Sebastijan Vojvoda / Escape from the Mind Master / Bijeg od Gospodara Uma

This day and age is a threat to painting exhibitions: they are in danger of being instantly categorized as the almost mainstream scrap of the ‘new Croatian realism’, and most damage is suffered by those who are pushed under this pointless denominator. (As if it could possibly be, content-wise or style-wise, distinguished from Slovenian, Bosnian or Swedish.)
Vojvoda eliminates the danger of arbitrary classification in the very beginning, because there never existed a ‘new abstraction’ group, and even if it did get formed soon, then he could be compared to Duje Jurić in a subcategory of ‘updated abstraction’.

In Vojvoda’s case, such hypothetical categorization is a product of a combination of something that resembles a humorous (and even satirical) reading of the Russian avant-garde heritage, firstly of El Lissitzky and Malevich, later of Mondrian, as well as a discrete parody of virtual graphism – an immense enlargement of conductors imprinted on miniature electronic tables (a situation well explored by Jurić), followed by bits of some already forgotten video games’ graphics and finally pixels as elementary constructs of virtual space. What the atom represents in organics, that is what a pixel is in a digital picture.

It is, on the other hand, not possible to say that this is a sort of a dedication, relation, reference or anything similar, considering the aforementioned classics, but instead it is a unique questioning (if not ironizing) of certain visual archetypes, which have in the meantime acquired almost epic iconographic meaning.  The same approach, or reading, is aimed at history as well as the present – which is here humorously identified with the former presumptions of the future, which have already been dismissed by the present. Namely, looking at the painters’ interpretation of these pixels and electronic synapses, the galloping technological progress perceives them as ‘ancient’ history. One could say that this scope of motifs actually interprets some sort of ‘all-time’, but, between the lines of this interpretation, there is a whisper (heard, and maybe even started by the artist) that reaches out to us, saying that our impression, our perception of basic graphic elements of virtuality is outdated… The super-accelerated technological development seems to leave the enlarged pixels in their virtual universe as monuments to the beginnings, and the “nano-today” has put the seemingly complicated elements of electronic micro-particles into museums, in order to illustratively teach the children of tomorrow about the beginnings, using these simple examples.
The question “What is the exact content of Vojvoda’s Topology?” cannot be clearly answered or narratively figurative, not just because the motifs are abstract, but also because, in my opinion, the idea is conceptually placed within the space between the exhibition and the visitor, just with the presumption of updating the existing approach, which should be the basis for the language of their dialogue.

The basic syntax of this language is the redefinition of the relationship with the (un)questionability of the ‘ossified, hence ‘dedicated’ postulates which are, through the same treatment, faced with the ‘profane’ symbols of today. Assuming some strict, fixed criteria, such intention could be understood as subversive, more so because (despite the highly responsible and professional level) there is a discrete caricature present in this clash, both in the personal and in the collective impression of the mentioned ‘untouchables’. Still, by placing the elements on the same plane, the legitimacy of one’s own position is established, which ‘discovers the possibility to penetrate into actuality / the scenario of one’s own life / some polemic reach of the world; a possibility that doesn’t refrain from the ironic penetration into the forest of general terms’ or updating visual symbols.

While Jurić suggests a feeling of anxiety related to the all-encompassing and incomprehensible electronics through aestheticization and augmentation of motherboards, Vojvoda uses the same technique to speak the language of the new generation and ‘declares geometric facts to be the controllers for moving through the virtual world of gaming consoles’.

Wall paintings (oil on canvas), grouped or placed individually, are all in the same format (50 x 50 cm) and are mutually very similar – beginning from black, red and white planes and lines (apostrophization of the past) which are joined by shades of gray as lightened black or shades of burgundy as darkened red (relativization as a contribution to the present). There is only one painting (among 50) which displays a splash of blue. All the planes and lines are proper, straight, completely geometricized. Sometimes their placement on the canvas gives a hint of design, which is, however, abandoned right away since it is surrounded by overall dense, or even horror vacui-like neighboring canvases, which would make the possible design completely non-functional. From this complete geometry, one could not recognize Knifer, Picelj nor Mondrian, and the initial dominant association with constructivists fades completely when faced with the personification of virtual networking. The toponyms of abstraction, however, just basically include general locations, and these general locations possibly identify the artist’s opinion on abstraction, which accepts only geometric abstraction, perhaps because that makes it possible for him to contrast visual toponyms from centuries apart, to isolate and even accent their similarity. I wouldn’t, however, say that this comparability is key, but more of a casual lever, just a station in the impression that does not end with a final conclusion but instead with a subtle offer of a dialogue, which can take place only under strict conditions:

1/ stylized equalization of visual symbols from the past and the present;

1a/ the interpolation of key characteristics of the development of abstract painting into an overall omnipresence of the virtual context;

2/ the inseparability of the spiritual dimensions of the artists / painters , whose development is necessarily woven with the conscience of the conceptual development of that métier, with its profane character, surrounded  by the configuration of the contemporary times.

The delivery of these conceptual meshes, with the dense network of geometric shapes and their correlation within one painting as their formal characteristic, places the observer in focus. We can even talk about an installation here, considering the comparison of our impressions of the exhibition’s details and of the exhibition as a whole, because the visuality of details in one painting obediently matches the role of one painting within a whole. This whole, as an unusual mirror, reflects the observer’s gaze and sends it back to them, disguised as an impression. The overall generality of the communication (art fact-reception) which should always take place within a gallery can be neglected: in this case it is not really a dialogue; the goal is not the establishment of a conversation between the paintings and observers. Instead, this communication is, I would say, still just a service – like a projection of a secondary image which uses the projection beam of the primary as a screen. In this case, the secondary image is the materialization of a dialogue/view with the goal of finding the precise point or position of the observer.

That is a metaphoric position: a point at which the conflict with the stylization of the topological network should result in recognizing, and even demystification or at least the redefinition of the archetypal visual language. The interpolation of old ‘iconographic’ elements into something without aesthetic pretensions at its basis (they are instead added by artistic interpretation) reaches the observer’s consciousness, shaping their own relationship towards the (un)questionability of the aesthetic absolute. At this point, the observer is ready to accept everything that the artist tells him by equalizing the “Black Square” and an enlarged pixel in his paintings.

The observer also seems to hear the artist’s voice, telling him: “I completely renounce the metaphysical approach to geometry as an expression of a hidden universal order which was important for pioneers of abstract painting. What matters most are the present and its ontology.”

Boris Greiner