I place my works in between science, technology, and visual art based on a traditional sculpture background. My practice investigates traces of presence and a reference to memory and perception with a desire to preserve the moment. I examine the mutual dialogue: object – space – spectator. It refers to the experience in time, and to the movement of the body in the space, where I concentrate on the correlation of sculpture with its surroundings – negative and in-between space.
My practice strives to keep the trace of a human touch as well as display the inability to do so; instead the desire to maintain the trace and history of an object reveals the opposite. It evokes an absent human, and shows that we cannot keep anything. The more we try to hold onto one’s ‘trace’, the more we pinpoint the lack of one. Therefore my work is more about trying. It is an act of meditation of our fragile and temporal nature with the essential value being the permanent trace left by the human hand through the creative action. By creating installations composed of objects with handprints or chosen objects marked with history, I juxtapose the realm of memory and the realm of experience.
There is a repetitive aspect in my works and a meditative nature in the process, no matter if it’s about leaving a handprint on a surface of the sculptural work, making the same process again and again with different materials, or setting up the interactive part of a work and passing through the room, a few more times, in the same pattern. It’s the same action, the same desire, and the same concept spread over time. An attempt to remake something all over again, to leave traces and some path behind, no matter if it stays or if it diffuses quickly when one disappears.
Due to COVID-19 Ph.D. publication, exhibition and defense are postponed to 2021
Stay up-to-date and subscribe to newsletter
#Nodes [eng] #Nodos [esp] is a transdisciplinary meeting point where artists, scientists, writers and humanists share experiences and reflections about the relevance and possibilities of interaction between different disciplines.
#Nodes is not a book about science, nor about art, literature, or the humanities – or maybe it is about all of them at once. This collection investigates reality from these perspectives and others, demonstrating the possibility of intense interdisciplinary collaboration. It is a book that resists categorization because reality and thought do not exist in separate compartments. #Nodes proposes an intellectual adventure: an exploration of the boundaries between different fields of knowledge. The book explores topics ranging from elementary matter to consciousness to the complexity of living beings, asking questions along the way: How does life arise? What is consciousness? How can chaos elicit order? These questions require new approaches. To tackle this, #Nodes brings together the contributions of scientists, writers, artists, and humanists from various disciplines and countries with the purpose of stimulating new ideas.
Editors: Gustavo Ariel Schwartz – scientist at the Spanish National Research Council developing his research activity at the Material Physics Centre in San Sebastian. He is founder and director of the Mestizajes Programme at the Donostia International Physics Center, an alternative space to explore connections among art, science, literature, and humanities.
Víctor Bermúdez – does interdisciplinary research about literary imagination. He explores both the epistemological dimension of poetry and its cognitive value through literary research, teaching, translation, and creative writing. He teaches literature at the Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (Germany), where he develops a research line on cognitive literary studies.
