n/a
 
n/a

Kim’s photographic images work similarly, yet in an inverted manner. Instead of the tedious rendering of

the visual into a visible, Kim’s photographic images turn the visible into the visual, again by way of

discrete visual units of information. Still, they do no collapse into an ever visual, non-languaging ideal.

They convert back into legibility by way of being recognized as, and thus rescued from, a redundant

stock of involuntary images (our always refreshing optical storage of bytes of tree limbs, water logged

sand, smeared glass, etc.). Kim’s photographs are, in a way, syllabic to the construction of our visuality,

which is never disclosed as such, but, instead, only the visiblity and legibility coded into the visuality. The

result are images that necessitate literacy to appreciate or be intimidated by their prototypic

sharedness in human perception. The higher the levels of visual literacy, the more legible they become

and, valued. The lower the literacy the more alien they appear since they are retrograde images, and

without literacy to bevy their opacity, they appear to make one think they see less than they see.

The result is a space where a public is made, paradoxically, by way of the private being maintained.

Alongside the actual presentation of paintings and photographs, black vinyl redactions have been

applied to the walls, laying bare all former ideations of curatorial display. Counter to their omissive

mark, the redactions actually enable a public stake via an opaque form of transparency. Absence turns

into a presence, while, simultaneously, the presence becomes ever more solidified into being a mere

presentation.

The gaze instills the invisible in the visible, not indeed to render it less visible but, on the

contrary, to render it more visible: instead of experiencing chaotically informed impressions, we

see there the very visibility of things. Therefore it is the invisible, and it alone, that renders the

visible real.

- Jean-Luc Marion

N/A Gallery is exited to present 지지가없는, an exhibition that can be understood as simply as a type of

dis(tancing)- appearance made possible by and out of a prolonged proximity maintained between

entities, materials and/or processes. Prolonged proximities that produce—both inside and outside an

aesthetic lens of appreciation—the ability to ignore, by way of being offered a clarity and abundance of

discrete visual information, be it the ever refining resolutions of digital photography or the continued

currency found in trompe l’oeil. Fiona Burke and Song-yun Kim enable a more or less complete visibility

which the viewer renders further, and in a further rendering, creates a workable reduction that emerges

as a partial image (opaque facticity turned into discrete knowledge).

This notion of partial plays off all three of its possible meanings, namely having a particular liking or

fondness for something or someone, that, by nature of its sentimentality (a form of bias or prejudice),

relates to being or affectation only in part, not total; incomplete.

Utilizing photography, painting, and the redacted history of the exhibition’s design iterations, the

proposed exhibition aims to be a space and non-space, repeatedly punctuated with interactions that

utilize the differing relations made between the legible, the visible and the visual.

Legible: capable of being discerned or distinguished [of being discovered or understood]

Visible: devised to keep a particular part or item always in full view or readily seen/referred to

Visual: of, relating to, or employing visual aids [attained or maintained by sight]

It cannot be stressed enough that both Fiona Burke and Song-yun Kim engage with visual information

that both builds from and off of various levels of visual literacy, which already admits that experience is

eclipsed simultaneously with the production of knowledge, by way of the visual being converted into the

the legible. In addition, both Burke and Kim do little to resist the visibility of their work in general, namely

that they allow their work to be clearly visible and bracketed from the interference of antagonistic

actors (for example seeing one of Kim’s photographic images hung in a preschool classroom).

Levels of literacy play even more contrary in Burke’s case, employing, as she does, techniques of trompe

l’oeil. What starts off as an engrossing attentiveness (to an extent where the presentation bleeds into a

presence in space), rapidly loses all such attentiveness in favor of a discrete unit of visibility. In short,

within the pains of bending the visible into the visual, the visual turns into just another visible, taken

with the same regard as seeing, in the case of this exhibition, actual tape on an otherwise indefinite

color field. This doesn’t even take into account historical depreciation of trompe l’oeil, which itself as a

classification has taken on increasingly negative coding. Over-coding to be more specific, as the entire

enterprise of looking at trompe l’oeil is managed by way to distributing the classification into the

singularity of sighting the visual information. Today this type of painting has found its most popular

engagement in the interference of the everyday (sidewalk pits for tourists to avoid), rather than the

contemplation of the gallery.

Song-Yun Kim, South Korea. Song-Yun Kim’s photographic images approach an intersection between

two modulating instruments—the eye and the aperture—and the inherent, yet ordinary discomposing of

each on the other. Kim’s photographic images appear to merely occupy various spaces incidentally, yet

a certain stateliness in representation undermines the disparateness. This stateliness or restraint is the

result of an often laborious shooting process. A process which—no matter how arbitrary the subject of

the image may be—is articulated through hundreds of successive refinements made possible by the

technical abilities of the camera. Within the passing of time and the successive permeations of a single

image relayed via the near instantaneity of the digital display, Kim’s images revive, albeit tediously, a

reified occupation of merely directing sight.

Fiona Burke, Ireland. Burke’s practice is concerned with painting’s syntax and its relation to themes of

history, memory and representation. In exploring the illusory and limited space of representation, from

the portrait or still life to the space found on the edge of display, Burke employs a process of

heightening the tension toward the possible inactivity of any of these givens. Through editing, erasing

and concealing, objects become fragmented, isolated, and incomplete, yet, somehow, further

grounded through the painted space.

Darren Tesar, USA. Tesar’s behaviors—visual, curatorial and textual—aim to enliven biosemiotics.1 An

open grammar that cannot offer his art, a viewer, a gallery or the very infrastructure nesting the three

a guarantee of its viability to maintain its own semantics, syntactics or pragmatics. This open

grammar is not a captive system, but, instead, a nonfinite possibility of phrasing its referrals,

interpolations and expositions. The result is phenomenality itself, or, better, a behavior singularly reachieving

its state of singularity in an ever opening world.

1 Biosemiotics is an interdisciplinary research agenda investigating the myriad forms of communication and

signification found in and between living systems.