When observing the work of Petr Dub I am often curious about what is inside, what it is made of, how it holds together, what will happen to it when the exhibition is over, how it belongs, whether it is always the same, etc. That means I am interested (as probably other viewers are) in the specific materiality of the given piece of work, which often has the character of a process. It is about certain matter, which, however, represents a special case of artistic matter – leftovers from the studio and various relics or new fabrics that primarily serve the purpose of origin of a new piece of art work (canvases, frames, colours and painting tools, although not only artistic, but also craft – paint rollers, etc.) It is not material designated for other purposes like for construction or to produce a car. Therefore it is material somehow functional, predestined, not indifferent matter designated for forming and making it specific. The initial material, is already specified in some way, even before organizing it, even before the compositional act. It is rather about the forming of a function, while there is no principal difference between the primary function and the final form, but there is sequence. In the beginning there can be, for example, a canvas and colours – i.e. materials that are functionally defined as artistic matter and in this sense they are worked with in an almost sculpting sense of the word, they are rather plastically formed, moulded with touch and not illusionistically treated inside an area in the direction of being virtual. Canvas is painted, coloured, a coloured layer is applied to it, a picture is not painted on it, a picture is not inside the canvas, but the entire canvas is just becoming a part of the painting. What used to be traditionally a whole, is becoming a part, the initial functionally identical matter is not always used in a traditional way. The canvas and frame do not define the painting, although they identify it, nevertheless the painting is something broader. It is not even about these traditional materials being only a part of an installation – in that case they would be removable; an installation is a sort of correlation of sense, configuration of a signal in its identity interchangeable for another fully testifying element, they are allegories. That is not the case of Petr Duba’s configurations. Of course, even here the elements are movable, nevertheless the goal is not an allegoric message, but a visual impression, visible, possibly tangible, surface and relief. The fundamental element here is the sensual quality of materials, pleasure in viewing, possible touching. With his look the viewer caresses the surface and corrugation of materials formed into shapes. The proportions of the shapes and logics of arrangement are also important, however. Therefore pleasure (conceptual) is also present. Mostly, however, we do not need to necessarily know the literary point; the overall perception of the logical order (Gestalt) is enough. That gets us to the psychology of the view. An enclosed Gestalt is a model of itself, a model of living world. The traditional notion of the form roughly amounts to this meaning. Form is here, however, as I have already mentioned, by forming functional matter, by forming an expectation. This expectation has spatial character since its horizon is a thing. An idol serves for caressing, it’s not substitutional, it does not update the present. An idol is present, it is here. It takes place in time, it is occurring. I understand the work of Petr Dub as occurring shapes.
Vybrané postkonceptuální přístupy v současné české malbě (Petr Dub, Edice Ph.D. FaVU, 2013)
(text komentované prohlídky výstavy Ohlasy entropie, Vlasta Čiháková Noshiro, 24. 7. 2011)
Unframed & Reframed (Tomáš Pospiszyl, 2010)
Reframed (Časopis Ateliér, č. 3, Jiří Valoch, 2009)
Reframed – House OF Dublon (TZ, Jan Zálešák, 2008)
Zlínský salón mladých (Václav Mílek, 2006)