Part One: #Complex Networks: Gustavo Ariel Schwartz, Josep Perelló, Marta Macho Stadler, Bernat Corominas-Murtra, Albert Flexas Oliver, Juan Luis Suárez, Kevin W. Boyack y Richard Klavans, Lisel Record y Katy Börner
Part Two: #Metaphor: Amelia Gamoneda, Iván Méndez González, Clara Martin, Agustín Fernández Mallo, Javier Moreno, Vicente Luis Mora, Dudley Herschbach, Melissa Pierce Murray
Part Three: #Cosmos: Alberto Güijosa, Basarab Nicolescu, Juan José Gómez Cadenas, Jaume Navarro, Catalina García García-Herreros, Jairo Rojas Rojas, Gilles Cyr, Luca Pozzi, Ariane Koek, Poe Johnson y Roger F. Malina
Part Four: #Chaos and Complexity: Diego A. Wisniacki, Jorge Wagensberg, Bruno Arpaia, Luis Felipe G. Lomelí, Belén Gache, Joanna Page, Amy Catanzano, Gustavo Ariel Schwartz
Part Five: #Emergence: Markus I. Eronen, Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo, Silvina Cerveny, Juan Ignacio Pérez Iglesias, Stuart Kauffman, Jordi Fortuny Andreu, Luisa Etxenike, Anna Dumitriu, Heather Barnett, Albert Barqué-Duran, Pier Luigi Luisi
Part Six: #Perception: Víctor E. Bermúdez, Alejandro Galvez-Pol, Débora Ochoa, Nicola Molinaro, Itziar Laka, James Wilkes, Anjan Chatterjee, Rafael-José Díaz
Part Seven: #Memory: Víctor E. Bermúdez, Roald Hoffmann, Helena Matute, Siri Hustvedt, Iván Méndez González, Eduardo Berti, Rodrigo Quian Quiroga, Eiling Yee y Gerry T. M. Altmann, Ewa Wesolowska
Part Eight: #Emotion: Víctor E. Bermúdez, Hugo Milhanas Machado, Jean-Simon DesRochers, Jose Valenzuela, Menchu Gutiérrez, Candela Salgado Ivanich, Chantal Maillard, María Sánchez, Manuel González de Ávila
Part Nine: #Consciousness: Miguel Amores Fúster, Xurxo Mariño, Germán Sierra, Carlos López de Silanes de Miguel, Marc-Williams Debono, Pierre-Louis Patoine, Isabel Jaén Portillo, Jorge Volpi, Clara Janés, Joséagustín Hayadelatorre, Julia Buntaine
Part Ten: #Big Data: Mark Daley, Mario Aquilina, Borja Navarro Colorado, Kriristin Veel, Javier Argüello, Andrew Blake, Julie Freeman, Juan Luis Suárez
ISBN-10 : 1789380731
ISBN-13 : 978-1789380736
Publisher : Intellect Ltd; 1st Edition (January 23, 2020)
Made in Mind Magazine Issue 12 | Spring Summer 2018
How did your cultural background and your studies at the Jan Matejko Academy of Fine Arts influence your artistic process?
My background and my studies gave me huge respect towards art, considered in a traditional way, and towards the craft, considered as a profession. This allowed me to be very conscious of what I do and how I do it. It also determined the concept of my entire research, as if some sort of humbleness towards the past was at the very heart of my practice. During the whole period of my studies, I worked with clay and the technique of modelling life-size figures. That experience gave me the tools and the language for my following works and it also gave me the comfort to visualize what is on my mind. It can be a challenge to get out of this comfort zone, in which the way of talking can become more important than telling something. Skills and background are important to build the vocabulary, in order to say things or ask questions; I think it’s crucial knowing how to choose or reject words from this vocabulary.
There was a moment, a few years after my graduation, I had to stop and rethink what I was doing and why I was doing this. I asked myself why I was so determined to leave the visible trace of my hand on the surface of my sculptures; I understood that this impression of a gesture was the willingness to leave a trace behind to be remembered. Like a mark or a signature, this artist’s gesture was the registration of the creative process, a record of presence. My background taught me one more important thing: I learned to think about art out of the commercial context. Our studios were focused on the creation and no one was having any training in developing any strategies for the future. It gives a lot of freedom, not an easy one but a valuable one.
What made you realize that you wanted to work with installation, instead of traditional sculpture?
I was always fascinated by minimal art and its calm impression of being into the art piece, where visitors were often faced with artworks that demanded a physical and visual response. I wanted to merge that calm feeling of being into the work, with the trace of gesture, intended as a repetitive sign of presence. It seems to be an attempt to merge the contradictions, but in my mind it all works together. Christian Boltanski, one of the artists I admire the most, calls himself a minimalist-expressionist. He often underlines that the minimalist vocabulary has the effect of tempering something that otherwise would be expressionist. I agree with that. I think installations can indicate the passage of time better than a single sculpture. They give the possibility to show the repetitious circle and the attempt to keep something, unveiling how illusory this attempt is. It also gives the spectators some sort of intimacy, as they walk into the work instead of walking around the sculpture. The interactivity works in a similar way, it makes you more conscious that what you see is only your point of view.
Could you describe your process, how it begins and how it evolves?
