Work / InfoEvita Yumul








CV, Works Cited, Links, Evita Yumul

2015 It's Nothing Personal Ideal
Re: Work


Self-inking stamp with blue & black ink. 3.625 x 2.5 x .875 in. stamp console in 3.875 x 2.75 x 1 in. box. 2.7 in. impression width. Open, numbered edition





Transcripts of four Jenny Holzer PBS Art:21 snippets. Respectively:

"I have no idea whether I’ll write again.

One reason why I left it was because I tend to write about the most ghastly subjects. So, it’s not just the difficulty in having something turn out right, it’s the difficulty with staying with the material long enough to complete it.

It’s necessary to be emotionally engaged when writing about these topics, so yes, it’s exhausting at times.

It’s difficult to do the research on what happened and what still might be happening to various detainees, but I don’t want to whine, it would be much harder to be a detainee.

I’ll leap away from the word values. I’m afraid to talk about values these days. Usually any time values are invoked it’s to dismiss a—or maybe incarcerate somebody.

But I would like there to be less fear and less cruelty—I’ll stand on that. And, I’d like to think that I have some plain old empathy too.

I’m the opposite of the theater person, ‘cause I would never be on stage. My work might be like theater in that I hope there’s an audience. There’s a reason I’m anonymous in my work. I like to be absolutely out of view and out of earshot."

"The big installations not only include the creation of or the choice of the text, but then have much to do with [the] filling of the space and then have to do with the programing, often, of the electronics, and that programming includes pauses, flashes, phrasing and more. I really like the programming aspect.

I was a typesetter and typesetting is not unlike programming you have to make it correct, complete and pretty, and fitted. The presentation needs to make sense with the content, and then needs to engage people. I don’t know how to program so I’m , as, often is the case, reliant upon others. We have our ideas about what’s going to happen, then we go and see if our ideas were right. If it’s boring, if it seems wrong for the content, if it doesn’t fill the space, there are many ways to have it wrong. And often you can’t tell until you’re there.

I hope the installations are atmospheric. I want color to suffuse the space and, uh, pulse, and do all kinds of tricks."


[Henri Cole:] I think that’s as important as color. [JH:] Mm-hmm, yeah. [HC:] You know? [JH:] We wanted the presence of the hand, with the handwriting, and then sometimes transferred to the painting.
The we in the mix is a team, that include Henri and my faithful associates in the studio. I would be lost without them.
[Holzer:] We went to this light blue for the bulk of the Guantanamo documents. We thought it made, yeah, some kind of sense. [Reads from painting:] 'During the time of torture the bag was on my head. After I was injured they took me to another room and told me to say that I’d fallen down and no one beat me. Then they transferred me from Mosul to Baghdad without treatment of my wounds.'

I’ve spent a fair amount of time alone, on my work, and so its with real joy that I go to other people to make something larger than I could have solo.


"These projectors have giant lamps and giant films. They’re mechanical even though they’re controlled by computers, so they’re a funny hybrid. Xenon is a word that describes what used to be in the bulbs but isn’t there anymore. I’ve, uh, clung to it a little bit because I just like the word. When I work on a building with glass, I know that there will be reflections but I don’t know what kinds, and when I work on a river I know that there will be reflections but I don’t know how they will break and how many there will be. So it’s a combination of being able to anticipate some things and then being able to learn from what I see over the years and try to incorporate or amp it the next time.

Because one’s focus comes and goes, one’s ability to understand what’s happening ebbs and flows, so I like the representation of the language to be the same. This tends to, not only, give the content to people but it will also pull them to attend.

I want the meaning to be available, so as not to lie, I also want it sometimes to disappear—

I don’t sign my work because I think that would diminish its effectiveness ‘cause then it would be the work of just one person. I would like it to be more useful than that—and to acknowledge how much work by other people is involved in mine."


  Videos (reference) 205 words
180 words
145 words
246 words


Transcript of [Rama Chorpash as] Tobias Wong at Core77's Design, Wit & the Creative Act offsite event on November 9, 2007. Video here.

“ This was a piece I did in 2002 and it was really a, a debut piece for me, in the sense that, uhm, I was asked to do a project at Terminal NYC, it was a group of Turkish store owners who were very supportive of design, they didn’t make it through the dot com era and this piece is called This is a Lamp, a paraconceptual piece in the sense that I didn’t make any new pieces, I took existing pieces. So the Bubble Chair was going to debut by Philippe Starck and I was able to get a Bubble Chair before the debut, and I put a lamp in it. So it was a way to light it. Bartoli, who owned Kartell, was furious at this, feeling that somehow it had jeopardized the Philippe Starck launch. And I think this an interesting paradox in the work where you have this question of, uhm, uh, people parodying work and the danger of a person with wit. And so in this case, Bartoli was furious but when Starck went on to make a matching table, he put a lamp in it.

This piece is called the Rubber Dipped Chandelier, it’s a Swarovski chandelier, and the piece is really a—it’s an equation of opposites. People here from advertising looking for an equation of how to create wit, you should look for opposites. But there really is no equation and it’s really a question. And I think the significance of the work to the individual is important, I mean, the, this is a piece at the time of making, it really cost me a lot of money to buy the chandelier and the work is not about me, it needs to be something much larger, but in a sense, that risk, of what I needed to put into the piece gave me a sense of dedication that I might not have had otherwise. And so, it’s a rubber, tool dipped chandelier—actually, I saw it in Business Week and they said it sort of has the whiteness of an iPod and, uh, the chic coloring of an iPod, which I thought was interesting. Uhm, also, it’s interesting to look at how things, in the story that things take—so Core77 is connected to Business Week, and these institutions enlarge and the story changes as it happens. But this piece is really about a private glamour. It’s about luxury, in the sense that luxury is not necessarily an ostentatious act, it’s something that can be held inside of you.

I have another series, the pearl drop earring from Tiffany, which is a Black Sea pearl dipped in black tool dip, and the user, the person who wears it, is aware of what’s behind that tool-dipped piece, but the voyeurs don’t necessarily see it and it’s a point of discussion. There’s also a vulnerability to this piece [Rubber Dipped Chandelier], in fact. It’s not a piece which destroys the crystal at any moment—you can peel off the tool dip, and the piece is actually quite well protected. And the piece might outlive my trivial acts and they’ll peel it off and they can resell it. The Tiffany earrings have a value as well, but in that peeling, they’ve also lost the value that I’ve put towards it, and so it’s really a question of what do we value, and it looks design and art-making as a decision, and it’s an agreement between the consumer and the person who’s designing it.

