In the interview with Sergiu Ujvarosi, the curator Roxana Morar investigates his artistic approach starting from the exhibition “Out of Sight, But Still Trembling”, the artist’s latest solo show presented by Calciu Space.
Sergiu Ujvarosi’s works are based on the use of found materials, objects, prints and fragments, often combining various elements to explore the connections between the environment and the material. He analyzes them similar to archaeological practice, looking for various clues such as taking prints, molds or casts. This practice involves “following objects” and is different from the scientific research of an archaeologist. The artist’s “excavations” do not necessarily reveal a history contained in the found fragment but rather create a narrative, leaning toward fantasy, weaving a story that seeks to explore the object’s place in time and space.
Roxana Morar: Could you describe your artistic practice and how your interest in found objects and materials has evolved over time? How do you define the relationship between past and present in your practice regarding the exhibition “Out of Sight, But Still Trembling”?
Sergiu Ujvarosi: My works revolve around the idea of a fragment. I repeatedly use techniques such as molding and imprinting to take, on the one hand, elements from the environment and, on the other, to reveal them more and more, questioning their place in the environment and in history.
I would liken my artistic practice to a tracking activity, where I start from a zero point and start a search starting from the clues discovered during the process of imprinting, transferring and molding bodies, developing them, and opening new leads. The original body of the imprinted object is lost along the way, becoming part of a larger landscape.
I have been interested in the object, or rather the body – initially as an anatomical object – since the early stages of my artistic practice. I had, and still have, a fascination with morphology and the way the body is adapted to the environment. Besides, I worked for a long time with fragments of skeletons and animal bones.
What fascinates me is the fact that inscribed in the morphology of the body resides all the adaptations it has had throughout evolution. So, if we could “read” it, we would arrive at a source of its provenance; we could trace it by following the clues of its form, origin, and the original form from which it derives. The same fascination transfers to the object, in general, to architectural structures and to the elements of support and resistance that constitute a body in space. All these elements relate to the environment, are part of it and are products derived from it.
My practice is not aimed at finding a scientific answer, like an archaeological search (firstly, because I wouldn’t have the necessary skills, and secondly, I’m not interested in a concrete answer). However, I take methods and codes from these forms of search to evoke more of a fantasy, a history that the body has to say and that I am only trying to discover, to “unearth” through archaeological “digs” and by following “footprints”, being on the trail of a source and looking for something that is at the origin of this fragment.
The subjects addressed in this practice are rather of a poetic, existential order, relating to the relationship of the individual with a whole, to the condition of being a body, and to the idea of disappearance. During the exhibition, I thought I was in a very short passage between two eras, especially since the central space explored was to be renovated shortly. I have the impression that as the work developed, I was moving further into the unknown, which resonates with the feeling I had in the vast labyrinthine building.
R.M.: What role does the idea of working in a space you were not familiar with, such as the House of the Free Press in Bucharest, play in shaping the narrative of your installation?
S.U.: The general way I “choose” workspaces when we’re talking about fieldwork outside the workshop is by chance and encounter.
Of significant importance to me is exploration, which involves encountering places and bodies. It is somewhat recurrent that I am not familiar with the places explored when it comes to on-site work like this. This dislocation helps to a certain extent; the fact of being in a new, unfamiliar space intensifies the fascination we might have, in an everyday way, towards things and places. Everything becomes somewhat foreign and alienated, and questions related to their origin, their place and meaning in the world arise by themselves.
R.M.: How did the space influence the direction of research and the artistic process? The project being an in situ one, how do you think the meaning of your pieces would change if they were exhibited in a different context or location?
S.U.: It is precisely this aspect that raises a number of questions for us with the approach of the end of this stage of the project. At your suggestion, we would like to move the exhibition to another location. To do this, a way of presentation must be thought of that can be adapted to a project that belongs to the practice of a specific place and that makes sense in the context of origin. I think it will be an interesting experience that will raise new issues. I usually have difficulty presenting works out of context.
The space of the Free Press House was decisive for this project; practically, the whole search started and continued around it, around its plasticity and history. It was, moreover, for the first time that I worked in situ with an architectural structure; the other residences or projects were related to the natural environment, with which I had affinities before, through my interest in life forms, morphology, and landscape. This was an experience that helped me see architectural spaces differently.