I don’t work on my projects separately, they all come from one another. Literally. There is a moment, while I’m working on a project, when I need to stop and make a decision to develop it and in this timeframe, there could be a new idea coming. New projects are always the continuation of old ones. Sculptures, installations with sculptured elements, light and interactivity; they are all different mediums, pointing out different time frames, but they all hide the same questions and desires behind them. There are some repetitive aspects in my works and a meditative nature in this process, no matter if it’s about leaving a handprint or a footprint on a surface of the sculptural work, or making the same process again and again with different materials and observing the results, or setting up the interactive part of a work and passing through the room, a few more times, in the same pattern. It’s the same action, the same desire and the same concept spread over time. There is an attempt to remake something all over again, to leave traces and some path behind us, no matter if it stays or it diffuses quickly when we disappear. I collect as much as I can about the processes of perception and memorising. I am fascinated by time, I try to visualise it, to make it perceptible in a material way. In all of this, I’ve discovered the huge importance of a coincidence that happens on the way. It took me some time, but I’ve learned to take advantages of failures, for example when something breaks, or cracks, or doesn’t work as it is supposed to. I always search for the value and I often find beauty in it.
Sculpture has been defined a “dead language”. Is the use f technology meant to give a second life to this medium?
What is the purpose of this interaction?
Yes and no. For me, the expression “dead language” doesn’t describe the sculpture itself, but rather the expectations we project onto it. I think it is more about the attitude towards the medium, rather than the medium itself. The art experience can be renewed each time we look at something, no matter if it’s about sculpture or any other medium. So, in this sense, my answer would be no. On the other hand, I think we often need stronger stimuli to experience the same amount of emotions than people did one hundred years ago. It’s like a language that changes over time: we domesticate strong words and, as time passes, we don’t find them strong anymore.
Art, especially sculpture, needs some time and reflection. These two things seem to be not only a challenge but also a great privilege nowadays. The experience of an art piece should last in time and, for me, it should be an individual experience. Technology, making an object change or last in time, forces us to contemplate it. Inside the installation, we have to move through the room to see it all, as we are not able to have a full vision of it from one place. Interactivity can pull the spectator inside.
I would say that technology, used in the artistic process, forces you to spend time with the piece. But I think art always refers to a few old familiar questions and even when the language changes, these questions remain the same, as well as in the fields of science and philosophy.
Memory and human consciousness are the main themes of your works. Have you asked yourself how technology might interfere with them? Do you believe that technology gives essential support, or is it rather a dangerous contestant?
I would not call technology a contestant. Well, not yet. I would consider it a tool that could be used in a dangerous way, for sure. In everyday life, I am optimistic about human nature. Unfortunately, I become more pessimistic when I think about it from a wider perspective; people have talent for using new discoveries in a bad way. Nowadays, it’s very important to ask ourselves how we use technology. Let us take the example of Artificial Intelligence or Big Data; I have a feeling it’s evolving so fast that we are a little late with the systematisation of it in an ontological sense.
[…] The huge amount of data we collect is never recalled in our memories, it’s just researched on our devices if needed and this habit influences us a lot. I am interested in analysing it, but more in an ontological, not axiological sense. I don’t know if it’s good or bad, as an artist, I prefer to ask questions about it rather than value it. There is always a human aspect in the use of technology. It is a great tool and it’s up to us how we use it.
Human beings are at the centre of your artistic research: is this the reason why the spectators have a primary role in your works?
One of my professors used to repeat that we wouldn’t know what the world looked like, if no one looked at it. I think these words had a big impact on my practice. The etymology of the word look is uncertain, but it probably comes from the old Breton word lagud, meaning “the eye”. The human eye. There is no experience of art without the spectator, even if the only spectator is the artist. My work is about the consciousness that we are not able to objectively see the world as it is, and that we only rely on the image of it that we already have in our minds. As Roman Opałka said, “If there is a sense in our existence, it is just an attempt to understand what our existence is”.
Could you explain in detail your installation It’s just a matter of time?