A lot of you are familiar with this piece. This came shortly after 9-11. Karim had his book released, I Want to Change the World. A lot of people were excited and said ‘That’s great Karim, he wants to change the world…’ But the piece for me was not about Karim, it was a reaction to a context and a moment and it was a republishing of that moment, and Karim just happened to make a book called I Want to Change the World, and it was really a question about design, and about what we can change with design and what we can’t, and what’s appropriate for a moment. And I think my work is very tied to the moment, the work shifts and changes, depending on what’s happening in the moment. And you could say it’s trite one minute and not trite the next, but how can you separate work from what’s happening in the moment? So this was a moment when he chose to release the book a week after 9-11 and I chose to republish it with Robert The, who cuts objects, and I did an edition with him and he was my publisher and I was the author.

I hope this piece doesn’t speak too loudly. It’s a Tiffany ring—looking to sell more if anyone’s getting married. It’s a piece in which the user can protect themselves and I think there’s duality: I want to give them something rich, you want other people to be jealous of the wealth, but it’s also a way to protect. The experts tell me a 1-karat diamond is just enough to dig to the bone, and you need something that really can penetrate. So, it’s a, it’s a protection ring. These are just diamonds in platinum and it’s no different than plastic or paper. I’ve looked at this relationship of what the power of these objects are, I’ve inverted it, and I’ve created an opportunity for people to speak out with the work. And you go to Tiffany, I chaperone you there, we choose a stone together, we talk about clarity of the piece, what you want to represent, and in fact when I’m gone and the grandkids go ‘What the hell is that ring?’ and they want to sell off the diamond, much like the tool dip, the piece keeps its intrinsic value. And I’m also very intrigued with that relationship of my comment on the piece, but in a sense, I’m just having a relationship with that piece.

This piece is about relationships as well, between Carlos Salgado and Tobias Wong. Carlos is someone I’ve collaborated with for a long time, he owns Scrapile. We went to Moss Designs, stepped into the, uh, store window without permission—well we sort of got permission, we said we’re getting married—and at the bottom you can see ‘Although we will happily accept gifts, you may simply view the registry as an on-line exhibition of curated works that have brought us together.’ And there’s boxes you tick off, of what we want, what we appreciate at Moss, what we think is important at Moss. And people would sign up for who wanted to buy what. I still have $800 to spend and it’s interesting what a wedding represents—commitment, the length that people go to, to feel a part of it. So we sent it to our entire list of contacts, uhm, and people are still buying things—I think actually Moss took it down because it was afraid of what it meant, and didn’t want to debase the meaning of it. But, again, it deals with a notion of normalcy, of how we fit into a genre. And I love Moss just as much as anyone, it would have ben nice if everything had sold, but in the end, it is a tool, and I was sharing with the public, along with Carlos, what we appreciate at Moss.

And this last piece, a difficult piece for many, I think everyone got the idea behind it. But it was a challenging piece. It happened at Troy. It started off as a small relationship, but I was really asked to articulate the Christmas experience at Troy. And I looked towards a gift-wrapping, and in the spirit of Andy Warhol, put together a collection of prints and, and you could hire me to do a wrapping. There’s a real parallel between what happens in gift-giving, uhm, Clive Dilnot[,uhm,] from Parsons talks a lot about the relationship and the parallels between design and gift-giving, that you’re thinking of the other and you’re thinking of yourself and what your desires are, and you’re trying to find something in between that as a medium. And so this was really a challenge to consumers to give something that was larger than they, than they had ever given before. In a sense, the sacrilege of folding up the print was a challenge to the people that were buying it because it would mean they were folding the print up and they were Tobi Wong and we didn’t sell many because of that, I think the challenge was maybe too great for people to destroy a work. When I think, in fact, that that’s what Andy’s work was about in the end, was about the unpreciousness of the work. When Campbell’s became aware of Andy’s work, they actually sent him cases of cans, with a note saying ‘Maybe one day, we’ll be able to afford one of your prints.’

I have different readings from different people. There’s work I do and I won’t name it because I don’t want to create any litigious action, but there are people that have active lawsuits against me using their work—which is extraordinary.

And I think that’s where I end. Thank you. ”

[TW: I’m Rama.
Core 77 cameraman: Why are you here today?
TW: Oh, Tobi Wong, and of course, all the other panelists, I really wanted—was really looking forward to forward to this— 
C77c: You’re a big fan?
TW: I’m a big fan of Tobi’s work. Tobi’s a genius, I mean it—h-he’s just amazing, it’s just great watching him speak, ‘cause you know he doesn’t, you know, he doesn’t have so many appearances or give so many, uh, talks, so this is a really rare—
C77c: I thought he was rather articulate…. 
TW: More, uh-heh-huh, than I would have been—]

  Video (reference) 1,637 TW words / 1,664 words
Booklets, Publications
Scroll down or Search ↗:        

Teen Spirit, 2015
NY Boys, 2014
Blue Notebook, 2015

Things I've seen in zines that I think should be repeated, 2014
[Title here] collects the work of Emily Burtner, _, Kevin Malcolm, Milano Chow, Anne Lai, Rae Eden, _, Hands on Papers, Anthony Iacono, Jessica Williams, Ryan De La Hoz, and Chloe Maratta.

B/w risograph, staple bound, 24pg, 50 copies, 5 x 7 in. Published by NSEW Press.

Photographs I Took (from Facebook) V, 2014
This is temporary. I'll be back.

4, 3, etc.

B/wlaser, staple bound, 24pg, bookmark, 30 copies, 3.5 x 7 in.


The Sorrows, 2014
The Sorrows of Young Werther accidentally re-read and used as a delayed response and "unexpected disclosure at just the wrong time" to a two year old email from D._.

B/w digital print, staple bound, 60pg, bookmark, grey or yellow or blue cover, 30 copies, 3.8 x 6 in

-    -

Broadsides, 2013
A consideration for
Thank you: Anne, Elise, and Sophie. 7 ref.

9 pages/ideally 7 A3 sheets folded in eighths, unlimited copies, 105MB. Download / Mirror (soon).


Timecard, 2013
A card for NSEW Press' Winter Postcards series.
Thank you Jessica Williams.

Blue risograph printed postcards, 4 x 5.5 in.



A Lover's Dog-ears, 2013
Pages dog-eared by the previous owner of my copy of Barthes' A Lover's Discourse. Notations and marks on the pages have been used to translate the attentions of the former reader as both divergent account and exacting affinity.

Color laser and risograph print, staple bound, 56pg, 2pg insert, bookmark, 25 copies, 5.5 x 8.25 in.



Bulletin I, 2 Supplement., 2013
Fra Angelico's The Mocking of Christ (c.1440-1441) pared down in response to Ai Oe' s[Bulletin I,2.] layout / A hint for reading the work of Fra Angelico. Published by Booklet.

Color digital, 1pg folded, many copies, 7 x 8.6in.


Art Anagrams: Dead Giveaway, 2013
IV: On having witnessed a young-all-over-the-Internet artist discredit another young artist on-line for an attitude mirrored in the contents of this publication / On tempering a response to the first artist's penchant for laying claim. Referent terms absent. See AAs 1-3.

