Tennis Party with Nicolas H. Müller, January 2011
about its exposure to General in the Manufacture, April 2011
In the distance, it hurts the eyes Nicolas Muller: Up I like it just between us, "the truth it does not say any" .
Sophie Lapalu: And is what we could do an interview to be published on my blog? Interested? or rather, you prefer not to "explain", and leave the riddle? You know Stanley Brown, "The work of Stanley Brouwn has not been commented on, at the request of the artist tells us that" does not work with texts or pictures with. "
I'm not like Brouwn Stanley, in fact I almost worked with images and texts ... For cons, in contrast to explain myself, I prefer to talk certain things, let other off-field and finally, if one day someone reads this, he will draw whatever he wants. Uh ... it meant so pleased, thank you for your proposal . But is what we can do something more like a discussion than an interview (much like what we do). Or discu fiction (sort of docudrama written?)
Shit I'm boring anyway. Excuse me, we will as you think. That may well be an interview finalement.J hope not to be too silly in my answers
ahaha! anything.
A modernist visions claims the idea that each discipline has to explore its own physical characteristics; painters focus exclusively on the color and surface, and sculptors are refocusing in the closed volume of the sculpture . In this way, creativity, self-referential, is completely independent. What concerns me about your work is that formal, modernist artists you approach, the self-referential work. No expressionism, but minimal forms very sober. A painting with three circles, one solid color of turquoise, a gray block. However, where you detach yourself completely of these designs is that the majority of your work operate in a specific context, and that, somehow, they are not autonomous. Why this choice of an abstract form / minimum marked in a specific location?
You say (...)
I'm not really the choice of an abstract form / minimum, it is necessary strength. Whenever they are obvious answers to questions that come at some point. And secondly, I would not talk about abstract shapes, minimal yes, but it is closer to representation than anything else (they are representations of existing forms). As heir to the history of art, I appropriate just some of these materials (forms and formal issues) that I believe are essential to give them a new direction.
And, in fact, I have a series of drawings and abstract expressionists, but, again, are ultimately not much of expressionism or abstraction of representations (drawing from series of explosions, lots of energy, but a representation final).
Does that mean that you wish that we "recognize" the original form in your work comes from? It's interesting the distinction between abstract and minimal.
Yeah, I may quibble a bit there.
I want to see your drawings!
I've torn a few nights ago ... Shit I'm sometimes con, I'll join others in exchange. Drawings via computer architectures designed Julia (my wonderful computer).
Your work for exhibition venues in individuals all have a "story , "An anecdote accompanies them, you also do not necessarily reveal (a broken window of the Villa Camelina exposed in the villa, a portion of the heating system ...). Is this the part that interests narrative, one that develops between the shape and location?
I'm not from a family or a cultural art really pushed (I discovered Braque and Vasarely in the film of the Unknowns for example, or my first visit to a museum was the palace of Tokyo for the exhibition of Wang Du). And therefore, I always leave multiple gateways. I do not particularly elitist assumption of some but on the other side grandstanding makes me sick (it was in this exhibition at the ARC, Backing I think). This narrative thus allows entry points such as work on the site may send me back to me Michael Ascher and Robert Morris, or more caricatured Klein and Turrel.
Do you think that we should reveal how the shape appeared, or the viewer must imagine it for himself?
I think the audience decide its position relative to the form, even if he decides there is no form (it often happened that some of my pieces are not considered such, but also conversely, that external factors are considered mine).
Different average color of the Universe
Logically and at another level we could say that the Mona Lisa at the Louvre does not produce the same report to her that if it is presented to the Commissioner. It is perhaps by being nasty, just the matter of fact, almost the "thing" found but that does not yet well.
According Matilda Ferrer, "the work ( situ ) would occur more now no longer necessary, as the place where it shows (public or private space, institutionalized or not) without it can be reproduced (re-exposed) to the same elsewhere, since another context could only produce the other conditions of appearances "(2). The same room in another place would produce a different sense, except I think in museum space, which sanitizes the context (and this is where the guy at the Palais de Tokyo. Have not seen it but not the situ for a penny).
