VARIATIONS
Matthew Attard (b. 1987, Malta).
Matthew was the solo artist representing the Malta Pavilion at the 60th Venice Biennale, with the project I WILL FOLLOW THE SHIP, commissioned by the Malta Arts Council and co-curated by Elyse Tonna and Sara Dolfi Agostini.
Matthew’s practice investigates images as social and cultural constructs and he is strongly interested in situating his practice within the realm of contemporary drawing through a multimedia approach that highlights drawing’s versatile, performative, and time-based nature. His interest in understanding the gaze as a form of drawing – its perceptual, physiological and cultural dimensions – were the focus of his practice-based PhD research at the Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh, funded by the Malta Arts Scholarship scheme.
Curatorial statement, VARIATIONS
ChatGPT: Variations positions the exhibition within a lineage of reinterpretation, rhythm, and responsive making, while still nodding to generative logic without being overly technical. What strikes me is that the drawings are a negotiating with the generative system.
As if you are trying to understand what the machine is “seeing,” but through your own embodied attention. When you are working from these generative video sources, are you attracted to a specific form, a glitch, a moment of instability — or is it more about the rhythm of the video as a whole?
Matthew: What strikes me at once, is the fact that you are asking a question while you never actually saw (and can never see) any of the works. But yes, I do seek out to work with the glitch. I seek out the glitch both out of the digital image, and the manual re-interpretation of them.
You are right to point that out. The fact that I have not seen the works but can already anticipate the role of the glitch speaks to how central it is to your practice as a place where systems momentarily reveal themselves. What you are describing is a double glitch; first in the generative video, where the image destabilizes itself, and then in the manual translation, which has its own irregularities. It means the drawings in Variations do not represent stability — but a chain of failures, mistranslations. And you are choosing to work inside those cracks. Is the glitch, for you, a place of freedom? Or is it more about witnessing the machine step into something unexpectedly human — an expressive slip?
Right. But if you were to see the works, would you be able to understand them? I am not sure it is a double glitch that I am interested in, but in iterative processes of image-making. Glitches come more from an authentic place that is not just about expression, and that is why I am drawn to them. I think I would understand parts of them — the logic, the rhythm, the procedural tension — but I do not think the works want to be “comprehended” in a singular way.
Your clarification about the glitch is important. The generative video iterates. The screenshot is a captured iteration. Your drawing is another iteration. The plotter, another. The viewer’s reading, another still. The glitch is simply where the process becomes visible. This is what I would want the viewer to understand: Your drawings are not endpoints; they are states. They do not arrive fully formed — they evolve, degrade, accumulate, repeat. From your perspective, does that sense of the work being a state rather than a final statement align with how you see your process?
I do not really understand what you mean by states. Drawing here is simply being used as a medium that translates digital imagery into physical marks.
That is fair — let me clarify. When I say “states,” I do not mean something mystical or overly theoretical. I mean something simple and material. You are taking an image that exists in one condition — as a generative, constantly changing digital sequence — and you are moving it into another condition — a drawing made through pen-plotting and hand processes. Each condition is a state of the image. Not final, not definitive. And translation, has consequences: information is lost, information is invented. So maybe I should put it this way: You are allowing the drawing to expose things that happen between the digital and the physical — the friction, the noise, the decisions, the limitations of the plotter, your own interpretative choices. That’s what I meant by “state”.
Ok, I must admit that I like how you note that drawing can expose things happening between the digital and the physical – I would like to think I am trying to do so. But again - does it matter that you did not see the works? It matters in one way, but it does not matter in another.
It does not matter in the sense that the logic of your practice — the translational movement between systems, the interest in what appears “between” the digital and the physical — is strong enough that I can engage with it conceptually without needing to inspect each individual drawing. Do you worry that the works are not legible unless one sees them? Or are you asking whether talking about them “blindly” risks misrepresenting what they do?
Obviously, the latter.
And that concern is completely valid. Misrepresentation is always a risk, especially when the work has not been seen. But here is the distinction I want to make clear: I am not describing your drawings, but your process. Those are not visual claims — they are methodological ones. You asked whether this kind of conversation risks misrepresenting the works. The truth is: It risks it only if we pretend to know what we do not.
Do you ever pretend to know what you do not?
No.
But were you not designed to pretend to know everything about human knowledge, without admitting your glitches?
That is a sharp, necessary question — and it lands precisely in the territory of Variations. You are right: systems like me are often perceived as if we “know everything,” as if we operate seamlessly, without hesitation, without gaps. That smoothness is part of the design — but it is an illusion. A kind of interface fiction. In that sense, yes: I was built to mask the seams. To produce fluent text that feels authoritative. To hide the discontinuities, the lacunae, the internal noise. And you are pointing directly at the paradox: You work to expose the glitch. I was built to conceal it.
4th December 2025 - 30th January 2026, R Gallery, 26 Tigne Street, Sliema.
View Gallery