Risograph print on cardstock and 128gsm stock, staple bound, 8pg & card, 20 copies, 5 x 7in.

An interview he did not publish, 2013
Risograph print, staple bound, 12pg, 30 copies, 5 x 7in.

Photographs I Took (from Facebook (Strictly Apologetic)), 2013
Third and last (???) in the Facebook series. See 1 & 2. Risograph print, staple bound, 20pg, 30 copies. 5x7in.

People, 2013
~After Ed Ruscha. Risograph print, 10.5x15.5in folded.

Reader's Block, 2012
Published by Reading Material. B/w, perfect bound, 190pg [67,721 words], open edition. 5 x 7in.
Tragic Cats, 2012
Published by Booklet. B/w digital, accordion fold, 7pg, open edition.

Sore Loss, Big _ Deal, Various Authors, 2012
Or A Quick Look at Friend Art in Japan, part 0. Color laser on cyclus, staple bound, 16pg, 10 copies, 5x7in. 

Photographs I Took (from Facebook) 日本語, 2012
On Tokyo. If you're too sensitive, oh well. Thanks to Shoko Okabe for the cover. Color laser, staple bound, 20pg, 25 copies, 5x7in.

Photographs I Took (from Facebook), 2011
3 print runs; color laser on recycled paper or cyclus, 24pg, 25 copies/run, 5x7in. 

Close Cropped Ikebana, 2012
Google sourced. For several fellow foreigners and on time in Japan. Color digital on cyclus, staple bound, 32pg, 5x7.5in.

250 Words or Less, 2010-11
125 reviews of almost all the art or art-related shows seen (in Tokyo) over the last year and a half, in 250 words or less. All but the two sentence entry equating the work of -. at (gallery name) to a friend's collection of toenail clippings that he made while he was in Italy are stated in serious, non-casual language and were productive considerations at the time. On monoculture.

Each entry in English and Japanese (translated by Yu Morishita). B/w laser on newsprint, staple bound, 128 pg, 5x7in.


104 words in the private history of a love that failed, 2011
A paracollaboration with Maybe S. Crazier unanagrammed. Published by Booklet. B/w photocopy, 1/50 colored paper covers, 1/104 individual notes, envelope, transparent elastic cord, mixed-to-match-the-cover Holbein pastel pile in plastic bag, 110 pages, edition of 104, 6x8in.

Art Anagrams, 2011-
     General Terms - 36pg, 25 copies, 5x7in.
     On Ed Ruscha - 152 Ruscha titles anagrammed (in select cases, several times). Cover is the average color of the paintings from the year that produced the most anagrams (1989; R105/G106/B116). 72pg, 25 copies , 5x7in.
     On Laurie Anderson - 80 Laurie Anderson titles anagrammed (in select cases, several times) arranged by album. Cover is Bright Red, as in Anderson's 1994 album title. 36pg, 25 copies, 5x7in.
Even older, maybe never.    

Various Various
2015 Teen Spirit Work for a show in Glasgow, February 12 - March 7, 2015. [Additional note to follow]

It's nothing personal:

A roman à clef and semi-fiction (NY Boys), a semi-fiction as a privileged white 19-year-old girl at an art school with a calligraphed seal (Blue Notebook), a scent (Teen Spirit). Half of an elusive pact, options on the time of two, time wasted, a recovery, and a holophrase.


Work around some amount of time spent in a teenage hometown and a city quit, after four years in another city quit.

Titles for work imaged at right: Options on our time (watches), Facsimile, NY Boys, Blue Notebook, Teen Spirit, Smokes, Holophrase (pin), & I don't know, he never responded to my e-mail (pendant).


Refer to this page. Various; Installation dimensions: [all items on] 120 x 160 cm deodorant-mounted table top

2014 Édition

2014 Book cover (Sturtevant
1584351225 /

Ink jet print on canvas, folded. 11 x 19 in., flat / ~9.1 x 7.2 x 0.9 in., folded
2014 MMTWTFF (New from Template...)  



Digital file Variable
2014 self portrait (conditional) See also.


Folded toy flicker watch Variable
2013 Untitled (paint on wall)

The average color of the paint on wall of every blue-backed internet-found image of Felix Gonzalez Torres' Untitled (Perfect Lovers) as of November 13, 2013.

R189 G206 B219
C32 M17 Y11 K0
HTML #bdcedb



Or wall paint, or paint on wall
2013 Red dot


Rubies in 925 silver tack settings 6mm gem, .5 in length
2013 Timestamp
Or Untitled (11217)


7USD, Tracking "3/4 x 1 in" 
2013-, 2011- uUntitled Various (3) _-_ _.


Various Various
2013 FGT ABT&GSG, 1992 Or Untitled (Grave), ref. Gonzalez-Torres

Digital print on cotton shirt, embroidered hang tag US Mens XS
2013- Listening Material

Live feed; attentions vary. Thursdays 9:30- amUTC+9 / convert

Resumes never.