This show consisted of a few illuminated glass-cases with small-scale sculptures and an object in the middle of a room, with a cubic meter space, filled with fog and interactive video projections. The artwork was about juxtaposing different structures, referring to different temporal scales. On the one hand, there were ephemeral forms dynamically generated by the visitors’ movements and on the other hand, there were objects inspired by biological neuron-like structures and carved handprints. I wanted to display the objects in the way the artefacts and the ancient traces are presented at the archaeological museums. The interactive projection on the fog was inspired by the process of tracing particles. The visibility of the projections was different from different corners of the room and the traces themselves were changing while someone was moving around the box. Those were very delicate changes, not very obvious, so the visitors had to spend some time next to the work to figure it out. Even for me it wasn’t so evident sometimes, as there was no repetitive pattern in it. The projection was not only influenced by the spectators, but also by its own movement on the fog, an aspect I realised after setting up the show. Even when there was nobody in the room, it was somehow reacting to itself. It was a nice surprise for me, I saw a stronger message in it: it is not possible to keep anything, no matter how much we try.
Your use of technology reveals that it is still at the service of art. What is the role of the work of art in the digital age?
I think it hasn’t really changed. The definition of art is as difficult as it was. The human curiosity remains the same. The further we go, the more questions we have, but the fundamental questions stay the same. We now add those about the role of technology, Big Data and other things we have around us now, but the End, Beginning, and Vanitas are still there.
Ewa Wesolowska is a visual artist that works with sculpture and interactive installation. She received her Masters of Fine Art at the Department of Sculpture from Jan Matejko Academy of Fine Arts in Cracow, Poland, in 2007. In her artistic research, she manages to merge her traditional craft background with the use of technology, exploring different perceptions of time and memory. In her installations, the sculptured elements represent the human desire to leave a trace through history: this concept is enforced by the handprints or footprints that the artist leaves on the artworks, in order to testify her actual presence. The use of light and video projections is meant to create confusion, to generate contradiction, in order to raise awareness amongst the spectators: human existence, as well as memory, are dramatically ephemeral. Her work is an act of meditation on human fragility, but it is also an attempt to visualize immaterial concepts, making them truly perceptible. The “here and now” is evanescent and intangible for Ewa Wesolowska, that’s why she tries to materialize it in vivid forms, that assume the aspect of crystallised memories.
Open Your Eyes, I Can’t See You: On Ewa Wesołowska’s Exhibition ‘O=O’
by Anna Batko
Oronsko Magazine of Centre of Polish Sculpture, Issue 1-2/2015
O=O is a metalingual equation. Zero signifying itself. A symbol referring to another symbol. An autonomic language devoid of capacity for expression. An hourglass that never runs out. Of sand, of powder, of dust. Or perhaps above all of light?
Ewa Wesołowska’s exhibition, curated by Jarosław Pajek and presented at the Kaplica Gallery, is an interactive installation of quasi-sculptural provenance, comprised of: relaxing music exuding from a music box, and a series of hourglasses of varying size – some suspended above the ground, some set up on the floor and on pedestals, flickering, sparkling with light of varying intensity, illuminating but, at the same time, limiting and darkening the space. Rhythm, the place of its birth and fall. Visitors to the exhibition choose for themselves the path they will travel – by activating light objects, motion sensors set up in the space point out the path to the recipient, at the same time condemning him or her to randomness and repetitiveness. We have a choice, but we have to reckon with the fact that we are traveling in the previously-, though invisibly-trodden footsteps of other visitors. We repeat their mistakes, we travel in a circle like moths attracted to a light and, like them, blindly bumping off the surface, only to… right, perhaps to be burnt up in its brilliance? Or perhaps only to get scorched a bit?
