Does this conceptualisation of witnessing and documentation set us on the right track? Could these gestures signify something else? The idea that as media they are passive imbues them with a perfect neutrality. As if whilst acting as a document, they fade into the background and only represent that which they are privy to. But that is not the case and the stubborn nature of objective reality rears its head. These objects are there. One can say: they are foremost being there. The actions performed on them withdraw behind their presence and with that, also the person, the actor of these actions. The artist disappears ... almost.Help me, I have to pee, help me, oh, now it's already too late
Wet trousers are much more than a document. They shine with the complexity of verification and signification.
Of course one can write here about Beckett. Also of Lars von Trier's The Kingdom. About violence and provocation. Openings, ruptures and mutations. About the experience of a child, and the difference between inner and outer perception.
I also think of an incident Werner Herzog recalled when, in one of his tantrums, Klaus Kinski locked himself in the Munich bathroom for two days, remaining there until every single one of its tiles were smashed. Kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and the objects that make up these spaces.
Somewhat extensively I quote Herta Müller, from her opening speech of the Ruhrtriennale a few days ago: "Drum, catface, and hairpin were no play on words, but reality. And I knew, I should not tell this even to my best friend. It was like in the village, when I said to my grandmother on the way back from church: The heart of Maria is like a cut watermelon.' Upon which she said: 'That may be so, but you mustn't say this to anyone.
Christine Moldrickx works on the dismantling of neutrality and the expansion of language of mute objects. That someone can say.
- - verberg extra tekst