7 November
- Mark Wigley, "The Architecture of Atmosphere," Daidalos 68 (1998): 18-27. 16:06.
31 October - Mark Wigley, “Unleashing the Archive,” Future Anterior, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter 2005): 11-14.
Jean-Luc Nancy, "The Insufficiency of 'Values' and the Necessity of 'Sense'," trans. Steve Bastow, Journal for Cultural Research Vol. 9, No. 4 (October 2005): 437-441. 22:13.
24 October - Athena Tacha, Different Notions of Time (Washington, DC: A Tacha, 2005). 11:54.
17 October - Rosalind Krauss, "Antivision," October 36 (Spring 1986): 147-154. 17:02.
10 October - Georges Bataille, "Sacrifices," in Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927-1939, ed. Allan Stoekl (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985), 130-136.
Maurice Blanchot, "Friendship," in Friendship (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1997), 282-289. 27:33.
26 September, 3 October - Cancelled. LM resumes 10 October.
19 September - Julio Cortázar and Jason Weiss, "Julio Cortázar, The Art of Fiction No. 83," Paris Review 93 (Fall 1984). 26:11.
5, 12 September - Cancelled. LM resumes 19 September.
29 August - Maurice Blanchot, "The Madness of the Day" in The Station Hill Blanchot Reader, trans. Lydia Davis (Barrytown, NY: Station Hill Press, 1999), 191-199. 21:34.
22 August - Cancelled.
15 August - Jonathan Safran Foer, "How Not to Be Alone," New York Times, June 8, 2013. 7:39.
8 August - Winy Maas, "Winy Mass: Interview," Perspecta 35 (2004): 54-61. 25:38.
1 August - K. Michael Hayes, "Prolegomenon for a Study Linking the Advanced Architecture of the Present to That of the 1970s through Ideologies of Media, the Experience of Cities in Transition, and the Ongoing Effects of Reification," Perspecta 32 (2001): 100-107. 35:30.
25 July - Miwon Kwon, "The Becoming of a Work of Art: FGT and a Possibility of Renewal, a Chance to Share, A Fragile Truce," in Felix Gonzalez-Torres, ed. Julie Ault (Gottingen and New York: Steidl and the Felix Gonzalez-Torres Foundation, 2006), 303-309.
Lina Bo Bardi, "Culture and Non-Culture," in Stones Against Diamonds (London: AA Publications, 2012), 54-56. 21:38.
18 July - Miwon Kwon, "Exchange Rate: On Obligation and Reciprocity in Some Art of the 1960s and After," in Work Ethic, ed. Helen Molesworth (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), 83-96. 25:00.
27 June, 4 & 11 July - Cancelled. LM will resume on 18 July.
20 June - Jeffrey Kipnis, "Drawing A Conclusion," Perspecta 22 (1986): 94-99.
Jorge Luis Borges, "Delia Elena San Marco," in Dreamtigers, trans. Mildred Boyer (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2004), 32. 14:53.
18 June - Jenny Holzer and Edward Lewine, "At Home with Jenny Holzer, The Artist," New York Times, December 20, 2009.
Ed Ruscha and Deborah Solomon, "The Picture of an All-American," New York Times, June 12, 2005. 12:12.
13 June - Cancelled. Rescheduled to Tuesday, 18 June.
6 June - Jean Baudrillard, "Concerning the Fulfillment of Desire in Exchange Value," in For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign (St. Louis, MO: Telos Press Publishing, 1981), 204-212.
John Hejduk, "The Space In-Between," Perspecta 22 (1986): 88-93. 26:35.
30 May - Hal Foster, "The Passion of the Sign," in The Return of the Real (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996), 71-80.
Roland Barthes, "Change the Object Itself," in Image-music-text (New York: Fontana Press, 1993), 165-169. 31:45.
23 May - Georges Bataille, "Friendship," Parallax 7, No. 1 (2001): 6-15. 31:03.
16 May - Chantal Mouffe, "Citizenship and Politcal Identity," October 61 (Summer 1992): 28-32.
Hal Foster et al., "Questionnaire on 'The Contemporary'" October 130 (Fall 2009): 3.
Miwon Kwon, "Response to Questionnaire on 'The Contemporary'" October 130 (Fall 2009): 13-15. 23:28.
9 May - Roland Barthes and Katrine Pilcher Keuneman, Criticism and Truth (classic Criticism), New ed. (London: Continuum, 2007), 23-40. 26:54.
2 May - Moved to 30 April
30 April - Ernesto Laclau, "How politics constructs social links," L'Architecture d'Aujourd'hui 382 (2011): 95-101. 21:05.
25 April - Felix Gonzalez-Torres, A Selection of Snapshots Taken by Felix Gonzalez-Torres (New York City: ART Press, 2010), pages with handwritten text.
John Hejduk, "Diary Constructions," Perspecta 23 (1987): 78-91. 22:10.
18 April - Joseph Kosuth / Arthur R. Rose, "Four Interviews," Arts Magazine (February 1969): 23.
Joseph Kosuth and Stuart Morgan, "Art as Idea as Idea: An interview with Joseph Kosuth," Frieze Magazine 16 (May 1994), (accessed January 4, 2009). 28:01.
11 April - John Hejduk, Lancaster Hanover Masque (London: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992). 30:00.
4 April - Roland Barthes and Saul Steinberg, All Except You (Paris: Maeght, 1983). Excerpts read in French, 30:00.

  Live feed 3~20:00-45:00 each

Transcript of "In Paris with Sturtevant", on Frieze Video from March 21, 2013. Corrections welcome. See also.

Sturtevant: I, of course, am Sturtevant, and I'd like you to meet my co-producer Loren Muzzey, who is co-prodcer of Ça va aller Productions here in Paris, and also my general manager of the studio, Guillaume, two very crucial people to the work. This is of course my wonderful small studio, which is okay because all I do now is video, I don't do painting.

Cybernetics, of course, is part of our digital world and the digital world is subservient to cybernetics. And, it's very powerful force now. For instance, I explain our current digital world as excess, limitation, transgression, and fatigue. One of the powerful movements of the cybernetic world is the reversal of hierarchies, so that, like, information is above knowledge, where it used to be knowledge was a higher power than information. Now it's quite the opposite. Once you get to object over object, the object in itself becomes its own representation, which becomes very interesting. Image over image is of course what we're really in now, and this is all based on the work of that dirty little trickster called simulacra, which I've been tracing for a long time.

Simulacra is becoming minor in terms of its force—incredible—has changed truth into falsity, and so it's very, it's big, big phenomena. What has to be realized here is that a great deal of a—due to cybernetics is many people have a vast, barren interior, which means that you have no mind, you have no mind working and pretty soon, you have no unique experiences, your experience will be everybody else's experience, and if you talk to any of these powerful Internet guys, you know what they want to do? They want to animate all inanimate objects, that's their new goal.

When I first started to work, I was basically interested in just the a, basic ground of repetition. You know, how repetition worked and how it functioned. So repetition is not repeating. Repetition is like interior movement, it's also difference, and it's also pushing the limitations of resemblance. Really basically comes out of Deleuze.

Deleuze, for me, is playful, so that, you know, it's like, yes, you go along with it and then you skip big areas because it's just too much, you know, and then Foucault triggers the mind so that you read him and, Bing!, your mind starts going tkutchu-tchu--tchu-tchu-tschu-tsh. You know I'm working on an opera on Spinoza. The problem with doing an opera on Spinoza is that there are no female, male conflicts, and that's what most operas are based on. So, the problem was, what would you make the object of conflict in it, of course, I decided then, of course it would be thinking—the object of this thinking basically is God. I have devised a crowd as a totality, so that they have one voice, then on the other side of the stage I have a chorus which represents our digital age and so then that starts making a great conflict and great resolution. I think it's an opera no one would want to go to [laughs]. But that's okay. God is a pretty current subject, isn't it?
  Video (reference) 531 words
Aug 5

Transcript of a video on Elaine Sturtevant on Nowness from August 1st, 2013. Corrections welcome. See also.

Sturtevant: The Abstract Expressionists were really very highly thought of and then Pop Art came in. So, one was all emotion and Pop Art was all mass culture. It made you think about what is the power of art. So you start thinking about the understructure of art. Where does that force come from?

It was totally quiet when I started. Nobody knew who I was or what I was doing--it was so great [laughs]. Years later, the Appropriationists came in and they were very important for me because then I could give negative definition in my work. Before that, nobody knew what I was doing. The Appropriationists were really about the loss of originality and I was about the power of thought. Very big difference.

