Worf Vs Monster

                     Worf Vs Monster [Version 1]

                       Painted by Zasulich, on trellium-board, 2020, Cluj

The concept of this picture is easy enough to grasp, if you’re led by the hand and told exactly what everything means. First, look at the lack of legs on both Worf and the monster. In representational terms, no legs means no mobility, yet the stance of both is one of aggression, of combat, which, of course, traps them within their own irony. What’s more, the blank, white background indicates empty space, a lack of ideological brickwork for the two subjects to lay their impossible battle on. In all possible respects, they are in a vacuum, with only the monster, by facing the observer, seemingly willing to consider both the physical and intellectual terror of its predicament. As with all great works of the Science Fiction Fiction movement, the piece is unfinished on its own, and can only be seen in completion alongside its other versions [of which there are typically between 4 and 8].

              Worf Vs Monster [Version 2]

The second version fills in a little more of the picture and enhances our understanding of the piece so far. [Within the Science Fiction Fiction movement, it is always talked about as the piece ‘so far…’ The idea of discussing all four versions at once is considered to be ‘self-defeating defeat’.]

So, there are legs, and the suggestion of movement. Yet the vacuum remains, rendering both subjects firmly de-territorialised in this frightening, alien environment. What is their future? What was their past? It is both unknowable and irrelevant. The only thing they have is what they were when they were frozen. From this perspective, which is obviously the only perspective, the monster is and always will be framed like a puppet, while Worf has and always will have his hand down his pants. Also notable is the lack of colour. This matches the lack of background, as colour would represent life, beliefs, doubt, happiness, fear, was and will be etc. The implication of the artist is clear: In a vacuum, you lose everything [except your rage].

           Worf Vs Monster [Version 3]

As predicted in Version 2, the introduction of background brings with it the addition of colour. Finally, Worf and the monster are given place and feeling, in which they can both learn their respective functions.

As observers, we are drawn towards the background as the introduction of colour has not changed or unchanged the situation of the subjects. We, as strangers, want to know where this is taking place. We want to know what the transition from ‘vacuum’ to ‘room with what could be a window’ means physically, symbolically and crypto-thematically.

Inevitably, the answer is simple. The window is not merely a window, but a device with which the observer is given the concept of looking at the work from ‘the other side’. It also gives the impression of a cell, which in turn signifies the struggle between the two subjects as a spectacle, something neither can deny nor escape, and something which can function inside and outside of time and space and crypto-time.

              Worf Vs Monster [Version 4]

This piece, the last version of the Worf Vs Monster series, seems to offer the observer a sense of completion. Yet this would be a false state as one of the tenets of Science Fiction Fiction is the acceptance of unstable memory blocks. To clarify, it is impossible to consider all versions at once, as a whole, because the observer’s memory of versions 1, 2 and 3 is unreliable and, worse, in a constant state of flux. And on the flip side, you cannot view all four versions at once as the human eyes are not able to fit all four versions into one frame of sight [The artist purposefully places each version on a different wall, sometimes even in a different building].

What does this mean for us, the observer? Simply, that there is nothing more and nothing less than the truth of each single version.

Does this mean we should not reference the other versions when talking about another? Of course not, that’s [fucking] ludicrous.

Also, this version has a doorway, which obviously represents the concept of either escape or interference. It is up to the observer to decide a] if there is a future for the subjects, b] whether or not they’ll use that door, and c] if the door will remain a door or turn into some kind of void to suck them into nothingness, which, of course, would be represented by the colour white, not black.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s