It's obvious that the name of the exhibition itself («What's the Address?») raises the same question, whether address exists as a fixed discrete point, stop, sedentity or the goal of art is to neglect the fixation on that discreteness, questioning and removing it. But even such pose of a question concerning cruciality/essentiality of address (sedentity, place e.t.c.) by that allows this place to exist. Probably, the question posed by Alisa Yoffe is the question about artist's status. An artist is an Odyssey whose fee-loving temper, special worldview and tendency to challenge gods make him alienated from native Ithaca, who wants to come back  (D. Fowles in «Mantis» probably hints that answer) or an Orpheus willingly, by chance or deliberately neglecting the Eurydice (i.e. any possible sedentity).
It's worth to disclose the two forementioned images and combine them with the history of aesthetics. It's known from antique history of aesthetics that the poet always played a dual role (and it's discovered, the most obviously, in a series of Platoon's dialogues). From the one hand, a poet (in this particular case we will consider an artist under this term as well) broadcasts the will of gods in insinuating and dark manner. In his works, first and foremost, he seeks to find and catch something unspeakable, the true entity of god's creation (i.e. to find the origin, the arche and try to signify it), of sacred matter, and then express it with a help of means available to a human being (i.e. produce, collect and vocalize something that Aristotle describes as techne). At first sight, both tasks seem quite opposed to each other. Platoon notes this in «Fedrah» telling a story about the god Thoth who offered king Tamus to teach Egyptians alphabet. The reaction of the king is remarkable, he calls Thoth's gift a pharmacon (meaning that in small quantities it's a cure and in large it's a poison. Pharmacon is a name of contents in the serpent-entwined cup on the statue of Aesculapius, half-god of medicine and poisoning) . Traditionally, this passage is considered to be a discussion between the correlation of speech and writing. Vocal speech is alive, in constant formation, while the writing is dead and makes everything final and irrevocable  However, it's possible to see here the dualism of poet's position we mentioned earlier. Arche is ineffable, the idea is inexpressible, there are only ways to describe it partially, try to approach it. The whole authentic art in its freedom always seeks for possible arche fixation. And yet, fixation without preserving makes no sense – and here the writing becomes a cure as an instrument to formalize, describe, express and preserve things grasped by poet's imagination. But the grasped and the formalized (produced) becomes accomplished like one of many things, and this is where Thoth's archness plays out. It's possible to mention here the quite radical interpretation ofHölderlin, who is known to contrapose the tradition of Heraclitus to the tradition of Parmenidus: Heraclitus, who writes about endless formation and inexpressibility of existence, becomes a concentration of authentic Greek philosophy, while Parmenidus, who approaches everything from a point of the law (logos an nomos), makes everything completed, finished, constant, leading away from the search of origin and authenticity.
This particular discourse leads us to the circumstantial analysis of two wandering archetypes – Odyssey and Orpheus. From our point of view, Odyssey is a myth about lost authenticity, about the moment, removed and forgotten long ago, when arche was caught in its fulness, but some traumatic occasion made an artist to neglect it and lose it. So Odyssey remained in harmony on Ithaca, his sedentary point, but his harmony was interrupted by a traumatic Occasion making him turn away from the origin and go to the conquest of Trojah. The Ending of Occasion should have reconciled him with an origin, let him return, but that's not happening, the occasion in its lasting can't finish (because occasion is based on lasting itself, it's removed and took place when it's finished). The whole Odyssey's journey is an attempt to deliberately return , it's not a nomadic freedom of sliding on the surface, but a pursuit of a goal that is desired but every time is unobtainable or impossible to achieve. It's remarkable that only reconciling with the Law (accepting defeat to Poseidon) lets Odyssey come back home and remember (because the return to Ithaca happens literally in the beginning of the poem, but the hero doesn't recognize the area and sails off again).
The Orpheus demonstrates another pole. Going for dead Eurydice (i.e. the one that became concealed, hidden, nocturnal), the poet Orpheus travels into the heart of night itself (Hades domain), where he captures the very entity of the night (he founds an arche expressible in the very entity of this night). The captured arche, an origin (night Eurydice or, let's speak more precisely, her part that is always hidden by daylight) then is brought to the surface, to the border between the darkness and the light. And that's where the alternative appears. Orpheus traveled with a certain purpose – to bring back a day Eurydice, the one he knew, the one he was given. But being a poet i.e. the spokesman of the concealed, hidden, sacred, will of the gods, Orpheus captures the darkness in the very heart of darkness that would disappear if he comes back to light. The line between the light and the shadow is a line where he still possesses an arche, escape to the light is a producing of day Eurydice, the successful ending of his journey. Orpheus gaze that happened is by no means accidental , because it's a last gaze the poet needs to catch the darkness as a darkness without any following generation of darkness. Of course, that gaze made impossible to produce any day Eurydice known to Orpheus, the night Eurydice dissolves under that gaze, retreats and disappears. The poet Orpheus desperately attempts to bring the night Eurydice to the arche domain, but this goal is unreachable. In that sense the gaze of Orpheus represents the second figure connected to movement – it's a movement of a nomad, sliding on a surface, seeking to capture arche and end it's wayfare, however realizing that this capturing is impossible in a temporal sense (Eurydice would disappear in time). Nevertheless, in the very moment of that gaze some kind of capturing takes place yet. The gaze of Orpheus is an eternal gaze of a poet trying to catch arche and denying the end of anything, the conslusional formalizing, i.e. production, it's a principled denial of any finalization, the acceptance of movement, peering into an arche without any accomplishing of that movement, of that capturing. J.L. Nancy gives the similar interpretation in his foreword to «Awaiting Oblivion» by Maurice Blanchot .
