If the initiation of research obligates its author to take a direction for which he does not really know the outcome, a starting position when faced with unknowns and possibilities, one must evidently face reality: the end of the work – announcing perhaps the beginning of another – necessitates a return to the thought that took place within a temporality which therefore eludes us. The duration of such an enterprise doesn’t manage to solidify at one point in time; therefore we could go back around. The development of the thought, which therefore unfolds according to the imparted special and temporal reality, and according to the distribution of pages and the structure of the work, which could easily appear to be like another type of notebook, must be taken and looked at again using alternative stratagem. To conclude would, in fact, return to the idea of extracting from a given material – in this case, a text – the key points of condensed thought. This is a work that is close to the energy that is released from a block whilst being sculpted, a work that is still being discovered but also, and above all, a work of synthesis and openness. Precipitation of a train of thought which defines limits, the traces of its journey, its delimitations, its benchmarks, much like its passage. This development in the direction of writing therefore takes its origins from a situation involving the practice of art, as defined by two ways of perceiving what is real, two modes of existence of the work, the drawing, on the one hand, and the sculpture on the other. Such was the position attributed to the terms of this challenge right from the start of this research project about sculpture and drawing. But, at this conclusive point in the work, why not reverse the order of the terms by which this thesis was first introduced? We could put forward a very different position: the sculpture followed by the drawing. In fact, it appears somewhat artificial to desire to give primary position to one of these two mediums when they both work together. This is an order which therefore differs to that emphasised in this work, as the reflection on the articulation of these two “objects of thought” could make us formulate an initial commentary: the two mediums are not to be considered in terms of their successivity but rather in terms of their interlaced reciprocity. This doesn’t mean that the drawing is confused with the sculpture. The opposite is no less true. It is at their conjunction and their crossing-point where the heart of this research is found, and it is there, without doubt, that this balancing point allows us restart the poïetic experiment of one toward the other. Here is found the heart of the problem, its position. The circularity, and therefore the perpetual restoration of the drawing in the sculpture and the sculpture through the drawing, profoundly structures our artwork, being its fundamental substructure. The sculpture recreates the drawing and, in its turn, the drawing recreates the sculpture.
