Elements of these works evoke different meanings. A déjà vu; a reference to an ancient human heritage; or the primary emergence of the subtle concept of color (darkness/ light, black/white), where either one might be reminiscent of a ritualistic meaning or used as specimen, to include symbolic significance of the metallic colors.

From another point of view, possibly not only the color but the Gestalt could be recognized by the signs. And even the repetition of the images could be a reminiscent of some neo-traditionalism.

These discourses defining the works are a consequence of the new age, which by disintegrating and distancing itself, searches for the effects of, and belonging to, something of a different domain.

But let us not forget that awareness and science of the new age negate association, and furthermore, warn that signs imply nothing but themselves. Here, the paintings cannot be classified under a “specimen”, a “comparative” or a “descriptive” term.

These judgments and choices are no open passage to awareness. The nature of artistic creation is alien to that of decision-making. Works are created in a world that exists in between experience, reason, intellect and feeling. That is why they are splendid while claiming no revelation.

Aryasb Dadbeh - April 2016