-
NARODNI MUZEJ CRNE GOREATELJE DADO
IVAN ŠUKOVIĆOstaci života - neupadljivi prikazi
-
Mimikrija, psihostenija1 i kratki-rezovi-po-životu
Foto i video instalacija Ivana Šukovića „Ostaci života -
neupadljivi prikazi” prepoznaje kao svoj „primalni glas“, kao svoj
eho u blizini, slavnu dramu Luiđija Pirandela: „Šest osoba traži
autora“. Šest ljudi ili jednu porodicu umjetnik fotografiše
raspoređujući ih, aranžirajući najprije unutar ambijenta ispošćenog
pejzaža od vode i kamena pa ih potom useljava u zatvor-eni prostor
prirodnjačkog muzeja, među preparirane životinje, prividno ih
animirajući ordinarnim radnjama, blagoslovom porodične
svakodnevice. Video rad zumira donji dio tijela žene, majke i njen
ručni rad, pletenje, kao upornu, kontinuiranu radnju.
Ovim se radom uspostavlja jedno naročito trenje teksta i slike
koje više ne obavezuje na vjernost ni jednu ni drugu stranu;
osvjetljavanje (ili sijenčenje) nekog intersticija između
narativnog i reprezentacijskog, tijela i prostora, individualnog i
grupnog, privatnog i javnog, memorije i sadašnosti, nekog
međuprostora kao presijecanja ili usijecanja aura tijela, aura
ambijenata, aura događaja, aura vremena. Time se oslobađa neki
njihov čudni, perverzni egzistencijalni dodatak ili jedan manjak
smisla kojim jedinka polako sagorijeva i izdiše svoju personalnost
i briše sebe kao aktivno, živo mjesto na mapi svijeta i
događaja.
Od svih distinkcija, kaže Rože Kajoa, ne postoji oštrija i
jasnija od one između organizma i njegove okoline ili bar nigdje
drugo iskustvo razdvajanja nije tako direktno. Na osjećaju
razdvojenosti i razlike od okoline temelji se i osjećaj
personalnosti jedinke. Prema Kajoi, mimikrija je fenomen
umanjivanja ili brisanja razlika između organizma i njegovog
okruženja sa ciljem konačne asimilacije sa okruženjem. U slučaju
Šukovićevog rada mimikrija, umanjivanjavanje ili brisanje razlika
između tijela/ljudi, jedne porodice i njihove nežive okoline,
tijela prepariranih životinja u staklenim kavezima prirodnjačkog
muzeja, ne dejstvuje kao napadačka niti odbrambena strategija,
dakle, kao praksa egzistencijalnog pozicioniranja sopstva niti kao
panteističko, arkadijsko prelivanje svih formi postojanja jednih u
druge prema Pitagorinoj premisi da je priroda svuda jednaka.
Takođe, ona ovdje nije u funkciji moćne sinteze: kondenzovanja
vremena, uzglobljavanja u jedan sklop i činjenja vidljivim,
tjelesnim, onoga što prethodi smrti i onoga što dolazi sa/za njom
niti se ovdje nude kakve suptilne eshatološke propozicije. Prema
Kajoi, mimikrija ne ostaje uvijek na površini, nije pitanje samo
adaptacija forme na formu (homomorfija) već je kod nekih vrsta i
slučajeva moguće ujednačavanje biološke strukture. U ovim
prizorima, ovim kratkim-rezovima-po-životu asimilacija sa znači
mimikrijsko poravnanje druge vrste ili sa one strane ili nešto
više. Mimikrijske strategije kao da ovdje stavljaju u pogon i živa
bića i njihova (neživa) okolina upravo u međusobnom suočenju i
upravo zbog tog bliskog kontakta. Ovdje brisanje razlika nije cilj
nego sudbina: ono ne znači pribjeći, opstati, sačuvati nego zateći
i zarobiti, otići nigdje, ostati na ničemu, imati ništa. Ovdje
mimikrija mutira i manifestuje se kao ambijentalizacija i
postvarenje živih ljudi u kontekstu mrtve prirode, odnosno, kao
fantomsko, jezivo „oživljavanje“ mrtve prirode, nežive okoline
useljavanjem u nju privida normalnosti, običnosti i funkcionalnosti
„živih“ porodičnih rituala. Tek u prisustvu ljudi čija je
egzistencija u stanju bolnog usporenja nepokretne figure
prepariranih životinja postaju čudno oživljene. Ovdje, dakle, ne
postoji „čista“ smrt kao sklonjeno, odsutno tijelo niti „čisti“
život kao tijelo/tijela koja vezuju i koja su vezana smislom
postojanja, oslobođena posjedovanjem volje i želje i mogućnostima
izbora kao moćima promjene.
