А. Монастырский, Н. Панитков, И. Макаревич, Е. Елагина, С ...

Slogan-2003 (with Martin Heidegger) may be a separate action, but it is deeply embedded into the
common structure of two actions, namely Action with Hours and the slogan itself. It is constructed on
such notions-categories as ―hiddenness‖ and ―place‖ (but not ―space‖).
The last piece, Slogan-2005, was carried out here as well. It is a serial action that continues several
line of CA‘s at once, and not only the line of the slogans (for instance, it continues the line of actions
of The Means of the Row and On the Clearing).
S.H.: On the one hand, CA‘s slogans are assimilated to the expressive forms of the surrounding sign
field, but the device of serial repetition presents the spectator with another horizon of perception. The
act of distancing is also connected to critical intentions. The slogan‘s banner contains a personal text.
―We‖ is replaced by ―I‖ (for an example, in Slogan-77: ―I‘m not complaining about anything…‖).
But in the continuation of the series through the second Slogan, the illusion of the lyrical subject is
dispelled (―Why did I Lie to Myself…‖). The variations within the series redirect the audience‘s
attention to the factors that supply the slogan with its form, while its content is emptied out. This
already takes place in the poetic texts of CA‘s first two slogans: through paradoxical linguistic
constructions in the tradition of Zen-Buddhist koans, signification actually consists in the cancellation
of meaning. Yet in the third slogan ―To Georgy Kizevalter‖, which is hung up in such a way that even
the letters of the text are impossible to decipher, all that remains as a relic is the outer material form, a
design with no content. In the example of the actions with slogans, it becomes obvious what an
important role the serial principle plays in the aesthetics of CA. Seriality questions the conventional
notion of the artwork, which is usually defined by the clear-cut boundaries of a separate thing.
Repetitive structures refer to the age-old traditions of ritual culture, in which reiteration effects the
self-affirmation of commonality as well as a sense of satisfaction at recognizing that which is
expected. But on the other hand, in the traditions of poetry or music, variations of repetitive
structures do not only affirm the expected, but also create an aesthetic sensibility for the most
minimal of changes in the series‘ development. This gives rise to the possibility for perceiving almost
indiscernible nuances in the formative process. HOW everything repeats becomes more important
than WHAT is being repeated. Through its endless textuality, the serial system of CA continues to
generate new actions and new ―eventness.‖ What is the relationship between the text machine of CA
and the immediate perception of ―eventness‖ in its actions
A.M.: This question is very important. Text generates eventness. In the beginning of the series,
―eventness‖ is generated through some ―hidden‖, ―alien‖ text (explicit or implicit imitations based on
the assumption that any aesthetic ―eventness‖ whatsoever arises from text). But as the series develops
and in the course of CA‘s ongoing praxis over the duration of many years, we have quite a profound
development: what arises is a ―narrow‖ path of sorts, a footpath (in contrast to the initial field roads,
barely visible or rutted). The aesthetic placements of new articulations are joined onto those that
preceded them. From the field to the field path, as it were. The first slogans took place on open fields,
while the last two were executed in a rather narrow clearing in the forest with a footpath leading up to
it. In the first case, we are dealing with space and with horizons, while in the second case, we are
dealing with place and verticality (the forest). The ―field‖ slogans with indefinite aesthetic ―edges‖
interact well with their exterior contexts and even dissolve into them (―poles of indistinction‖). The
―foot path‖ slogans, however, have their own rigid aesthetic carcass, and are separated from exterior
contexts, through historicity, among other things, through Heidegger‘s portrait or the Diamond Sutra
(instead of the ―currency‖ of the financial billboard or the existential state ―here and now‖). From an
expositional point of view, the early slogans are derivative and secondary (post-modernism), while
the later slogans are original and primary (modernism). The earlier slogans were made in a
―background‖ aesthetic. On the one hand, they are instrumental. In a sense, they simply serve as a
pretext for the perception and contemplation of the surrounding outer world (context). On the other
hand, they are loaded with a strong explosive charge critical of this context‘s ideological layers. The
later slogans are self-sufficient; they offer themselves up to perception and contemplation, and in this
sense, they are more ―striking‖ in artistic terms. In other words, the text machine, in my view, leads
away from immediacy and, in the end, creates worlds of its own, if you will.
S.H.: In the next-to-last action of the series Slogan-2003, a portrait of the German philosopher Martin
Heidegger was hung up between two trees instead of a slogan. How can one understand the gesture of
using this portrait Is it a direct programmatic statement, that is, a reference to a certain philosophical