The missing piece
Name the painter of origin, year of design work
View of the north windows of the Villa Camelina
Statement
Sophie Lapalu: And is what we could do an interview to be published on my blog? Interested? or rather, you prefer not to "explain", and leave the riddle? You know Stanley Brown, "The work of Stanley Brouwn has not been commented on, at the request of the artist tells us that" does not work with texts or pictures with. "
I'm not like Brouwn Stanley, in fact I almost worked with images and texts ... For cons, in contrast to explain myself, I prefer to talk certain things, let other off-field and finally, if one day someone reads this, he will draw whatever he wants. Uh ... it meant so pleased, thank you for your proposal . But is what we can do something more like a discussion than an interview (much like what we do). Or discu fiction (sort of docudrama written?)
Shit I'm boring anyway. Excuse me, we will as you think. That may well be an interview finalement.J hope not to be too silly in my answers
ahaha! anything.
A modernist visions claims the idea that each discipline has to explore its own physical characteristics; painters focus exclusively on the color and surface, and sculptors are refocusing in the closed volume of the sculpture . In this way, creativity, self-referential, is completely independent. What concerns me about your work is that formal, modernist artists you approach, the self-referential work. No expressionism, but minimal forms very sober. A painting with three circles, one solid color of turquoise, a gray block. However, where you detach yourself completely of these designs is that the majority of your work operate in a specific context, and that, somehow, they are not autonomous. Why this choice of an abstract form / minimum marked in a specific location?
You say (...) And, in fact, I have a series of drawings and abstract expressionists, but, again, are ultimately not much of expressionism or abstraction of representations (drawing from series of explosions, lots of energy, but a representation final).
Does that mean that you wish that we "recognize" the original form in your work comes from? It's interesting the distinction between abstract and minimal.
Yeah, I may quibble a bit there.
I want to see your drawings!
I've torn a few nights ago ... Shit I'm sometimes con, I'll join others in exchange. Drawings via computer architectures designed Julia (my wonderful computer).
Your work for exhibition venues in individuals all have a "story , "An anecdote accompanies them, you also do not necessarily reveal (a broken window of the Villa Camelina exposed in the villa, a portion of the heating system ...). Is this the part that interests narrative, one that develops between the shape and location?
I'm not from a family or a cultural art really pushed (I discovered Braque and Vasarely in the film of the Unknowns for example, or my first visit to a museum was the palace of Tokyo for the exhibition of Wang Du). And therefore, I always leave multiple gateways. I do not particularly elitist assumption of some but on the other side grandstanding makes me sick (it was in this exhibition at the ARC, Backing I think). This narrative thus allows entry points such as work on the site may send me back to me Michael Ascher and Robert Morris, or more caricatured Klein and Turrel.
Do you think that we should reveal how the shape appeared, or the viewer must imagine it for himself?
I think the audience decide its position relative to the form, even if he decides there is no form (it often happened that some of my pieces are not considered such, but also conversely, that external factors are considered mine).
Different average color of the Universe That's awesome, you know it Goodman said that the works function as they inform the vision, "they inform not by providing information, but forming, re-forming or transforming the vision, the vision and not confined to the perception eye, but vision as understanding in general. [...] The function works by interacting with the totality of our experience and our cognitive processes in the continual progress of our understanding. [1] I like the idea that art "infused" the echoes of the work are reflected throughout our everyday environment, they interact with it. Free us to offer a perception processed materials in a fireplace cube, because we saw your work and that it affects. It is a somewhat romantic vision I think, but that's what I expect of art.
Yeah, I'm absolutely certain of a return of romance. Of course not this naive vision that has been digested, plus some something that would have the taste of a disappointment. Deriving from the glorious past of minimalism, conceptual art and the art disorder age in the 80's gold ...
I feel that your parts are contextual as "revealing" of production conditions. Like "I'll explain in this place, this place is so I'll play with." What do you think?
is possible, but may be more indicative of the condition of showing, in the case of contextual pieces.
I understand, but what I mean is that in the contextual parts, the demonstration comes in 1 and production at 2.
1: "I am invited to exhibit one piece"
2: "I create the piece based on the expo site.
