Notes from the Diary of the Architect
(An enquiry concerning the principles of Tradition and Modernity, in the realm of 'Black Fire upon White Fire') 2000
80cm x 300cm. 2x sawhorse, white thread, copper, wood, white cotton fabric,
Photo: Ilya Rabinovich
“Notes from the Diary of the the Architect”
(An enquiry concerning the principles of Tradition and Modernity in the realm of ‘Black Fire Upon White Fire’)
“The Torah that the almighty granted to Moses gave him white fire embossed in black fire, that is the fire enclosed in fire hewn from fire and engulfed in fire, as it is written: ‘from his right hand went a fiery law for them’”
Jerusalem Talmud, “ Shekalim, chap. 6:
“The Torah was given in flames of fire, and everything in it is fire and written in white fire upon black fire, and the letters float and rise into the air” Zohar, Pikudei, 226, B
As will be clear already, on the simple level the black fire refers to all those visible letters, which were inscribed in black ink unto the scroll, and the white fire symbolizes the empty spaces, the uncovered areas in between the black words. Furthermore, the black fire represents the literal meaning of the text, while the white fire represents ideas that go beyond the literal, beyond interpretation, beyond application and teaching. So, as at other times, we can put forward that only jointly, the black fire together with the white fire can make our reading complete. But this ‘inclusive reading’ is in effect our awareness of the idea behind the idea of Space and Perception.
To begin with, Black Fire and White Fire together make up a dynamic totality, that is in reading, in displaying, and in all other phenomena in our experience. Here, admittedly, it is nothing more than a revelation of all-inclusive space. And it is precisely such an all-inclusive space which forms the vital structure of the public’s knowledge, in so far as knowledge is not what it appears to be; for this reason the public’s knowledge is also synchronized with the ever altering vision of the world around us. Equally, knowledge is our fear of change, which is first and foremost being formed by the advancement of someone else’s promise. At the same time, as soon as the other’s promise has been displayed in a close proximity to the present public space, the impossible becomes possible. Afterwards, in the background of the public space, the public’s perception of its space is functioning as a delay in its awareness of the artist’s promise. And more, the delay is never very far from the public responsibility to grant the artwork with a particular space.
Undoubtedly, it is all too evident, the artist’s promise is now known as the ‘artwork’ on display. And the art-work on display is not without a particular name in the public space.
But for the public, to state its own fear implies a most frequent criticism of the artist’s promise which is currently moving towards the public. Here, the public does not formulate a new morality, but it most insistently questions the art-work on display. This, then, is the general act in response, namely: if the meaning of a public space is given to it in the knowledge of its impossibility, then the vitality of the artist’s promise is as much a layout of an innovative private physical space, as well as a certain private narrative space, which gives the public its future reading, that is including its future symbolic identity. But again, the trouble is, that the effect of the artist’s promise on the public space is primarily to reverse the direction of the public awareness. So, it is not hard to understand why it is a skilfully developed process, in any case, it is always already being closely allied to the authority of inclusive reading. In this activity, then, we can say that any given space is already synchronized with the intrinsic reading of the other. And that the process of awareness is in the end more real than the promise which causes it.
At this moment, and despite the attempt of the artist to evoke the idea of certainty, his promise remains nonetheless paradoxical and therefore doubtful.
Still, the promise is equally accurate, because, whatever is to be displayed must first exist. And it will always precede the obligation of the public to provide space, for it is in a certain way, the task of the artist to link his private space to the unique originality of the public’s past dream. And so, the artist’s promise is nothing else but the impact of the potential change on the revitalization of the public space. Namely, that the promise in itself is the only possible approach left for the public to uphold that its entry to any given space and the authority of perception, are both a textual plea for its future proximity to modernity. In so far, as Tradition makes a conscious bid for fighting the rebellion of the ‘authentic’ artist.