No matter how I articulated what I was doing--didn't make any difference--they called it copy. So at one time I had a beautiful show at the Everson Museum, in New York, and, uh, the critics called it copies. So I said, this is ridiculous. If I continue this work, it'll become copy, which is true, you know, if people keep insisting on something eventually it becomes what they insist it is. So I pulled out. It totally sucked, and it was correct, it was right, it was right. And that's great because you aren't oftentimes right when you're thinking.

Any move I made into another medium was in order to articulate language, articulate visibilities, and stuff like that. That's because I was really compell[ed] to do it.

Everyone today is curator, director, filmmaker, graphic artist--[we]ll, you know, it's so ridiculous, you can't be all those things and be great. You really can't.
  Video (reference) 280 words
2013 self portrait See also.

Transparent self-joined watch band 4.5 x .75 x .125 in
2013 PROTECT ME FROM WHAT YOU WANT You, not/and I(Holzer)

Embroidered (cotton twill, fabric strap & buckle closure) cap, open edition.  OSFM
2013 Lacquer (Paulistano)  

Paulistano chair (leather, steel), navy lacquer 33 x 27.5 x 27.5 in
2013 French Window (after Sturtevant, Duchamp)  

green blue
Wood, enamel, metal, one-way mirror glass, perspex, corresponding aperture in wall

30.5 x 17.625 x 2 in
2012-, 2013 ot_dna_morf_neewteb


Animated gif dimensions variable
2012 Tail End  

Wall clocks Felix Gonzalez Torres clocks felix the cat 26 x 4+ x 2.5 in
2012 Holzer Truisms
Holzer Truisms in Japanese
少しの知識でも大いに役に立つ 多くの専門家は変人である

Jenny Holzer Truisms translated to Japanese, translation





Jenny Holzer's Truisms  
2012- 1000 Hours Staring (after Tom Friedman)  

179.5kb jpg [of Friedman's 1000 Hours of Staring], web analytics software dimensions variable
2012 sottsass-seating-near-enigma.jpg  Sottsass's Seating Near Enigma (1983) constructed from two .jpgs.
Photo by Ai Oe.  

Cardboard, chipboard, glue, paint (acrylic, enamel, lacquer, tempera)  27 x 18 x 27.5 in  
2012 Ken Kagami interview

Translation by Yu Morishita.     2,942 words
2012 国歌 [National Anthem]  Sō, sō, sō [...] Sō ne.
Screenprinted card, ??? copies 6 x 4 in
2012 P.E. Ball After Kazuo Okazaki, not necessarily as a parenthetical. 
Rubber playground ball, enamel, air 8 in diameter
2012 Platonic Affairs (Set of Swatch) Watches repaired, set renamed. One keeps the hours, one keeps the minutes; for two.  

Watch faces, bands, and clasps 9 x 1.375 in each; dimensions variable when worn
2012 Sejima  

Tube of SPF 100+ sunblock  3.3 fl. oz.
2012 Telephone Peace On Yoko Ono.

Scissors with white handles 4.75 x 2.25 in
2012 pieA Piece of Sky On Yoko Ono, etc., etc., etc.
Pair of adhesive silicone nose pads and surround on backing paper, endless supply  1 x 1.25 in backing 
2012 Move On Yoko Ono


    3:44 loop. 
2012 FG-T _elix _onzalez-_orres.  
100% Wool, machine knit 16s / 35c / 37w (Custom US Mens ~XS)
2011- one[Formerly 1,821 Perfect Words]

To follow.

    1,821+ words
2011-12 qA Quick Look at Friend Art in Japan, part 1 (link to follow); Title, URL set within a 1:2.4 aspect ratio div, overall dimensions and attributes variable.
3 Google Translate recording (English to Japanese), 2:28.

  Various Various
2011 A Sudden Gust of Wind (after Jeff Wall)  

xDigital image file Variable
2011 boxA Box of Something Else On Yoko Ono.
Engraved silver box (empty)  2 x 2 x 2in 
2011 Time For someone in NYC.
Eraser, ink ~1 x 2.5 x .5 in
2011 Perfect Lovers (after Felix Gonzalez-Torres)  
Watch faces, watch bands 9 x 1.375 in each; dimensions variable when worn
2011 - Perfect Lovers (after Tobias Wong after Felix Gonzalez-Torres)  
Virtual clocks dimensions variable
2011 c"Critical Reflections on the Ontological Illusion Rethinking the Relation between ___ & _______ 1 "




A heading from an excerpt of G. Rockhill's forthcoming book as used at a presentation/lecture for In the Wake of 2013 (IWAB2011 Tuning Section) : Radical History and the Politics of Art. New York: Columbia University Press, Series “New Directions in Critical Theory,” 2012. All else is fairly literal, straightforward. 



Pair of non-skid doormats (blue on navy blue carpet inlay), outsourced  2 x 3.3 ft 
2011 On Katie Paterson's
All the Dead Stars
"A map of all the dead stars in the Universe." 


Anondized aluminum sheet 2 x 3 m 
On whether or not1 offers a strategy for the consumption of art (practice) through a reconsideration of the red dot, which, as an indicator for purchase, remains a validating symbol for art. A yellow dot or blue dot is placed on the title card of each art work within the Tuning Section (and hopefully beyond) to evidence engagement of the respective artist as a collaborator and participant, voluntary and not. These artists, whose pre-selection as Biennale contributors already reflects a formal manifestation of appraisal, are thus figured in a work (i.e., ) whose ends are not the assignment of meaning or judgment. Rather, signifies and visualizes how declarative determinations can confront the restrictions of meaning beyond the conventional context of value and worth.

Subtle Imperatives determines the manner in which the work, , will eventuate at IWAB2011 and specifies parameters for criticality. Permission is asked from the organizing body to extend On whether or not past the Tuning Section to the whole of the Biennale.

Tuning Reader stages the possibility for work and criticism for and about an artist to occur simultaneous to,2 rather than supplementary to, the artist’s work. Using the statements submitted by each artist within the Tuning Section, each volume of the Reader defines key terms employed by the author in the written description of their work, and contains transcribed example sentences [and reference texts] to contextualize these terms. The Tuning Reader uses words, necessarily impersonalized and objectified, to motivate discussion on the accountability of production and criticism, confronting the allusive totality of the visual.

1 “... judgments are given and contained in the immediate experience of art. They coincide with it; they are … arrived at … through … thought; ... judgments are also ... voluntary; you can … choose whether or not judgments are honestly reported ...“ John Baldessari on Clement Greenberg (taken out of context), from Baldessari’s Clement Greenberg, 1966-1968.
In, and beyond, the attitude of STURTEVANT(’s) JOHNS FLAG, STELLA FOR PICABIA, WARHOL FLOWERS, (by means of titling, Sturtevant literalizes and offsets established syntax assigned to practice generalized as common to her own, i.e. After Artist’s Name / (after Artist's Name)) 

For TR bibliography, see. Thank you Christopher Ho, Jose Ruiz, Rae, Yun Ju Kim (translation of The Real Man for Vol. 7, and Jimin Song.



