Kunstforum 2014-11-21T09:22:45Z http://www.kunstforum.as/feed/atom/ WordPress Monica Holmen <![CDATA[Allegory of the Cave Painting]]> http://www.kunstforum.as/?p=18572 2014-11-21T09:10:47Z 2014-11-21T08:11:17Z The prehistoric Bradshaw paintings in North Western Australia function as a kind of mental model for the exhibition Allegory of the Cave Painting at Extra City Kunsthal in Antwerp.

Navid Nuur, Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © Christine Clinckx

Navid Nuur, Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © Christine Clinckx

The work with dating the Bradshaw paintings have been going on for quite some time, and for reasons unknown until quite recently, the scientists have not been able to date them. In 2010, a team led by Jack Pettigrew of Queensland University found that red bacteria and black fungi had colonized the paintings. The bacteria and fungi – serving as a kind of ‘living pigments’ – cause a constantly reproducing of the Bradshaw paintings.

The exhibition Allegory of the Cave Painting assembles artworks and theoretical propositions in a polyphonic response to these ‘living pigments’. According to the curator, as stated in the press release, “the Bradshaws challenge a central archaeological metaphor: the inaugural moment of symbolic activity, an awakening where we begin and something that eludes us, that is fundamentally unfamiliar, ends. […] They perturb the ways in which modernity frames prehistory as allegorical interlocutor, so that it can establish an uninterrupted descent from it. This rhetorical edifice and constructed inevitability obscures a continuum of zigzagging histories, forgotten technologies and unintended outcomes – a mirror effect between ‘the mind in the cave’ and ‘the cave in the mind’.”

Alon Levin, Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © We Document Art

Alon Levin, Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © We Document Art

Allegory of the Cave Painting is divided in two parts, one showing at Extra City Kunsthal and the other, titled Allegory of the Cave Painting – The Other Way Around, showing at the Braem Pavilion, Middelheim Museum. The exhibition at Extra City reflects on methods of making and thinking about pictures, through engaging the Bradshaw paintings as an organism that extends across plural temporalities and scales.

Participating artists at Extra City Kunsthal:
Nina Beier, Jérôme Blumberg, Constantin Brâncuşi, Lonnie van Brummelen & Siebren de Haan, Pavel Büchler, Florian Dombois, Harun Farocki, Geert Goiris, Ilana Halperin, Gary Hill, William Hogarth, Toril Johannessen, Sven Johne, Adrià Julià, Susanne Kriemann, Alon Levin, Frans Masereel, Fabio Mauri, Vincent Meessen, Jacqueline Mesmaeker, Gustav Metzger, Ciprian Mureşan, Rosalind Nashashibi, Tom Nicholson, Navid Nuur, Miklós Onucsán, Susan Schuppli, Paul Sietsema, Jonas Staal, Bernard Voïta, Phillip Warnell, Khadija von Zinnenburg Carroll

Curator: Mihnea Mircan

20.09 – 07.12.2014
at Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerp

Gustav Metzger, Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © We Document Art

Gustav Metzger, Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © We Document Art

Toril Johannessen, Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © Christine Clinckx

Toril Johannessen, Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © Christine Clinckx

Jonas Staal, Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © Christine Clinckx

Jonas Staal, Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © Christine Clinckx

Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © Christine Clinckx

Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © Christine Clinckx

Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © We Document Art

Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © We Document Art

Ilana Halperin, Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © Christine Clinckx

Ilana Halperin, Allegory of the Cave Painting, installation view, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014 © Christine Clinckx

Tom Nicholson, Allegory of the Cave Painting, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014

Tom Nicholson, Allegory of the Cave Painting, Extra City Kunsthal, Antwerpen, 2014

]]>
0
André Gali http://www.galiblog.com <![CDATA[Manifesta 11 to be curated by an artist]]> http://www.kunstforum.as/?p=18566 2014-11-18T22:05:31Z 2014-11-18T09:06:27Z Berlin based artist Christian Jankowski has been appointed Chief Curator of Manifesta 11, the European Biennial of Contemporary Art, a press release states.

Manifesta 11, which will be hosted in Zurich, Switzerland in 2016, will be curated by Christian Jankowski (Göttingen, 1968). It is the first time Manifesta is curated by an artist, and Jankowski ho will start working in November 2014 towards conceptualizing the 2016 edition of the biennale.

unnamedChair of the M11 Curatorial Selection Committee, Hedwig Fijen who is also the Manifesta Director, explains the selection thus:

‘For the first time in Manifesta’s history, an individual artist will take the position of Chief Curator and will work on a project for an entire urban environment. Jankowski will investigate the whole array of art’s authorship, its production and its reflection on Zurich’s professional landscape. In doing so, Manifesta 11’s Chief Curator approaches the complex identities of the city in an unexpected way, reaching out to audiences beyond the inner circle of contemporary art biennials.’

Christian Jankowski (Göttingen, 1968) who is currently based in Berlin and has a background from the University of Fine Arts in Hamburg (Germany) started his artistic career as a curator of his own independent space, Friedensallee 12, in Hamburg (1992-1996). He has participated in numerous solo and group exhibitions, and his work is in the collection of numerous international museums. Recent solo exhibitions include: Heavy Weight History, CCA Ujazdowski Castle, Warsaw (2013); Llorando por La Marcha de la Humanidad, Sala de Arte Público Siqueiros, Mexico City (2012); Casting Jesus, MARCO, Rome (2012); The Finest Art on Water, Frieze Art Fair, London (2011); Now For Something Completely Different, BAWAG Foundation, Vienna (2009); and Dienstbesprechung, Kunstmuseum Stuttgart (2008). Jankowski participated in the Venice Biennale in 1999 and 2013 as well as in the 2002 Whitney Biennial.

