Anamnesis means remembrance or reminiscence, the collection and recollection of what has been lost, forgotten, or effaced. It is, therefore, a matter of the very old, of what has made us who we are. But anamnesis is also a work that transforms its subject, always producing something new (Harman, G, 2011).

​

My fascination with the ephemeral and with decay arises from the tension between the familiar and the strange, between a fleeting present and deep time. Ruins expose, with clarity and severity, the temporary nature of human constructions—mere surface interventions destined to be reclaimed by the earth. Temporality, as revealed through ruin, allows us to observe human presence indirectly, much like archaeology examines life through its remnants. Both art and archaeology are physical acts, grounding us in our material engagement with the world. In this sense, anamnesis unfolds through painting, entropy, and archaeological processes.

The archaeological imaginary in my practice privileges haptic experience over purely visual perception. It urges a tactile engagement—scraping, uncovering, and negotiating surfaces—rather than passive observation. This approach foregrounds our bodily connection to a material world composed, like ourselves, of matter in constant transformation.

Within the installation, paintings and ceramic works are arranged on the floor, evoking an archaeological excavation. Layers of marks and gestures accumulate, moving from translucent washes to dense impasto surfaces. Found objects function as traces of exploration, reinforcing the parallel between artist and archaeologist. The installation also challenges the bidimensionality of painting, questioning where painting ends and objecthood begins. Ultimately, the project activates past ruins as a means to generate collective awareness within the present.

​

​