In the curator’s text, we read that the exhibition deals with perception and memory. The space created in the Kaplica escapes any attempt to put it in a box, opening itself up to many different contexts and orders; it can be perceived as a place of both contact and splitting apart, of what both limits and defines the boundaries of our cognition, for though O=O is an equation, the equality is only superficial, and its actual result can only be that Derridian ‘neither one nor two’. The artist – in departing from classical sculpture, in abandoning such materials as plaster or clay, the possibility of modeling them in three dimensions, as well as the tangible marks of the human hand, of fingerprints, of manual work – simultaneously delves into the subject of the mark understood here as remnant and remainder, shadow and illumination. The installation tends towards Minimalism, or rather towards Postminimalism, and resembles works by such artists as Mirosław Bałka and Christian Boltański; but at the same time, it is different. Even if it deals with memory, intimacy, universality of experience in a similar manner, it is difficult to rid oneself of the impression that it is typically feminine – perhaps because of the flowing forms of the hourglasses, or the music exuding from the music box? Initially pleasant to the ear, nostalgic, it gradually grows more insistent, invading the circulation, almost unbearable. It puts recipients into a paralyzing trance.
What if the world exists only when I look at it? – this naïve thought strikes me while visiting the exhibition. The darkness at the moment of entry into the material of the sculptures is replaced by a musical score of light. The hourglasses appear to light up, only to immediately go out and, a moment later, again illuminate the space. They flicker. They sparkle. They shimmer. I blink my eyes. But from beneath my closed eyelids, despite everything, I see; I lose my sight, but not the capability itself of perception. I am caught by light reflections, gleams, glares. Sequences of changing forms and colors. After-images, that is, the famous internal images, images caught on the retina, subjective visual experiences. But an after-image is nothing more than sight in the absence of light, an extreme experience of darkness and the physiology of the eye inside itself.
Open your eyes, I can’t see you. The image looks. Sees. The light show directed by the artist is activated by motion, by someone’s presence, someone’s glance. And the installation returns that glance – the game seems to play out at the border between sight and feeling, knowledge without visibility and visibility without knowledge, as Didi Huberman wrote. To see or to know – this is more or less how the situation of the recipient harnessed into an eternal recurrence of light and darkness presents itself. From extreme to extreme: either we see, allowing ourselves to be torn apart – so, losing the unity of an enclosed world and entering into an open, mobile space giving rise to contradictory senses, to the universe; or we know – so, we abandon the ‘reality of the subject in the symbolic closure of the discourse’, at the same time aiming towards synthesis, rationality and unity of thought, thereby ourselves constituting the subject of knowledge. In both cases, we lose, but as Didi-Huberman concludes, the making of a choice is not only unnecessary, but indeed undesirable. This dichotomy gives rise to a need to remain inside this dialectic, to reckon with the paradox of ‘learned ignorance’, as well as to an attempt to open the eye to a dimension of looking, to the making of a double incision – creation of a breach between the simple concept of the image and the simple concept of logic – ‘In no case is this a matter of replacing the tyranny of the thesis with the tyranny of the antithesis. The point is only the dialectic: to think the thesis together with the antithesis, the architecture together with its deficiencies, the rule together with its transgression, the discourse with its slips of the tongue, the function with its dysfunction (going beyond Cassirer), and the fabric with its tearing…’. This kind of thinking about representation contains an entire array of contradictory possibilities; it is the breach into which O=O enters, and in which it functions.
English metaphysical poet Andrew Marvell, in speaking of his friend Milton, wrote that the latter, in losing his sight, did not lose his eyes – quite the contrary, he began to think with his eyes – like Tobit, who saw light while having physically blind eyes, or the clairvoyant Tiresias, for whom the loss of his eyes became as much a blessing as a curse. For Oedipus as well, blindness is both the consequence of knowing and the promise thereof, even though the oculis corpis do not refer us directly to the oculis mentalis. Blindness does not have to result in knowledge, because as Derrida indicates, revelation cannot be mastered by any conceptual framework; it is not given, but rather gives, thereby resulting only and exclusively in non-knowledge and non-enlightenment. He writes, ‘I don’t know, I must believe’; and in this sense, he goes out to encounter the impossible. This irresolvable conflict was captured by Georges Bataille as follows: ‘Ignorance lays bare. This thesis is a summit, but it must be understood as follows: it lays bare, so I see what knowledge has previously concealed; however, if I see, then I know. Indeed, I do know, but what I have discovered is again laid bare by ignorance.’