Jankowski’s work consists of performative interactions between himself and non-art professionals, between contemporary art and the so-called ‘world outside of art’. During the course of his artistic career, Jankowski has collaborated with, among others, magicians, politicians, news anchors, and members of the Vatican. Jankowski registers these performative collaborations using the mass media formats in which he stages his work––film, photography, television, newspapers. This procedure lends his work its populist appeal. Jankowski’s work can be seen both as a reflection, deconstruction, and a critique of a society based on spectacle. In his view, art has turned into a spectacle, and as a result, has undermined its critical potential.

Manifesta, the European Biennial of Contemporary Art, selected the City of Zurich as Manifesta 11 Host for 2016. Zurich offered the opportunity for Manifesta to research an urban environment for the first time.

MANIFESTA 10, curated by Kasper König, took place from 28 June – 31 October 2014 in St. Petersburg, Russian Federation and attracted over 1 million visitors. Previous Host Cities and curators of Manifesta were:

  • Manifesta 1, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1996: Katalyn Neray (Budapest), Rosa Martinez (Barcelona), Viktor Misiano (Moscow), Andrew Renton (London), Hans Ulrich Obrist (Paris/Zurich)
  • Manifesta 2, Luxemburg, Luxemburg 1998: Robert Fleck (Paris/Vienna), Maria Lind (Stockholm), Barbara Vanderlinden (Brussels)
  • Manifesta 3, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2000: Francesco Bonami (Chicago, Turin), Ole Bouman (Rotterdam), Maria Hlavajová (Amsterdam, Bratislava), Kathrin Rhomberg (Vienna)
  • Manifesta 4, Frankfurt, Germany, 2002: Iara Boubnova (Sofia), Nuria Enguita Mayo (Barcelona), Stephanie Moisdon – Trembley (Paris)
  • Manifesta 5, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain, 2004: Massimiliano Gioni (Milan / New York), Marta Kuzma (Kiev / New York)
  • Manifesta 6, Nicosia, Cyprus, 2006 (cancelled): Mai Abu ElDahab (Cairo), Anton Vidokle (New York), Florian Waldvogel (Germany)
  • Manifesta 7, Trentino-Alto Adige/ South-Tyrol, Italy, 2008: Adam Budak (Krakow/Graz), Anselm Franke (Antwerp/Berlin), Hila Peleg (Berlin), Raqs Media Collective (New Dehli)
  • Manifesta 8, Murcia and Cartagena, Spain, 2010: Alexandria Contemporary Arts Forum (ACAF), Chamber of Public Secrets (CPS), tranzit (dot) org
  • Manifesta 9, Genk, Limburg, Belgium, 2012: Cuauhtémoc Medina (Mexico), Katerina Gregos (Greece/Belgium) Dawn Ades (UK)
  • Manifesta 10, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 2014: Kasper König (Germany)
]]>
0
Daniel C. Blight <![CDATA[Fashionable Nonsense]]> http://www.kunstforum.as/?p=18553 2014-11-21T09:22:36Z 2014-11-17T08:35:52Z – On writing and collective narcissism in contemporary art.

Facebook event pages are one of the predominant forms in which I receive press releases from galleries. A notification pops up and I click through to a page of cryptic, hyperbolic writing in the name of art. This form of networked, social interaction is a complicated thing, but it isn’t a culture and technology that puts art beyond communication. I’m not a fan of non-inclusivity and art world cliques are boring. I want to understand your exhibition and I want to know as clearly and as unequivocally as possible, what it says and does.

Daniel C. Blight is a writer, critic and curator based in London.

Daniel C. Blight is a writer, critic and curator based in London.

While most of these event pages remain open and therefore anyone can join and attend creating some sense of spurious democracy, the language used rarely speaks to everyone, instead preferring to couch itself in the worst form of opacity and conceit. Facebook is not the exclusive space for this kind of writing, one can also see it – especially for those that don’t engage with social media – in email newsletters, on gallery websites and importantly when one actually attends an exhibition, printed and available to collect at the door.

Here is a recent example from an East London gallery funded by the Arts Council:

When a page freezes on the syncopated browser of a web user, there is a moment of change in the landscape marked as a reduced distinction of it’s natural other, when it has been manipulated by technology. With a desktop tidy approach to the outdoors the exhibition reflects the increasingly conflated physical spaces of retail, business, and leisure.

This is both grammatically incoherent and ridiculous. The first problem is vocabulary. The use of the adjective “syncopated” in the opening sentence – somewhat ironically considering the word’s meaning – completely displaces the words that follow, offering no clarity to the opening statement. Secondly, what exactly is the reduced distinction of a web browser’s natural other? Either an unreferenced philosophical phrasing, or a superabundant word salad, this language is neither suitable for a press release, nor meaningful in any way beyond the author’s own sense of convolution and self-worth. Thirdly, and this needs little explanation of its failing as a statement, what is a desktop tidy approach to the outdoors? The jump in subject between the first sentence about a web browser and the second sentence about the outdoors, retail, business and leisure, is massive. There is no logical development between ideas and overall it is a facile, bombastic waste of time.

Here is another example from a small project space in South London. Its Facebook event page offers this, followed by the space’s opening hours:

will-to-possess
will-to-live
right to silence
man-made
manomaya
man-unmade
world as lover, world as self
God of the Eastern Sea
God of the Southern Sea
God of the Western Sea
God of the Northern Sea
biodiversity is us

The exhibition’s title is First Water to Tripoli. One might imagine that this is a direct reference to the second phase of the Great Man-made River Project, a practical and draining assault on North Africa’s underground water resources active since the 1980s, initially funded by Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan government. Here, we have a potentially interesting environmental and political subject being engaged with by the project space and the artist, but instead of a meaningful description of the artist’s research into the subject, total rhetoric in the form of some kind of abstract poem pervades.