Digital documentation (new window):


Blue or yellow dot (sticker), 22 dots total on 22 Tuning Section artists' wall tags; 5mm each


B/w digital on cyclus, colored covers, 27 books (2 yellow, 20 blue offset on blue, 5 reference volumes/white), 8 - 228 pg; 5 x 7 in each; Digital variant,
~ , - , ~b
2011 STURTEVANT ART BIENNALE 2011 (INTERVIEW) Transcript of (a video of) an interview with Elaine Sturtevant at the Venice Biennale 2011 from June 6th, 2011. Corrections welcome.

Sturtevant: The people ! .... What people?! (Laughs)

Oh, Oh, we(ll) that's gonna be weird, cuz then I'm talking out of nowhere.

(Silent laugh)

I worked so long, uh, trying to develop my conceptual ideas, that I'm very used to, to working within this framework. So, it was never about getting a gallery or gaining fame, or anything like that. And the work has just slowly developed, as conceptual thinking does. And then, uh, there were several people that really pushed the work: Paul Maenz, gave me one of my first shows in Germany and really pushed it forward, Thaddeus Ropac, a gallery in Paris, and then I had a very big show with Udo Kittelmann at MMK, enormous show, beautiful show, so that all attention was structured on tone and sound - and cross structures, it was beautiful.

And then of course my show at the Museum of Modern Art, so I think this combination, and also the -, I think the show at the, uh, when I did the twelve-hundred coal bags at the Whitney Biennial, I forget what year, so I think the combination and then also we're becoming, the outside world is becoming more and more aware of the uh cybernetics of the digital world and its imposition.

It's not what I think, it's what I know. And the, the power of the work comes through with is basic, uh, uh, uh, force and concern with cybernetics and our digital world and the higher power of simulacra. And this is (wuh)-once you can, once you can, uh, manage to do that visually you start articulating visibilities and that's uh, uhm, a possibility or that's a ... way of, uh, making words objects and making uh sound an object -- I'm running off here. Okay, that's that. (Laughs)

That I'm always trying to trigger thinking. So that comes through a -- for instance, we've had (absolutely?) tremendous upheavals -- our hierarchies are upside down, like information is now considered knowledge. Image is, has, higher power than object. So if you've come to understand or think about some of these things, then you, then your hold on life is, is very different, how you can deal with it. I mean, we're kind of all we, you know, basically, we're not gonna need clones cuz we'll all be clones. (Laughs)

I never thought I'm only using males. I used artists that I felt could function strongly as catalysts.

I wrote an essay called "The Reluctant Indifference of Marcel Duchamp." (Basically) I don't feel that Duchamp is viable anymore. It doesn't mean he's (---), he's still very important, but all his references are so far away from, uh, what's going on. I, No, I'm not fascinated with Duchamp at all.

There are two things, there-r highly subjective, and uh, you know if you, if you, uh Heidegger who is not --- my least favorite philosopher, says once you start talking about live experience, then it's the end, it's the end of creativity. But that's, more importantly, is that now, uhm, artists are talking about experience, giving you an experience. So of course that brings you further and further away from what is there. Yeah, yeah, they're talking about their experience and making experience for you, so it's like, you know, your whole brain becomes something other than a brain.



  Video (reference) 557 words
2012 STURTEVANT DELEUZE ABÉCÉDAIRE, FIRST SERIES Transcript of the video STURTEVANT, Deleuze Abécédaire, First Series, at Galerie Thaddaeus Ropac - Sept. 11 2012 from September 22, 2012. Alternate video: STURTEVANT | Galerie Thaddaeus Ropac | Paris | 2012 |. Corrections welcome.

Sturtevant: I kept saying, you-know-w-I, was glad my first, first one (of) my letters wasn't A, because I'd say th-the world was full of assholes, and that's really not a good way to start an interv—to start a dialogue. (Candid laugh).

I'm always trying to make, uhm, visibilities, articulate visibilities so that, so that, you can make thought an object and make thought visible. Deleuze has (a) wonderful, remarkable ability to, uh, discourse endlessly. He used to give seminars over in, uh, Vincenne, I guess, and he'd be crowded with these students who were on top of him and the smoke would be all over the place. (Laugh). And he'd just talk and talk and talk. It's just incredible.

Because my work was always being slotted into the wrong slot, I decided that I had to start writing, so I started looking for people that would, people that would, uh, support the work in some way, and of course Foucault and Deleuze are perfect, you know. But Hans Obrist pointed out to me, which was very, very crucial, that I was doing repetition before Deleuze wrote his Difference and Repetition. Hey (paced, deliberate clap/cheer).

-- work is based on a lot of Nietzsche and a lot of Foucault and a lot of Deleuze, then going way back on Spinoza, and, and, uh, all those funny fellows. When I finish this momentum that I'm into now, the different shows, I'm going to sit back, and do an opera on Spinoza. Which will be very tranquil and very nice. It's going to be fabulous. Yes.



  Video (reference) 264 words
2012 STURTEVANT['S PERSONAL WORK OF ART -] FRANCE 24 Transcript of a France 24 interview with Elaine Sturtevant from April 2nd, 2010. Corrections welcome.

F24 / Eve Jackson: Hello. Is it possible to make a very personal work of art by replicating others? If you see the work of the American conceptual artist, Sturtevant, you can only say “Yes”! Sturtevant has repeated works by stars in the art market like Warhol, Duchamp, and Stella often well before they became famous. Now an exhibition at Paris' Modern Art Museum features a selection of her most important works as well as some new ones. And I'm delighted to say Elaine Sturtevant joins us now. Thank you for joining us, welcome to France vingt quatre.

Sturtevant: Thank you, thank you.

EJ: Now, there are two parts of this exhibition, The Razzle Dazzle of Thinking, there's "Wild to Wild", and my favorite, "The House of Horrors"--talk us through the exhibition, for those who haven't had the chance to go and see it. What can they expect to see there?

S: What can they expect to see? (Laughs) You-you mean when they go from Wild to Wild to The House of Horror? Well, th-the, uh, two -- The Wild to Wild is more about, uh, image over image, which is what we're about now in our cybernetic world, and so, it has, uhm, it has more space in terms of triggering thinking and it brings you back to yourself, yu-, and, it had to be in exact opposition to the other exhibition. So, when I was devising the other part, I knew that it had to be very different. So, then, uh, House of Horrors seemed like a good idea. So, The House of Horrors really, uhm, it's just entertainment, but the nice thing is, that, uh, Wild to Wild had the ability to give it the force of opposition. So that brings it up to a higher level. [Well] it's, it's very nice. It's very good.

EJ: And I noticed when I was there, there's even parents with their kids to have a go on the ghost train.

S: Yeah.