Either it says = I reveal the conditions of demonstration or = I reveal that I produce as a function of place and that place which meant that my room is.
And in the end it all reveal the place of exhibition that the production process ...
is not my thing clear.
Well, frankly, it's probably my trouble in communication, but it is not so obscure. In fact I am tempted to follow you in this idea, I quite agree.
Stephan Germer: "A context is constructed, it does not carry." What does extract a piece designed specifically for an exhibition and show in a perfect white cube, outside the place for which it was made?
is precisely the question I ask myself, in this sense we can say that it may be more about the manipulation of parts, I do not suggest an answer, more a matter of fact .
I do not know if you saw the exhibition pavilion of the palace on December 18, Jerome said, Residents suggested that a piece in situ, which vibrated barrier and produced an echo in space. In this way, it was quite happy to move this piece in other areas ... Is this really in situ in this case, or just a piece that is placed at different locations?
Ben, the situ for myself frankly addressed the issue, in situ PROCESSED, reconfigure the place.
Yeah, I'm absolutely certain of a return of romance. Of course not this naive vision that has been digested, plus some something that would have the taste of a disappointment. Deriving from the glorious past of minimalism, conceptual art and the art disorder age in the 80's gold ...
I feel that your parts are contextual as "revealing" of production conditions. Like "I'll explain in this place, this place is so I'll play with." What do you think?
is possible, but may be more indicative of the condition of showing, in the case of contextual pieces.
I understand, but what I mean is that in the contextual parts, the demonstration comes in 1 and production at 2.
1: "I am invited to exhibit one piece"
2: "I create the piece based on the expo site.
Either it says = I reveal the conditions of demonstration or = I reveal that I produce as a function of place and that place which meant that my room is.
And in the end it all reveal the place of exhibition that the production process ...
is not my thing clear.
Well, frankly, it's probably my trouble in communication, but it is not so obscure. In fact I am tempted to follow you in this idea, I quite agree.
Stephan Germer: "A context is constructed, it does not carry." What does extract a piece designed specifically for an exhibition and show in a perfect white cube, outside the place for which it was made?
is precisely the question I ask myself, in this sense we can say that it may be more about the manipulation of parts, I do not suggest an answer, more a matter of fact .
I do not know if you saw the exhibition pavilion of the palace on December 18, Jerome said, Residents suggested that a piece in situ, which vibrated barrier and produced an echo in space. In this way, it was quite happy to move this piece in other areas ... Is this really in situ in this case, or just a piece that is placed at different locations?
Ben, the situ for myself frankly addressed the issue, in situ PROCESSED, reconfigure the place.
Logically and at another level we could say that the Mona Lisa at the Louvre does not produce the same report to her that if it is presented to the Commissioner. It is perhaps by being nasty, just the matter of fact, almost the "thing" found but that does not yet well.
According Matilda Ferrer, "the work ( situ ) would occur more now no longer necessary, as the place where it shows (public or private space, institutionalized or not) without it can be reproduced (re-exposed) to the same elsewhere, since another context could only produce the other conditions of appearances "(2). The same room in another place would produce a different sense, except I think in museum space, which sanitizes the context (and this is where the guy at the Palais de Tokyo. Have not seen it but not the situ for a penny).
The missing piece is better said that my proxies!
John Marc Poinsot says "One of the manifestations of how the work operates situ on reality appears with the particular effect that the work or providing product feedback on this reality it has taken an item. "That's true in your work super pop! You warn the place! There is a real return on the collected! And it's so true what the term "charged" for your work at the Villa Camelina! I think that in situ is not only the work situation, the report instead must be as binding as it involves the place where he is. And I think some of your pieces fit very frankly in this dialectic.
Do you think they also have formal qualities "sufficient" to be shown independently?
They mean no sense how he can reclaim?
You're right!
But do not you play the game of contemporary art that make these works a priori outsized parts independent of collectibles?
I dunno, I think I would play this game the day I would have a rating, and that, precisely, the issue of collection object arises. It will probably be time for me to stop and contextualization these issues and instead move to the destruction (as an object that has outlived its usefulness, a ballpoint pen without ink).
Destruction?
