Asset Logics, a text on "fungibility", sacredness, and the prehistory of money

Result #1

Asset Logics, a text on "fungibility", sacredness, and the prehistory of money, and a video documenting the underground activity of the Greek anarchist organization No Vaea, 1981–85. In each instance, the work was made in collaboration with a member of the ensemble and the other artists and, as such, was effectively performed by a group of people.The show also included a series of photographs from the artists project The Real Money Machine, 1999–2005. The photographs, taken by the artist in the financial district of Rome, depict banks, exchange floors, and other buildings, taken from the streets of the city. The images are often blurred, and the subjects of these images are seen only from a great distance, as if they were hiding from a mob. The act of photographing is part of a practice that is part of the market, and in this case, the act of photographing was a money-making activity. The photographs depict the empty streets of Rome, the city where the financial district is located. They are empty, but for the signs of a few speculators who frequent these streets. These speculators, who approach the buildings, buy coins and sell them to the buyers, who then buy the coins and sell them. The exchange is illegal, and the exchange is illegal.The works on paper, all Untitled, from 2008, were also shown. Here, the artist juxtaposed handwritten text and printed images of her own drawing of a bank with the bank itself, the bank that had lent her the works. The only way to get the drawings to appear in the bank was to have them cut up and write in watercolor on paper. It is a metaphor, she says. In this way, the drawings are not only an expression of a desire for money, but also a sign of the desire for a private space in which one can write. The artist, the financial capital, and the bank that lends her money are inseparable. These are not merely two different kinds of money, but two different kinds of bank.

Result #2

Asset Logics, a text on "fungibility", sacredness, and the prehistory of money. One of the pieces, for instance, a tiny silver coin on a wooden pedestal, has the word art in the title and a value of $1. For the piece, the artist had placed a small silver coin on a marble pedestal, and a second, larger one, on a marble one. These are all of the same size and shape, but have a different value. A small bronze coin on a marble pedestal, for example, has a value of $3. For the piece, the artist had placed a small bronze coin on a marble pedestal, and a smaller one on a marble pedestal, which is of the same size as the large one on the marble. The small bronze coin has a value of $9. For the piece, the artist had placed a small bronze coin on a marble pedestal, and a smaller one on a marble pedestal, which is of the same size as the larger one on the marble. The small bronze coin has a value of $11. For the piece, the artist had placed a small bronze coin on a marble pedestal, and a smaller one on a marble one. The smaller one has a value of $12. For the piece, the artist had placed a small bronze coin on a marble one, and a larger one on a marble one. The smaller one has a value of $11. The one on the marble is a smaller one than the one on the bronze, but the one on the marble is a different value, and the one on the bronze is a larger one. The one on the marble has a value of $10. For the piece, the artist had placed a small bronze coin on a marble one, and a larger one on a marble one, which is of the same size as the one on the smaller one. The smaller one has a value of $10.

Result #3

, is itself a text on the international politics of the twentieth century. In this context, the exhibition becomes a kind of manifesto, a catalogue of the possible as it is experienced by the present. The question, then, is: What does it mean to experience the present?—Francesco PandolfiTranslated from Italian by Marguerite Shore.

Result #4

Asset Logics, a text on "fungibility", sacredness, and the prehistory of money in contemporary economies, was read aloud by an old man in a suit and tie, his voice rising above a stack of books. This man, who identified himself only as an author, was, in fact, the artist named in the text—a copyist and the proprietor of a publishing house. While the man was silent, the words of the words on the stack were audible: a kind of drone, a conversation that had been going on for two hours and that was interrupted only by the sound of a young woman in a suit and tie coming into the room to do something. This was the first time that the artist, who has been living in Berlin since 2001, had used this kind of elaborate artifice. This was also the first time that she had used this venue to present a project that is not only conceptual but also participatory in nature.The exhibition opened with a work called Transference, 2003, which is based on a photograph of the artist. The photograph shows a man, whose hands are folded in front of him, who holds a little paper cup in his right hand. The caption reads, This cup is the same as the money in your wallet. Transference was the only work on display that also had a text, written in German, that was also part of the show. It was written in a hand-written language that the artist had learned from a German speaker: We can speak German, but it is not the same as English. Here, the language is not a sign of communication, but rather a signifier for a process of thought and action. The text, written in English, is the same as the photograph. The artist had made a visual translation of a conversation. She translated a conversation into English, and the translation is what the work is about. The work was also the first work on display to have an actual floor, as if it were a stage.

Result #5

Asset Logics, a text on "fungibility", sacredness, and the prehistory of money in art (and finance) from the 1970s to the present, and a catalogue raisonné of the work, are worth a look. They are, however, not the best of the lot. But the work is at least worth a look. It is a good one.The three curators of this exhibition, Marie Laveau-Pereira, Patrick Coudry, and Richard Hamilton, are all white men. They have been the subject of various art-historical controversies of late. In their catalogue essay, Pereira and Hamilton argue that the artists in question are artists, and that their works reflect the influence of men such as Robert Ryman, Agnes Martin, and Michael Craig-Martin, among others. They also point out that there are many white men involved in the creation of art. They do not, however, constitute a group, and neither does the art they produce reflect the influence of a predominantly white male world. They are not, in other words, artists, and neither is their work representative of any one particular group.The problem with this argument is that it excludes the fact that the white male world in which these artists operate is not one of a homogeneous one, and thus it is a homogeneous field. This is not to say that the curators have no reservations about the fact that some white men have made significant contributions to art. Nor is it to suggest that the exhibition is designed to be a representative sample of the work of white men. Rather, the curators reject the notion that, as they put it, the white male world in which these artists operate is one in which all artists are equally important. The exhibition is not about the creation of a white male art world, but about the creation of a white male world. The fact that some artists are women and others men is not relevant, but the fact that they are all white men is.