Here you sooner want to ask the question, Are we speaking about something absolutely existent, or nonetheless about something we have imaged and that mostly rests in our experience of viewed images and our imagination—why does that root look like a face? why does that stump look like a bird? This same questions is asked at the Kim? exhibit: Why does the composition of objects that inhabits the exhibition space and is seemingly confined there remind us of pieces of coal or burnt trees, encircling what looks like the form of a human figure lying down? What is my imagination doing, or what does Žilvinas want to incite in my imagination? Perhaps these are quests in search of a much more interesting space than the melancholy/nostalgia space, much more impressive, dynamic, and sustainable, constructed not from something nonexistent but from something existent—things and their meanings, which are found in constant flux.
Exposition sight in kim?, Riga. Photo: Ansis Starks
I think that the object built into the wall of the VKN Gallery should be considered a metaphor for an Other space. A palm-sized square opening leads the gaze into a miniature environment that looks like an exhibition hall; it is empty, with several rooms, illuminated with a bright white light, and the only objects arranged there are two small pyramids/cones. It doesn’t matter what this space is—the artist’s internal space (a self-portrait, in Žilvinas’s words) or the ideal space required by every artist to create words. This is a space that is missed and that is needed. Like any object by Žilvinas, found in a continual process, this miniature place was also intended differently, filled with something else, possibly differing in its message from the interpretation I offer. Yet may what was intended there remain as a secret until the artist’s next exhibit.