Yes, back in the question of temporality real parts. They make sense at a particular time, because there is also a particular context. So out of time for the event, and after this time the context changes. A piece that only exist during a time out this time, why remonstrate or speak, she would be wrong (it would in time t + x). So far destroy!
Finally I'm almost an improviser, I would have to immerse myself more in the question.
You always play the exhibition venue, you go out into the light ( it hurts the eyes ), or you double ( Name the painter of origin, year of design work , View of the North window of the Villa Camelina ) , you mock methods of exposure ( Marie Louise), the discourse on the show ( You say that the last level of literary art is the idea of molding the image ) and places (The missing piece ) . The work finally seems made for the exhibition space, as though she could not escape, trapped, unable to find its meaning in these places. Can you say that you will articulate a form of "institutional critique", but rather with a gentle irony, poetic and funny?
John Marc Poinsot says "One of the manifestations of how the work operates situ on reality appears with the particular effect that the work or providing product feedback on this reality it has taken an item. "That's true in your work super pop! You warn the place! There is a real return on the collected! And it's so true what the term "charged" for your work at the Villa Camelina! I think that in situ is not only the work situation, the report instead must be as binding as it involves the place where he is. And I think some of your pieces fit very frankly in this dialectic.
Do you think they also have formal qualities "sufficient" to be shown independently?
They mean no sense how he can reclaim?
You're right!
But do not you play the game of contemporary art that make these works a priori outsized parts independent of collectibles?
I dunno, I think I would play this game the day I would have a rating, and that, precisely, the issue of collection object arises. It will probably be time for me to stop and contextualization these issues and instead move to the destruction (as an object that has outlived its usefulness, a ballpoint pen without ink).
Destruction?
Yes, back in the question of temporality real parts. They make sense at a particular time, because there is also a particular context. So out of time for the event, and after this time the context changes. A piece that only exist during a time out this time, why remonstrate or speak, she would be wrong (it would in time t + x). So far destroy!
Finally I'm almost an improviser, I would have to immerse myself more in the question.
You always play the exhibition venue, you go out into the light ( it hurts the eyes ), or you double ( Name the painter of origin, year of design work , View of the North window of the Villa Camelina ) , you mock methods of exposure ( Marie Louise), the discourse on the show ( You say that the last level of literary art is the idea of molding the image ) and places (The missing piece ) . The work finally seems made for the exhibition space, as though she could not escape, trapped, unable to find its meaning in these places. Can you say that you will articulate a form of "institutional critique", but rather with a gentle irony, poetic and funny?
Name the painter of origin, year of design work I do not really want to answer that question, sorry. It may be that ... I was lucky, or the bad luck of having been to principal interlocutors people like Duyckaerts, Labelle Rojoux or Joseph Lamb, and this posture review (not necessarily negative, just remarks) offered me the opportunity to make sense of things. I will take such this afternoon there ... , which incidentally can be my best work. I found this watercolor in the street, and another, similar, beautiful scenery romantic fool. And allow them to exist was for one to put it on a chair rail, and the other to offer to a young woman. I later learned that the second watercolor was destroyed and discarded. It makes sense however the same title. Can I have be lost there ... forgiveness. I like these two characters in the cosmos Gombrowicz. Just
I have not given these names for fun, just because they were important in the construction of this form.
I still play from exposure, I always found annoying, haughty (the rare times I'm ready to play), this trick of making paintings or sculptures and do not hang in space that 'paying attention to discussions between them. These are the kinds of lessons given to the audience (as that term bothers me walkers can be is more just, or visitors - you walk into an exhibition, we visit, even if it is sometimes a show, not yet in my case -) it shows how one is strong and that it is well known hang.
I have not given these names for fun, just because they were important in the construction of this form.
I still play from exposure, I always found annoying, haughty (the rare times I'm ready to play), this trick of making paintings or sculptures and do not hang in space that 'paying attention to discussions between them. These are the kinds of lessons given to the audience (as that term bothers me walkers can be is more just, or visitors - you walk into an exhibition, we visit, even if it is sometimes a show, not yet in my case -) it shows how one is strong and that it is well known hang.
