Fοr the boy of Αthens (or the Αthenian prince [of light]) and a new Byron 

Within the works sculptural units act as particular systems; from a fragment or mutation of the Athenian- treated as subjects, all to restore. Hierarchies of objects are attempted to be equalised through the collision of time; catalysed by the dialectics of subject, object, and an inherent thingy-ness of things. Destroying this hierarchy becomes integral to the work, allowing the introduction of an ‘alternative canon’ as a new vision for Athens and Europe.

Ideas of architectural and sculptural restoration impact the language and method in which works are produced. Nothing is fixed. ‘Finishing’ in an austere sculptural mentality. In and out the works reject processes of permanence or the monument. Yet, are longing for this potential. This dialectic of cultural permanence is often approached through the νεόπλουτος or Modernities legacies of the modular, the flat pack, the portable in ergonomics, the museum and the Duchamp.

Objects’ systems of identity and its companions of economics are current Odysseys rather than Iliads; grounded as both idiosyncratic and collective. Where mentality is manifested into the curation of objects that are exact in their physicality and origin but loosen as the meaning of given parameters is lessened. Morphing depending on the viewers knowledge, memory, discovery of these objects, or my own romanticism (presented as a homage to the Athenian lover, [philathenaicism]). Differing once over if one has baked in the Attica light. These works attempt to lecture the audience without speaking didactics or clarity. Talking points and podiums are transformed into the mystery of object/subject systems. Leaving the audience to question the simplification of European identities.    


Athens does not flounder at collapsibility or ruin. Athens falls without the weight of marble in its hand and clips back together; in and out. Athens where ΣURO(eupώ, Drachma etcetera) and the agora are interchangeable. Austerity is replaced with the severe statue type. Athens where cicadas and tzatziki are the same. A polis that is filled with signs and taverns; whose glasses with wine are made up with the forgotten shards of pottery from hills surrounding the Acropolis.

excerpts from 'en.storage' a collaborative work with sarah finney (www.sarahfinney.net) copies available upon request.


Strict and Sensual 

Entry wishing to become object, thing, or unit… “I was purchased! You spent time making me!” Object, thing, unit realises the strictness of practice and when picked up, clicked, clipped, thought of and regarded- the tease begins. “Your strictness gets you each time.” This is likely the correct response from entry, and what entry doesn’t realise is that matter is never completely disposed, due to its scale in its physicality or its formation in the digital. It remains always possible to keep it there. With additional time its continuity seems to have changed… “ I have a name, I have a marker." As it wakes up, moving, it no longer appears to be the gesture of the hand.  Object, thing, unit is pressed into the page, archived and stored again. Is this dormancy?- Pressed into the slightest of  dimension waiting to be ‘useful.’

Matching and Subjects

There is an attempt to create a tangibility in these entries independent from their source, in which the detail, the flourish, and the gesture are increasingly in competition with the ‘subject’ of the entry. This, the revolving door of the entrance, the exit and the present. Occurring both on the page, and from their source- rejecting the random or the found these presences are specifically sourced, archived through their reoccurrence in practice, time, space. The tendency of these entries reoccur so often that they almost arrive at the destination (subject) themselves. Kicked, carried, clicked, clipped, welded, written, spoken, read, placed, glued, melted, sticked, balanced, held, hanged, slotted, tied, wrapped, torn, buttoned, sewed, or thrown. Appearing as a roster of  items mixed and sampled- ready for use. In which patterns of objects are not so dissimilar through the use of objects, things, units in the everyday. - (phone, keys wallet. Pen and paper, fork and knife. And other almost idioms of object, thing, unit- patterns, associations and relations.)         

Methods of transparency and modularity dictate current museum discourse. Encompassed by the difference from prior enlightenment based methods of display in response to the styles of the salon. Those of which supposedly contain the ideals of empiricism, humanism, and modernity.  Through amorphous and fleeting visuality, collections of works notably those of *blank* antiquity have been subject to engage with a rejection of the fixed origins they had existing as architectural features, votives, dedications, and symbols of the west. Notably heightened with the Venice Charter dictating strict methodologies for restoration and conservation. Methods leave the site entering into the museum emphasising the rejection of the canon and ideal.


Metope wakes up in room 18- further supposed information is available in prior rooms 18a and 18b. Centaur Fragment between Neck and Body:  …Ah my head in Athens, I love to hear stories about slapstick metopes. Don’t be so surface I hear from museum directors, museum sponsors and other archetypes of collection highlights. I reply that my surface is now transparent. I enjoy pamphlets of controversies… 

Viewers see totalities of collections through open rooms, restoration works on view (or not as they are often covered with white canvas isolating given restoration), transportation of collections and view into the administrative spaces which break up the fantasies of museums. Displaced objects from colonial based institutions instead communicate through the method of supposed enlightenment; in a wilful perseverance of nostalgia. Contrary to the purpose of displays whose function is to temporarily hold placement for fragments waiting to be returned. Visual experience acknowledges that something is indeed missing. This shift can be most greatly understood through the saturation of the fragmented body. One only needs to think of the *blank* statue without arms and how fragmentation has dictated its visuality- resulting in universal fame. Oneness is what is at stake. Oneness in the fragment, subject to false restorations and the *sand on, sand off* of surfaces. Geographical return from 51° 31’ 9.8868” N, 0° 7’ 37.0446” E to 37° 58’ 6.4194” N, 23° 43’ 42.6822” and current vogue of restitution politics. 

This has become a slippery slope that contests the motives of museums. Actuality of actions that can be categorised with the methods of enlightenment are subject to the attempt at institutional or national prestige in a positive light, yet retain dialogues between myth and empirical modes. There is certainly a characterising of the institutions and statues absent from display by noting the location of the missing fragments *fragment a in x institution*. This narrative which is present in the displays could be seen to falsify itself. A flaw in the development of enlightenments empiricism. 


Metope falls asleep on floor 3- further supposed information is available at the entrance of floor 3.Centaur Fragment between Neck and Body:  …Ah my body in London, I hate to see texts about serious metopes. Do be so surface I see from museum custodians, museum baristas and other archetypes of collection highlights. I reply that my surface is now opaque. I enjoy videos of controversies…

Mythic competition and rational solution as seen in narratives of artefacts in museum discourse is curious through the creation and assertion of ‘correctness’. How displays would change if the desires of museums were successful. Would museums return to the conventions of display in standardised modes? How would a fixed presence be established? Are these materials truly temporary? The return of fragments is unlikely. So these temporary modes are actually permanence. Yet the ideal remains for that longing. As it always has. The museum gallery that mimics the form of the original site long to be that original monument. Yet the visual purpose of the museum is not always aligned with those of restitution. The arguments of restitution explicitly express that if Pentelic material is returned, isolated fragments will systematically be loaned back to given institutions. Systematic loans detract from the ideal *−1 = Σ* which notably include the refusal to accept temporary loans of fragments from the institutions that hold them *+1 ≠ Σ*. Falsifying the empiricism of oneness is exhaustive, the arguments being made remain an ideal. These sorts of dialogues underpin the hypocrisies present in enlightenment versus myth. Through a desire to reject the given legacies new prospective ones are made, establishing the myth of enlightenment even in what appear to be avant-garde rational institutions. The distinction between myth and enlightenment appears to oppose, yet fuses together the more enlightenment rejects the processes of myths. Exclusively done in museums through social narrative and its link to cultures of display. Through the destructing of the ideal a new subjection is created *longing = unification (Σ)*.