Alejandro Almanza Pereda
proposed by Thomas Jeppe
Inversion is a process of transition between incompatibilities; conditions which cannot exist alongside one another. The overcoming of their counterpart state is a necessary step to be and to flourish.
Inversion implies a structural reconfiguration, for the object cannot change while continuing to obey the dictates of the thing which it was ceased to be.
The thing inverted has an ambivalent relationship to the idea of negotiation.When the thing is mercurial, floating and un-fixed, it knows diplomacy. At the point of inversion, it becomes unequivocal. This is the crossing of the threshold. For reasons peculiar to the case, the former state can no longer be tolerated and must be surpassed.
What appeals to the imagination is not the moment of inversion, but its vocabulary, both in the midst – and the aftermath – of transition.
And this transition, its incremental stages floating between the concrete ends of a spectrum, appears so uncanny because its working materials are 'the familiar'. The thing that is 'known' in one state only; a process at the knowledge of which the conservative feather cannot help but be ruffled.
But the thing does not change entirely. To be 'one thing' – then to undergo a shift – is not to obliterate an objective history but to embellish it.
To even be capable of such transformation – an initial malleability giving way to so emphatic a transition – inversion is an expression of 'stamina'.
In this stamina, the momentum of 'new order' meets with the thrill of variation; the thing's inverted aspects, aligned with perennial qualities of the former state, a certain sign of a dynamism entrenched.
The 'flip' is a ponderous concept, lavished in the sentiment of reflection.
Inversion does not simply mirror a situation; it produces it. In a decimating account of the thing's facets, it describes them and makes them concrete in the singular fell swoop of an opposite proffered.
The apparent opposite, trusted as definition, serves only to outline the complexity of endless oppositeness embodied. Rather than to each object its own certain inverse, there exist multiple possible inversions, any number of semantic realignments that serve to sever a moored being thought stable.
In the face of this inverted multiplicity, a binary conception dissolves in the realm of hyperbolic alternative. The 'mirror stage' of the knowing self becomes thus evanescent: no certain other emerges from the mottled view of crude reflections dormant at the glass.
To embody a difference anew is to crystallize a latency. This latency is a testament to an in-built fragmentation, one of myriad exclusivities; the inverted thing did always have a fractured unity.
The thing shifts in obedience to an obscure but irresistible impulse – the desire to know an altered state. But the certainty of the shift – the process a categorical re-inscription – 'bathes' the thing in a new lucidity.
As lucidity is next to luminosity, obscurity is next to the shadow; cast by the clarity of the thing inverted.
The true form of inversion presents a paradox of untold reach: to grasp inversion is to know perpetual shadows, ladies-in-waiting with each that fragrance no artifice can impart.
Burning in this diaphanous field, the original is reduced to ashes, but these ashes are not cast from memory.
Neutrality is a vacuum, an abyss; inversion is its definitive refute.
The analysis of inversion requires venturing towards contradiction to obtain the confirmation of a fact, the thought of which enchants me.
Inversion is, at its political peaks, testament to a coexistence. These ruminations on the topic, the 'barren' frivolity of which we forget for the windfall of a single revelation, are devised to elaborate on some lingering uncertainties around the mechanics of inversion.
They are shared in the hope that there will soon be no illusion left to shatter.