resilience", it is precisely how her exhibit is avoiding her usual ways to explore the paradoxes evoqued above, here she is helping us to distinguish in a more well defined form what she have usually mixed under her former exhibits, perception and the object of perception.

   Why is she doing that?. An exhibit of photography’s from which perception and its object are no longer exactly the same.

   Must we sustain a certain resilience between perception and the object in natural terms?. 

  Is this exhibit devoted to shows and explore the natural principles of a certain mixing of perception and its objects?.

   The idea of resilience suggest a certain natural argue since as recognized within the several photography’s and landscapes integrates the show, resilience must be find in nature itself something she explores and accent by interposing all the time the resilience’s of the river natural elements.

  At "Into resilience", more than any time before, the elements in play, perception on the one hand and its objects on the other, seems to be more aside than often in her art, thus, besides, not necessarily as a way to renounce or exit her usual semantical conjunction of both things at a language surface of sense, sensibility and meanings in which perception and the object often appeared as one and the same thing.

   I have argued before on her exhibits the exploration of a kind of philigrane between light and textures creating something similar to what I have defined as liminality.

  Better well she invites us to accent this time on the distinction itself as it helps to clarify how the elements in play –here mostly the land art elements of her art--must be understanded as originally entailed.

  Often the mixing of installation, povera and land art creates a profusion of elements from which the land art elements often linked to spatiality and more precisely to natural spatiality tends to be lost and lack, from this perspective, I consider "Into resilience", as an exhibit by which recalling the distinction perception/the object, we must have a sense too of the need of spatiality to lands art and its importance regarding the subject in question to this exhibit, the bayou river. 

  What we have here thus must be recognized as an archaeology of the usually misregarded relation between lands art, natural spatiality and landscapes, while not as much to maintain it aside, but besides to be distinguished in between, both, perception and the spatiality of nature and the gaze and its landscapes, exploring how this original entailing of land art and landscapes spatiality must be increase and enlarged semantically to research relations between subjectivity, nature and culture.

  It allow us to know how land art should be considered as a pivotal element of her art not as much this time loosed and or lacked under povera and installation elements, but revoqued, recalled and explored from mix media landscapes, photo print making and photography’s.

  In fact, as much as we have this time pieces letting distinguished the gaze and the river landscapes as much as we also have ways through which the collected matter finded in the river transform the canvas itself or the surface of the frame into  metonyms of the river surfaces. The river matters, fund objects entrace to the canvas or bidimensional surface collected and weaved over it.

  While this is also, paradoxically, a metonym of its own showcasing as signs of her gazing, that semiological inventory of a sense of the "I was there" of all this collected material as inventories of things collected from the river on the canvas surface now in reversal, not only the relisience of the river weaving the canvas but the relisiense of the gaze weaving the river in subjectivity.

   The ambiguity to choice and or to accent one thing over the another, looks to be –according to the exhibit as a whole—intentional, more or less considered as a metonyms of the river surfaces or instead of the art painting showcasing of the river motives inventories, it leads us to a duple simultaneous archaeology.

  It is at the same time both things: a negation of the art piece as an external observer, or as a mere archaeological collector of inventory evidences to instead recodify the frame conventions with the trope of resilience’s arriving from the river natural weaves toward the effacing’s between perception –the piece—and its objects--and in reverse it is also a negation of the object as an exteriorized denoted or pre-given fact to instead let work the tropes of resilience now in reverse arriving from the gaze soul and proving to our image of the river a sense of it through subjectivity and the sensoritality of our bodies to which the river made sense.  

  The accent on spatiality by the way is far to be absent or new within cristina art, on the one hand, even when we are speaking here on spatiality regarding the river, the sites of reality objects to perception evoqued by the landscapes, spatiality as a matter of language defines semantically the main ways she have explored installation art ever while on the other considered as an external issue beyond the spaces of installative language she have being in recent years included at exhibits focusing on it such as for example the exhibit "Places" and she herself seems to be usually attentive to it if we pay attention for example to her choices of exhibits such as "on sites" at her facebook.

   Now, besides the richness that made specific "Into resilience" we must add the comments of its comparative nature so that as much as comparably to another cristina exhibits "into relisience" appears as a seldom one by how the eye and its objects appears as distinguished but it is however yet as ever in her art an issue often disseminated. 

  In a few words, even at "into relisience", an exhibit defined by asking to what point the mixings must indeed be finded in nature, the relation between the gaze –perception, the eyes, etc, and the pregiven in nature motive, topic, issue, theme, etc, is yet mixed, shifted, blowred, disseminated, explored according to its resonances to and through subjectivity and sensibility more than afforded as something objectibly exterior to the internal feelings and multisensorialities of sensibility.

   Thus therefore, what we should really point here as pivotal must be this, that as much as we know that perception and its objects are asides, separated, distinct things as much as we ask to ourselves why instead are we usually endowing it and or seizing it as if an integrated dimension under one and the same thing.

  The answer to this paradoxical question not as easy to be solve is on the side of sense and meaningful, we integrate it because it made sense to us, because it is meaningful to us. 

  So the river as a landscape must be exteriorized as pregiven to us in nature, but we can’t as easy be observers from such a pregiven when we feel the river in our sensibility and when the river made sense through our subjectivity a sense of ourselves and of our city. This is to me what the exhibit is telling US.

   Our sensibility, the soul of our gaze and the river are weaved into a relisience that coming from the river nature explaings the same principles order the relisience of our gaze

   Reality itself in fact phenomenologically speaking complexion to our senses in a similar way, we know that something made presence to us in forms, we know that we have an impression of it as external to our palpable sensoriality—a data of our senses, but we instead tend to integrate what we know is aside, perception and its objects since this objects means and made sense to us so that we can’t as easy set aside the physical optical from the sensible, if the gaze and the soul grow together since childhood, something increase, extend, transform and disseminate perception into sensibility. 