1 Mimikrija i legendarna psihostenija naziv je čuvenog eseja
Rožea Kajoa iz 1935. godine (Roger Caillos, Mimicry and Legendary
Psychasthenia, October The First Decade, 1976-1986, The MIT Press,
1987)http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpcaillois.htm
-
Ovdje nema uspostave jasne, radikalne razlike, ultimativne
opozicije (živo i neživo, život i smrt) već samo teška pulsiranja
niskih intenziteta (kao-življenja i kao-smrti) koji se, kao takvi,
uzajamno štimuju i uzajamno inficiraju i inkubiraju stanje
međusobne identifikacije i egzistencijalnog poravnanja. U pitanju
je, rekao bi Kajoa, ozbiljni poremećaj odnosa jedinke i prostora
koji on markira terminom psihostenija a koji ovdje suštinski jeste
pitanje opustošenja prostora same personalnosti i samog postojanja.
Moguć je kod ovih mimikrijskih strategija i jedan gotovo patološki
momenat koji pominje Kajoa: osim ili nasuprot instinkta
samoodržanja koji jedinku usmjerava prema životu, kod mimikrije
može postojati i instinkt renuncijacije koji orjentiše jedinku
prema nekoj vrsti redukovane egzistencije koja, na koncu, neće
poznavati ni svjesnost ni emotivnost: samo stanje inertnosti élan
vital.
U ovim prizorima grotesknog odigravanja porodičnih rituala i
rola, teatra pod maskama koji prikriva (i razotkriva) porodično
nasilje koje zaudara na normalnost, takodje dejstvuje (prvostepeno
i dvostrano) ta perfidna dimenzija mimikrijskih praksi, taj efekat
obostranog virusiranja imobilnošću i deprivacijom jedinke i
okoline. Efektom zaraze, ona zahvata porodično okruženje i živo,
plenerističko, pejzažno okruženje i kamerno, mrtvoprirodno
okruženje javnog mjesta, muzeja, da bi se iz te spoljašnjosti onda
vratila, reflektovala na same individue, ljude, upisujući se kao
njihova tragička imanencija. Kao da je mrtva priroda ne samo
njihovo prirodno stanište, spoljašnje okruženje već posvojeni,
unutarnji pejzaž, interiorizovani ambijent, njihov ne memento mori
nego modus vivendi!
Tako i staklo koje štiti eksponate u muzeju zadobija funkciju
ogledala da se zapitamo ko se zaista nalazi „iza stakla“, ko u koga
gleda kao u sopstveni odraz kao u sliku svoga postojanja. Naime,
prozirno staklo ovoga enterijera muzeja-doma (zašto ne i staklo
izloga, modernih zgrada-staništa, okulara i ekrana) postalo je
instrument u lancu anamorfoza, medijator uzajamnih identifikacija,
ono što reflektuje/verifikuje preklapanje figura sa obije strane u
jedno, istovrsno postojanje. Intersubjektivnost se premetnula u
interobjektivnost kao načelo postojanja gdje se sve ispostavlja kao
živa postvarenost koja može samo da posmatra jedna dugu,
onemogućena za djelovanje, osuđena da u tom pasivnom gledanju vidi
nepokretnost sebe. I u tom preklapanju, tom egzistencijalnom
poravnanju locirana je neupadljivost koju umjetnik pominje u
naslovu izložbe.