On closer inspection, this strange riddle postures around some quite unrelated themes. In Hinduism the term Manomaya describes that which is “composed of mind” or perhaps more simply, mindful. Libya has an Indian minority, but no suggestion of the religion of Hinduism’s relationship to the Great Man-made River Project is offered. Is there one? If there is, what is it? What is the meaning and relevance of this religion’s presence within Libya and with relation to the GMRP? The last statement, ‘biodiversity is us’ is just simply untrue. Biodiversity is the acceptance than the human race is not the only living thing on the planet and that this world is more biologically diverse than just us. If this is irony – perhaps referring to the fact that the GMRP benefits man over nature in its potentially environmentally catastrophic extraction of water – then it isn’t available anywhere as information. This might be a conservative position, but press releases have a very particular function and are supposed to contain information. If this one had some that was meaningful, I might be writing a review of the exhibition here rather than a critique of its postured and facetious linguistic tendencies.

Is it a press release, an essay, or a poem? Is this so-called art writing? Why does writing like this exist and why is there so much of it present in the art world?

The art world socialises in cliques that defend and protect one another. This sort of behaviour perpetuates elitism and that clearly manifests in the writing that is produced around exhibitions. A form of collective narcissism is developed by groups of individuals that feel their particular set of peers are onto something – privy to some exclusive body of knowledge unknown to everyone else – and that these insights are to be protected. This kind of behavior might stem from a combination of personal insecurity and group ego. No one really knows what the next person knows, but we all know we have to sound like we know more than everybody else knows. In the act of trying to sound clever, one forgets to communicate clearly.

Because of this vacillation between self-doubt and hubris, the tendency is to attempt to write an exhibition or an artwork into history by offering it fake profundity. To do this the writer turns to philosophy: the most profound and complicated linguistic toolkit of all. If it’s not philosophy, then instead a more cryptic engagement with literary experimentalism might suffice – perhaps a riddle, an ideogram or some concrete poetry. Whatever the case, it must not directly address the content of the exhibition, or the meaning of the artworks, for to do this is to give the game away. Simple and direct articulation is, after all, not very “cool”.

The practical-linguistic result of this is that buzzwords are extrapolated and misappropriated from meaningful histories within philosophy and art theory, multiple hyphenated clauses go in and out of fashion, willfully obscure adjectives are dug up and badly placed in incoherent sentences, and rarely are artworks addressed directly, on the terms that they were made. Simply put, an artwork, which is often a complicated object layered with multiple references and meanings, instead of being explained is deliberately obscured.

That’s just style though – what about subject? Well there isn’t one really: these types of writing around art are written for no one outside the cliques they address; the maintenance of a text’s own superiority over other forms of written culture; the placating of an unnamable, centralised ego; the re-enforcement and unnecessary production of prose which anyone can write, because it has an entirely transparent structure with little depth, if you care to familiarise yourself with it by socialising on Facebook, subscribing to gallery newsletters or picking up that piece of A4 paper at the entrance to a gallery.

What is really at stake with this issue, culturally?

We live in precarious times in terms of funding and labour within the arts, and we all need to be speaking as clearly and as openly to each other as possible, so we stand a chance of getting through this political crisis. And it is a crisis, because funding cuts are rife and the British Education Secretary Nicky Morgan thinks young people shouldn’t chose to study arts or humanities subjects at school, college and university. We need to actively break down cliques and in-crowds, in order to open up art practice to debate, criticism and direct communication.

Fashion might be the problem. Contemporary art is a sucker for it. It changes direction like a piss in the wind. It’s meaningless and futile trying to follow it. In his book On the New (Verso, 2014), Boris Groys aptly distinguishes between what is new and what is fashionable:

Wyndham Lewis once rightly pointed out that, in modernity, the fashion compulsion replaced the tradition compulsion. New cultural trends are no indication that individual freedom has triumphed; rather, they create new – albeit relatively minor, temporally limited – homogeneities, social codes, patterns of behavior, and the new group conformity that goes hand in hand with them. This description is of course accurate, but means only that fashion establishes an inequality between values and allows us to draw a sharp distinction between ‘our’ values and ‘other’ values: when we do, some individual differences are defined as especially valuable and decisive, to the detriment of others.

So fashion is to be avoided. Perhaps the position of any artist or writer should be to work against, rather than reinforce, the status quo? Fashion is the tool with which collective narcissism communicates to the rest of the art world: a clique establishes a series of visual or literary tropes and a sort of question and answer engagement is set up between the key practitioners within that group. Gradually the materials, processes, forms and theoretical references of this group become alike as these individuals produce new work. Practically this is how any art movement might develop, the problem here is that the end goal remains a combination of visually homogenous and conceptually undisclosed. What direction is the practice moving in? Who is it speaking to? What exactly is the point of the production of this work?

Without any sense of direction – a manifesto for inclusivity; a methodology for clear articulation; a process of grounded and rigorous contextualisation of the work produced – one is left with a set of postured and incoherent values. Art becomes unvarying and conformist and writing becomes full of jargon and confusion. Artistic value emerges as fashion: fashion, in turn, forms a culture of inequality.

It is the responsibility of curators to address these issues, as they are the individuals that should be responsible for producing and overseeing press releases and other forms of writing around exhibitions. Artists should be free to communicate through various materials, processes and concepts. It is the job of the curator, through writing, to offer historical context and linguistic clarity to these actions. The rise of the popularity of curating as a cultural pursuit and as an academic degree has, and I would argue to its detriment, left the status of the curator comparable to the artist in that he or she wants to work abstractly, and often not produce any writing at all.

