Photomonth 2022 and the Nowa Huta Museum (Branch of the Krakow Museum) invite you to a collective exhibition:
๐™„ ๐™’๐™–๐™จ ๐™‡๐™ค๐™ค๐™ ๐™ž๐™ฃโ€™ ๐˜ฝ๐™–๐™˜๐™  ๐™ฉ๐™ค ๐™Ž๐™š๐™š ๐™ž๐™› ๐™”๐™ค๐™ช ๐™’๐™š๐™ง๐™š ๐™‡๐™ค๐™ค๐™ ๐™ž๐™ฃโ€™ ๐˜ฝ๐™–๐™˜๐™  ๐™–๐™ฉ ๐™ˆ๐™š ๐™ฉ๐™ค ๐™Ž๐™š๐™š ๐™ˆ๐™š ๐™‡๐™ค๐™ค๐™ ๐™ž๐™ฃโ€™ ๐˜ฝ๐™–๐™˜๐™  ๐™–๐™ฉ ๐™”๐™ค๐™ช
๐™„๐™’๐™‡๐˜ฝ๐™ฉ๐™Ž/๐™ž๐™”๐™’๐™‡๐˜ฝ๐™–๐™ˆ/๐™ฉ๐™Ž๐™ˆ๐™‡๐˜ฝ๐™–๐™”
(Massive Attack, Safe from Harm)
๐—ฃ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ฝ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜๐˜€: Marek Chlanda, John Conway (demo: Fabian Hemmer), Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wล‚adysล‚aw Hasior, Henryk Hermanowicz, Karolina Jarzฤ™bak, Irena Kalicka i Jan Pล‚atek, Katarzyna Kozyra, Ville Lenkkeri, Jรณzef Lewicki, Marx Machines Inc., Andrea Natella, post_noviki, Mariusz Soล‚tysik, Dominik Stanisล‚awski, Phil Wang / Lucidrains
Magdalena Kownacka, Anna Olszewska
๐—–๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜€: Magdalena Kownacka, Anna Olszewska
๐—ช๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ: Muzeum Nowej Huty (Oddziaล‚ Muzeum Krakowa), os. Centrum E1
๐—ข๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ป: 28.05โ€“26.06, Wed.โ€“Sun. 10-17
16.06 closed
๐—ข๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ธ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ: 28โ€“29.05 Sat.โ€“Sun. 10โ€“19
๐—ง๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ธ๐—ฒ๐˜๐˜€: 14 zล‚ N / 10 zล‚ U / wednesday – admission free
OPENING 

โญ

 28.05.2022 

โญ


The spectacle, displayed on the screens of phones and laptops, consumes our attention for hours at a time. We daydream. We look, we let others see, someone is watching. The split-second exchange of glances is unsettling, it catalyses an excited state. IWLBtS/iYWLBaM/tSMLBaY becomes the refrain of the thrill-seeking flรขneur. For a person venturing into foreign parts, the gaze is the first form of contactโ€”a spark leaping between opposites, the preliminary exchange of information. In a city jammed full of electronics, along national borders, in offices, homes, and military headquarters, glances and signals, alarms and blockades crisscross.Contemporary machines also โ€˜look back to see.โ€™ But does a mechanical exchange of glances (machine vision) leave an enduring mark? Does a gaze repeated innumerable times accumulate on servers and thicken as algorithmic twines, linking memories and assigning names to things like a chemical signal transmitted along a chain of human neurons?A key element of this story would seem to be naming things and vesting them in concepts. โ€˜The unnamed does not exist for us,โ€™ writes Bruno Schulz in โ€˜The Mythologization of Realityโ€™:To name something means to include it in some universal meaning. The isolated, mosaic-type word is a later product, is the result of technique. The original word was an hallucination circling the light of meaning, was the great universal totality. The word in its colloquial, present-day meaning is now only a fragment, a rudiment of some former, all-encompassing, integral mythology. For that reason, it retains within it a tendency to grow again, to regenerate, to become complete [โ€ฆ]Signification underpins the logos of our perception of the world, creating a sense of order and understanding. An equivalent order in the world of images was illumined by morphology.Morphology, being the science of form, was established at the end of the eighteenth century. In a eureka moment, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe determined that behind the multiplicity and variety of forms of modern plants, there must be a first, most primal form: a โ€˜primordial plant,โ€™ which he sought in Italian meadows and the gardens of Palermoโ€”to no avail. Be that as it may, an image was created and the name stuck. The search for the primordial plant gave rise to the science of forms, which was to feed the trend of classifying and comparing the shapes of different things. Morphology excitingly teased the revelation of the order of nature down to its foundations. At some point, however, it began to seem that this morphological quasi-science was a dead end. Comparing forms and searching for a visual order was going nowhere.A new morphology arises without the contribution of philosophers. It is rooted in technological systems and driven by the operation of digital machinery. Affinities between forms came into sharper focus with the development of modern methods of image processing: algorithms and experiments involving the generation of complex visual forms that shifted the search for Goetheโ€™s primordial plant from the field of living, organic forms to the sphere of signals and information. However, itโ€™s uphill from there. In the eighteenth century, Goethe, in a poem of his, bemoaned a loverโ€™s undoing in the โ€˜thousandfold union / Shown in this flowery troop.โ€™ And what to do with the staggering quantities of images being generated nowadays? With the enigmatic nature of the modern worldโ€™s technological backbone? To comprehend and describe an image today is an act of daring. It is here, paradoxically, that a conceptual discordance may come to the rescue.One can imagine technology as the id of our times. It does not belong to the order of reason. It is fundamental, hidden, innate, impulsive. The reciprocal nature of the relationship between this technological id and the image is the recurring theme of the exhibition. Through it, we will examine the infrastructure of visuality: its history, varieties, and types, and the effects of its implementation. We will experience the instability of the system, a dream of late modernism, and the complex, inter-directional relationship between humans and imagesโ€”and between images themselves.