Dome Exhibition, Skopje, 1999

Koncha Pirkoska

Syrian hymn from the 6th century dedicated to the temple in Edessa

The roots of the authenticity of any contemporary cultural entity are most often looked for in the tradition. Generated from some historically inherited, previously verified, mutually different, but during the time assimilated cultural horizons-particularities, today it (the authenticity) emanates the continuity of the global image of the tradition.

Zarko Basheski is one of the few authors who seeks to obtain his own creative legitimacy through the reaffirmation of the inherited cultural stratigraphy of Macedonia, more precisely through the historical diachronic connection of the present with the global medieval references.

The process of the articulation and the cultivation of his sculptural discourse begins with the attempt et paralyzing the deconstructive model. Through the rememorizing , re-actualization and the multiplication of one architectonic element which , in this case is taken over , I, e, quoted from the Byzantine constructive heredity, Basheski tries to treat the sculpture as a representation of that deconstruction while he treats use of materials as a representation of somebody else’s/or his own abstract idea.

According a the terminology of Plato’s successor Theodore Studit, the theory of the representation of the external areh from that is of the archetype of the construction, rests on the bases of the internal eidos. Of the ideal visual archetype, he wrote that it was possible to be animate a in various materials, but ”if the stones of the external image of the construction are thrown away that emptiness, actually represents its internal eidos.”

Extending the idea of the Platonians, one can say that the representations itself of this project of Basheski seeks to become spiritual omage of the poetics Christian-Byzantine internal eidos, but at the same time, an apology of the antinomian principle. At the expense of the transparency, or rather the porosity of the sculptural concept, Basheski sacrifices, relaxes the concept of the higher inspiration, eliminating the internal very sensitive ontological phone and nominal concept, which are supposed to assume the basic axis of the general concept. However according to the “canons” of inconsistency and antinomianism, the author enabled subtle pervading of the idea of the heresy around the spaces of his domes writing it with the existing idea of the heresy around the spaces of his domes writing it with the existing idea of the Eros which is built in both in the bases, and also as in the exterior image of the Amam. This component can also be seen in the contradicting between the dynamism of the view and the thoughts for the recipient. The economy, minimal, i.e. ascetic line of the installations, the author articulates by way the tautological principle. The interpolation of the domes under domes, their adaptation and interference with the existing space, (or with spaces similar of this one), activates itself in an active dynamic process. The controlled dynamic power in the installations of Basheski actually represents a result of the respect of the architectonic laws of the Islamic profane object. By internalizing the external fragmented image of the domes constructed with curved lines and gaps, Basheski does not create only rhythm in the entire internal structure of the ambient, but seeks perhaps unconsciously a priori to establish, to affirm and to harmonize a relation with and other, the somebody else’s and the different architecture, idea, culture, tradition.

Basheski aim in this project is not to reconstruct the inherited Byzantine architectonic idea, is pragments nor to go back in to the past, but in the concrete topological context, through the artifacts from various cultures, to reduce the mutual radical distance and go, as Heidegger would say, in the future.