Granica i horizont predstavljaju topološke odrednice kojima su naša polja vida, kretanja i saznanja definisana i svako delovanje i iskustvo je direktno ili indirektno, u njihovim okvirima. Iako ih savremeno iskustvo daleko nadilazi, “granice” prečesto odjekuju u današnjici, i uprkos tome što su politički konstruisane barijere, definišu slobodu, kretanja i koegzistenciju, postajući najdirektniji odraz društvenog raspoloženja, dok se “horizont” javlja kao kontrateža, a oba termina se, budući prezasićena simbolikom, u savremenom svetu neretko svakojako i eksploatišu. Kao “dve strane istog novčića” ovi pojmovi funkcionišu po principu suprotnosti- razgraničitelj i ujedinitelj. Granica prodire, seče, i odeljuje, dok horizont poravnjava, izjednačava, otvara mogućnosti i daje nadu. Međutim, značajnije od te međusobne dinamike, bazirane na suprotnostima, je to da ove “linije” zapravo imaju identičnu prirodu. Obe su izvrsni primeri topoloških fantazija, jednako mitologizovani “prostori” koji u fizičkom smislu i nisu zaista prisutni i nemaju opipljivo uporište u stvarnom svetu, dok su istovremeno toliko jake imaginarne konstrukcije, duboko povezane sa doživljavanjem poznatog i nepoznatog, da su neizostavne čak i u svakodnevnom govoru. “Iza granice” i “na horizontu” su tačke rezervisane samo za onestvari i događaje koje zapravo nemamo i još uvek ne poznajemo, i koje nas drže u titravom obećanju svog postojanja ne nudeći nikakvu sigurnost i potvrdu istog.

Kao takav topos, horizont predstavlja vrhunac između dva stanja, sigurnosti i neizvesnosti, gde se ono što poznajemo konstatno sudara sa onim što ne, preliva, obuhvata ga, i već u trenutku susreta sa nepoznatim ono to prestaje da bude budući da ga prisvajamo kao novostečeno iskustvo. Ukoliko jedna od dve neprekidne funkcije koje slikaju jedan topološki prostor, može neprekidno biti transformisana u drugu, one se nazivaju homotopnim što je identičan princip po kom se nepoznato pretvara u poznato. Horizont je otvoren i menja se, mi “ulazimo” u njega a za uzvrat, on se pomera sa nama, kao i samo iskustvo. Takva, homotopična priroda horizonta, kao pojma koji se, pored toga što jezauvek smešten ispred nas, i tantalovski nedostižan, kao perpetum mobile i konstantno menja kako mu prilazimo, ga i uspostavlja kao bihejvioralni model savremenosti. Živeti u savremenom svetu znači biti svestan i baviti se pitanjima koja su jednako globalna koliko i lokalna, i kretati se u okviru konstelacija tema i problema fluidne prirode, čije su granice u konstantnom pokretu i na tom talasu ugibanja i pokretljivosti, nemoguće je ostati statičan. Moderna “disciplinarna društva” o kojima Fuko govori [1] , u kojima pojedinac nikada ne prestaje da prelazi iz jednog zatvorenog sistema u drugi, i u svakom dobija novi set pravila koja mora da poštuje (u okviru kojih pronalazi predestinirane ciljeve i zadovoljstvo u ostvarivanju istih), su krajem XX i finalno u XXI veku zamenjena Baumanovim liquid society, “tečnim društvima”. XXI vek je uveo novog čoveka, kome je gotovo nezamisliva identifikacija sa samo jednim i to unapred određenim ciljem već se traga za ispunjenjem i teži zadovoljstvu koje jedino donosi perpetualna evolucija, stalna naklonost promeni. [2] Konstantno pravljenje izbora, biranje pogodnih i fleksibilnih ad hoc identiteta, kroz koje pojedinac navigira umesto karakteristično jednodimenzionalnih, konstruisanih identiteta.

