Sergii Shkoliar

As we know any logical scheme ends up in absurdity if it is imperfect, if it has its inner flaws. I saw what the absurd meant for the first time in my life when I was at grade school: the teachers made us pupils march. Whatever for I could not understand; and it has been an open question for me ever since. There was no sense in our marching at all. But it was ordinary and plain for the teachers. A monotonous activity without any alternative. It was the first time when I challenged the situation. I thought that it was too straightforward without any possible interpretation. Invariable situations  excluded any kind of creativity – it was not allowed to move and walk as one wished to. We were to play by the  rules; there was no logic in it. Luckily, the strict limits triggered a desire to bend the rules and look for other ways to evade conventions.  I found an easy way to keep away from the drills. I have to admit though that my teacher told me off in the end. I had learned a good lesson since then, and each time I came across a boring thing I began to mock such things – I swapped some words for the other twisting their meanings. To my mind most of the literature we had to read then was boring, but there were incredible authors, they fascinated me. As a result I had brought together and mastered such practices to use them in my art work. There are two things that I am interested in most of all: (booze and women) various subjects and oddities. To me, literature is a source of subjects and images that I can place in unusual contexts to reveal unexpected meanings. It is my deliberate choice of implicit themes which cannot be seen at first sight in works of literature. There is nothing wrong in illustrating the obvious, but in my view, it might be way more exciting to capture a seemingly unimportant episode or a hint. These hidden things become visible when one re-reads the text. And it is good if the audience of an artist is well-read so that they can recognize the original which has become the foundation of my work. In this case I listen to people’s interpretation and I enjoy it because it turns out to be even more unusual and nontrivial. What is more, it might become food for thought and inspiration. The approach is not new, one can find examples in cinematography (Tom Stoppard’s “Rozencranz and Hilderstern are dead”). Sometimes I deliberately make mistakes, not only in my works but in their titles. It is amusing, it is fun, and at the same time, it makes sense in the context of my exhibitions. My aim here is to arouse curiosity in my audience and attract their attention to the original. This task is feasible, I am sure. One just needs to create a striking image working with interesting sources. And luck is with me! I would not say that it is the absolute absurdity that I stick to. It is more about playing with the subject in order to achieve my goal. My approach has its own inner logic, and the logic is clear to me. I see it as a combination of cozy images, cute things, and at the same time, certain rational ideas. Although when it comes to my works (pieces of furniture and small sculptures), I can claim the opposite. Despite their practicality one can easily notice how absurd they are – a stool-library, a chair-chest, for instance. Any surface or object might come in handy: T-shirts, bags, doors, walls. These objects are of equal importance to me. But there is one aspect that surprises me: I have tried to compare the power of th word and visual image – I have come to a conclusion that the former is much stronger in terms of its influence on audience. Why? It is hard to answer. It is very personal, my individual perception.