As a result, curatorial activity often fails to mediate the gap between artistic production and public engagement, when it should, at its most basic level, be doing just that. Writing is the thinking that surrounds exhibitions: without a sense of it being produced on clear and articulate terms, there is little left in the way of meaning. Accessibility fades, and forms of individual and collective narcissism prevail.

]]>
0
Redaksjonen <![CDATA[Offprint Paris 2014]]> http://www.kunstforum.as/?p=18526 2014-11-16T12:29:58Z 2014-11-16T11:22:17Z I disse dager går Paris Photo av staben, og Paris er full av fotografer, gallerister og fotointeresserte.
Vi har vært innom OffPrint og tatt en titt på fotobøker.

Offprint, Paris 2014. Foto: Andrea Gamst

Offprint, Paris 2014. Foto: Andrea Gamst

Offprint Paris er en kunstbokmesse, med bøker som dekker kunst, fotografi, design og eksperimentell musikk. I år har utvalget av forleggere blitt kuratert av Yannick Bouillis, Charlotte Cheetham og Maxime Guitton, og består av mer enn 130 forleggere fra over 20 land.

Årets Paris Photo Apeture Photo Book 2014 Winner ble Oliver Sieber, som vant med boken Imaginary Club. Nedenunder følger bilder fra bøker av Corinne Day, A. McElroy, Gilles Bonnecarrère, Lotte Reimann, Studio XX, Sasha Kurmaz, Ruth van Beek, Thomas Mailaender og Lukas Wassmann.

Oliver Sieber, Imaginary club. Andrea Gamst

Oliver Sieber, Imaginary club. Andrea Gamst

SPBH Book Club 7: Lucas Blalock, November 2014. Foto: Andrea Gamst

SPBH Book Club 7: Lucas Blalock, November 2014. Foto: Andrea Gamst

Corinne Day, May the circle remain unbroken. Foto: Andrea Gamst

Corinne Day, May the circle remain unbroken. Foto: Andrea Gamst

Corinne Day, May the circle remain unbroken. Foto: Andrea Gamst

Corinne Day, May the circle remain unbroken. Foto: Andrea Gamst

A.McElroy, The devil may care. Foto: Andrea Gamst

A.McElroy, The devil may care. Foto: Andrea Gamst

A.McElroy, The devil may care. Foto: Andrea Gamst

A.McElroy, The devil may care. Foto: Andrea Gamst

Gilles Bonnecarrère, Male dancers wanted. Foto: Andrea Gamst

Gilles Bonnecarrère, Male dancers wanted. Foto: Andrea Gamst

Lotte Reimann, Bis morgen im Nassen. Foto Andrea Gamst

Lotte Reimann, Bis morgen im Nassen. Foto Andrea Gamst

Lotte Reimann, Bis morgen im Nassen. Foto Andrea Gamst

Lotte Reimann, Bis morgen im Nassen. Foto Andrea Gamst

Dafy Hagai, Israeli girls. Foto: Andrea Gamst

Dafy Hagai, Israeli girls. Foto: Andrea Gamst

Studio XX, Studio XX, Issue#1. Foto Andrea Gamst

Studio XX, Studio XX, Issue#1. Foto Andrea Gamst

Studio XX, Studio XX, Issue#1. Foto Andrea Gamst

Studio XX, Studio XX, Issue#1. Foto Andrea Gamst

Sasha Kurmaz, Concrete and sex. Foto Andrea Gamst

Sasha Kurmaz, Concrete and sex. Foto Andrea Gamst

Ruth van Beek, The arrangement. Foto Andrea Gamst

Ruth van Beek, The arrangement. Foto Andrea Gamst

Ruth van Beek, The hibernators. Foto Andrea Gamst

Ruth van Beek, The hibernators. Foto Andrea Gamst

Thomas Mailaender, Illustrated people. Foto Andrea Gamst

Thomas Mailaender, Illustrated people. Foto Andrea Gamst

Lukas Wassmann, L. Foto Andrea Gamst

Lukas Wassmann, L. Foto Andrea Gamst

]]>
0
Redaksjonen <![CDATA[Fra Gagosian til Kunstforum]]> http://www.kunstforum.as/?p=18497 2014-11-14T08:33:35Z 2014-11-14T08:31:53Z Mari Rustan tar over som nettredaktør for Kunstforum fra og med 15. november.

Siden oppstarten i 2009 har Kunstforums nettside vært et eget produkt med jevnlige oppdateringer og egne saker skrevet spesielt for nettsiden. De siste årene har det redaksjonelle ansvaret på nett vært ivaretatt av redaktørene André Gali og Monica Holmen i fellesskap, men fra og med 15. november vil Mari Rustan ha hovedansvaret for nettsidens redaksjonelle profil. Hun har allerede jobbet med nettsiden en måneds tid, men er nå offisielt redaktør.

Ny nettredaktør for KUNSTforum, Mari Rustan. Foto: Andrea Gamst

Ny nettredaktør for KUNSTforum, Mari Rustan.                 Foto: Andrea Gamst

– På nett har vi publisert kritikker og meningsytringer, samt nyhetssaker, intervjuer og billedblogger. I papir har vi derimot fokusert på dybdeartikler, større intervjuer, essayer og reportasjer. Papirutgaven krever en annen type fordypning og har en annen type redaksjonell rytme, og vi ser at det går ut over nettpubliseringen når vi er i innspurten med nye papirutgaver, sier André Gali, ansvarlig redaktør i Kunstforum.

