Tuesday
It is clear that Andrzej Prokopiuk expresses himself in a truly artistic language, and that this language has a vital meaning. Whether or not this artistic language is necessary to explain the meaning of Prokopiuk’s work is debatable but I would argue that this artistic explanation is essential.
It has been said that a work of art is like a town, it must have a centre and a periphery!
Andrzej Prokopiuk admits that he would like to create an autonomous work for which any sort of exhibition space would be suitable – be it an art gallery, a church or a living room. In view of such aspirations and high standards adopted by the artist, the author of these words can only bow his head and repeat after Edmund Burke: “go and see”, concurring with the philosopher that it is all that can be said about the artistic work, while at the same time consoling himself that it is only the “periphery”.
Andrzej Prokopiuk's artistic work is mimetic. The object of this imitation is time. Without going into convoluted discussion about time, I observe that the process of imitating time is twofold in that one cannot express the essence of time without imitating oneself while experiencing time.
In the same way as "we follow the example of a swallow when we build something, a spider when we weave, or a swan and a nightingale when we sing" so an artist who wants to imitate time follows the example of the modus operandi of nature, that is, the experience of time by the artist himself. To observe time in order to imitate it is solely to observe oneself and understand that the difficult art of self-portraiture takes the most appropriate forms when an artist imitates his own experience of time. It is as if he had painted grapes from nature, and then wanted –while deeply convinced that they are real – for someone to take them in their hands and eat them.
What kind of time did Andrzej Prokopiuk see?
None of Prokopiuk's works is made without a clear plan as to how it will develop and what effect it aims to achieve. Andrzej Prokopiuk plans each day of his work but only in such a sense that he becomes part of the rhythm of the week, sunrises and sunsets and in between his regular working hours. He meticulously selects the type and quantity of material needed and specifies the technique of its ‘production’.
Prokopiuk accepts the natural way in which days and hours follow their course and combines this with an attempt to find himself in all this, to find his own plan and his own way of planning. This must happen even though another, more fundamental and determined plan already exists which is a way of measuring of time in Prokopiuk's artistic work and even the first mimesis of this time.
In my view, however, this is not the essence of the imitation in his art even though it is necessarily a part of it. There is something more in Prokopiuk's mimesis.
After all, Andrzej Prokopiuk can only himself see his works at almost the same time as the work is shown to the public. This is because he can see it in context only in the gallery in which he can finally hang it. In his studio located in a cellar there is not enough room or proper context!
The point is that Andrzej Prokopiuk completes his works when he senses that it is the right moment when one of the Codes has been completed. It is only in this particular moment (not any other one!!!) that the work has to be closed, finished. What is definitely behind him has to be completed. Many times he has told me or other people in my presence that he is surprised by what he has achieved but I have never heard him doubt whether a Code is now complete.
But this is not all. Andrzej, with pedantic care about every millimetre, hangs his works in the gallery (the works which as far as he is concerned have been finished!), puts the papers in order (the papers which are already put in order as everything has been completed), creates narrations out of them, compiles narrations from the colour. He is delicate and tender for his papers and cares that they are presented properly. I have to say that what I have heard from him about preparations for one of his exhibitions is truly heroic. I would like to stress most – for the clarity of my reasoning – that Andrzej shows his tenderness for his papers by using vertical and horizontal aspects with a really interesting theory of the line as well as with many other things about which I am not going to say a word as I consider them ‘peripheral’.
In the world of human languages there is one that has only the present tense and the verbs form perfect and imperfect. One can express in this language only a continuing action and an action that is past but present. Andrzej Prokopiuk's mimesis has the same quality of time. There is only the present, there is no beginning and no end. Time is not a collection of consecutive points, it is present now in the same way as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. When crossing the homogenous matter of time, however, one is both aware that there should be some borders and at the same time a conviction that in fact no borders have been crossed. We encounter similar situations almost every day. One can always find somebody who will say: "I have it already behind me, I am certain of it." Indeed, one is right to be certain, though in fact nothing has been finished, nothing has begun, everything continues – whether in a complete or incomplete state. And then, what has already been completed can be put in order because even though it has been completed, it is still present and available, so that it can be seen at last as a whole, from a different perspective and many times – together with others but always for the first time. Finally, one can begin to tell the story about one’s own experience of something that has been completed, with the greatest possible tenderness. It is now possible to change the course of events, to classify them to better understand what happened and although ‘one’ is the sole subject of what has happened, there is no doubt that it is worth telling oneself once again the story of what is already behind us in order to understand it, to accept the fact that it existed – though it is still present, to stress that it is definitely over, and – frequently – in order to name, define and formulate simple universal conclusions...
To spite philosophers, let us mix Platoes with Aristotles, Plotinuses and even with Origens, let us collect all doubts and put them in one sentence: what is mimesis for and why is it necessary to imitate reality? Of course, one cannot forget Oscar Wilde's words that it is not art that imitates reality but reality that imitates art. It is enough that some popular writer creates a character and everyone would like to be this character. They want to be Lord Jim, Lieutenant Columbo or one of the Karamazov brothers. But Andrzej Prokopiuk is not interested in this kind of art and such art is not interested in him either – and so neither party loses anything. As far as art is concerned, however, doubts concerning mimesis are still relevant.
Why ape the truth? – especially in the contemporary world which overflows with objects. Why create new objects if they are only made of paper, when the reality is available for everyone? Why imitate it and further clutter the world that is already cluttered? An object – someone may say – can be subtle, it can open much wider spaces than the tiny space it occupies. This thought is most relevant to Andrzej Prokopiuk's work. But even this justification of mimesis may not be true, as the reality we could experience directly we experience virtually. Isn't it enough?
And there is one more hugely important matter. Mimesis of time is about creating a self-portrait. Is it not enough to watch oneself all the time, yesterday or a week, a year or even years ago?... Oh! this little boy from many years ago who lost his milk teeth is also me and I think there is nothing else besides me. How long can one stand oneself? How long can one live only with oneself? How is it possible that your "and that's that" or "it is behind me now" was copied, pampered, multiplied, as if the excessive amount of one's own face wasn't enough?
Our fathers could build a cupboard in such a way that no piece of board would break off when a screw went through it. They could drive in a nail without cracking the plaster. They could polish shoes without leaving streaks which ridicule the bootblack appearance. They could iron shirts without leaving creases and concertinaed shoulders. Such is Prokopiuk when he takes a decision about the colour of his papers. One can hardly ever see such a beautiful colour. What else can I say? He is reliable like our fathers. He is scrupulous and hard-working. He has all these characteristics which are condemned when speaking about artists.
How does he do it?... Would you be able to say how your fathers were able to do everything so perfectly? You ‘aped’ everything and you don’t know the solution to this riddle? How is it possible and by what kind of diligence do these papers not compromise themselves by expressing their entities? In fact, they are the essence of the entities, their existence...
Have I really found the final answer to my all previous doubts? No! Except for one. I believe that Andrzej Prokopiuk is passing through himself like he does through time.
Rafał Sławnikowski, 2011