Jedini autor koji ovdje „nađen“, koji djeluje jeste vizuelni
umjetnik ali ne da bi se uspostavio kao graditelj zajednice,
obnovitelj pokidanih veza već da bude onaj koji u tom teatru
ogledala, odbijanja i hvatanja refleksa i sijenki, u turobnoj igri
identifikacija i depersonalizacija koju će inscenirati sa
protagonistima ove žalobne partije, samo kratko prikupi krhotine
jedne razbijene porodične slike. Umjetnik postaje forenzičar koji
dijagnostikuje komemorativnu dimenziju postojanja ljudi kojima je,
kako kaže sam Pirandelo, „oduzeto pravo na život“. Njihov univerzum
nije lišen tvorca već stvaranja; samoostvarenje je ustuknulo pred
porivom samopostvarenja u kome postojanje nije ni odsustvo ni
prisustvo, ni praznina ni punoća, ni afirmacija života ni glorija
smrti, samo nijemi horor međustanja i međupostojanja.
Autor-umjetnik ne „slika“ nađeno, zatečeno, slučajno nego sam
konstruiše, aranžira, režira prizore ali na takav način da nam se
čini da se i nisu mogli drugačije „posložiti“, da nose pečat
neizbježnog, pečat bezizlaznog. Taj osjećaj fatalnog u prizorima
ispisuju ili upisuju i sami mediji (fotografija i video) čije sile
umjetnik tako angažuje da sami počinju dejstvovati kao hibernatori
ovih privid-događaje i privid-ljudi. Tako se u punoj snazi
aktiviraju bartijanska svojstva fotografije kao povratka umrlog
(ovdje i u funkciji ispraćanja živog) time se tautološki
preklapajući sa samim fotografisanim prizorima dovodeći njihovu
žalobnu igru do stanja hipertrofije: „Fotografija… predstavlja onaj
vrlo osetljivi trenutak kada… nisam ni subjekat ni objekat nego pre
subjekat koji oseća da postaje objekat: tada doživljavam
mikro-iskustvo smrti:… zaista postajem utvara“2.
2 Rolan Bart, Svetla komora, Beograd: Rad, 1993, 19
-
Ono što Paskal Bonicer imenuje „bezličnim fotografskim sadizmom“
ovdje forsira to hladno, egzekutorsko ogoljavanje bezličnosti,
bezosjećajnosti subjekta, njegovo „skliznuće u
ravnodušnost“(Bataj). Ono što Šuković još traži i dobija od
fotografije, tragom tih tautoloških preklapanja prizora i medija,
jeste ekscentrično kadriranje3, odnosno dekadriranje. To je, po
Boniceru4, sadistička vještina, „frustrirajuća za posmatrača,
osakaćujuća za ‘modele’…, oličenje okrutne veštine, agresivnog i
hladnog nagona za smrću“. Porodični portret u pejzažu, u kamenoj
dolini, postao je serija figura odrezanih u visini nogu, dakle
lišenih personalnosti. Tu je sama prirodnost i cjelovitost ili
cjelovitost prirodnosti doživjela dekapitaciju. I izlazak u
otvoreni prostor neposredovane prirode nije mirni, familijarni
užitak boravka u pejzažu pokraj velike vode već laviranje na rubu
velike, mrtve praznine koja kao da se neosjetno izliva i guta same
ljude naoko nedotaknute, stabilne u svojim pozama odglumljene
bliskosti, postvarene u stanju sopstvene nepokretnosti. Neke scene
(majka koja plete, otac koji sjedi na obali vode) ponavljaju se na
nekoliko fotografija kao viđene iz različitih uglova; one, međutim,
nisu znak da su događaji i ljudi vezani jedinstvenim mjestom,
vremenom, emocijom već da su svi oni neke pokretne tačke, plutajući
znaci koji bljesnu u nekom trenutku na nekom mjestu gotovo
slučajno, osuđeni da nigdje ne nađu smirenje. Ove fotografije više
i ne razlikuju centar od margine, žive ljude od mrtve prirode,
organizme od okoline, puno od praznog, cjelovitost od
fragmentarnosti koja nestaje u nagonu implozije.
