by Kostis Velonis
Since the early days of the twentieth century, the experience of modernity has been marked by an attempt to embrace public life -the common places that were linked with the social movements-, manifesting the ideological requirement of a res publica. As a result, the isolated studio of the artist was in question, while at the same time a new type of artist as an intellectual engaged in politics was represented by European avant-garde movements. In other words, an progressive escape from the interior space to the common place of the "agora" was witnessed. The impact of modernisation was experienced also in aesthetics, questioning the traditional concept of beauty, and emphasising in concepts that characterised contemporary life.
It has been argued that the notion of the beautiful incorporates also the notion of the sublime. I believe, though, that a distinction should be made, in order to establish the sublime as a separate category in itself. The distinguished features of the sublime, mainly observed by Burke and Kant, contribute to the establishment of a pure visual perception in relation to the representation of nature. Both these cases -the connection of the sublime with terror and self-preservation (Burke), and the nature's capacity to overwhelm our power of perception, which helps the activation of the cognitive faculties (Kant)- should be considered as symptoms of insecurity and curiosity in front of future societies.
The sublime characterises the production of works in which the primary element is the presence of greatness and power, usually identified in representations of nature. Therefore, how can the sublime have a place in the interiors of the dwelling? How can this distinct aesthetic value be experienced in the interiors?
Technological modes of perception -and especially photography- can become a major source of the experience of the sublime. Beyond the historical understanding of the term "sublime" (Romanticism), the eligibility of the photographic medium to represent moments of stillness within the everyday life, serves as a critical challenge to the traditional definition of sublimity.
In this project I have tried to understand a paradox, to deny that the domestic always contributes to the "desecration" of the sublime. We live in a post political era, in which every gesture or sign has a cultural property. In the photographs presented here, one can perceive the interior offered not as a heroic representation of the unique aura of the artist, but rather as a crossing for the intervention of the public into the private space. It is the analytical gaze of the artist at the public place (which in most cases is also the artists' habitat), which can awaken symptoms of collective sadness, when one is confronted with the eclectic uncanny world of those interiors. But more than that, these fragments of private life represented by the banality of the interiors, run the risk of being received as emotionally overwhelmed exercises of a subliminal self, offering moments of self-contemplation.
From this point of view, these interiors reveal their idiosyncracy within the banal, which could be easily interpeted by many as «dead» time. It seems that one can perceive the entropy of the social self. The question that arises here is in relation to the lonely subject. These images show interiors without the human presence, but at the limits of the visible, the contemplation of the self (without the material presence of the body) within the domestic conformity becomes a source of the sublime.
In conclusion, it is clear that the subliminal effect of nature, represented by romantic painters in the heavenly and raw landscapes, and Francois Lyotard's postmodern "novatio" sublime, are not anymore a sufficient source of the sublime. In these pictures, the subliminal subject is recognised by the same human condition in its trivial and everyday aspect.
Kostis Velonis
October 2000
All rights reserved, copyright © 2000 , www.art-omma.org the authors and the artists, otherwise stated
