My work is characterised by my interest in tradition that I strive to use in a way own to this decade. Unfortunately, the profession of an artist from time to time requires a certain kind of verbal or text reasoning. That is why I will try to mention several aspects that became characteristic for my work, but do not actually exhaust it. I am a man who thinks about exhibitions he later realizes. For lack of better words I call them exhibitions of contemporary art, and that is why I am apparently an artist. Many say that they sense some sort of odd humour in my exhibitions, but I would say humour is something that remains very foreign to me. This is how it is. I am an artist. I graduated from an art oriented university. I have a diploma saying I am a Master of Art. The art world considers me to be an artist. I will try to mention several points that are crucial for me and that grow from one exhibition to another, from one artifact to another. I accept tradition and attempt to re-read it in a different way. I decipher a text underneath a text, I sift the debris of things past in the hope I will find a pearl- the meaning, some sort of a meaning. I look back because the future became black with storm clouds. In my life as well as in my art I follow just a few principles that, for an unknown reason, stuck in my head. These statements combined with my personal traits create a ground plan on which my work is build. The trait worth mentioning is a certain instability and a desire for definition, in most interviews I take an oppositional stance while only very rarely there is a valid reason for it. I do that automatically. When thinking about an exhibition, I mostly compose it as a structure of several general terms, where the important thing is the combinatorics of their relations. I hardly ever construct the composition of an exhibition by progressing from one concrete fact to another concrete fact. This approach is foreign to me. My work affixes into various media. But it is not necessary to write any more about it, because eve though I think of myself as mostly a painter, I do not consider any categorization based on media meaningful and desired. The ratio of individual art media in my exhibitions is mostly balanced. I am a man who thinks about exhibitions he later realizes. For lack of better words I call them exhibitions of contemporary art, and that is why I am apparently an artist. My essential technique is ready-made, in the case of this method it is hard to write about medium because we are getting into a dangerous spreading of all media. Painting could then be our life, because the movements of our body are imprinted into the cosmic matrix, and in the same way a painting could be a sculpture, because it comprises of atoms and those are three dimensional, and it is just as hard, maybe even harder to define is installation or performance. I do not paint like Michael Rittstein does, my paintings lack the wide sweep of his muscular arms, the generous and skilfully lead gestures. When thinking about the titles of my exhibitions and artefacts, I lack his sense of absurd humour. I am not a good rhetor, I cannot even articulate myself properly. I am not an activist and I am not an enthusiast. I am not a public figure. I cannot compete with Jiří David, as I do not comment on hardly anything, I keep my opinions to myself. I do not think and I do not act the way Vladimir Skrepl does, my work is too staid for that. My life is not a dense experiment, I do not walk on the edge, I do not care about disrupting the senses. I am not a Baudelaire of our time. I am not like Ján Mančuška either, I do not have his energy, dogmatism, unshakable faith in my own truth, my work is not radically intellectual and I do not claim that about it either.

Marek Meduna

Here you can express yourself. (*required)