For as long as we have been aware of Donald Judd’s concept of specific objects we have appreciated it. The fertile middle ground it implies resonates with our interpretation of most things — art or otherwise. That is, everything in this world, in a very serious way, simultaneously “is” and “isn’t” — and since all this coinciding variance is rarely equal in measure, all is… specific.
Judd’s notion has strong reinvigoration and continuance with the work of Henri Frachon; his output epitomizes these intermediary tensions. To be clear, Frachon’s pieces are not an ambiguity between painting and sculpture; they are clearly more towards sculpture. His version of this specificity proposition seems to focus on an instability between objectivity and subjectivity — are these found objects or synthesized, centripetal obsessions? Whatever the case, Frachon’s subtle and humble touch makes his dimensional proposals radiate a quiet fire of baseline philosophical inquiry.
Judd’s notion has strong reinvigoration and continuance with the work of Henri Frachon; his output epitomizes these intermediary tensions. To be clear, Frachon’s pieces are not an ambiguity between painting and sculpture; they are clearly more towards sculpture. His version of this specificity proposition seems to focus on an instability between objectivity and subjectivity — are these found objects or synthesized, centripetal obsessions? Whatever the case, Frachon’s subtle and humble touch makes his dimensional proposals radiate a quiet fire of baseline philosophical inquiry.