May 8, 2014

Throbbing Gristle, Discipline, 1981, recorded live at the S036 Club in Berlin. Via.

Huffington Post: You first began replicating works in the 60s, years before the internet’s image onslaught. Did you have any idea the extent to which repetition of images would take over in the future? How has your work evolved as a result of this phenomenon?

Elaine Sturtevant: Dumb question.

HP: Do you see authenticity as something that used to exist but does not anymore, a fiction that never was, or something else entirely?

ES: Authenticity currently is nonexistent due to the imposition of cybernetics.

Elaine Sturtevant’s “Sturtevant: Image over Image” Comes To Moderna Museet, 2012.

See also, The work is done predominantly from memory, using the same techniques, making the same errors and thus coming out in the same place.

(Source: youtube.com)

April 27, 2014
Left, photograph by Bruce LaBruce, Untitled (Stumped), 2001. Via. Right, photograph by Miguel Angel Rojas, El David, 2005. Via.
See also, I love you, but, because inexplicably I love in you something more than you… I mutilate you.

Left, photograph by Bruce LaBruce, Untitled (Stumped), 2001. Via. Right, photograph by Miguel Angel Rojas, El David, 2005. Via.

See also, I love you, but, because inexplicably I love in you something more than you… I mutilate you.

9:00pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZHpmay1EHSv0r
  
Filed under: diptych reoccurrence 
April 22, 2014
Top, Atelier van Lieshout, Clip-On, 1997. Bottom, Jean-Louis Chanéac, Parasite Bedroom, 1971. Via.
See also, Gelitin, The B-Thing, 2000.

Top, Atelier van Lieshout, Clip-On, 1997. Bottom, Jean-Louis Chanéac, Parasite Bedroom, 1971. Via.

See also, Gelitin, The B-Thing, 2000.

5:14pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZHpmay1DoHtLd
  
Filed under: diptych reoccurrence 
April 3, 2014
Left, uncredited image [maybe by photographer Hanns Sohm?], from a performance by Nam June Paik with Charlotte Moorman, TV Cello, 1971. Via. More. Right, cropped photograph by Yoshihiro Tatsuki, Emi Aoki, 1970. Via. More.

Left, uncredited image [maybe by photographer Hanns Sohm?], from a performance by Nam June Paik with Charlotte Moorman, TV Cello, 1971. Via. More. Right, cropped photograph by Yoshihiro Tatsuki, Emi Aoki, 1970. Via. More.

April 2, 2014
Left, Louise Bourgeois, Untitled, no. 31 of 34, from the illustrated book, Ode à l’oubli, 2002, Fabric collage, page: 29.8 x 33 cm, unique. Via. More. Right, photograph by Zachary Norman, Cloaking Device, from Deliberate Operation, 2013. Via.

Left, Louise Bourgeois, Untitled, no. 31 of 34, from the illustrated book, Ode à l’oubli, 2002, Fabric collage, page: 29.8 x 33 cm, unique. Via. More. Right, photograph by Zachary Norman, Cloaking Device, from Deliberate Operation, 2013. Via.

11:20am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZHpmay1BuGOyf
  
Filed under: diptych reoccurrence 
March 25, 2014
Top, photograph by Marcel Duchamp, Autour d’une table, 1917. Bottom, screen capture from the upcoming Prometheus 2 (or-whatever-this-will-be-titled), directed by Ridley Scott, 2016. Via.

Top, photograph by Marcel Duchamp, Autour d’une table, 1917. Bottom, screen capture from the upcoming Prometheus 2 (or-whatever-this-will-be-titled), directed by Ridley Scott, 2016. Via.

March 16, 2014
Top, screen capture from L’Avventura, directed by Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960. Bottom, Mulholland Drive, directed by David Lynch, 2001. Via.

Top, screen capture from L’Avventura, directed by Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960. Bottom, Mulholland Drive, directed by David Lynch, 2001. Via.

(Source: astaldohen)

March 15, 2014
Top, magazine scan / photograph by Karl Lagerfeld, from the editorial Metropolis, for Vogue Germany, February 2010. Bottom, Angela Fette, Robot’s Hand on Fur, 2012, cardboard, adhesive, fur.
See also.

Top, magazine scan / photograph by Karl Lagerfeld, from the editorial Metropolis, for Vogue Germany, February 2010. Bottom, Angela Fette, Robot’s Hand on Fur, 2012, cardboard, adhesive, fur.

See also.

March 1, 2014
Left, Carsten Nicolaï, Anti, 2004, pp lightweight structure, sound module, theramin module, transducer, amplifier, light-absorbent black paint, 255 x 255 x 300 cm. Right, Albrecht Dürer, Melencolia I, 1514, 24 x 18.5 cm.
Via.

Left, Carsten Nicolaï, Anti, 2004, pp lightweight structure, sound module, theramin module, transducer, amplifier, light-absorbent black paint, 255 x 255 x 300 cm. Right, Albrecht Dürer, Melencolia I, 1514, 24 x 18.5 cm.

Via.

(via sympathyfortheartgallery)

February 22, 2014

Oh et puis merde t’es trop con tu me fatigues.

uweskiosk:

Recut Jim Jarmusch, found on arte.tv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuP5AaTyEVw#t=78

February 17, 2014
Left, photograph by Maxime Ballesteros, Deep glance, Ibiza, 2014, from the series Entre Chien et Loup. Right, photograph by Harry Griffin, from the series Convention. Via.
—
I don’t think irony’s meant to synergize with anything as heartfelt as sadness. I think the main function of contemporary irony is to protect the speaker from being interpreted as naive or sentimental.
David Foster Wallace, 1996, from a chatroom exchange. Via. More.