Budući neuhvatljiv, i de facto nepostojeći, horizont tako postaje ključan fenomen, koji ostaje sinonim za cilj, samo što je taj cilj u mnogome izmenjen. To više nije sama destinacija, nego navigacija- traganje, pomeranje. Navigacija počinje tamo gde mape postaju nevidljive ili nedovoljno razumljive, i umesto uokviravanja, i reprezentacije unapred definisanog sveta, navigirati znači konstantno “apdejtovati” i prilagođavati, multiplicirati svoje poglede na svet. Biti u konstantnom pokretu, ali ne stići nigde finalno jer se dosežući konstrukt fantazije, naše projekcije raspršavaju i ispostavlja se da “čak ni čovek ne želi zaista da stigne u zemlju na horizontima kojoj se nada.” [3] Na tom putu, bez fiksne destinacije i u konstantnom traganju otvara se dijalog između Nikolića i Octaviana. Drugačijih generacija, pozadina, iskustava, geografskih uporišta, kreću se, sakupljaju, modifikuju, beleže, istražuju i predlažu oblike postojanja u savremenosti.

Obojica su okrenuti traganju, za materijalima, idejom, u neprestanom su pokretu, prikupljanju, konstruisanju i rekonstruisanju. U njihovoj umetničkoj praksi, stari materijal neretko biva aktiviran u novo postojanje, već samom činjenicom njihovog izbora i sakupljanja. Domingos i Branislav pronalaze presek svojih vidika i način da navigiraju do te tačke, predstavljajući pokretljivost kao suštinu individualnog delovanja, ali i koegzistiranja, i to kroz potpunu negaciju fiksnih, stabilnih struktura. Svakako, u pitanju su drugačije vrste pokretljivosti. Nikolić funkcioniše po Uelbekovoj ideji (Elementarne čestice) da je da bi se transformacija desila neophodno da nešto posluži kao zamena, i deluje iz pozicije sadašnjosti, istražujući na koje je sve načine moguće modifikovati ono trenutno, i raditi sa postojećim zadatim strukturama. Kako razumeti njihovu prirodu i rastegnuti je do maksimalnih kapaciteta njihovih varijabilnosti, u kojima sve može da bude ono što nije, ili zapravo u svojoj suštini jeste? S druge strane, Octaviano svojim radom “Vista” koji funkcionište na relaciji prošlost-budućnost, prepliće te dve niti. Poziva na totalni pokret i nove početke ali “napreduje sa glavom okrenutom unazad” [4] sve vreme oslanjajući se na brazilsku tradiciju (jangada brod), i nasleđe, samo sa novom vizijom, koja je donekle poznata i prepoznatljiva, ali ipak drugačija. 10 U sveopštoj i večitoj potrazi za smislom i tačnim odgovorima, opremljen novim konstrukcijama za Novog čoveka, “You’ll make sense when you find a horizon” pomalo ironično nagoveštava nemogućnost dosezanja unifikovane predstave istine, i pronalaženje smisla kao vrhunac samospoznaje, ali i apsolutnu neophodnost postojanja ideje o njima i
važnost potrage.

^[1]Michel Foucault, Body/Power, “Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972-
1977”, New York, Pantheon Books, str. 55-62.

^[2]Bauman Zygmunt, “Arte, muerte y postmodernidad” u Arte liquido, Ediciones Sequitur, Madrid,
2007, str. 198 Italo Kalvino, Nevidljivi gradovi, Feministička 94, 1995, str 34.

^[3]Italo Kalvino, Nevidljivi gradovi, Feministička 94, 1995, str.8

^[3]Italo Kalvino, Nevidljivi gradovi, Feministička 94, 1995, str.34

^[4]Gemma Argüello Manresa, “Bauman vc. Bauman-Liquid art. A Cartography”,
Cartografías Líquidas, Museo de Arte Carillo Gil, Ciudad de Mexico, 2017, str.36

You’ll make sense when you find a horizon The horizon and the frontier represent two topological determinants which demarcate our fields of vision, actions and knowledge, and every operation and experience is, directly or indirectly, within their reach. Although contemporary experience goes way beyond them, frontiers are often echoing in nowadays, and despite being nothing more than politically constructed barriers they are heavily defining freedom, movement and coexistence, and become the most direct reflection of social atmosphere, to which horizon comes as a counter-argue, while both terms, due to their symbolical plethora, are often differently exploited and misused. As “two sides of the same coin”, these notions function as oppositions- one being “divider” and other “unifier”. Frontier penetrates, cuts, and divides, whilst the horizon equalizes, assimilates, leaves hope and possibilities wide open. However, more important than inter-dynamic based on differences, is that those “lines” actually have identical nature. Both are exquisite topological fantasies, equally mythologized “places” which are not really physically present and do not have tangiblebase in corporeality, while simultaneously being so deeply rooted in experience of familiar and unfamiliar, that they are inseparable even from colloquial language. “Behind the frontier” and “on the horizon” are spots mainly reserved for those things and events that we are still not aware of, and which keep us in vibrating promise of theirs existence but not offering any assurance and confirmation of it.

