The exhibition focuses on coping with intensified, or on the contrary subdued presence of logical relations in different levels and processes of art. From any side the accented causality can gain extreme positions of brilliance, incomprehension, awkwardness, humour, emptiness, isolation, Laurel and Hardy like straightforwardness or complicated simplicity. In times when the feeling, that conceptual paths had been beaten for good before they were going to be forgotten, creeped in, we are afraid to lose sound judgement and grasp at the craft opposite. We are all aware, that every work (not just the one of art) has its reason and consequence and that we oscillate between these limitations automatically . That’s why the exhibition finds itself in the state of having no theme and restriction, but it doesn’t mean, that the interest can’t be fostered that way. I don’t want to see the exhibition in advance and fulfill my scenario of demonstrations of reasons and consequences of carefully chosen works pursuing my intention. I would prefer a more open structure of opinions rather than a collection of artistic evidence. That is why I took the liberty of asking artists themselves (although I am aware I am forcing them to a more active approach to the exhibition than just handing work to the curator – on the other hand I take into account their resignation and hope I am not going to stand in the middle of an empty gallery on my own on the day of the opening) to offer me some of their reflections which I am going to choose for a collection without any aspiration to any solutions.