I u videu je dekadrirana figura, odnosno kadriran „komad tijela“
žene, majke, koji je u funkciji radnje koju ona sprovodi, pletenja
i ta radnja jeste ono što vezuje naš pogled i što „prošiva“ sve ove
prizore. Pletenje je jedina „živa“, tekuća radnja čija neprekidnost
(produkt moći samoga medija, videa) nije znak (moralne, životne)
postojanosti žene, one koja plete porodične veze, niti
tradicionalnog situiranja i fiksiranja žene u privatni prostor
porodičnog doma. Ta i takva žena je ovdje „giljotirana“, lišena
lica ne kao žrtva čiste mizoginijske egzekucije već kao corpus
delicti gubitka personalnosti koju je apsorbovala čudovišnost naoko
ordinarne, idilične kućaničke aktivnosti. Neprekidnost te radnje
nije građenje, spajanje, preplitanje, obnavljanje već postaje
nemilosrdnost, nekorisnost, uzaludnost trajanja, jedno neumitno,
neuzaustavljivo curenje, osipanje i nestajanje koje ranjava sve ove
prozore.
3 „Kadriranje je termin uzet iz borbe sa bikovima: on znači
‘zaustaviti bika prije nego što mu se zada smrtni udarac’“, Paskal
Bonicer, Slikarstvo i film, Beograd: Institut za film, 1998, 684
Ibid, 89
-
Tamo gdje se čini da je začudnost ovih prizora aranžirana prema
obrascima koje izdašno eksploatiše modna ili reklamna fotografija
garantujući joj privlačnost, u pitanju je istovremeno, međusobno
uslovljeno i unakrsno povezano uobičavanje, pripitomljavanje,
normalizacija, odomaćenje smrti tamo gdje se regularno situira
afirmacija života: u porodici, i očuđavanje, artificijelizacija i
paklena prolongacija života u tijelu/tijelom preparirane životinje,
mrtve (s)tvari. U ovim prizorima se prestupaju temeljne ontološke
demarkacije: anestezirani a živi (živi a anestezirani) ljudi
animiraju preparirane životinje ne obećavajući život, ne živeći
život; preparirane životinje animiraju anestezirane, a žive ljude
samo simulirajući besmrtnost.
Neka hladna i teška tišina impregnira ove prizore. Ona ne znači
nijemo, nemušto opštenje već stečenu nemogućnost govora, dakle,
odsustvo kontakta i razmjene. Iz ovih scena nije prognan govor nego
se ne-govor, ne-opštenje uvuklo u ljude i inficiralo njihove
odnose. Pokreti i poze koji sugerišu govor, obraćanje,
komunikaciju, emociju jesu samo prazna gesta; oni ostaju jednako
nijemi, osujećeni, zakinuti i ukinuti kao i životinje preparirane,
aranžirane, podešene u poze koje tužno prizivaju sjećanje na život,
na nepovratno.
Kao što svako tijelo-eksponat u prirodnjačkom muzeju kodira
individualno, samo njegovo vrijeme-mjesto čineći muzej
heterotopijskom strukturom, tako i ljudi ovdje ne tvore porodicu
kao zajednicu vezanu osjećajem bliskosti i pripadanja već se
prepoznaju kao rasuti fragmenati subjektivnosti zaglavljeni u
krhotinama istrošene bliskosti. Ovo i nije parikularizovana
i-storija kraha jedne, određene porodice već parabola o stradanju
odnosa i osjećaja koji bi nas uspostavljali, imenovali
subjektom.
Igra šaha figurama od stakla, gotovo identičnim, na jednoj
fotografiji, nije više mentalno situiranje i precizno projektovanje
svoje pozicije u odnosu na konstelaciju sila u okruženju već samo
besciljno kretanje u vakumu sadašnjosti u kome promišljanje poteza
postaje samo prazna poza, gledanje kroz figure, fantomska igra
prozirnih slika i odraza koji ne nude mogućnost uspostavljanja
razlike, mišljenja drugosti, življenja promjene kao življenja
sebe.
Svetlana Racanović
-
Mimicry, psychasthenia1 and short-cuts-of-life
Ivan Šuković’s photo and video installation Life remains –
discreet scenes takes as its “primal voice”, and shares close
resonance with, Luigi Pirandello’s celebrated play Six Characters
in Search of an Author. The artist photographed six people, members
of one family, posing in the midst of a starving landscape of water
and rock. Then he moved them into the closed environment of a
natural history museum, amongst taxidermied animals, which
seemingly became animated by the ordinary activity of the peaceful
family everyday. The video is a static medium shot of the bottom
part of the woman’s body, the mother, and her handiwork, knitting:
a diligent, constant activity.
