Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

mai degrabæ privit øi ascultat, dar øi asta doar într-o manieræ imperfectæ. Instalaflia
poate fi doar parflial væzutæ, din cauza modului în care a fost unitæ sau alipitæ arhitecturii
clædirii din Ibirapuera. Nu existæ un punct de vedere din care aceasta poate
fi surprinsæ ca întreg. Nepermiflînd intrarea în ea, ea nu se lasæ nici contemplatæ din
exterior. În acelaøi timp, White Flag se opune øi ascultærii. Repetarea cîntecelor spaflializeazæ
sunetul øi caracterul nesfîrøit al ciclului îl împiedicæ pe spectator fie sæ înceapæ
cu adeværat, fie sæ punæ capæt materialului sonor.
A doua caracteristicæ importantæ a lucrærii este negativitatea sa, care poate fi observatæ
aici la cel puflin douæ niveluri diferite. În ceea ce priveøte materialul propriuzis,
aøa cum s-a menflionat deja, lucrarea este precaræ øi pare a fi încontinuu pe punctul
de a se præbuøi, în ciuda (sau poate din cauza) dimensiunii sale colosale. Conflictul
acesta vizeazæ chestiunea materie vs. volum. Dar aceastæ instabilitate a semnificantului
se regæseøte în cea a semnificatului, cæci este pur øi simplu imposibil sæ extragi
un sens general din acumularea pærflilor negative. Raportul cu spafliul, figurile geometrice
øi caracterul lor masiv, cîntecele, culorile, titlul, vulturii: toate acestea trimit
la ceva negru øi trist, dar nu se lasæ articulate într-un mesaj; mai ræu, acestea
ameninflæ serios sæ distrugæ lucrarea ca atare, care atunci n-ar fi altceva decît o acumulare
de piese dezmembrate. Ramos însuøi e conøtient de aceastæ træsæturæ formalæ,
de aceastæ instabilitate a artei sale, care este întotdeauna la un pas de a deveni altceva;
el chiar teoretizeazæ despre asta, comentînd cæ e ceva tipic pentru cultura brazilianæ,
care combinæ bucuria, cæci totul urmeazæ sæ fie fæcut, cu doliul, pentru cæ totul
pare sæ fie mereu gata sæ disparæ, pentru cæ e atît de dificil pentru lucruri sæ dobîndeascæ
starea de fiinflæ, sæ devinæ ceva existent. 3
Dacæ aceastæ instabilitate reprezintæ un element central al lucrærii lui Ramos în ansamblu,
bienala a dat prilejul aplicærii unei logici ciudate. Pentru a fi succinfli øi oarecum
provocatori, reacflia ecologiøtilor, prin negarea statutului de obiect al lucrærii, a fost
cea care i-a oferit semnificaflie. Cei care au privit White Flag dintr-o perspectivæ moralæ,
øi nu prin prisma eticii operei de artæ, care înseamnæ a urma la limitæ propria-i libertate
compoziflionalæ, au sfîrøit, de fapt, prin a mobiliza un sens intern al instalafliei în
care n-au putut pætrunde. În „Carcará”, auzim: Carcará: pega, mata e come/Carcará:
nunca vai morrer de fome [Caracara prinde, ucide øi mænîncæ/Caracara nu
va muri niciodatæ de foame]. 4 Ceea ce împiedicæ uciderea barbaræ, exterminarea
rece a celuilalt, persistenfla naturii sale de simplu aliment, este medierea! unui al treilea
element, reprezentarea însæøi, adicæ ceea ce realizeazæ toate operele de artæ (chiar
øi în necunoøtinflæ de cauzæ), inclusiv White Flag. Cu alte cuvinte, odatæ ce lucrarea
e respinsæ ca atare øi tratatæ ca un nonobiect, ea poate ræspunde distrugerii ei (infinit
diferitæ de dematerializarea ei) cu propriul conflinut imanent, care altfel ar fi greu
de discernut. Aceasta se prezintæ apoi drept ceva care, în acelaøi timp, dezvæluie
furia barbaræ care foloseøte o reclamaflie falsæ de maltratare de animale øi cere iertare
pentru pæcatul operei de artæ de a-øi dori sæ fie obiect.
Serie de desene a lui Gil Vicente Enemies [Duømani] a fost o altæ sursæ de scandal.