Left, photograph by Maxime Ballesteros, Deep glance, Ibiza, 2014, from the series Entre Chien et Loup. Right, photograph by Harry Griffin, from the series Convention. Via.

I don’t think irony’s meant to synergize with anything as heartfelt as sadness. I think the main function of contemporary irony is to protect the speaker from being interpreted as naive or sentimental.

David Foster Wallace, 1996, from a chatroom exchange. Via. More.

January 26, 2014
Top, Rossella Biscotti, The Heads in Question, 2009, Bronze. Via. More. Bottom, photographs by Timothy Mahoney, from the series Die, Builder, 2014. Via.

Top, Rossella Biscotti, The Heads in Question, 2009, Bronze. Via. More. Bottom, photographs by Timothy Mahoney, from the series Die, Builder, 2014. Via.

10:38pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZHpmay15XR1Vi
  
Filed under: diptych reoccurrence 
January 22, 2014
Top, screen capture from The Driver’s Seat, directed by Giuseppe Patroni-Griffi, 1974. Via. Bottom, Roni Horn, Gold Field, 1982, Pure gold foil, 124.5 x 152 x 0.002 cm. Via. More.
—
There are advantages to separating the wacky, butterflies-in-the-gut, unpredictable feeling of “love” from the ideally rational, cool-headed decisions and agreements of “commitment”. For one: love is just not a good enough reason to commit to somebody (trust me, I’ve tried). You need a few other ingredients: mutuality, compatibility, and availability, for starters.The big advantage for the lover is that falling in love will feel less scary, life-threatening, and crazy-making. As long as love is theoretically reserved for people whom you want to date and possibly marry, falling in love will be confusing and dramatic. If we interpret this particular set of feelings and thoughts as an epic, life-changing event, we’ll have no choice but to get really, really attached to our beloved. We’ll throw a lot of expectations at them (“Love me back! Love me only! Love me forever!”), and feel hurt and resentful if the feeling is not mutual. We’ll imprint upon them like baby ducks, and resolve to stick with them through thick and thin, through hell or high water, through abuse and neglect and lies and bickering and frustration and mutually-assured destruction, whether or not it brings us (or anyone else) any kind of joy. The big advantage for the beloved is that being loved will feel less like an attack, and more like a gift. The little-discussed fact is that it’s super uncomfortable to be loved when the feeling is not mutual (see my song Please). So uncomfortable, in fact, that many of us would rather act like callous, cold-hearted assholes than be in the same room as the person who loves us. We panic, we get distant, we deny any interest or care for the other person, we stop returning their texts. But that’s not an aversion to love, or to the lover; it’s the attachment and expectation being hurled in our direction with such intensity. If love was casual, we could take it as a high compliment, say “thanks!”, and feel some warm fuzzies. We might also begin to feel some compassion for our lover (who, after all, has a stomach full of butterflies and can’t eat or sleep very well), which might allow us to make better and kinder decisions about how to respond.
Carsie Blanton, excerpt from Casual Love, January 21, 2014.

Top, screen capture from The Driver’s Seat, directed by Giuseppe Patroni-Griffi, 1974. Via. Bottom, Roni Horn, Gold Field, 1982, Pure gold foil, 124.5 x 152 x 0.002 cm. Via. More.

There are advantages to separating the wacky, butterflies-in-the-gut, unpredictable feeling of “love” from the ideally rational, cool-headed decisions and agreements of “commitment”. For one: love is just not a good enough reason to commit to somebody (trust me, I’ve tried). You need a few other ingredients: mutuality, compatibility, and availability, for starters.

The big advantage for the lover is that falling in love will feel less scary, life-threatening, and crazy-making. As long as love is theoretically reserved for people whom you want to date and possibly marry, falling in love will be confusing and dramatic. If we interpret this particular set of feelings and thoughts as an epic, life-changing event, we’ll have no choice but to get really, really attached to our beloved. We’ll throw a lot of expectations at them (“Love me back! Love me only! Love me forever!”), and feel hurt and resentful if the feeling is not mutual. We’ll imprint upon them like baby ducks, and resolve to stick with them through thick and thin, through hell or high water, through abuse and neglect and lies and bickering and frustration and mutually-assured destruction, whether or not it brings us (or anyone else) any kind of joy.

The big advantage for the beloved is that being loved will feel less like an attack, and more like a gift. The little-discussed fact is that it’s super uncomfortable to be loved when the feeling is not mutual (see my song Please). So uncomfortable, in fact, that many of us would rather act like callous, cold-hearted assholes than be in the same room as the person who loves us. We panic, we get distant, we deny any interest or care for the other person, we stop returning their texts. But that’s not an aversion to love, or to the lover; it’s the attachment and expectation being hurled in our direction with such intensity. If love was casual, we could take it as a high compliment, say “thanks!”, and feel some warm fuzzies. We might also begin to feel some compassion for our lover (who, after all, has a stomach full of butterflies and can’t eat or sleep very well), which might allow us to make better and kinder decisions about how to respond.

Carsie Blanton, excerpt from Casual Love, January 21, 2014.