View of the north windows of the Villa Camelina In fact, very clearly, for Relatives (Name painter of origin, date of the painting, View from North Window the Villa Camelina ) documents submitted also speak of production conditions. Thus, in this mansion, it just happened to be the new Caesar jesters, story to amuse the friends of the latter. So I opted for a negation in some ways, creative (I mean in some ways because clearly, as these questions interested me, and blah blah blah).
There was something else there, is that I was also curator of the exhibition, so the question of the place (not just space) of my works had to be specific (something of the order Parts spectators, for once, the event was happening).
's really what I think happened. Totally agree. It's fine to say that a part is a spectator of the event. And yes, your parts do not needed, they were not authoritarian, quite the contrary. The negation of creation, I also see what you mean.
Cinema has a priori influence pervasive in your work. How does this manifest itself there?
Like this story narration that I tried to explain above, this culture offers hooks.
There was something else there, is that I was also curator of the exhibition, so the question of the place (not just space) of my works had to be specific (something of the order Parts spectators, for once, the event was happening).
's really what I think happened. Totally agree. It's fine to say that a part is a spectator of the event. And yes, your parts do not needed, they were not authoritarian, quite the contrary. The negation of creation, I also see what you mean.
Cinema has a priori influence pervasive in your work. How does this manifest itself there?
Like this story narration that I tried to explain above, this culture offers hooks.
Statement Is what we can say that you will maintain a connection between popular culture and "hight Culture? It's funny, I go back to the vocabulary used to modernism, with "avant garde and kitsch" Greenberg: there for him Hight the art and low art, kitsch. At home, despite shapes "hight art," you have one foot in the "low" (sorry this vocabulary rather yucky, but I am only repeating eh) with your pieces around the football or humorous your titles, your anecdotes that accompany your rooms, Cluedo and appearance, "look for the index. At first glance, your work seems elitist, and then, if one takes the trouble to look, look, things are revealed, and are ultimately very simple (which is a compliment).
In an application for a residence (which I never sent) I put this I'm too lazy to put you in sorry shape:
My proposals, whether personal or curatorial (found in my own work), anchored in an existing real (though sometimes from a different universe: Film , literature ...). In this work, a knowledge / know People comes to confront a culture called learned (knowledge of all kinds - historical, political, ...- mathematics) and an apprehension of "the sensitive" to the experience of these proposals (same).
"The truth, she did not tell the whole" It has been widely
see that remain in a semi-open that allows an understanding of the work. In this sense one could say that this opening is the viewer who comes complete, re-close with his own knowledge and experiences.
Yep agree. Goodman joined it earlier. Well, I'll stop there for now and bounce on your answers / I do not know if I bounce a lot. Bloum Bloum sploch. bises
[1] Nelson Goodman, art in theory and in action , Paris: Gallimard, coll. Folio tests, p. 123-124.
[2] groups, movements, trends in art Contemporary since 1945, Paris: ENSBA, 2002 97.
[3] When the work takes place: the art presentation and his stories allowed , Villeurbanne: Art Edition, MAMCO, 1999 97.
In an application for a residence (which I never sent) I put this I'm too lazy to put you in sorry shape:
My proposals, whether personal or curatorial (found in my own work), anchored in an existing real (though sometimes from a different universe: Film , literature ...). In this work, a knowledge / know People comes to confront a culture called learned (knowledge of all kinds - historical, political, ...- mathematics) and an apprehension of "the sensitive" to the experience of these proposals (same).
"The truth, she did not tell the whole" It has been widely
see that remain in a semi-open that allows an understanding of the work. In this sense one could say that this opening is the viewer who comes complete, re-close with his own knowledge and experiences.
Yep agree. Goodman joined it earlier. Well, I'll stop there for now and bounce on your answers / I do not know if I bounce a lot. Bloum Bloum sploch. bises
[1] Nelson Goodman, art in theory and in action , Paris: Gallimard, coll. Folio tests, p. 123-124.
[2] groups, movements, trends in art Contemporary since 1945, Paris: ENSBA, 2002 97.
[3] When the work takes place: the art presentation and his stories allowed , Villeurbanne: Art Edition, MAMCO, 1999 97.
0 comments:
Post a Comment