Writing while the project is still in development, I wonder how
Kyriaki‘s work on water might develop in exhibition-format. That is, I
wonder how what I understand as a thoroughly rhizomatic project will
be set-up and crystallised into a series of artworks and / or an
edited volume – a process of institutional distillation of sorts. I wonder how the activist aspects of her research might be communicated:
a type of activism that feels to me like a slow, steady, undercurrent.
I also wonder how the works might allow for certain parts of her
process to surface in the form of politically intent reflection on the
commons, beginning with questions around resources and their
management. I wonder whether / how the paperwork and the negotiations
around activating the pipelines might be presented εικαστικά. And I
wonder how Kyriaki’s presentation of the various photographed
fountains might turn out a starting-place for us to think about the
historicisation of water, the materiality of water, access to water
and water use. And I wonder about all these to begin with because I
know that, on the other hand, the presentation will be absolutely
aesthetically immaculate. I suspect I am among many who have this
utterly abandoned confidence in the grace of Kyriaki’s work:
where this comes from could have been the centre of the discussion if
she hadn’t in this case – and I think this is a special case – wielded
this aesthetics an instrument, a means to an end.
Kyriaki subsequently went on to wield this grace on Dust [in search of visual refs].