In the case of organic abstraction we should note that the character proper has little chance to survive, and, generally, we can distinguish several variants of its presence. Inherently the substance of painting determines potential plasticity of certain objects and essences in itssphere. It is a continuing process where the development of the character may be described as certain “consolidation” with never-ending melting and a tendency for the redundancy ofform. Later such a character, having specific features facilitating the evolution of a certain myth associated with it, is capable of further morphological changes. This brings about the next, reverse version, the “dissolution” of the character which could also be ritually interpreted.
If we understand painting as a primary substance, as a certain substrate, the character is given a chance to break through and evolve into spatial outlines. This could be described assculptures that “leap out”. With its seeming biomorphousness each of them balances between the perceived characteristics of a natural object and those of a certain totem, or quite anthropomorphic helmet-head or mask.
The character is developing obvious ties withits mythology. Yet, tangibility and excessive fragility of plasticine sculptures make one contemplate the same morphing and erasure of meanings by the melting form.