A dadasoph speaks.

Recently, someone, having not seen my work, asked me what it was about. I found myself at a loss to describe it on the spot. I think I came up with a somewhat lame response, something about commenting on our culture, which is certainly true though so general as to be vague. As I think of what my stumbling block in this situation was, I realize now that before I can get to topical things about which my work is about , I must first sketch out the framework that manages to reflect and contain these topics.
The Berlin artists that helped develop dada as a strategy of social commentary (often infused with humor) and in the process invented photo collage, have in part inspired me to adopt their approach to art. That is, to use pieces of culture in order to comment on the culture as a whole. Dadaist,  Raoul Hausmann (the original dadasoph) more or less described this procedure in 1920 and  later Walter Benjamin sought out a philosophical approach with a similar basis. I've always found these methods or strategies  more apropos to our times than the “traditional” arts. As a visual art this strategy is perhaps more akin to poetry when poets push language and in the process comment on the language's history, usage, etc.  So, I'm commenting on culture... now I guess the question is: “well, what is the nature of these comments?”.
            This is where I break company with most of the dadaists who would find the culture meaningless and absurd and not worthy of comment or comment only in the form of  disassembly. The dadaist  usually sees the dominant culture as bourgeois, tradition ridden and  oppressive to the point of stultifying contrary thought.  This oppressive tradition is seen as arbitrary in it’s adoption of a particular set of meanings,  hence, absurd and ultimately meaningless. While this point of view has certain merits as a strategy, the act of producing new commentary on the oppressions of the past is itself rendered pointless. So, here I take my cues from Hans-Georg Gadamer. Hermeneutics teaches us that there has to be a spark buried somewhere in the past of a culture gone awry otherwise how could we even come up with the thoughts to form any questions about it? So, with the strategy of selecting  these “meaningless” images, I try to distill the abundance of meanings held within, in and through their consequent rearranging. Thus the ultimate commentary on a culture that attempts to steer us down a narrow path is to not only uproot its perceived singular meaning (the dada strategy) but also to make light of the wide open fields on all sides  and the fact that the “path” is indeed  a part of its surroundings (hermeneutics).  So, is my work “about” this “ultimate commentary” or is there not something more specific going on here?
             I've made attempts in the past to summarize the nature of my topics but such attempts, on my part,  pale by comparison to the work itself. The actual art piece is, after all , how I've managed to best express a particular issue. If you are seeking an accompaniment to my visual work I would recommend reading Gadamer’s Reason in the Age of Science or Mumford’s Pentagon or Power for the topic of living in a technopoly; or on the subject of soul/beauty and its mystical grounding listen to the works of Messiaen, Scriabin and Sun Ra, the films of the Brothers Quay and the writings of Tarkovsky; and the notion of play/humor as a serious pursuit there is Ernst’s collages, Jarry’s books and John Cage’s work.
This list of work parallels what my work is most “about” in that these are example of a kinship of thought and hence give better description to my work than I can give through a verbal account.

F Turek. - Nov. 2000

Statement from the exhibit "Recombined Parts" at Local 188 art gallery in Portland Maine in November of 2000.