The matter is similar in the case of memory, which according to the dictionary definition is the mind’s ability to assimilate, store and recreate felt impressions, experiences and information. It is something that is fundamentally fragmentary, selective, full of gaps and concealments. Not only of illuminations – so, those quick flashes of light; not only of darkness – so, an absolute ignorance and impossibility of reaching beyond it; but above all, of what is between, what appears on the margins, what reveals the fluidity and intangibility of the two territories, their indefiniteness and ambiguity. For the paradox is that in order to remember, one must be able to imagine; one must close one’s eyes and allow what was not recorded by our consciousness to find expression. As Freud wrote, ‘It is not possible to for consciousness and memory traces to be experienced simultaneously”; they are mutually exclusive, and the most enduring memories concern events whose process never reached a conscious level, since consciousness can only arise where die Erinnerunsspur, the memory trace, previously existed.
The installation, perceived as an ephemeral image, escapes attempts to fit it into a framework established once for all; for though it assumes the existence of certain rules, it simultaneously admits internal contradictions, which means that every attempt to interpret it is condemned to changeability, vagueness and fogginess. It is not a narrative, but an illustration and an entrance into function, the Derridian chora – so, an area which cannot be reached, touched or infringed upon, much less exhausted. The word itself – borrowed from Plato’s Timaeus and the writings of Heidegger, reinterpreted as a place and, at the same time, a place-non-place, contrasted with the negative concept of the vacuum, understood here as nothingness – represents an essential reference point for the installation. The chora, as Derrida says, is neither divine nor human; it only enables that which cannot appear elsewhere to appear. It is a peculiar sort of container and, as such, ‘poses a challenge to every dialectic between what is and what is not, between what is sensual and what happens’. In the context of the installation, this translates into a certain area, a place which is neither subject nor object, since both the hourglasses and the viewer represent an integral part of it – into a break in the abyss, in the limitless chaos between the sensual and the intelligible, between that which is still imaginable, and that which is illustrated only by something lacking. Negative and positive. The artist, in treating the gallery as a sort of background for the installation and, at the same time, a phenomenologically open form in which what cannot appear in normal conditions appears, or rather reveals itself, then that which ‘is this and that’ and, at the same, ‘is not this or that’, leaves the recipient a choice – permits him or her to become immersed in the reality that he himself, she herself finds there, about which he or she finds out, which he or she will see, which he or she will imagine.
Entering the Kaplica, we are confronted with a split awareness, we embark on a pursuit of something that cannot be caught, of light – both the ‘visible’ one, and the one beneath the surface, inexpressible, metaphorical, which at the moment of our own enlightenment blinds us, escapes us all the while being so close at hand, and yet quite already far away. O=O speaks not only about memory, but also about history, time, that which will be, was and is now happening. The installation does not introduce classifications or divisions; it does not differentiate memory from history, or collective from individual memory, but focuses on doubt per se, on that almost imperceptible moment of hesitation lurking somewhere in the corner of one’s eye. It displays variability of perspectives – an eternal play of the visible and the invisible; it undermines certainties on purpose, recreating a situation of absolute insolvability, impossibility of making a decision, of making any kind of choice. The space of the Kaplica is only a possibility, a place marked by potential at the level of many different receptions, where the work of the memory is not given to us a priori, but is a process, something that comes into being via reminiscence launched by psychosomatic marks – the circulation of unclear and quivering images, devoid of any single representation, putting the recipient into a state of ambivalence and imposing upon him or her not so much a framework, as a structure. The structure of memory, of history, of an eye susceptible to all kinds of turbulence in both vision and non-vision. And that which is between them.
 http://www.rzezba-oronsko.pl/index.php?aktualnosci,790,o=o_ewa_wesolowska [accessed: 31 October 2015]
 L. Brogowski, Powidoki i po… Unizm i „Teoria widzenia” Władysława Strzemińskiego [After-images and After… Unism and Władysław Strzemiński’s ‘Theory of Vision’], Gdańsk 2001
 G. Didi-Huberman, Przed obrazem [Confronting Images], transl. B. Brzezicka, Gdańsk 2011
 G. Didi-Huberman, Przed… [Confronting…], p. 97.
 Ibid., p. 99
 J. Derrida, Memoires d’aveugle. L’autoportret et autres ruines, Paris, 1990, p. 128, quoted in: M. Poprzęcka, Inne obrazy [Other Images], Gdańsk 2008, p. 207.