This piece sets a particular friction between text and image
where faithfulness is no longer demanded of either of them. It
illuminates (or outlines) an interstice between narrative and
representation, body and space, individual and collective, private
and public, memory and present, an in-between-space that is at the
point of intersection or incision of aura of body, aura of
landscape, aura of event, aura of time. This frees their peculiar,
perverse existential excess or a lack of sense in which an
individual slowly withers away, gives up its personality and
cancels itself as an active, living place on the map of the world
and event.
“Among distinctions, there is assuredly none more clear-cut than
that between the organism and its surroundings; at least there is
none in which the tangible experience of separation is more
immediate”, wrote Roger Caillois. It is on the sense of
distinction, or separation from the environment that individuals
base their sense of being unique. According to Caillois, mimicry is
the phenomenon of reducing or cancelling the distinction between
the organism and its surroundings so that the organism assimilates
the surroundings. In Šuković’s piece, mimicry, reducing or
cancelling differences between bodies/members of one family and
their surroundings, and the bodies of taxidermied animals in the
glass cages of the natural history museum, do not function as
strategies of attack or defence, that is, as practice of
existential positioning of the self, nor as pantheistic, Arcadian
flowing of all forms of existence from one to another, according to
Pythagoras’s premise that nature is everywhere the same.. Also,
here nature does not function as a powerful synthesis, condensing
of time, assemblage and making visible, embodying, of that which
comes before death and that which comes with/after it, nor does it
offer subtle eschatological propositions. According to Caillois,
mimicry is not always superficial, it is not always adaptation of
form to form (homomorphy): in some cases, and with some species
biological assimilation has been noted too. In these scenes, these
shortcuts-of-life, assimilation with means mimicry, levelling of
the second kind, or on the other side. The strategies of mimicry
here seem to be set in motion both by living organisms and their
(inanimate) surroundings through their facing each other and
because of their close contact. Here the cancellation of difference
is not the aim but destiny: it does not mean to overcome, survive
or persevere but to trap and enslave, go nowhere, remain at
nothing, have nothing. Here mimicry mutates and is manifested as
objectivation of living people in the context of still nature, or
as phantom, eerie “coming to life” of still nature, inanimate
surroundings by their being inhabited by the appearance of
normalcy, ordinariness and functionality of “living” family
rituals. Only in the presence of humans whose existence is in
painful slow motion do the immobile figures of taxidermied animals
become strangely enlivened.
1 ‘Mimicry and Legendary Psychasthenia’ is the title of Roger
Caillos’s famous 1935 essay.
http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpcaillois.htm, accessed 18
November 2011
-
Here therefore there isn’t “clear-cut” death as removed, absent
body nor “clear-cut” life as body/bodies that connect, and that are
connected by a sense of existence, liberated by the fact that they
have will, desires and choice, and agency to change. Here we don’t
have clear, radical difference, ultimate opposition (animate and
inanimate, life and death) but only heavy pulsation of low
intensity (like-living, like-death) that mutually attune and
mutually infect and incubate the state of mutual identification and
existential levelling. This is, Caillois would say, a serious
disturbance in the relationship between individual and space that
he defined by the term psychastenia, which is essentially the
instance of shrinking of the space of individuality, and very
existence. These strategies of mimicry offer an almost pathological
phenomenon that Caillois quotes: “alongside the instinct of
self-preservation, which in some way orients the creature toward
life, there is generally speaking a sort of instinct of
renunciation that orients it toward a mode of reduced existence,
which in the end would no longer know either consciousness or
feeling - the inertia of the élan vital “.
In these scenes of grotesque play of family rituals and roles,
theatre with masks that conceal (and reveal) family violence that
smacks of normalcy, what is also (primarily and mutually) at work
is the perfidious dimension of the practice of mimicry. Its outcome
is mutual infection with immobility and deprivation between
individual and surroundings. By the effect of contagion, it
penetrates the family setting, as well as the living, plein air,
natural environment and the chamber, still life environment of the
public space of the museum, in order to return, reflect on the
individuals, people, inscribing itself in them as their tragic
immanence. It seems as if inanimate nature is not only their
natural habitat, their external surroundings, but adopted, inner
landscape, internalised ambience, not their memento mori but their
modus vivendi.
