organization of images exempted from a human decision and the surprise that comes from it underlines our conditioning, introduces a small fright
that keeps us from a real understanding. The movie is a visual pun on the human condition, with the consciousness of our temporary insanity and inability to create reality as a unique being.Flynnns mimesis are likely to provoke laughter, but they are unlikely to provoke pity. They are likely to provoke laughter in an environment of instant power that does not teach us about the limits of our power, about the limits of our being. They are also likely to provoke a sense of the people—of the people in general—that has been the source of that original innocence in film, in literature, and in art. But in the case of Jennifer Bartletts movie, they are likely to provoke fear of the people rather than of the artist. Its a shame that we cannot find a way to say the words.
into our viewing of the world. We have seen this horror before, and it is no easy matter to overcome. It is the world as it is, not the image of it. In the end, however, the visual manipulation of the image has resulted in an art of incitement which is without irony or irony of course.
into the pose of the monsters. The feeling of being in the presence of something dangerous is further heightened by the way the media photographs the content of the images. But the most interesting aspect of this group of works is the emergence of a very particular type of image, one that is as self-evident as it is at first glance. If we could only read it, we could be reassured that the images were not the result of some sophisticated manipulation. But this is not to say that the image is not there, or that it is not part of a series of pictures. On the contrary, the image is always present, but never dominates the pictorial field; rather, it is a passing impression that is, as the title of the exhibition suggests, linked to the viewer.
into our relationship with the world. The image of the victim, the image of the macho, the image of the whole, the image of the homosocial, the image of the weak, the image of the sexual. These are all presented as sources of the work of art, but at the same time they are merely references for it. This is what ultimately marks it as a means of the discursive domination of the individual and the self.
-strickenness into the thrill of the scene. In the scene of the crime, the artist holds the back of her head; she is held up to the viewers eye, and she is seen in a veil of light, which hides her face and gives her a half-smile of the kind that suddenly forms an autonomous face. The subject of this scene is a woman, whose head is seen from behind, as if she were a little headless doll, a doll who has been covered by a veil, and then, in the light of the window of the gallery, the viewer sees her through the light of the sun. So, in the painting, the artist is represented not as an outsider, whose visage is visible through the veil of light, but as an artist, who now takes on the role of the manipulator of a well-known image. This works not only in the context of an actual painting, which is both a painting in itself and a painting within a painting, but also in the context of a photoconceptualist image, which is not only an image, but a painting that one can take in the world as one sees it, in a sense that already entails the opposite of what it pretends to be. In this case, the figures are revealed as the masks of a woman and a man, not as the works of art of the artist.