Sliding from improbability into reality

Oblique Violence

The images you'd posted some while ago titled: Destabilizers, made me think of a discussion that came up during the diagram cluster about the distinction between games and experiments or play and simulation. Clearly the Pendular Destabilizer tends to be more of an experiment or a simulative environment, but for example Theo's wooden block has a playful element to it. With these destabilizers in mind I'm going to think and write towards the destabilizing moment in the works and photographs that accompany this text. The distortion that took place in the reproduction of an archive image is perspectively 'corrected' in the installation with a floating cardboard which serves as a projection surface and is suspended in the same oblique angle as the angle of the camera set up during the moment of reproduction. In this process a trapezium of residual light, that is nevertheless part of the reproduction is cast on the wall/door/door frame/window. This is quite a technical and formal shift, which analyses the moment of reproduction; camera (production) and projector (presentation) can in fact be swapped and with it the original event leaks into the documentation, the original location into a new location. The installment with the floating cardboard suspended with fish wire is quite a different language that speaks of the stance towards the subject (matter). The gesture perhaps opposes the technocratic, 'impersonal' procedure of distortion and correction. It is a nostalgic act, that is elaborated on by the Malevich like shaped leaking projection light on the back wall. Talking about Nostalgia, romanticism and desire are not far off.



Does describing the work get me anywhere?

PARTICIPATION-INTERACTION-ACTIVATION
Actually the destabilizer appears more in this context: openness/passive - aggression/ active. In the dialogue with Ruth before she coined the term passive design in relation to flexible furniture. The slope, obligue angle in this relation destabilises patterns of expectation. Perhaps, if not too abstract, it (they) can destabilise expectations of the past and patterns of the future, or something.



Studying these destabilising environments a bit closer I found that the physical and visual disorientation can take place among others through the disruption of the equilibrium between floor, wall and ceiling. (Floor and dust, wall and frame, window and view.)
Shades, reflections cast on anything without making a distinction between the different dimensions, humans or objects. These shades, reflections also disturbs the density of joints or intersections that often define the transition from one dimension to another, or one space to another. When these densities of intersection are more diffusely spread in space, the space transforms; inverted, turned upside down, at odds with gravity.

Staging a fight in front of the Worker's Cabin.

There are a couple of things I'd like to discuss. I'll start with the nature of the collaboration. With the third (invisible) man we have created ourselves an imaginary audience and a sort of structure (between writing and reading, between a readerly and writerly position taking) for the process of collaboration. I wander if you went through the introduction on Starobinski's essay on Rousseau, which is very interesting in this context. I'll continue fantasizing on the possible structure it could provide. We are the authors (writers) of the works we will produce for the exhibition. But we act like readers at the same time because we envision ourselves as the 'work' of an immanent other or we see ourselves from his point of view. Therefore we can speak and think about the seductive from the work might take, up to a certain level we can experience it, while we have objectified it. This is where the appearance of our collaboration takes the most tangible form. We decided on a pose. This pose is at best described by a sentence you borrowed once from Janet Frame which says: "This photograph is underexposed please would you intensify it?" The man, the audience implied in the work whether they'd be bothered or not, want something impossible from us (from the artwork?) why not ask something impossible from them, something they cannot possibly reciprocate or offer them a tool for help which is quite useless other then make this 'problem' appear physical.