Perfect Orange

Peeled spaces catalogue text about work of Attila Csörgõ - Goethe Institute, Budapest

Peeling a space is one of the possible methods of representing space. Here the surface of a spatial body is transposed entirely and without distortion to a surface. The sides that we could not otherwise see in one glance - because they are below or above, before or behind - are made visible simultaneously in the image, yet the continuity of the surface remains, with a few limitations, intact. I say "a few limitations", because when the sides, and not just the edges of the body, are cut open, adjacent parts may end up far apart from one another, but the drawing, the continuous stripe of the space is not interrupted: it contains the entire surface and forms a complete entity itself.

It is not possible to make a perfect sphere out of a piece of paper, no matter how complicated a form it might have. From a geometric perspective, this problem is known as the transposition of a sphere to a plane. The following method provides a good approach: you pierce the sphere diagonally and call the two points of entry the north pole an the south pole. The upper diagonal should form the vertical axis of the sphere, and we spin it around this axis at a constant speed. We place a pencil at the north pole and move it - keeping it continuously in contact with the sphere's surface - in the direction of the south pole at the same speed. Then we cut open the sphere along this pencil line. The surface we thus attain can then be spread out on the plane with only minor deviations (provided that the speeds of the pencil and of the sphere were appropriate). The image results in a flat form with two double spirals along the sides. This is the way that people who are blessed with a sense of geometry peel an orange.

But what happens if we apply this method to other bodies? If we consider a room as a body, can we then peel it like an orange? With certain spaces, the double spiral branches out so that one can end up in situations where the application of the method is no longer unambiguous. in this case, one must make a decision about how to continue, and it may not become apparent until after a few further steps that this decision was a bad one.

I believe this is the algorithm of the work. The artist is only willing to take the part of an animator, although the conditions are already set. This is a kind of provocative shyness that opposes all the dreaming with regards to art.

I think it is one of the characteristics of our age the everything has been transformed into a sign. Everything means something, as though Europe were an old home full of nice (and not so nice) little mementos, in which we could quietly live out the rest of out days. For this reason, we ought to be cautious with regards to a work that appears at first sight to be a clear case of concept. In the following, I would like to call attention to several aspects that speak in favor of caution.

The relationship between the drawings and the objects is noteworthy. Things may be seen in the drawings, which are unfolded onto a plane. The objects are drawings that have been reassembled. I happen to know that actual spaces were used as models for the drawings. However, it cannot be a mere chance that there are not many indication of this in the work. I suspect that these spaces serve as a mere pretext, as an object trouvé, for binding the hands of the artist. Like the methods of representation, they are simply parts of the program. The two parts of the work represent each other. the artist has successfully distracted our attention away from the possible object of the work and from himself. The only distinguished motives of the work seem to be the method of representation and the conception.

Yet it would not sound convincing, if I were to maintain that the work intends to create new contexts for the relationship between representation and the represented object, between space and plane. their author is not experimenting.

It is not the questions of the representations of space that form the actual context of the work, but rather geometry. Geometry can never rid itself of its philosophical and magical references. We cannot regard it merely as a catalogue of methods for solutions to practical problems. According to Plato, the sphere is the most perfect body. The devil may be conjured with Salamon's pentacle, which is also extremely useful for constructing the medial section. Pi, the plane relation between the uniform circle and the square. is a global constant, the same through out the universe. ( Also, as an irrational number, it cannot be exactly calculated). Ultimately, there is not a single real problem that may be solved with geometric methods. And geometry has even fascinated the age of reason. In order to construct a cloud perspective, one only needs to begin with cubeshaped "cloud units". The etalon of the meter is one of the most important cult objects of this age. Newton's symbolic tombstone is a spherical edifice (which cannot actually be constructed) in dimensions not particularly related to the human.

If I regard this work as a conceptional work, then I must proceed with the above in the same way. Attila Csörgõ's works represent nearly all the "wonders of science". The principle of representation is simple, the wonder of science a sure thing. At least, that is what is asserted by reason, embodied by a naked female figure on a throne in the temple of the Highest Being. The artist persistently tracks down these assertions. An endless plane becomes a piece of plotting paper glued together, a straight line becomes a pencil line. The method that works reliably for a sphere escapes its boundaries in the case of actual spaces; the spread-out surface module attains baroque liveliness with unpredictable cracks and shapes. The ethereal methods of the pure idea produce interesting results when they are applied to profane objects. Alexander Lieck said, a good artist is sentimental. I think he meant it as a provocation as he continuously repeated this sentence. There is not much one can really say about good art, but this ridiculously good sentence always comes to mind when I look at a work I like. It is possible that these work are more a paraphrase of the religion of reason that analytical works. Science has lost its halo and has really become, as a market factor, a collection of methods. Whether this creator feels attracted to science or makes fun of it, that remains his secret, for he does not even divulge it in his work.