 Ibid., p. 130
 G. Bataille, Doświadczenie wewnętrzne [Inner Experience], transl. O. Hedemann, Warsaw 1998, p. 61.
 Entry ‘pamięć’ [‘memory’], Encyklopedia PWN [Polish Academy of Sciences Encyclopedia], [at:] encyklopdia.pwn.pl – http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/haslo/3953681/pamiec.html [accessed: 31 October 2015]
 S. Freud, ‘Poza zasadą przyjemności’ [‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle’], [in:] Poza zasadą przyjemności [Beyond the Pleasure Principle], transl. J. Prokopiuk, Warsaw 2000, p. 24.
 J. Derrida, Chora, transl. M. Gołebiewska, Warsaw 1999, p. 69.
 J. Derrida, ‘Response to Daniel Libeskind’, [in:] D. Libeskind, Radix-Matrix, Munich-New York, 1997, p. 111, quoted in: J. Lubiak, ‘Architektura i różnica’ [‘Architecture and Difference’], [in:] Historia sztuki po Derridzie: materiały seminarium z zakresu teorii historii sztuki [Art History after Derrida: Seminar Materials in Art History Theory], Rogalin, April 2004,red. Ł. Kiepuszewski, Poznań 2006, p. 27.
 J. Derrida, Chora, op. cit., p. 40.
 Ibid. p. 10.
O=O Ewa Wesołowska – Solo exhibition
Chapel Gallery, Centre of Polish Sculpture in Oronsko, 14 February–3 April 2015
Curator: Jarosław Pajek
current – Phd candidate, Jan Matejko Academy of Fine Arts, Cracow, Poland
2020-2021 Of Public interest, Post Master, Royal Academy of Fine Arts, Stockholm, Sweden
2007 MFA, Faculty of Sculpture, Jan Matejko Academy of Fine Arts, Cracow, Poland
2018 AIAV Akiyoshidai International Art Village, Yamaguchi, Japan
2017 The Wapping Project, Berlin, Germany
2017 Trelex Artist residency, Trelex, Switzerland
2016 Headlands Center for the Arts, Sausalito, CA, USA
2016 ARE Holland, Enschede, Netherlands
2016 Stiftung Künstlerdorf Schöppingen fellowship, Schöppingen, Germany
2015 Künstlerhaus Stadttöpferei Neumünster, Neumünster, Germany
2015 Forecast Forum, HKW Haus der Kulturen der Welt, Berlin, Germany
2015 Art laboratory ROJAL, Roja, Latvia
2015 Atelier Austmarka, Austmarka – Hedmark, Norway
2013 CAMAC Centre d’art Marnay Art Centre, Marnay-sur-Seine, France
2013 DordtYart, Dordrecht, Netherlands
2012 Foundation La Rectoria, Sant Pere de Villamajor, Spain
2011 Clews Center for the Arts, Chateau de la Napoule, France
2017 It’s just a Matter of Time, Espace Kugler, Geneva, Switzerland
2016 ~, Concordia Gallery, Enschede, Netherlands
2015 O=O, Center of Polish Sculpture, Oronsko, Poland
2012 Safesurround, Schody Gallery, Warsaw, Poland
2012 Open Sculpture, Artemis Gallery, Cracow, Poland
2010 In a crowd, Contemporary Art Center Solvay, Cracow, Poland
2007 EH, St. Catherines Church, Cracow, Poland
WORKS IN PUBLIC SPACES
2015 Suspension, permanent installation in a public space, Roja, Latvia
2011 Follow the Yellow Brick Road, permanent installation in a public space, Cracow, Poland
2010 Notes on the Water, temporal Installation in a public Space Adam Mickiewicz Park, Gdansk, Poland
2020 New Members of ZPAP – The Association of Polish Artists and Designers, Pryzmat Gallery, Cracow, Poland
