The universe will never be flat, never to our measure, will never correspond to our measures. This is an observation that science continually makes, at each stage of its development, that it also never ceases to deny. An idea may, in a way, be obsessive (this is true of M. Ravez): not to go and see, sometimes until blinding point or even awe (Pascal), but to take the most simple and most indirect paths to, for example, seize tight the constellation of the sculptor (the term is in itself a source of infinite dreams, desires and unknowns). Above - such as we have been able to transcribe it on tracing paper and thus interpret it, invent it also (last fiction) –, it seems to reduce itself to a few straight, angular but loyal lines as in geometry; here it can only be twisted, the object of fine and almost incalculable torsions which disappoint and compel one (artistic luck) to work closely on the approximate strength; this is how a desire for simple re-transcription becomes a necessity of creation, since it only has to support itself. This support is the artistic constraint in itself, the resort of a lone man faced with a multiplicity exceeding all representation (or synthesis). Perhaps that is what sculptural archaism is: a way of folding matter when it can't fold itself. Daniel Dobbels.