Place plays an important role by designing and formulating the individual and his understanding and perception of things around him/her. I was especially interested in the connection of place, as a spatial geographical unit with its own coordinates and the image we create about the place, thus announcing it as “our place”.

  But a place cannot be depicted as simple as it is. We can only show the image of it. This problematic was a leading theme in my bachelor thesis “Decomposition of image”.

  Motives were images from photographs made in different time intervals (they were from old family albums and some taken by me in recent past), all taken in the same place. They were transferred to the pictorial space and combined through the principle of montage. They formed a palimpsest structure, which decomposed primary images into a pattern, which reminds us of “all-over” paintings. But unlike “all-over” painting there were some differences between parts of pictorial space left and so a new image started to appear. But that doesn’t happen “behind” the picture (as it happens in the traditional illusionistic perspective painting), neither does it alongside the pictorial surface (as it should approach according to the concept of modernistic “all-over”). It happens in-between, in space called “intermediate space”. Like the structure of the picture, the intermediate space has its palimpsest structure. It doesn’t consist just of the visual level of arranged colour surfaces, but it also contains levels of viewer’s imagination, memory, experiences, associations and so on. 

  Naming the pictures by the coordinates of a place they represent is closely related to the modernistic expression “untitled”, which draws attention to the picture as an independent aesthetic object. On the other hand, it also lets the viewer have a free way of associations. It resembles my thoughts about the connection of coordinates and the image of place, which converts the picture into a name of a place as a subscript to the coordinates.