“The gaze is by nature directional. Choosing gaze’s direction involves losing, leaving aside, other directions and other points of view. In a way, the gaze proceeds from the fragment. What could have been seen gives way to what is seen. And what is seen is only a tiny part of the perceptible whole. A gaze, even a circular one or trying an increased perception, can only be an attempt to edit still images. (cf. Marey’s chronophotography or Muybridge’s zoopraxiscope). This montage includes the notion of cut and lack. Multitudes of alternatives can take place in the interstices between the perceived images or the objects looked at, hence the interest of focusing on the movement of images or objects rather than on the images or objects themselves. By considering abstraction as a way of escaping from the figure, it is perhaps easier to open up the fields of possibilities and to evoke multitudes of interpretations. At the least, assimilation to recognizable figures is limited. How can one choose one of these points of view (in the ocular sense of the term) and eliminate the other possibilities? How can these other possibilities, once eliminated, become the norm? How does this norm create the notion of monstrosity (in the sense that the majority interpretation makes the others all the more monstrous because it is outside the norm)? How can all of this have anything to do with authority? How can we show multitudes in an only one form: drawing, object, sculpture or image? ”
Benjamin Hochart.