Erau vorba de portretele naturaliste ale unor lideri mondiali pe cale sæ fie uciøi chiar
de cætre artist: George W. Bush, Lula, papa, Eduardo Campos, Fernando Henrique
Cardoso, regina Elisabeta a II-a, Jarbas Vasconcelos, Kofi Annan, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
øi Ariel Sharon. Desenele au fost fæcute în cærbune pe hîrtie la scaræ naturalæ
(1,50 × 2,00 m), adoptînd mai multe perspective, folosind cuflite øi arme de foc øi
înfæfliøînd victimele în diferite poziflii øi cu diferite expresii. 5 Toate titlurile imaginilor
începeau cu „Auto-retrato matando“ [Autoportret omorînd], urmate de numele
victimei. Mulfli au væzut în aceste desene nu numai un act de violenflæ gratuitæ, dar
øi o lipsa de respect faflæ de liderii lumii. De fapt, Vicente a fost suficient de atent
pentru a reprezenta øi politicieni naflionali øi regionali, mediind astfel, în mod eficient,
nivelul mondial øi cel local; el a inclus conducætori laici øi religioøi, precum øi între-
commented on here. In the first place, even though White Flag is an
enormous three dimensional artifact full of empty spaces, it cannot
be penetrated; it must rather be viewed and listened to, but still only
imperfectly so. The installation can only partially be seen, because of
the way it was fused with or melted into the architecture of the Ibirapuera
building. There is no vantage point from which it may be apprehended
as a whole. If it cannot be walked into, it does not let itself
be contemplated from the outside either. At the same time, White
Flag resists listening as well. The repetition of the songs spatializes
sound and the endlessness of the cycle prevents the spectator from
either really starting or putting a closure to the sound material.
The second important characteristic of the work is its negativity,
which can here be envisioned on at least two different levels. As far
as the material is concerned, as has already been mentioned, the
work is precarious and seems constantly to be on the verge of crumbling,
in spite (or perhaps because) of its colossal size. The conflict
here is one of matter versus volume. But this instability in the realm
of the signifier is paralleled in that of the signified, for it is simply
impossible to extract an overall meaning from the accumulation of
negative parts. The relationship with space, the geometric forms and
their massive character, the songs, the colors, the title, the vultures:
all of them point to something black and dreary, but they do not let
themselves be articulated into a message; worse still, they seriously
threaten to ruin the work as such, which then would be not much
more than an accumulation of disjoined parts. Ramos himself is
aware of this formal trait, this instability of his art, which is always
on the brink of becoming something else; he even theorizes about it
commenting that it is typical of Brazilian culture, which mixes both
exhilaration, because everything remains to be done, and mourning,
because everything seems always about to disappear, because it is
so difficult for things acquire the state of being, to become existent. 3
If this unsteadiness is a central feature of Ramos’ work as whole, the
Biennial was the occasion for a curious logic to take place. To put it
succinctly and somewhat provocatively, it was the ecologists’ reaction
that, by denying the work its status as object, endowed it with
meaning. Those who faced White Flag from a moral perspective, and
not through the ethics of the artwork, which is to follow to the limit
its own compositional freedom, actually ended up mobilizing an
internal sense of the installation they could not enter. In “Carcará“,
we listen: Carcará: pega, mata e come/Carcará: nunca vai morrer de
fome [Caracara catches, kills and eats/Caracara will never starve to
death]. 4 That which prevents barbaric killing, the sheer extermination
of the other, the persistence of its nature as just food, is the
mediation of a third element, representation itself, which is what all
artworks (however unwittingly), including White Flag, accomplish.
To put it in other words, once the work is rejected as such and treated
as a non-thing, it can answer its destruction (so infinitely different
from its dematerialization) with its own immanent content, which
otherwise would be hard to discern. It then shows itself as something
at the same time that it lays bare the barbarous fury that uses
a spurious claim of animal mistreatment and demands expiation
from the artwork’s sin for desiring to be an object.
Gil Vicente’s Enemies series of drawings was the other source of outrage.
These were naturalistic portrayals of world leaders about to be
killed by the artist himself: George W. Bush, Lula, the Pope, Eduardo
Campos, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Queen Elizabeth II, Jarbas
Vasconcelos, Kofi Annan, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ariel Sharon.
The drawings were charcoal on paper in natural size (1.50 × 2.00 m),
adopting several perspectives, using knives and guns, and showing
the victims in different positions and with differing degrees of expression.
5 All titles of the pictures began as “Auto-retrato matando“
[Self-portrait killing] followed by the name of the victim. Many saw
in these drawings not only a gratuitous act of violence, but also a
lack of respect for world leaders. In fact, Vicente was careful enough
to represent national and regional politicians as well, thus effectively
mediating the global and the local; he also included secular and reli-
116