With deposition, Manfred Pernice turns VIS into a space of potentiality. The exhibition constitutes a state of latency, making reference to sculpture’s coming-to-presence, the possible ways it can be “put into operation,” in the present and the future. In a kind of prologue, eight new “figures” are introduced. Fields on the ground mark out their spatial arrangement, creating a stage on which the “figures” cannot be recognized in their concrete form. Covered in sheets, they relate the possibility of their appearing at some other point in time. Each is assigned a field on the wall which indicates the scenic context of the action that has yet to take place. Pernice’s enactment allows a moment of tension to unfold, set off by playing with the preconditions of the constitution of meaning.
Melanie Ebenhoch’s work examines the potential force of imagination. Her paintings deal with irritating moments, in which perception begins to stagger, imagination is challenged, and expectations start to waver. Stylistic elements of illusionist painting as well as cinematic presentations interlock in order to question the habitual ways in which they are perceived.
Since the beginning of modernity, the arts have been attached to the ideals of a libertarian life and have propelled the criticism of social norms. At present, however, artist-critique faces a fundamentally altered situation. The demand for freedom and autonomy has long gone hand in hand with a process of economic exploitation. Creativity, flexibility and self-realization form the basis of a new model of economic value-creation. To the extent, though, that aesthetic ideas are no longer the purview of art alone, they can no longer necessarily be identified as constituting cultural counterpoints. Thus “[t]he long-cherished self-image of the arts – namely that they belong to the realm of criticism and emancipation – has been shattered” (Christoph Menke). To the backdrop of these developments, the Freedom of Purpose series of events examines forms of production that question the conditions of economic productivity, imperatives of effectivity and principles of purposiveness.
In her artistic practice, Inga Danysz focuses on the radical changes of power structures. While earlier disciplinary mechanisms aimed at the apparent influence on the body, the post-disciplinary society is confronted with the appropriation of the entire social space. Danysz questions the paradoxes of the control society, its denial of repressive power structures and examines the signs of post-democratic reversal.
We meet in order to rest, to recover, to linger, and to reclaim; to restore the possibility of breaking up, to be with one another, to quarrel and to reconcile. We form unions and alliances to make this place by playing.
Most illustrious Princes, often have I considered the metallic arts as a whole, as Moderatus Columella considered the agricultural arts, just as if I had been considering the whole of the human body; and when I had perceived the various parts of the subject, like so many members of the body, I became afraid that I might die before I should understand its full extent, much less before I could immortalise it in writing.
Georgius Agricola, Re De Metallica, 1556
8 pm reading by Karl Larsson, 9 pm reading by Clare Molloy,
monster drinks by Paul Spengemann, outdoor music by Mense Reents
Pfeil Magazine 9 | Error
With contributions by Mitchell Anderson, Christiane Blattmann, Adam Christensen, Tyler Coburn, Hans-Christian Dany, Michael Dean, Gina Fischli, Flaka Haliti, Laëtitia Badaut Haussmann, Lina Hermsdorf, Judith Hopf, Karl Larsson, Clare Molloy, Susan Morgan and Thomas Lawson, Mense Reents, Stacy Skolnik, Paul Spengemann, Ramaya Tegegne.
Torben Wessel’s art deals with the channeling of sensory information. He takes up web phenomena dedicated to the production of sensory stimuli and considers the shift from information to emotion in digital space as well as the associated cognitive and receptive changes. By reflecting on the effects of commodification, Wessel shows that economics is no longer just one part of society but has long since pervaded all social action.
Ramaya Tegegne’s work addresses the processes by which the field of art is constituted. It focuses on those artistic practices which, from the 1960s on, began to make visible art’s social, economic and cultural determination, in this way problematizing dominant mechanisms within the field. Tegegne frames this issue through an examination of the social preconditions of art’s production, presentation and reception under present conditions. When she cites and appropriates historical artistic material, transposing it into a broader context, she does so in order to open up access to existing material, and in this way to open it up to experience.