Some critics to Pegah Rajamand’s artworks in “Badgovari” or "Indigestive" exhibition

  • Some critics to Pegah Rajamand’s artworks in “Badgovari” or


The “Indigestive ” exhibition, the collection of Pegah Rajamand’s artworks were holding in the third floor of “O” gallery. One of the three exhibitions entitled “Three in Three” that had been held in “O” gallery in July. But this is not the whole story. In fact, these are the last exhibits in the current place of “O” gallery. After this, “O” will say goodbye to the current place and continues its successful three-year activity elsewhere. From this perspective, not only Pegah Rajamand’s artworks, but also the other two; “The great plains” by Maryam Razavi in the first floor and “Untitled” by Azarakhsh Asgari in the second floor, will all be the end of a work of activity in “O”. Probably “Badgovari” could describe the sensation of this unwanted change in “O” gallery.

            After all these, two artists of this three-party exhibition presented their artworks as the “sketch” to show their technical expertise rather than on describing the nature of their artworks or the quality of them. Therefore, the work of both artists with pen and brick were referring to an old technique in designing, where the design is identified and introduced on the basis of the used material and the executional technique.

            However, in the artworks of both artists, their technique also demonstrated one situation. A description of inner feeling which is more personal in one of them and more metaphorical in another one. In fact, both artists had used their work material as well as their graphite darkness on a white cardboard to display an inner position. However, the result of the work in each one of them is unique and different in its own way. Ultimately, the type of the approach, the way that the tool used in each, and the things as like would make many similarities between the artists.

            Pegah Rajamand in her writing for her exhibition, the only exhibition that has a piece of writing, sought to express some points that seemed to be the source of inspiration, the origin of these artworks, and is also intended to guide us. Particularly, the artist emphasis on the word “digestive” that seems to be a fake root of digest or digestible and the notion of goodness and evil recorded in Avesta as “Esha” and “Darooj” which according to the artists are equivalent to two concepts of “Truth” and “Darkness”. At the end of the writing, these concepts and contradictions were defined with the condition of the man and the world surrounded him.

            In most of the artworks, the overall space of the cardboard is filled with metal structures that the artist described at the beginning of her essay with the terms “technological, scientific, capitalist monsters.”. These structures represented themselves in the forms of various technical and industrial handcrafts that had focused on the artists’ major work and had little or no opportunity to display other objects. Therefore, in the first step, it seems that all these artworks were representing one thing that in an independent way had been designed on the cardboard surface and gave no opportunity to other visual elements. Therefore, it just seemed here that one of the presupposition of Rajamand which is the contradiction between Esha and Darooj did not play a role in the visual forms of these structures and the creation of these works. So if we were supposed to seek for something, we had to search it in the design of these structures and not their relationship with the space or the environment.

            Similarly, the artist’s term “digestive” seemed less or more inefficient. What we could see, except in one of the artworks, had no sign of digesting.  Thus, if digestion is to be combined, melded, absorbed, or something like that, in these artworks the structures have not had much of a chance of mixing them. However, their process of their completion over the visual environment and space was what attracting the spectators’ attention. Thus, the artist’s type of composition, an attempt to find conflicts or contrasts, seemed to be ruled out.

       On the opposite side, the artists’ conflict with her own structures are more apparent. Thus, although Rajamnd did not emphasize on the details in execution of these structures, there were some contrasts between the marginal spaces around them and their implementation, focusing more on the structures. In other words, the designer seemed to be inspired by the implementation of these structures as monotony teachings, and each work alone seemed to be the one dimension of these structures depicted on obscure backgrounds. Accordingly, each structure would have separated itself from the background by establishing a precise, and distinct description of the background and the marginal space of the works and established an independent identity. But is it a personal engagement with structures? Is the designer's pointing to the drafts in the article of the exhibition referring to the same structures? Therefore, contrary to her statement in her writings, the visual dominance of the works  was absolutely clear and the space was very limited.

                 Therefore, it seemed that if we ignore the artist’s description of "digestive" about these structures, put the goodness and evil aside, and consider the artworks themselves as the basis, then probably we would have understood the total art better. Therefore, by comparing the works of Maryam Razavi and Pegah Rajamand, we would see that the artworks of Maryam Razavi had more personal status by creating a character. However, Rajamand had a more pessimistic point of view but metaphoric.

Leave a comment
Comments (2)