Kunstforum drives som et idealistisk foretak, noe som naturlig nok legger noen føringer for driften. Likevel er ambisjonene til stede og papirutgaven vil i høst gjennomgå noen endringer.

– I høst har vi en stor papirutgave på trappene med noen redaksjonelle og designmessige endringer som har krevd tid. Siden Kunstforum er et idealistisk foretak, går arbeidet med papir utover arbeidet med nettsiden. Vi har derfor sett behovet for en egen nettredaktør, og fant at Mari Rustan med erfaring fra blant annet SMUG magasin, auksjonsnettsiden Paddle8 og Gagosian Gallery i New York, hadde den erfaring og kompetanse som vi ønsker, sier Gali.

Rustan vil ha full redaksjonell frihet til å utvikle nettsiden videre, og samtidig være i tett dialog med den øvrige redaksjonen. Hun vil også bidra til papirutgaven som skribent og redaksjonsmedlem, og Holmen og Gali mener Rustan vil være et positivt tilskudd til det redaksjonelle arbeidet. De tror at den internasjonale erfaringen Rustan bringer med seg fra New York, og det at hun bor og virker i Stockholm, kan være med på å gi nye perspektiver til nettsiden og ikke minst bidra til å spre Kunstforum ytterligere i Norden.

– Målet er å publisere saker hyppigere enn før, og kunne tilby en variert blanding av lettere saker, relevante kritikker og kronikker. Jeg ønsker å utnytte det digitale formatet til det fulle, og dra nytte av de fordelene som finnes ved å publisere på nett. På nettsidene har vi for eksempel muligheten til å dekke utstillinger som står kort, gjøre kortere intervjuer og lage bildeblogger, sier Mari Rustan om sine ambisjoner med Kunstforums nettside. Ønsket er at Kunstforum.as skal være et sted både kunstnere og kunstinteresserte kan hente både informasjon og inspirasjon.

Rustan (f. 1985) er kunsthistoriker med master fra University of Westminster med avhandlingen In the Shadow of the Surreal. Enigmatic Fantasies for Obscure Desires, som med utgangspunkt i Guy Bordin ser på introduksjonen av en ny type kvinnelig representasjon i motefotografiet. I perioden september 2011–mars 2012 arbeidet hun ved Gagosian Gallery i New York, blant annet som prosjekt koordinator på Richard Avdeon Murals & Portrait-katalogen. Rustan har også jobbet med oppstarten av fotogalleriet Shoot Gallery i Oslo og for TASCHEN i New York. Hun er kunstredaktør for SMUG magasin, og virker som frilansskribent og oversetter.

]]>
0
Monica Holmen <![CDATA[Panamarenko Universum]]> http://www.kunstforum.as/?p=18475 2014-11-13T10:05:11Z 2014-11-13T10:04:07Z On view at M HKA, Antwerpen, until the end of February 2015, is an immense exhibition showing the ‘local’ artist Panamarenko (b.1940).

Panamarenko Universum, exhibition view. Photo: M HKA

Panamarenko Universum, exhibition view. Photo: M HKA

Panamarenko has long since been concidered to be a key artist to the city of Antwerpen, loved by the inhabitants. With both the exhibition and the renovation and refurbishment of Panamarenko’s studio on Biekorfstraat, this endeavour is the most ambitious project of the M HKA in the past decade.

A ‘strange fellow’ with magical sculptures has long been the common perception of Panamarenko, as he might be seen as something between a visual artist and an inventor. Until now, not much effort has been done before in terms of delving into this artist’ ouevre.

The aim of this retrospective is not to bring together as many works as possible, but instead show them in a ”inter-connective context” that may be able to map the ouevre.

Panamarenko is an artist seemingly obsessed with how to make man fly and able to live underseas, and it is an intriguing experience to walk among his many devices and machines at the M HKA.

Panamarenko Universum, exhibition view. Photo: M HKA

Panamarenko Universum, exhibition view. Photo: M HKA

Panamarenko Universum, exhibition view. Photo: M HKA

Panamarenko Universum, exhibition view. Photo: M HKA

Panamarenko Universum, exhibition view. Photo: M HKA

Panamarenko Universum, exhibition view. Photo: M HKA

Panamarenko, Pahama, Spitsbergen, Nova Zemblaya, 1996.  Courtesy Collection Fondation Cartier, Paris. Photo: M HKA

Panamarenko, Pahama, Spitsbergen, Nova Zemblaya, 1996. Courtesy Collection Fondation Cartier, Paris. Photo: M HKA

Panamarenko, Portable Air Transport I, 1969. Courtesy Galerie Jamar

Panamarenko, Portable Air Transport I, 1969. Courtesy Galerie Jamar

Panamarenko Universum, exhibition view. Photo: M HKA

Panamarenko Universum, exhibition view. Photo: M HKA

Panamarenko Universum, exhibition view. Photo: M HKA

Panamarenko Universum, exhibition view. Photo: M HKA

]]>
0
Mette Paust-Andersen <![CDATA[Provokasjonens kunst]]> http://www.kunstforum.as/?p=18471 2014-11-13T09:52:56Z 2014-11-11T11:13:02Z – Forkaster vi refleksjonen og flertydigheten, forkaster vi også den særlige evnen kunsten er i besittelse av, mener Mette Paust-Andersen.

Det kan se ut til at vi har problemer med å svare på den provoserende kunsten. Vi mestrer ikke språket, og svarer derfor ikke med samme mynt – eksempelvis ved å lage ubehagelige bilder tilbake, slik den danske kunstneren Kristian von Hornsleth foreslår – men tyr heller til virkemidler som vi alle kan forstå, enten dette er å utsette kunstgalleriene for hærverk eller mure kunstneren inne.