R.M.: The central elements of the process described in the “Out of Sight, But Still Trembling” exhibition are the casts and traces of the place. Could you describe the techniques used in making the works in the exhibition and how they contribute to the overall narrative
S.U.: The techniques used here are recurrent in my practice, or, at least, the materials that I work with in the field – for taking impressions, such as soil, plaster and so on – I use them because of their versatility.
Techniques, on the contrary, are always hijacked precisely to obtain new results, continuing a stage or restarting from the same form often. I work a lot with molding techniques, which I see as an extension of engraving in terms of the information transfer we can achieve through printing techniques.
The prints taken from the space of the House of the Free Press were cast in this way, then remolded through plaster casts; these, later, were enclosed in clay moulds. Finally, into the still soft and pliable matter of the clay, I poured aluminum, letting the matter create its forms, entering through all the cracks opened by the heat generated by the metal. This process generated accidents, forms experiencing, somewhat, their nature of being.
A digging process follows to open the molds, carefully so as not to damage any detail from the entire casting process. I have been using the land recurrently for some years; I see it as a universal mould, as it were, which embraces all the matter on the surface of the globe and returns to a primary stage, after which the same matter regenerates the new forms. It is something of the order of infinity, of the loss of a temporal and spatial landmark, a relationship between form and substance that fascinates me.
R.M.: You liken the process chosen in the project to an archaeological research. Can you elaborate on this process and explain how the objects are selected and how they add up to an overall picture?
S.U.: I make the analogy with archaeological research in the sense that I associate the process of developing the works with the act of digging but in a somewhat opposite sense. On the one hand, it is about moving forward following the clues, the present forms, progressing through “layers” of reading, like the layers of the soil, to “decipher” them. However, contrary to an archaeological practice, I do not try to go to the past of the fragment but go to a forward development, which may possibly reach a final maximum point but which, in essence, may be infinite.
On the other hand, there is also the physical aspect of demolishing the works, which involves actually digging them up in a delicate and careful manner reminiscent of an archaeological practice.
As for the way of selecting the objects, it involves the matter of chance, of spontaneous and unforeseen encounter with them. Selection is made as I progress in fieldwork and exploration. I think a common point in the selection criteria is that the objects in my work context have some improbable association with the place where they are, an inherent alienation, which arouses the curiosity that I try to highlight and intensify.
It remains, however, very much related to the time spent in a particular place and the associations found during exploration. That is why it is an “ongoing” process; this could continue, but the time limit allotted to me in a particular place intervenes.
R.M.: The exhibition “Out of Sight, But Still Trembling” includes objects inspired by the context of machines and the organic environment. What does this relationship mean to you?
U.S.: Machinery, buildings, supporting structures, skeletons, circulation systems, breathing systems, and connecting wires present forms that arose from a need to adapt to the environment in which they exist. These forms are necessary for the object or body to exist; they are closely related to the environment in question, being a result of it, reflecting it like a mirror.
I see organic and inorganic forms as bodies adapted to their environment, which I can treat in the same way I would treat a bone, looking in their forms for clues about their relationship to the environment they come from.
In metal casting, a proper casting system is necessary for the mold to come out “healthy”. I associate this a lot with the circulatory system and see it as a direct extension of the basic element from which it started.
R.M.: What topics or themes do you want to explore in future projects? What are your plans for this year and what projects are you involved in now?
S.U.: I am currently in the process of setting up the studio, where I want to resume the engraving practice I developed during my studies, adapting it to my new interests and techniques used. Also now, I am preparing works for a collective exhibition in Paris and another in London, to which I was recently invited. It is always interesting to try the integration of my works in a “white cube”, especially considering that I tend to work rather in specific contexts, and the pieces are usually closely related to them.
I intend to start other projects in situ related to certain interesting areas previously discovered. These are probably the projects I am most passionate about. I also want to initiate associative projects, which I am currently discussing, related to clothing, together with people active in the field of show, film and fashion. It’s an interesting aspect of the body, protection, and rejection that I’d like to explore in more detail soon.
