The
medallion is commonly understood as a piece of jewelry set in a round
or oval shape, as a talisman and amulet. It carries emblems,
inscriptions, initials and coats of arms as well as images of beloved
persons and mythical representations. Hung around the neck or pinned
to clothing, its owner wears it on and with him/her/them.

As
a stylistic element, the medallion also appears in architecture,
interior design and decorative arts. As a decorative field or
applique on facades, the medallion has a representative function. It
functions as a mediator and communicator between the inside and the
outside and allows an attribution emancipated from the flatness of
the facade, which refers to the content, the use or the ownership of
the building as well as the status of its inhabitants. The medal,
belonging to numismatics, is inscribed with its representative
meaning. The metal piece with the character of a coin, freed from its
function as a means of payment, is generally awarded as a distinction
of honor and merit to the respective dignitaries. Medal and medallion
are connected by a close etymological and morphological relationship
as well as similarity in dimension and materiality, and yet the
relationship between the public and the private, the representative
and the personal can be determined on the basis of their distinction.

Martin
Chramosta’s groups of works provide an occasion to take a new look at
this very proportionality. The motifs of a large number of small
sculptures, which are either mounted directly on the wall or set in
superstructures with suggestive modularity, refer, for example, to
visual impulses of ancient monumental buildings and mythological
settings, but also to found objects of everyday life and remnants of
artistic practice. These impulses come together in the supposed
triviality of their representation, becoming compositions that in
their directness sometimes recall the decorative flamboyance of the
1950s. In Chramosta’s form of representation lies a leverage that
raises the question of the mutual interaction between abstraction as
a (stylistic) phenomenon and aesthetics of decorative arts and
crafts. The resulting undogmatic immediacy of the works enables
viewers to approach the narrative strands and personal references
inherent in them. Thus, the works gathered in this exhibition can
also be read in their interplay as a diary or personal travelogue of
a stay in Rome. The synergy of the “public” and the
“private” is also inherent in the artistic work itself and
the position of artists in society.

The
materials, mostly left raw, such as clay and steel, are processed in
production methods that are in part reminiscent of the techniques
used to make jewelry, such as setting precious stones in gold or
silver. Fabrication is also used to negotiate the status of the works
in the exhibition space and their environment. Thus, many of
Chramosta’s works bear equal parts the attributes of set pieces of
everyday life and urban space (e.g. fences and gates) as well as
traits of decidedly classical art forms. It seems as if the mostly
artisanal production methods balance the poles between item and
object, turning quotations into imitations and, conversely,
imitations into quotations. Decor as a design element also takes on a
mediating role here.

In
the case of the cylindrical test holes that spread out on the floors
of the two mirrored rooms on the upper floor, fabrication has been
outsourced and is, as it were, preceded. As found objects of public
space, they link in a way to the title of the exhibition. “Miraggio”
in Italian denotes a mirage. The artist thus refers to illusory
landscapes and architectures, such as those created in pleasure
gardens of the 18th century, but also found in the abandoned parts of
the zoo of Rome, as shown in the titular video “Miraggio.”
In this context, then, the test drillings can be understood as an
interrogation of the materialities of public space, but even more as
an interrogation of realities. 

Lukas Maria Kaufmann