As such topos, horizon represents a culmination, a peak between two conditions, certainty and incertitude, where everything we know as such is in a constant clash, overflows one into another and in the moment of encounter with new, unfamiliar, it already stops being unknown as we embrace it as a newly acquired experience. If two continuous functions that make one topological space are continuously being transformed one into another, they are called homotopic, which is almost identical to the principle how unfamiliar is converted to familiar. Horizons are open, and they shift, we enter into them and they in turn move with us, just as experience itself. Such homotopic nature of the horizon, as a term which, apart from being forever placed in front of us, tantalizingly unreachable, is also a "perpetuum mobile" constantly changing as we approach it, is established as a behavioral model of contemporaneity. Living in the contemporary world, means being aware of and dealing with global and local topics and questions equally, and move about constellation of problems with fluid nature, and in such atmosphere of movement and elasticity it is impossible to remain static. Modern [1] , where an individual is always passing from one closed system to another, and where in each case a new set of rules that must be respected is applied (within which he finds goals and satisfaction upon realization), at the end of the 20th and finally in the 21st century were replaced by Bauman's "liquid societies”. The new type of man cannot identify himself with one predetermined goal, but is in a never-ending pursuit to fulfill the quest and seeks a fulfillment that is only brought by perpetual evolution, and permanent disposition to change. [2]Instead of one dimensional, meticulously constructed identity an individual is in constant selection of flexible and agreeable ad hoc identities.

Because it’s elusive, and in fact non-existent, the horizon becomes a crucial phenomenon, which remains synonymous with the goal, but this goal is largely altered. It is no longer the destination itself, but navigation – searching, moving. Navigation begins where map becomes invisible and incomprehensible and instead of framing or representing the world, navigation means continuously updating viewpoints within the world. Being in a constant movement, but not reaching anywhere in the end, because as we reach the fantasy construct, our projections are sprayed and it turns out that "a man does not really want to get to the country within the horizons he hopes for[3] On this path, without a fixed destination and within constant pursuit, a dialogue opens between Nikolić and Octaviano. Different generations, backgrounds, experiences, geographical backgrounds, they move, collect, modify, record, explore and suggest forms of existence in contemporaneity.

Prone to search for materials and ideas, they are perpetually on the move, collecting, constructing, deconstructing. In their art practice used materials are often activated by being found and then reinterpreted in new work and new existence. Domingos and Branislav are finding an intersection of their viewpoints and a way how to navigate to that spot, by using versatility as the essence of their individual but also mutual acts. Certainly, those versatilities are different types. Nikolić operates very close to Houellebecq’s idea (“The Elementary Particles”) that in order for transformation to happen, it is necessary to have something as a replacement. He is working from position of the present, and trying to find an answer how to modify present structures, the ones we already have. How tounderstand their true nature, and stretch it to maximum capacities where everything could be what it is not, or to prove what essentially is. On the other hand, by making “Vista”, Octaviano is telling us a story about the relationship between the past and the future, by intertwining those two threads. He is luring us into total move, whole new beginnings, but he is “progressing with the head turned backwards” [4] referring to his Brazilian tradition(jangada boat) and heritage. A new, different vision, but somehow already familiar and comfortable. [5] In the  general and everlasting search for meaning and accurate answers make sense when you find a horizon", a bit ironically suggests the lack of superior truth, and the inability to find sense in self-knowledge, but also the necessity of having an idea about them as well as overall importance of pursuit.

^[1]1 Michel Foucault, Body/Power, “Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972-
1977”, New York, Pantheon Books, 55-62.

^[2].Bauman Zygmunt, “Arte, muerte y postmodernidad” u Arte liquido, Ediciones Sequitur, Madrid,
2007,193 Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities, Feministička 94, 1995, pg 34

^[3]Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities, Feministička 94, 1995, pg 34

^[4]Italo Calvino, Invisible Cities, Feministička 94, 1995, pg 8

^[4]Gemma Argüello Manresa, “Bauman vc. Bauman-Liquid art. A Cartography”,
Cartografías Líquidas, Museo de Arte Carillo Gil, Ciudad de Mexico, 2017, str.36