Mette Paust-Andersen, prosjektmedarbeider Nordisk Råd og Nordisk Ministerråd

Mette Paust-Andersen har skrevet mastergrad om kunstens retorikk ved Københavns Universitet

Vi har sett det før; i debatten som fulgte bergenskunstneren Morten Traaviks 17.mai-festspill i Nord-Korea, i forbindelse med Lars Cuzner og Muhamed Ali Fadlabis rekonstruksjon av Kongolandsbyen og nå nylig også i oppstyret rundt tildelingen av Ibsen-prisen til den påståtte fascisten, Peter Handke; Når de regelridende samfunnsdebattantene trekker kunstverk ut av deres kontekst, reduserer det flertydige til det entydige og enkeltfasetterte, og tvinger kunsten til å diskutere på premisser og i et språk som ikke er dens eget, kan det lett oppstå misforståelser.

Dan Park og hans provokunst-kollegaer beskyldes av sine motstandere for å bruke kunsten som en slags trojansk hest for å komme til orde, og ytre sine ytterliggående politiske meninger i en offentlighet som ellers forviser disse til bortgjemte nettfora for de ytterliggåendes egne meningsfeller.

Imidlertid finnes det en mulighet for at kunstnerne trekker på politikken og samfunnsdebatten med en intensjon om tvert imot å tvinge oss som medborgere til å erfare verden gjennom den ytterliggående andres – om enn så ubehagelige – perspektiv. For kanskje er det først da vi kan forstå hvordan disse «andre» ser på verden, og hvordan deres verdensanskuelse faktisk er reell, på lik linje med vår egen.

Forkaster vi refleksjonen og flertydigheten, forkaster vi også den særlige evnen kunsten er i besittelse av; evnen til å utfordre og utvide våre perspektiver, å få oss til å spørre heller enn påstå, og å reflektere, heller enn å stagnere i samfunnsdebattens ensporede for og imot.

Dan Park balanserer på randen av samfunnsnormene, og det er dette som provoserer. Som mannen bak illustrasjoner av karikerte stereotypier, påtar han seg en rolle som talsmann i opposisjon til samfunnets etablerte verdier om antirasisme og respekt. På bakgrunn av kunstens ambivalens kan vi imidlertid ikke tillate oss å si oss fortrolige heller med denne rollen.

Skulle Dan Park fremme den samme debatten han i dag står som part i, ved å slutte seg til bejaelsen av det antirasistiske og antistigmatiserende, ville han verken blitt hørt eller maktet å sette fingeren på våre enda så sensitive nerver vedrørende menneskeverdet og ytringsfriheten kontra truslene andre meninger enn våre egne utgjør for dette.

Ved å sette dissens over konsensus bidrar den provoserende kunsten til å fremme et meningsmangfold og en viten om at dette eksisterer. Fortrenger vi den andres perspektiv, forkaster vi samtidig selve grunnlaget for debatten om våre så høyt forfektede verdier. Og denne debatten må stadig pågå, for vi skal aldri være for sikre i vår sak.

]]>
0
Redaksjonen <![CDATA[Ride 1 på Lars Bohman Gallery]]> http://www.kunstforum.as/?p=18451 2014-11-16T12:30:10Z 2014-11-09T12:46:01Z Torsdag 6.november åpnet Ride 1 utstillingen Ride 1;6 (Crash) på Lars Bohman Gallery i Stockholm. Med tematikk hentet fra den amerikanske filmen, inviteres man ikke bare inn, men man oppfordres til å delta i verket.

Ride 1, , Lars Bohman Gallery

Ride 1, Ride 1;6 (crash), 2014. Foto: Per-Erik Adamsson/ Lars Bohman Gallery

Siden 2004 har de tre svenskene Stig Sjölund (f. 1955), Ronny Hansson (f. 1962) og Jonas Kjellgren (f. 1962) samarbeidet som kunstergruppen Ride 1. Via barrierer som loser en inn, bygger Ride 1;6 (Crash) med installasjon, fotografi og videokunst på veggene, opp en atmosfere og et narrativ som kuliminerer i hovedattraksjonen, krasjet. Objektene som er plassert tilfeldig på barrierene gir ikke et entydig svar på hva som har skjedd, eller hva som kommer til å skje. Er krasjet bare en ride, uvirkelig som på film?

Ustillingen står til 7.desember.

Ride 1, , Lars Bohman Gallery

Ride 1, Ride 1;6 (crash), 2014. Foto: Per-Erik Adamsson/ Lars Bohman Gallery

ride 1, , Lars Bohman Gallery

Ride 1, Ride 1;6 (crash), 2014. Foto: Per-Erik Adamsson/ Lars Bohman Gallery

Ride 1, , Lars Bohman Gallery

Ride 1, Ride 1;6 (crash), 2014. Foto: Per-Erik Adamsson/ Lars Bohman Gallery

Ride 1, , Lars Bohman Gallery

Ride 1, Ride 1;6 (crash), 2014. Foto: Per-Erik Adamsson/ Lars Bohman Gallery

Ride 1, , Lars Bohman Gallery

Ride 1, Ride 1;6 (crash), 2014. Foto: Per-Erik Adamsson/ Lars Bohman Gallery

Ride 1, , Lars Bohman Gallery

Ride 1, Ride 1;6 (crash), 2014. Foto: Per-Erik Adamsson/ Lars Bohman Gallery

]]>
0
Mari Rustan <![CDATA[Q&A with Eline Mugaas]]> http://www.kunstforum.as/?p=18430 2014-11-10T11:08:33Z 2014-11-06T07:38:19Z Eline Mugaas is currently exhibiting at Galleri Riis in Stockholm, with Another Room, and she has also just published ALBUM together with Eline Storsveen. KUNSTforum asked Mugaas some questions about her work and inspirations.