Just as the glass that protects the museum exhibits functions as
a mirror which makes us wonder who is really “behind the glass”,
who is beholding whom as their own reflection, as the image of
their existence. Namely, the see-through glass of this museum-home
(and equally the glass of shop windows, modern buildings-habitats,
lenses and screens) became an instrument in the chain of
anamorphosis, mediator of mutual identification, that which
reflects/verifies folding of both sides into one, equal existence.
Inter-subjectivity switched into inter-objectivity as a mode of
existence where everything emerges as living objectivation that can
only observe one another, incapable to act, destined to recognise
in that passive looking its own immobility. And this folding, this
existential levelling is where the discreetness from the
exhibition’s title is located.
The only author to be “found” here, the only agent is the artist
– but he isn’t a community builder, healer of broken connections
but one that will pick up shards of the broken family picture in
that theatre of mirrors, reflections and shadows, the melancholy
game of identification and depersonalisation that he set up with
the protagonists of this sombre play. The artist will become a
forensic investigator that diagnoses the commemorative dimension of
existence of people who have been, in Pirandello’s words, “denied
the right to live”. It is creation not creator that their universe
is lacking; self-realization has recoiled before self-objectivation
in which existence is neither presence nor absence, emptiness nor
fullness, affirmation of life nor glorification of death, just a
silent horror of the in-between-state and the
in-between-existence.
The creator-artist does not “picture” the found, given, random
but constructs, arranges, directs scenes in a way that it seems
that they could not have been “set” in any different way, that they
are sealed by the inevitable, by the fatal. The notion of fatalism
in these scenes is also inscribed in the media used (photography
and video), which are here employed to inhibit these
illusion-events and illusion-people.
-
This fully activates the Barthesian notion of photography as the
return of the deceased (here also departure of the living),
tautologically overlapping with the photographed scenes, bringing
their sad game to the state of hypertrophy: “the Photograph…
represents that very subtle moment when…I am neither subject nor
object but a subject who feels he is becoming an object: I then
experience a micro version of death…: I am truly becoming a
spectre”2. What Pascal Bonitzer calls “faceless photographic
sadism” here brings forward the cold, executioner-style stripping
of personality, subject’s lack of emotion, its “lapse into apathy”
(Bataille). What Šuković further demands and gains from
photography, along the line of the tautological overlap of scenes
and media, is eccentric framing, or deframing. According to
Bonitzer, deframing, a sadistic practice, “frustrating for the
spectator and disfiguring for the “models” (Bresson’s term [for
actors]), is the response of a cruel mastery, a cold and aggressive
death-drive”3. The family portrait in the landscape, in the rocky
valley, became a series of figures cut below leg, thus deprived of
part of their personality. The natural wholesomeness or
wholesomeness of nature have here been defeated. In the same way,
their positioning in the open space of pure nature is not the quiet
experience of a family day out on the water’s edge, but it appears
as levitation at the edge of a great dead emptiness, that seems to
invisibly seep out and swallow people who seem untouched, stable in
their poses of feigned closeness, shattered by their own state of
immobility. Some of the scenes (mother knitting, father sitting at
the edge of water) are repeated in several photographs, from
different angles; they however do not act as a proof that events
and people share one place, time, or emotion; they rather seem like
moving points, floating signs that flash in certain moments at
certain places almost by accident, destined to never rest. These
photographs no longer know centre from the margin, living people
from inanimate nature, organisms from the surroundings, full from
empty, wholeness from fragments that disappear in implosion.
In the video too we see a de-framed figure, or framed “piece of
body” of a woman, mother. She is knitting, and her activity is what
locks our gaze and what “stitches” all the other scenes. Knitting
is the only “live” continuous activity which is uninterrupted (by
the nature of the medium of video): this however is not a sign of
the woman’s (moral, experiential) constancy, of the one that
“knits” the family ties, nor traditional situating of the woman in
the private space of family home. This and such woman is here
“guillotined”: her face has been taken away from her not through
the act of pointed misogynist execution but as a corpus delicti of
a loss of individuality that has been absorbed by the monstrosity
of the seemingly ordinary idyllic homemaking activity. The
continuity of this action is not about building, connecting,
interlacing, regenerating but it becomes a duration that is
merciless, useless, futile, irrevocable; unstoppable seeping,
scattering and disappearance wound all these scenes.