2019 Feu Sacré – 5th Biennial of Kugler artists, Usine Kugler, Geneva, Switzerland
2018 The Future of This Land, Akiyoshidai International Art Village, Yamaguchi, Japan
2017 Made in Neumünster – 30 Jahre Künstlerhaus, Papierfabrik Neumünster, Neumünster, Germany
2016 Lights Out!, Headlands Center for the Arts, Sausalito, USA
2015 Lena Buhrmann and Ewa Wesołowska, Künstlerhaus Stadttöpferei Neumünster, Neumünster, Germany
2015 Cinema Art Culture ROJAL Roja, Latvia
2014 Rock Paper Scissors, Route du Nord Light Festival, Roodkapje Gallery, Rotterdam, Netherlands
2013 Ephemeros, Cellar Gallery, Cracow, Poland
2013 DordtYart 2013, DordtYart Center, Dordrecht, Netherlands
2012 Transart 12, La Rectoria Centre d’Art, Sant Pere de Villamajor, Spain
2012 . . . . . , La Rectoria Centre d’Art, Sant Pere de Vilamajor, Spain
2012 Illusions, Two artists show, Bielec Gallery, Cracow, Poland
2012 Observations, Museum of Czestochowa, Czestochowa, Poland
2011 ArtSesja Festival, Cracow, Poland
2009 Warsaw39, This is important for what you can die, Historical Museum of Warsaw, Poland
2009 Nude, Gallery of the Association of Polish Artists and Designers, (ZPAP Łódź) Lodz, Poland
2008 Sport and Olympism, The John Paul II Olympic Centre, Art Gallery – 1, Warsaw, Poland
2007 Best of Cracow Academy of Fine Art, Palace of Art, Cracow, Poland
2004 Road to Freedom, European Solidarity Centre, Gdansk, Poland
2004 Exhibitions within the presentation of the collection of Space Gallery – Cracow:
International Art Fair in Frankfurt, Germany ’04
Warsaw Art Fair, Poland ’04
International Art Fair, Geneva, Switzerland ’03
SELECTION OF SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
2018 Yamaguchi College of Art, Japan
2016 Desire trails, Headlands Center for the Arts, USA
2016 ARE Holland, Enschede, Netherlands
2016 Concordia Gallery, Enschede, Netherlands
2015 Forecast Forum, HKW Haus der Kulturen der Welt, Berlin, Germany
2015 Künstlerhaus Stadttöpferei Neumünster, Germany
2014 CAMAC Art Center, Marnay-sur-Seine, France
2013 DordtYart Foundation, Dordrecht, Netherlands
PRIZES AND GRANTS
2015 Polish Culture Around the World Grant, Adam Mickiewicz Institute, Warsaw, Poland
2013 Foundation Tenot Grant, Marnay-sur-Seine, France
2011 City of Cracow Prize for the Young Artists, President of Cracow, Poland
2010 Award of Gdansk Community Foundation for the Notes on Water installation , Chopin on the Water Competition (Chopin Year celebrations in Poland) Gdańsk, Poland
2009 II prize in the Warsaw’39 Art Competition of the Historical Museum of Warsaw (Project accompanied the official Polish commemoration of the World War II commencement)
2008 Distinction for the sculpture Discobolus, Polish Olympic Committee Art Contest
2008 Diploma from the Cracow Society of Fine Arts Friends (TPSP Krakow) Palace of Art, Cracow, Poland
2006 Scholarship of Polish Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, Warsaw, Poland
2004 Grand prize in the competition It started with foamed polystyrene, Polish celebrations of the Solidarity Year’04, European Solidarity Centre, Gdansk, Poland