  Liminality explains that.

  Recovering the spalitiaty of both lands art and the objects, we must point out that again like in her usual ways to afford natural issues---the gulf coast and beaches under previous exhibits or simply her constant allusion and inclusions of natural matters such as tries, earth, etc, the way she have afforded the bayou river must be seen as a continuation of her usual research on environmental issues conceptually seen as a research on subjectivity and culture.

  Certainly we have here more than ever before some pieces we may regard even as landscapes in which the river is out there represented, but we also have on the other hand an exploration of the river to subjectivity according to how it might be considered culturally to sensibility and the soul. 

  To those as me, who know by experience the importance of this river in the city –I even was living a few meters from the bayou several years—the river means a lot more than just a natural landscape to a passive gaze, it is as well entailed with our soul of the city and subjectibly weaved into many things

  her exhibit thus can’t be comply without this dimension of the river to subjectivity

  she even remember the issue of human adaptation when natural disasters ocurred somewhen ago so that from near photography’s of the water, of the sky and of the tries, to photography’s of human furniture’s fragmented and or juxtaposed as intimacy memories, the exhibit conjunction  a constant allusion to the relation between a kind of relisience that must be find as something arises and source from nature itself into a relisience to which we need both to adequate and or mix, fusion or add perception and the object –the gaze with its soul beyond just an optical perceptual apparatus—as to be adaptive ourselves to the challenges nature often mean to us.

  In fact, cristina, according to a series of exhibits I experienced the opportunity not only to see in person but to know since the process through which she was conceiving and composing it from her studio, might be defined as the artist who in a more unusual and original way is being developing works around this matter

  Considered from three of her exhibits I know, she have research a kind of effacing or shifting, blowing of the boundaries between perception and the object attempting and attaining a density of matter semantique memory though which the distinction between perceiving and the perceived, perception and the object is mostly relativized toward a surface of sensoritality and sensibility in which semantically perception and the object looks to fusion one into the another.

  It is ever at Cristina works as if something from the object were added and or distributed or disseminated as one in itself with the surface of perception

  This idea of surface of perception must be however clarify here as to attain a better elucidation of the issue in question back to our former considerations around the signs of the gaze. 

  In fact, we must identify the mere optical between an active perceptual observation with the eyes of an external, so to speak, pregiven object  of perception, an ordinary object we can see pregiven as a natural landscapes, a case in which we are representing the pure relation between both things our eye gaze and the object of it, from how perception beyond the physical optical, must be recognized outside us at the level of signs and icons, or at the level of a matter which distributed as a language outside us, as the language surface of a work of art, replace our mere optical perception by signs of it, 

  certainly, it is not the same distinguishing perceiving with our physical eyes than recognizing by clues and or by language visual icons in a work of art perception as a subject of the visual language enunciation, when we see a photography and distinguish the photographer gaze from the object photographed, everything is not already perception and object, but signs of it under a language symbolization, we can’t see the photographer and its objects, but the signs of the gaze with its clues of an omised subject we may infer from how the scene is being distinguished at the photo level, 

  we can say that we are an eye of our body objects, but at the level of an art piece language our body perception is no longer there, instead, a sign replace both the gaze and its objects, substituting it by clues of the as if, certainly, perception and its object appears at the art language level as a subject of a visual discourse and is transformed as such into a semantical code of the visual signs, besides, it is not already perception, but communication and meaning including the ways to mean the gaze itself now considered as a symbolic dimension of the piece

  In this specific sense we need to identify at the art language, an installation using fund object, fund material, textures, light, photography as under her earlier exhibit the sound of silence, or an exhibit mainly defined by photography’s and landscapes as her more recent one into resilience how the relation have evolutioned to be developed and research by cristina 

  and in doing so I think that a turn from the liminal or liminality to into resilience works in her exhibit as a return to a more distinguished distinction between the elements in play, now perception and its object defined as pregiven natural landscapes, are remarkable

  Back to the point during several of her installations we might recognize a conjunction through which usually gave as form of language at the piece level the signs of perceiving collected as inferences from the piece language level, a photography of the sensoriality, sound and effects of waves, the texture of the found objects and the sands layering the light, perception and the object seems to occupy a same dimension in a surface as if integrated one into the other. 

  This integration, usual in her installations, as discussed above, when we well know that objectibly, perception and the object are two separated things, must be understanded as a matter of sense. If we integrate it as one and the same thing the organ of perception and its perceived object beyond its aside nature, its is because we make sense of that objects or to be more clear, because such object are full of sense to us, its is in a few words according to sense and meaningfulness that we use to integrate both thing one into the another

   Liminality entrance here to explain why perception beyond be identified as just an optical operation must thus be indeed comprehended as something that increase and enlarge sensibility, as soon as the sensibly and the sublime participate through sense and meaningfulness into the signs of perception, the mere physical is turned into a semantical category, from such a moment, at the level of language perception and the object appears a weaves as philigraned, as tamizes of filtered and layered as mutually defined dimensions.

  Most of the amazing installations, mix media, collages and juxtapositions often under cristina Jadick art becomes unique and originals precisely according to how this issue have become a major dimension of her art. I would even say that we can’t comply semantically a plenty understanding of her art without this discussion, a dense surface of cumulated natural matters semantique memory in many of cristina installations must be regarded to this issue about which "Into resilience’s" brings a renewed light