It seems that the sense of wonder of these scenes is modelled
after fashion or advertising photography, aimed a making the
photographs attractive. However, we also encounter a mutually
conditioned and cross-connected effect of making ordinary, taming,
normalising, familiarisation of death at places where normally we
would find affirmation of life, in the family, and at the same time
we find alienation, artificialization and hellish prolongation of
life in the body/through the body of taxidermied animal, inanimate
object. These scenes transgress fundamental ontological
demarcations: the anesthetized yet living (living yet anesthetized)
people animate taxidermied animals, without promising life, without
living a life; the taxidermied animals animate the anesthetized,
yet living human beings only simulating eternal life.
2 Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida, transl. Richard Howard. London:
Vintage Books, 2000, pp.14
3 Pascal Bonitzer, “Deframings” [orig. 1978], in Cahiers du
Cinéma, Vol. 4 1973–1978: History, Ideology, Cultural Struggle, ed.
David Wilson. New York: Routledge, 2000, pp. 198–99
-
A cold and heavy silence impregnates these scenes. It is not
about silent, numb communication, but an acquired incapacity of
speech, lack of contact and exchange. Speech is not evicted from
these scenes: rather non-speech, non-communication has seeped into
people and infected their relationships. Movements and poses that
suggest speech, address, communication and emotion are but empty
gestures; they remain equally silent, stunned, stymied and thwarted
like the taxidermied animals, arranged, adjusted into poses that
forlornly evoke memory of life, of irrevocable.
Just as every body-exhibit in the natural history museum codes
the individual, only-its-own time and place making the museum a
heterotopic structure, the human beings here do not make family as
a community connected by a shared sense of closeness and belonging:
they are scattered fragments of subjectivity trapped in the shards
of emptied closeness. This is not a detailed history of the ruin of
one particular family but a parable of death of relationships and
feelings that established us, named us subject.
A game of chess with - almost identical – glass figures in one
of the photos is not mental situating and precise projection of one
position in relation to the constellations of forces around but
aimless motion in a vacuum of the present in which contemplation of
the next move is just a vain pose, looking through figures, phantom
play of translucent images and reflections that don’t offer the
possibility of establishing difference, thinking the other, living
the change as living oneself.
Svetlana Racanović
-
Fotografija | Photography, 60 x 40 cm
-
Ivan Šuković rođen 1981. godine u Titogradu.Magistrirao na
odsjeku Digitalne umjetnosti (Fakultet za medije i komunikacije,
Beograd)Diplomirao književnost na Filozofskom fakultetu,
NikšićSedam godina radio u medijima kao novinar i urednik za
kulturu. Angažovan je kao organizator umjetničkog programa u
podgoričkoj galeriji Pizana.Koordinator na programima u NVO Punkt i
saradnik na časopisu za digitalnu umjetnost Propeler.
IzložbeSamostalna izložba, Galerija Art Klinika, Novi Sad,
2012Samostalna izložba , Galerija Blackbox, Sarajevo,
2011Samostalna izložba , Galerija O3one, Beograd, 2011Kolektivna
izložba, Body of digital, Budva Grad teatar, 2011Izložba studenata
FMK, Festival Mikser, Beograd, 2010
Ivan Sukovic born 1981, TitogradMA from Faculty of Media and
Communications, department Digital arts, BelgradeGraduated from the
Faculty of Philosophy, University of Montenegro, department
literature, Niksic. Seven years of work experience in journalism
(journalist and editor for art and culture)Engaged as organizer of
art programs in Gallery Pizana.Has been working on projects for NGO
Punkt.Member of editorial board Propeler, Magazine of digital
art.
Exibitions:Solo exibition, Gallery Art Clinic, Novi Sad,
2012Solo exhibition, Gallery Blackbox, Sarajevo, 2011Solo exibition
, Gallery O3one, Belgrade, 2011Group exhibition, Body of digital,
City Theatre, Budva, 2011Students exibition FMK, Festival Mixer,
Belgrade, 2010Fotografija | Photography, 60 x 40 cm
-
Cetinje, maj 2013.
Izdavač: Narodni muzej Crne Gore | Za izdavača: Pavle Pejović |
Tekst: Svetlana RacanovićPrevod: | Fotografija: | Dizajn: Branka
Vujović | Štampa: DPC | Tiraž: 300