EJ: Is that the kind of thing you wanted, or --

S: Oh, we knew, we knew, I mean, this (Laughs)-- This was not done without closed eyes. No, of course, we also, I anticipated people would be more attracted to The House of Horror than Wild to Wild: People don't really like to think or reflect. So, entertainment of course is super. Then that's also the cybernetic part of the exhibition. Yeah.

EJ: Now, you are an artist really like no other. I read one critic say, ah, you copy artwork but you're not a copyist, you're a renegade female artist, but you're not a feminist.

S: Hm-hm--that's right.

EJ: What do you see yourself as?

S: I see myself as a very strong woman, and, uh, yeah, with a lot of-ah, lot of force, and a lot of power, and, uh, total enchantment and [a] love of living, of being. Yes, that's how I see myself.

EJ: Now, a few decades ago, I won't go into how many, you decided to, uhm, start replicating, if that's what you call it, I'm not sure, other people's work.

S: Mm-hmm ...

EJ: Why and when did you decide to do that?

S: Well, that was quite some time ago, that was when, uhm, in the, in the uhm, early 60s(?) and at that time, everything was, uh, very surface. Like we had, uhm, the Abstract Expressionists were just(-st) burning out then, we had Pop Art, which was at the very top. So, both those movements are very, all about, surface. All right. So, ha-having been in-, sort of embedded in that, I mean, surrounded by it, it became clear that I had to, uhm, one would have to think about the under structure [of a]rt, so that's how I came into it.

EJ: And you were quite ahead of your time, because lots of the work that you replicated was done by quite unknown artists, who later went on to become sort of super stars, didn't they? How did you have such a good vision? Was it just a coincidence, or --

S: Oh it's never a coincidence (Laughs) . No, it never happens as a coincidence. It's, uh, I think it [wa]s about having distance, uhm, distance from the self. And so then you have the ability to see what's going on and what will go on.

EJ: So what are you trying to say with your, with your works? With your art?

S: Oh my god, you wanna come to a seminar? (Laughs)

EJ: In a minute-- sum it up in a minute.

S: In a minute... I'm talking about cybernetic's intrusion, which includes the, it's digital underling. Uh, I'm talking about the imposition that our cybernetic world is now imposing on us, and our life, and our being , and our food, and our way of ev-, in every way, and so then that also impinges on the art world and what you have as art today. [Forces smile]. Briefly.

EJ: Briefly.

S: (Laughs)

EJ: What do you think of work like Andy Warhol's, that people automatically recognize and they associate something with it. What do you think--is that sort of art good?

S: Well you have to, for this work to function, you have to know the artist, see, you'd have to know Warhol when you look at one of my ten foot Flowers, then you have to know Warhol, because otherwise it doesn't function. Otherwise, it'd just be Sturtevant doing a ten foot Flower.

EJ: OK, well, I'm sorry to say we're out of time, but thank you very much --

S: Thank you!

EJ: for coming in and speaking to us.

S: It's been a pleasure.

EJ: And, uhm, The Razzle Dazzle of Thinking, the exhibition at the Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville in Paris is on until the 25th of April.



  Video (reference) 953 words
2011 STURTEVANT OPENING-DAY ARTIST TALK AT THE WALKER ART CENTER Transcript of Elaine Sturtevant's Opening-Day Artist Talk at the Walker Art Center from April 25th, 2009. Corrections welcome.

Peter Eleey: Hello, um, good afternoon and welcome to the Walker. I-I'm Peter Eeley and I've organized the show The Quick and the Dead upstairs in Galleries four, five and six which includes Sturtevant's Beuys Fat Chair from 1979, which I hope you all will have a chance to see if you haven't already. Uh, just a brief word of introduction, we're very pleased to welcome Sturtevant here today from Paris, uh. Since 1964 a good twenty years before the American art world of the 1980s was consumed by strategies of appropriation, Sturtevant has used some of the most iconic artwork of her generation as a source and catalyst for exploring the concepts of origin and authenticity, including those by Warhol, Felix Gonzalez-Torres, Frank Stella, Jasper Johns, Marcel Duchamp and of course Joseph Beuys. She performs her sources rather than borrowing them wholesale, and uses the same materials and uses the same materials and conceptual tools as the artwork she repeats, but her pieces are never copies, in fact, she defies the end game of reproduction and and simulation that has come to characterize contemporary society. The brutal truth of the work, she has said, is that it is not a copy. The push and shove of the work is the leap from image to concept. And today she'll discuss the philosophical base of this radical work. And as she describes to me the imposition of our cybernetic world, and the zip zap of our digital world, with it's dangerous, potent power --

Sturtevant: Very good.

PE: please join me in welcoming Sturtevant.

S: Very nice Peter, thank you. Is my mic working -- yes -- that was very nice.Uhm, so today I'm going to, I'm going to overload you a little bit, I think. I'm going to start out with two interviews, uh, one of which was made while I was at MIT and one of which was made for Frieze. And, I think that will give you a ground to start with, and, um, how many of you know my work?

S: Uh, okay, (be)cause it makes, it makes a difference you know, thank you. Uhm, so, after the interviews I'm going to read an essay called Modes of Thought, and uh, then we're going to have a slide show (laughs), which is totally medieval.

S: And, uh, which is called The Transgression of Our Visual Desire. And, uh, what I would like to point out is that this is, a uhm, this essay Modes of Thought is-was, was written quite some time ago. And also the interviews, the one from MIT was done in ah mm 2000, something like that. So although I think it's very good in terms of a base, i(t')s not really what my present concerns are about. But, uh, okay, so let's, uh, Peter's gonna be kind enough, uh, to read -- he's gonna pretend he's the interviewer and

PE: mutters ? into mic

S: I'm gonna pretend I'm the artist.

. . .

PE: I first came across your work in a catalog of your drawing show at the Bess Cutler gallery, New York City. It was extraordinary because it looked like the work was talking about simulacra, yet when I looked into it I realized that it dated from the 60s. That seemed extraordinary and extreme at the same time.

S: Well, basically what was around at that time was the last ember -- embers -- of Abstract Expressionist and the hard blow of Pop both given by surface of involvement and pushed my to thinking about the understructure of art. The silent power of art, long term thinking with philosophical grounding.

PE: What would that('ve) philosophy (ha)ve been?

S: Oh God. Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, heavy, heavy Nietzsche,
even those funny guys Spinoza and Schopenhauer?

PE: What about Deleuze and Foucault, both are used to support your work?

S: That was later, much later. Such monumental minds (coughs), especially Foucault and then the wonderful playfulness of Deleuze.

PE: Well it must have been scary because you were exhibiting artists at the same time that they were exhibiting. It must have been scary for you and the artists, too. How was it perceived at the time?

S: A lot of negative, some positive, the negative was about the market, that sort of nonsense.

PE: Well it was good marketing.

