The garment is a revolution you fools

Result #1

The garment is a revolution you fools, the label says. I think its important to point out that the war is over, and that we are all out of place in the present. We need a new and better world. The new world we need is one with the other, not the other way around.What is astonishing about the present is that it has survived being annihilated. We still have to contend with the legacy of Hitler, but now they are both gone. They are the dead—the last reminders of them can be found in the broken mirrors of our city walls. The work of this artist, the leader of the Third Reich, has become so wrapped up in its own past that it can no longer be said to have a present. One has to consider, then, the fact that the Germanic identity that was its premise has been obliterated. The German people have become a nation of strangers, in a new world, and as such they have lost their past, their identity, their history. They have lost the Germans. And they have lost the basic, even basic, features of their heritage: the house, the rich, the famous, the wise. It is only through the language of the political dictatorship that the old German identity can be restored, and the old German ideal can be found again. What does that mean? Well, it means that the history of the German people is buried in the muck of the new. The present is the first, and the past the second. We will be able to identify them in the future. They are very distant, very distant from us. The present is their distant past. They are always present, always present, but we are never able to get close enough to them. The present has become a distant memory.The future of the German people, then, is uncertain, and its uncertainties are what make our present as a nation so remarkable. The old German identity—the heritage of the people—has been obliterated.

Result #2

The garment is a revolution you fools." The artist appears as a hypocrite. While the garments reference the rituals of the good life, its true that the metaphoric meaning of these garments is stolen from the classical ideals of the gender. The artist adopts the role of a fashion model to seduce.The woman in the garment, however, is also the one who seduces. She wears a dress that looks like a dress, but its cut in the back and sleeves. She sits on a chair, her legs crossed over her chest and point to the floor. Her face is turned toward the viewer, but her expression is a mask. The silhouette of her skirt is also visible through the back opening. The only thing we can see of her is a waist, which is hardly a waist. She looks as if shes about to fall off the chair. A bell rings and a curtain rises, but she remains unseen. Her leg-less leg becomes a tall shoe, a single leg in the upper body, a double leg in the lower body. Its a leap, but it doesnt seem to be a leap, just a stumble. The fabric itself is a skirt, but one with a slit which opens to reveal a green liquid-looking foot. It slips over the narrow slit and drops, and falls back on the seat. The garment looks as if it has been torn in half. The fabric seems to be torn from the skirt, revealing its inner structure. The skirt now covers the missing leg and falls down.The shadows cast by the objects cast on the walls and on the floor are also the shadows of the people in the gallery. The shadows are part of the work, and they are used to seduce the viewer. Here the shadows are used to conceal the presence of the images they represent. The fact that the work itself is visible only in the works shadows is a point of departure.

Result #3

The garment is a revolution you fools with. So it is with the painting. Painted like a Rorschach blot, it is a sort of utopian blue and white painting, which, like the Rorschach blot, is a disembowelment. The little red spots are the grotesque in me, and the painting is like the process of my déjà vu. If, in this painting, the painting is a flower or an apple, it is one of the most delicious things Ive ever seen. The colors are beautiful, and the paint is gold. If you are familiar with the Rorschach blot, youll recognize that it is a yellow painting. If you arent, it is beautiful, and the colors are beautiful, and the paint is gold. The painting is like an apple or a blossome. The colors are the color of my childhood, and they are like the gold in the picture, but they are not. The painting is very green. The paint is gold. The red, white, and blue are all beautiful. They are like the blossoms in the blooms of a table. The red and white and blue are the colors of the great sky. They are like a red and a green. The paint is gold. It is a gold painting. The colors are like gold. The paint is gold. The red, white, and blue are all like a gold painting. The paint is gold. The red, white, and blue are all gold. The paint is gold. The red, white, and blue are all like a gold painting. The paint is gold. The red, white, and blue are all like a gold painting. The paint is gold. The paint is gold. The red, white, and blue are all like a gold painting. The paint is gold. The paint is gold. The red, white, and blue are all like a gold painting. The paint is gold.

Result #4

!You can read the letter right now, but it will be so bad in the morning, and so good on the evening. The letter is that of a member of the Communist Party, signed Foulons—in fact, one of his signatures. In a gesture that would seem both disrespectful and almost heroic, the letter has been remade, its title replaced with the names of the dead and buried on the desks of the communist commissariat, whose offices are now festooned with the clothes and other clothing of the dead. The letters contents are endless. Foulons, on the other hand, has been given the entire set of works by the original artist, and they are now distributed among a circle of guests. Their favorite hangings are, of course, the posters for the New York City subway system, whose members are now wearing them on the job.A similar gesture is taken in the series of papers, which Foulons will be distributing to all his colleagues, and which were taken from the subway systems archives of each year in which they were produced. These papers have been reworked in various ways. Their original purpose was to document, in accordance with the law, all instances of official harassment, but they became the receptacles for a myriad of other messages, which they now contain, and which make a more general point: that the public has the right to use official papers, and that it has the right to know what the recipients have received and have access to their documents. The last of these items in the show was a reproduction of the last of Foulons copies of his letters to the New York Times. This last, hanging from a nail, consists of his last handwritten words, in black letters on the paper. For the time being, these are the notes that he made before he gave up writing letters to a magazine.

Result #5

The garment is a revolution you fools.For the most part, this exhibition, curated by Annelie T. Verhoeven, was a pleasant experience: It could be read as a response to the growing acceptance of feminist theory in art, and to the fact that the work of the feminist body, particularly that of womens work, has had a very big influence on art since the 70s. The exhibition, which gathered more than one hundred works on paper, not only gave an overview of the feminist body but also made clear that the body is a symbol of femininity. And so, of course, it is a feminist body—the body that runs, as a feminist revolution does, the streets, that is the body that must be organized into a political network. The sense of powerlessness that characterized the feminist work of the 80s could also be seen in the work of younger artists. The show made clear that the body, while it is not automatically politically active, is a powerful signifier of its time, and this need not be seen as a criticism of feminism. The show did, however, show that the body, not the feminist body, is the most important site of work in contemporary art. The exhibition also created a connection between the body as such, which is an integral part of the feminist resistance to the repressive regime of the patriarchy, and the body as a signifier of power, which is also a force to be reckoned with.The show was divided into two parts: On the one hand, there were three pieces that dealt with the body as a signifier of power, and on the other, three drawings that deal with the body as a signifier of power. The first part of the show dealt with the body as sign. These works were made of newspaper clippings, and they displayed the signs of violence, destruction, and destruction of property, as well as of the symbol of power.