Eline Mugaas and Eline Storsveen, spread from ALBUM#3, 2009

Eline Mugaas and Elise Storsveen, spread from ALBUM#3, 2009

What is ALBUM and how did it come to be?
ALBUM is a fanzine made by Elise Storsveen and me. It is made up of borrowed images that we have collected over many years from books and magazines. We had played around with the images making gifts for friends. Then we discovered that the architect space downstairs from my studio had a copy machine and they let us use it for cost. It’s all about who you sleep with.

What was appealing with the fanzine format and how does it change the work to publish it in a book instead?
The great thing about the zine-format is that we could build the project, one issue at the time. Since we both have other projects that we work on individually, we were looking for something that had as many restrictions as possible. ALBUM is made with scissors, tape paper and a copy machine. It is structured around the restrictions. It´s format is A4. It is 10-11 pages folded – that is how many pages the stapler can handle. All the images has been printed and mass distributed. They come from a vernacular image culture. We try to shy away from images done by artists, although it is not an absolute rule. We also stay away from looking for images on the Internet, but only to limit the amount of pictures. Working with the actual cut-outs we have to work with the image in the size it was printed, no enlarging. The only way to make it smaller is to cut something away. Then only thing we actually do, is to force the images to revel a new narrative. It is an exercise in reading images, to recognise potential connections.

The book is a wonderful opportunity to reach a much larger audience. The fanzine is only printed in an edition of 200. Working with great publishers in Norway (Teknisk Industri AS) and in New York (Primary Information), the book will be distributed both in Europe and the US. We have ended up scanning all the material, so ironically, the book is much better quality that the original zine. We like that joke.

For ALBUM#11 we´ll be back to tape scissors and the xerox machine.

Eline Mugaas and Eline Storsveen, ALBUM, published by Primary Information (US) and Teknisk Industri AS (NO), 2014

Eline Mugaas and Elise Storsveen, ALBUM, published by Primary Information (US) and Teknisk Industri AS (NO), 2014

Can you tell us about your current exhibition?
The show currently at Galleri Riis Stockholm, is called Another Room and is a variation on the show I Make Another Room that was shown in Oslo earlier this year. I am interested in volumes and spaces, space carvings. Each image is a room, a space that inflicts and inform, that resonates. The gallery space in Stockholm is different from the one in Oslo, and I was exited to see the images in these new rooms. To see how a new setting changed them, and a new hanging opened up for different readings.

Eline Mugaas, installation view of Another Room, Galleri Riis, Stockholm, 2014

Eline Mugaas, installation view of Another Room, Galleri Riis, Stockholm, 2014

Can you describe your work process from idea to work?
We need all night if we were to sort through these questions. I don’t always know where an idea ends and the work starts. There are ideas everywhere. The more you work, the more ideas. Sometimes you have to keep them away with alcohol. There is just not enough time.

How has working with photography changed since you began working with the medium?
I have been working with photography since the late eighties. I learned to use a camera to shoot slides of my sculptures, but I was always a sloppy photographer, more interested in the mistakes, than how to do it right. Photography is an accident-prone medium. I like the insistence of the information that I didn’t mean to include. What has changed is that it is becoming more and more accident-prone. There are more technology now that try to save me from myself, and that’s an annoying fact. Photography has also become democratised.  There are photographs and photographers everywhere, which shifts the focus. It is not what you see, but how you see that is interesting.

What are your main influences when creating a work of art?
I love books. Books by artists, books about artists, books about architecture, poetry, fiction and theoretical texts. Ugly books, gorgeous books and all kinds of magazines, posters and postcards.

Eline Mugaas, Bananas, 2014

Eline Mugaas, Bananas, 2014

Can you name a writer or book, fiction or theory that has inspired your works?
Lately I am re-reading Eleen Myles The importance of being Iceland. Myles writes from a city I used to know, with spunk and fire and a knack for language that sings in my head. And there’s Jane Jacobs The Death and Life of Great American Cities, an important book for everybody living in Oslo and other cities with horny politicians driven by booster-mentality. I have been especially interested in the work by artist Moyra Davey, the poet of dust. An image-sceptic image maker. She also edited the great book The Mother Reader, texts on work and motherhood. That book took me out of a postpartum depression and I have been following her since.

Why is art important?
Art is trying to say something about how it is to be alive at this specific time and place. This is why art should not stagnate; we need to re-look at the same things over and over. And it is also why art 30 000 years old can touch us, even though we don’t necessarily know the context it was made in.

The release party of ALBUM will be at Galleri Riis, Stockholm, November 6th, from 6-8pm, and Eline Mugaas’ show Another Room will be on display at Galleri Riis in Stockholm until November 15th.

]]>
0
Agnieszka Gratza <![CDATA[A Living Critique]]> http://www.kunstforum.as/?p=18407 2014-11-21T09:22:45Z 2014-11-04T14:56:17Z Ane Hjort Guttu’s solo exhibition at the contemporary art centre Le Quartier in remote Quimper on the edge of Brittany is a thought-provoking and varied demonstration of a living critique.