So we highlighted two roaming figures of an artist – Odyssey, gravitating towards his aim of returning to an origin and authenticity, whose return happens on behalf of gods (and thus the production occurs and Odyssey's Ithaca reveals itself during his re-concealment with the Law), and Orpheus seeking the same but eventually denying the possession of an origin and of the production itself, preserving only this continuity and longevity of the initial path to that production and a moment of capturing arche. It's obvious that Odyssey is closer to a migrant – he has that point that will bring his travels to an end, while Orpheus' travel to night Eurydice and an attempt of capturing her in her entity every time turns out to be impossible, and from here comes his abnegation to produce a day Eurydice, Orpheus personifies the movement as the process of grasping addressed only to itself, because arche and authenticity exist in the first place but yet inexpressible.
«What's the Address?» is a question about this two figures — is this about finding lost, abandoned, sacred, place or is this about the impossibility to find it due to deliberate neglection of production and place.An ambivalent position of Platonic pharmacon is the meaning of the name of the exhibition, and an answer to the question is an impossible choice between the production as a finalization associated with chance, fate or god and denying any form of production as an impossible finalization as it is taken off and basically has no origin, place or authenticity. The absence, which nevertheless is clearly tangable and can be captured, so it references to deficiency, absence, origin, address which can't be found.
The movement by itself without the possibility of its ending presumes impossibility of occasion. An occasion presents something finite that has the beginning and the end. It's necessary for an event to be comprehensible. At last, Derrida's metaphor describing an event as a book is quite relevant – the book, as well as an event, is the completion of something fundamentally incompletable, always some partial, teared out fragment of existence (the meaning Derrida puts into Platonic «Fedra» comes from here). I.e. an occasion needs to end in order to be completed, and needs to start in order to end.
An occasion in the past is completed, neglected, already non-existent and lost longevity. An occasion as the future event is pure uncertainty because it contains incompleteness (absence of the beginning and the end), but yet in the present it takes place, it exists.
Lars fon Trier gives quite convenient example of an occasion in «Melancholy» (concerning that this is an occasion of a finalization of the whole story and an occasion of the view from the outside on the finalization of the whole story, as a phantasm of the mentioned finalization). Bumping into Melancholy every time acts as a possible occasion moving on the scale from unlikely turn of events to inevitable, and every time the possibility of not happening of the mentioned occasion is included in that turn of events. But the occasion happens in the moment when there is no witnesses able to tell us about it (except the viewer against a screen, who, including the fact of playing Wagner's overture «Tristan and Isolde», accepts the moment of complete end as many things – as beginning, end, impossible occasion, final of a film-show and escape from a phantasm - «everything is an artistic fiction»)  Facing the Melancholy is those tear, those fold that sets the beginning and the end of an occasion (as a poison in the aforementioned Wagner's opera), and besides that on the other side of the occasion i.e. for the viewer who is basically not participating in the occasion, it includes some strict timing. The fate of occasion is to become completed and removed from sight, something that is no more exists as a committed and finished act, but the occasion itself is an eternal process of self-formation (a purpose, beginning and end are external and brought later on). In that sense, the melancholy acts as a defensive reaction to the possible occasion – as a grief after something, that exists now and can be lost.
And something happens during the exhibition too – we are talking about nomads and migrants, relocations in space. Something fleshes out, but for the occasion to be born something must happen, it needs a tear, a stop point. The biggest work placed at the exhibition – the «Broken Face» and Turkish carpet predecessing to that work both act as such stop point.
We already pointed out that the «Turkish carpet» represents not only a way to the «Broken face» (the carpet, as it should be, lies on the floor against the central exhibit in the hall), but a cross-mixing of two cultures – the West and the East, of two movements emanating out of two separated cultures, so that it continues the line emphasized by the «Gypsies» panel. Nomadic and sedentary expansions collide here too, moreover, in that narrative nomad and the settled one switch places: so the Ottomans advance till the XVII century, and then the inverted expansion begins. The carpet is the division, mix and interfusion leading to change of roles while preserving the mediator that indicates that shift. In that case, the initial carpet embodies such a mediator, while it's digital copy is placed on the exhibition (triple mimesis takes place here). However, the placed object itself just indicates the basis that is concealed under the procedure of copying, under the mixture of nomadic and sedentary traits, of the West and the East