Anjali Deshmukh
Statement and Info
Home of the Image (Theory 3)

Imagine a void, out of which appear an infinite number of 'points.' Each so called point is a kind of ‘moment,’ a minute grain of time in which objects, situations, people, feelings converge in an endless number of particular ways. Each single point captures and encapsulates at the smallest possible unit of time the exact state of our infinitely vast space, a slice of the entire universe.

An unfathomable library: Our multitude of points emerge and scatter across the void, juxtaposing or distancing unique grains of past, present, and future in ways that defy sequential time.

It is natural that the purpose of the artist is to first assign or recognize (whether one or the other is a matter of opinion) a point that constitutes a transformative or ideal convergence of objects, situations, feelings, people. This ideal convergence can only be perceived as ideal by the perceiver: because the perceiver cannot see across all space, her/his belief in the ideal convergence may be an application of a part to the whole of the space that exists in that moment. The closest word to capture this beauty of an ideal convergence is epiphany.

Secondly, a line between two ideal convergences, MUST be made. The artist cannot or will not stop looking until she makes or finds one line between two points.

Thirdly, in our void of infinite points, it is likely that the line between two ideal convergences will pass through other points scattered across the void. While the artist did not identify these grains of time as special, this is the moment in which Post-rational Formalism becomes utterly essential, for the artist must retro-actively create epiphany in the intersected moments that her design unintentionally yielded, whether those points were in the past or will occur in the future.

While the discovery or decision to see epiphany is arguably a kind of work of art in itself, identifying and devising pattern between moments of epiphany is the meta-artistic process that blurs the line between chance and choice. It turns an art object into an object made by an artist.

There is a strange problem that requires every artist to make an ideological decision, though. If we believe that the void eternally persists, despite the emergence of points of time, that there is in fact interstitial emptiness between grains of time, then we must believe that timelessness exists. And the line itself that the artist draws between two moments of epiphany essentially travels through this timelessness. This is to believe in transcendental objects, where an art object can be said to theoretically exist beyond time.

If we do NOT believe that timelessness continues to exist after time emerges, then the infinity of points is all that remains. The line that artists must draw between two moments of epiphany is populated by a barrage of intersected moments that demands a life-consuming act of Post-rational Formalism. If this is true, then I believe that the artist can never draw more than one, precious line in a life time. She had better be sure that she recognizes true epiphany when she encounters it.