We are very pleased to present the exhibition Tactility with new works by Markus Amm, Michael Dean, Adam McEwen, Gabriel de la Mora, Sam Moyer and Tove Storch.
The word tactility is used to describe an object’s tangible/textural quality, and is perceptible by touch. All of the contributing artists work with an individual idiom and each of them emphasises texture over concept.
Different materials create different surfaces, textures and tactile sensations. Of course different materials also establish different meanings. This is the theme and point of departure for this exhibition. Understandably these meanings are difficult to communicate through texts: because how do you describe an artwork without conceptualizing it? If the meaning of the artwork lies not in the idea but in its physical presence? If the experience of the actual material is more significant?
Stretched coloured silk pieces and a surface of ash grey folded fabric – this is an approximate description of both Storch and Moyer’s works. It describes something of the works appearance and the artistic methods applied. However that in-itself cannot be an adequate account. We cannot touch the art and therefore cannot sense its tactile quality in a normal fashion. In this case we experience the artworks physical presence, we sense something that is not easily articulated. The associations are of another kind than the ones you find equivalent in language. We must feel with our eyes and our movements in the room so as to experience the presence of the works in another manner.
When the image becomes a presentation rather than a representation we may allow language to surrender. The image becomes a phenomenon, an appearance in itself.
Our everyday language falls short in communicating these works in a satisfactory manner. Even an academic language cannot grasp it. The works pique our curiosity, and their ineffability can be a catalyst for a dynamic long-term relationship. Because of this interactivity the experience of the works can never be maintained in a static description and their desirability will remain.
Perhaps the problem revolves more around the general inadequacy of language in relation to the work than the incomprehensibility of a particular art-language.
Rather than attempting to comprehend and grasp the work one should perhaps let themself be encapsulated by it. Be moved by the imagery more than simplify it into a conventional language where the word tactility is only a poor substitute for the experience itself.