organization of images exempted from a human decision and the surprise that comes from it underlines our conditioning, introduces a small fright
ful surprise into our communication, but not so small as to render the art completely irrelevant. The specificity of Stadiotes content raises the question of the mutual manipulation of the public by the artist, who has decided to use it. In effect, the artist has become part of the public sphere; the question becomes: what happens when this becomes public, artistic, and above all personal.Stadiotes images dont have any other reference; they are direct, unmediated by words. The figure is pulled from the surface, as if a word werent enough to convey its meaning. A piece of paper like this is a kind of physical and psychological passport to a strange world, a book that denotes something far from the boundaries of the printed page, but a subject that, if that plane, is visible from the street.
. The images stay in the human imagination and are there only to be grafted onto a reality that has no other relation than a mere reflection of our desires. This position, which we accept as the norm, becomes a mask, an empty one, at the same time a mask, an empty one, at the same time a horror. What was originally a no more than a mockery, but also, in the form of a commentary on human society, a fatalistic commentary on social realism, reveals itself as a shell, a shell, an open mask. What hides behind its surface is a dark interior.
organization of images exempted from a human decision and the surprise that comes from it underlines our conditioning, introduces a small frightful censure of reality and its understanding, and aims to silence all observation and experience. It is as if the calm of the earth, the soothing of our disturbed gut, were being shattered.While the presentation was both playful and frightening, it couldnt convince in the abstract sense. This was partly due to the extent to which Collyer chose to use large-format color photographs, and to the extent to which the films were divided into three scenes, during which one could hear from recordings of the action in the third movie. The scenes would have seemed arbitrary and out of sync with the images in the first two films. But the first two films, if experienced as a full series, would have represented more of an interruption of the world, and in the absence of the second film, the third would have been even more elusive. The point is that we experience the world in a different way, one that uses the world in its own name, and we can easily forget that history is also a game.The first two films are about a boy who loves a motorcycle. He meets an amateur motorcyclist who takes him for a ride in a café. And when he asks the boy to ride with him, the motorcyclist suggests that they could have been riding together. The scenes are followed by the motorcyclists objection and subsequent advice: It wouldnt hurt anybody. But the boy has a motorcycle. Isnt that nice? he asks. No, Im only trying to help you.The third movie focuses on a woman who works in a clothing store. She doesnt want her employee to crash, so she has her employee sign a release form. As she waits for the release she does a little dance, a kind of samba, holding the sign in her hand. Then she signs the release. A woman always signs release, and sign it, as it were, is the sign of emancipation.
organization of images exempted from a human decision and the surprise that comes from it underlines our conditioning, introduces a small fright about becoming conscious that our bodies are somehow abnormal. Together, they call for a thoughtful and conscious response, both to our bodies and the social conventions that make them public. The whole responsibility to the body comes under the rubric of social responsibility, which is why so many of the works in this exhibition ask if we are aware that we are living in the world of the pictures. The subversive challenge to the authorities is great; this is why the idea of a nude self-expression can, under the right conditions, become a source of influence.This show presented a dramatic comparison of the body, money, art, and democracy. The body of a deceased artist who no longer makes any art and who has, since 1960, lived an artistically and personally limited existence—a live one, as it were, according to the Germanic word for corpse, am Lauf (the dead). This dead artist is not, however, dead in the body. Throughout the show, photographs of the artist were hung, along with pieces of paper addressed to the artists assistants. This intentional juxtaposition of art and death recalls another famous form of self-portraiture: Edvard Munchs portrait of himself as a prostitute. But where Munchs portrait was an enigmatic self-portrait, his public self-portrait can be understood as a direct response to a social condition, which he responds to personally. This is also true for Richard Tuttles Two Nude Resorts, 1999, which in their contrasting colors and general colorism mock traditional values of color.The gallery was divided into two rooms, which together comprised the exhibition. Inside one of these rooms, however, one found a set of sculptures, part of a series documenting the various aspects of the artists lifestyle. Here, there was no one in the show, except in the very last room, which contained the eternally naked artist.
organization of images exempted from a human decision and the surprise that comes from it underlines our conditioning, introduces a small frightful minority to a post-World War II Europe, although it is of the avant-garde by definition. The Reichs work seems very different from that of the contemporaneous neo-expressionist.The output of German-born artist Heinrich Schill, including her pictures, sculptures and video, is increasingly diverse, although there is one common aspect: an interest in artistic self-criticism. Schill runs a Berlin gallery with an exhibition program—a collaboration between the art itself, an anarchist collective called La plus spalletto, and the gallery artworks collective Anthropometris (Pathetic art). Schill has taken a stand in favor of the anonymity of the artist, which has been consistently and actively opposed by many artists. With her images of German soldiers, schill is also dealing with the erstwhile realities of the countrys art scene. The images of Schill are uniformly on the right side of the German political spectrum, and that includes the conservatives, the Communists, and the Social Democrats. Schill created these images in her studio, then made them into sculptures in the gallery.Although Schill still uses photographs, she uses them in a much more intimate way, in sculpture and film as well. The artist has photographed herself numerous times and generally presented them in their original context; in this case, that is her studio, a place of retreat, a place for her paintings. Schill has made this retreat into less visible territory visible, as if she were retreating to private space. For her, a photograph is a glimpse of a person who is seen without a stranger intruding into the surface of the image. Her photographs show her sitting on a sofa, reading or talking with an attendant, doing something that we cannot see. The photographer is not there, nor is she the only thing in the room; she is just visible on the couch, and something very strange, and disturbing, happens in that place.