Ane Hjort Guttu, Still from "Four Studies of Oslo and New York", 2012

Ane Hjort Guttu, Still from “Four Studies of Oslo and New York”, 2012

A Living Critique
Unitary Urbanism, staged at Le Quartier, Quimper and curated by its director Keren Detton, is Ane Hjort Guttu’s first solo exhibition in France. The show’s title is borrowed from a manifesto of sorts, the 1961 Basic Program of the Bureau of Unitary Urbanism, signed by Raoul Vaneigem and Attila Kotanyi, both of whom were closely associated with Guy Debord and the Situationist movement. The co-authors of the Basic Program contend, among other things, that modern city planning precludes the possibility of what they call “unitary urbanism”, which they define as a “living critique of this manipulation of cities and their inhabitants, a critique fuelled by the tensions of everyday life”.

A “living critique” of this kind is exactly what the well-judged selection of works on view at Le Quartier, spanning the last seven years of the Oslo-based artist’s career, amounts to. Spread over four rooms, the eight works included in the show range from silkscreen posters and architectural models to video works and sound installations. By and large they relate to the overarching theme of the city, and concern themselves with city planning more specifically, though not exclusively.

The one exception to this – the earliest of the works, from 2007 – is a series of 31 black-and-white photographs of women sculptors shown with their sculptures in a number of prescribed poses or attitudes that apparently, according to the wall label, contrast with how their male counterparts are typically represented (though, in the absence of parallel photographs of male artists, we have to take this on trust). In any case, the link with “unitary urbanism” is not at all obvious in this instance. However, the photographic series does connect to the poignant portrait of an unknown female artist in Untitled (The City At Night), first shown at the Bergen Assembly in 2013, a video projected in the final gallery space.

Guttu’s video work perfectly illustrates the ideas set out in the Basic Program, like where Vaneigem and Kotanyi, under the heading “An Indivisible Freedom” spell things out in the fifth point of their manifesto, “A living critique means setting up bases for an experimental life where people can come together to create their own lives on terrains equipped to their ends”.

The anonymous artist, whom Guttu interviews in Untitled (The City At Night), starts by relating what prompted her radical break with the art world, paralleled by a personal crisis that resulted in her rejection of family life. By severing professional and personal ties, the artist created the conditions for the “experimental life” envisioned by the Situationist program. Her nightly peregrinations around Oslo, in search of specific situations that feed into a single long-term project – a series of abstract geometric drawings confined to a filing cabinet – has led to what the artist views as “genuine encounters” with a community of night strollers.

Like many of Guttu’s video pieces, Untitled (The City At Night) is a composite and layered work. The 22-minute video comes in three formally distinct parts. For the first six minutes, we only hear the voices of the artist and her interviewee; we see nothing other than the subtitles that appear against a black background. This bleeds into the main section in which the ongoing conversation is illustrated by photographs of the filing cabinet and its contents. The film’s three sections build on each other to create an allusive and unsettling account that leaves a lot to the viewer’s imagination.

Ane Hjort Guttu, still from "Untitled (The City At Night)", 2013

Ane Hjort Guttu, still from “Untitled (The City At Night)”, 2013

Conversation Pieces
Conversations are at the heart of several works in the show. Made with Unitary Urbanism in mind, the sound installation Charlotte and Pierre (2014) is a softly spoken dialogue between two characters whose foreign accents belie their common French names. The quasi-philosophical, dreamy and a tad self-indulgent exchange hinges on Charlotte’s inability or lost ability to perceive the world as it is, that’s to say unmediated, the way it appears to a child. It unfolds against a backdrop of faint traffic noises, of a piece with the simple black wooden structure whose minimal black awning and benches intended for visitors to sit on as they listen to the recording are meant to evoke a bus shelter. The black colour effectively picks up on a recurrent motif of the dialogue as well as visually complimenting the black-and-white photographs of the women sculptors mounted on the walls in the same room.

Ane Hjort Guttu, installation view showing "Charlotte and Pierre", 2014.

Ane Hjort Guttu, installation view showing “Charlotte and Pierre”, 2014.

Four Studies of Oslo and New York (2012) likewise begins with a briefing between two real estate agents on how sun exposure affects the price of a flat, played over a panoramic shot of an apartment for sale. This is echoed, about halfway through the film, by a longer discussion between two Norwegian architects (Guttu’s father and one of his friends in the guise of Vladimir and Estragon from Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot). In what could be seen as another instance of “unitary urbanism” advocated by the Situationist program, they bemoan the way Scandinavian housing regulations set up in the 1970s to ensure that access to light is factored into planning decisions have since been diluted, as they bask in the sunshine on a bench facing the Oslo harbour with stacks of books piled besides them from which they occasionally read out.

Commissioned by Le Quartier, the two-channel HD video The Adults (2014) makes a strong visual impact at the outset of the show, owing to the sheer size of the projection and its bright flickering colours. As if to balance out the discursive modes of communication privileged in the above-mentioned pieces, the two boys who are the silent protagonists of The Adults (2014) seem to understand each other without needing to speak. In an interview with curator Keren Detton, Guttu invokes the Danish architect Palle Nielson who saw children at play as “a model for a qualitative society”. The Adults shows the two young boys as if prematurely aged by the invasive, artificial lights of the moving image displays advertising a medley of instantly recognisable products – a blatant case of “the manipulation of cities and their inhabitants” denounced in the Basic Program.

Ane Hjort Guttu, still from "The Adults", 2014

Ane Hjort Guttu, still from “The Adults”, 2014

Yet unlike the remaining passengers waiting on the platform or sitting inside subway carriages, dwarfed by the larger-than-life effigies that they either ignore or look at absent-mindedly, the boys give them their full attention and use the pulsing lights as visual cues for a perfectly synchronised choreography à deux, in which they alternatively face and turn their backs on the advertisements. Where adults passively absorb the content of the messages, their concerted play is a way of breaking free and a living embodiment of unitary urbanism.

]]>
0