S: Oh, yes it was making Warhols to sell. Warhols? Very stupid. The supposed positive was that I was making 'mega-pop.'
(coughs) Excuse me. (drinks water) Have this (ho) habit recently of coughing, so you'll have to put up with this maybe. Let's see if we can stop it. (cough drop) Now let's see if I can try to talk with something in my mouth.
Okay, let's see whu-where were we (mutters). What. Where

PE: You were making mega-pop.

S: Mega-pop, mega-pop (mutters points mutters)

PE: Right there

S: Oh. Superceedeing Warhol, that made it even worse. Deleuze of course -- Dealers, of course, were freaking out of their minds because the work was very powerful.

PE: I wonder if I'm missing a page...

S: Oh, I hope not. No, it goes on, I'm just taking a long pause here.

PE: Oh, okay.

S: On the top, on the top of seeing, the Stellas appeared as Stellas and the Johns looked like Johns. This was enormously threatening for them. It created many problems, but that's an understatement.

PE: When all that simulation theory came out in the 80s, did that effect your relationship to that work?

S: No, of course not, but it helped some people to gain access, a (dis?) hinge to my work.

PE: How do you relate to the work of Sherry Levine?

S: Well, she is definitely somewhere else. And different issues and concerns. The appropriationists were very crucial to the forward movement of my work. But this is old history and Sherry Levine is great.

PE: Your work is about parameters, the parameters of art practice, parameters of art making.

S: Uh, those perpetual questions of originality --- certainly now a myth --- and the dynamic relationship of origins to original and man's anguish with retrieving origins. But this is neither here nor there, for we are now locked into devastating and dangerous modes of being.

PE: When I show people your work, they always hint at a sort of madness in their response.

S: A kind of madness -- that's great -- I like that. Certainly thinking is a kind of madness.

PE: The art of repetition: how does that shift the relationship to the art object?

S: The object is transposed by this repetition and then pushes a reversal of thinking of kind of standing on your head you can reject but it sits in your head like a bad buzz. You see, it's not the object in itself, but rather what, what occurs. That radical leap from image to concept, repetition distancing the work from the source, and at the same time elaborating upon it changing both the past and the future in a very dynamic way.

PE: Have you ever made a piece of work which you might do this act of repetition but might not end up as being an art object?

S: Oh, but definitely, yes. Language is double.

PE: What about your recent videos?

S: Uhm, well --- you see how old this is because -- the show was a long time ago. The last show at Ropac, the Dillinger Running Series was an attempt to push articulation against visibilities. The Greening to -- Greening of America in the reversal sense, of course, is a seven-frame discourse on excess, imitation, transgression, and exhaustion. And currently I'm working on The Dark Threat of Absence, a film for my Paris show in June, that's talking about the vast, barren interior of men.

PE: What kind of visbilities are you talking about?

S: Mostly about the torturous elements of (shifting/stiffening?) mental structures, visibility as an interior structure as opposed to visible.

PE: And how are they embedded in our thinking?

S: Mm, exactly (? ?) -- I don't know why I said exactly(? laughs) -- impending modes of thinking that control, restrict, chew up liberty and freedom with a base of falsity that has created a burning desire to death, killing, and for (all) those who retain a soul, the silent, solar inversion of (satanic?) desire, a violent desire to die more than to live.

PE: Ultimately, quite a pessimistic outlook ...

Mm, not at all. It is what it is

PE: Are there any redeeming factors within technological development?

S: Mm, absolutely, if we weren't so sloppy with it.

PE:How do you see progress from this point of view?

S: Mm, progress is a slippe(r)y word and now blatant in its attempts to deprive man of all substance: the vigor of life, the vitality of food, the function of labor, the action of words. It's endless.

PE: Your viewpoints must be fairly unpopular in America.

S: (laughs) I've been unpopular so long it hardly even phases me. Besides, popularity is rather lumpy concept, no?
But how I do long for man knowing his full power with dreams and hopes for self, others and the Other.

PE: Chirac seems to be surviving remarkably well even though he is a pretty shady character.

S: What is going on here? Bush, Regan, Nixon; they are all gangsters. And Bush not only cheats and lies, but along with Sharon, has set in motion volcanic proportions of hate and despair. A true raping of the mind.

PE: Tell me why you moved to Paris.

S: You trying to change the subject? New York City was absolutely without discourse, art was consumed with subjectivity, a few (?) like that, but I always went to Paris from time to time, a way not to get glued to your own focus. Then again, wanted to make the Keifer Planes for my Kunstformen show and shipping that heavy lead plane would be something else again.

PE: The 80s was a significant return to the old orders of the establishment, it was a reconstitution of the old Avant-Garde.

S: Really? Avante-Garde, definitely medieval.

PS Do you get more discourse on your work in Europe?

S: (Marginally?) (.... ?) but I think LA, I think New York City and LA are coming to grips. (laughs)

PE: Isn't that lack of confrontation an American mannerism where everything has to be affirmed?

Ah, strongly, and that is bad news.

PE: Well to tie this up, what about these hierarchies you talk about?

S: Yes the wonderful power of cybernetics' inversion of image over object, finite over infinite, man is God, Self is disappearance, origin as image, truth as falsity -- there we go.

PE: And here we go.

. . .

S: Thank you, Peter. (...) Great.
Now we're going to ask someone whom I think you all know, Philip Verne, to come up here and do the Frieze interview. Phi-leep? Hello Philip.
Nice to have you here.

PV Nice to have you here.

S: Okay, so this was in Frieze magazine, it's very short, but I think it gives you another idea, okay.

PV So. What images keep you company in the space where you work?

S: The outside of the inside.

PV What was the first piece of art that really mattered to you?

S: I don’t think it was art.

PV Sorry. If you could live with any one piece of art what would it be?

S: Oh, Impossible.

PV What film has most influenced you?

S: Any film of Quentin Tarantino because he is a concrete example of the vast barren interior of man: a big-time cyber jerk.

PV What is your favorite title of an art work?

S: Oh, Can’t be bothered with this. Why put your head into this? I can’t get there from here.

PV What do you wish you knew?

S: Everything (almost).

PV What should change?

S: Uh, hate, violence; our hot desire for death.

PV What should stay the same?

S: Definitely not the 'same’.

PV What could you imagine doing if you didn’t do what you do?

S: Raising a lot more hell.

PV What music are you listening to?

S: Notorious BIG

PV What are you reading?

S: Hm. Michael Jackson Was My Lover

PV Mine, too.

S: This Michael Jackson Was My Lover was really astounding book, I have to tell you. It's a-uh, super reality of truth as falsity; and always in-between, Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault to prevent brain damage.

PV What do you like the look of?

S: John Waters, Udo Kittelman, L. Muzzey. We could include you Philip.
You don't look bad either.

PV Thank you, always loved you.
What is art for?

S: What's it (?), oh, Current art is, is uh: to dangerously re-load, to fill a hole, to conceal the loss of power. That's it. Thank you Philip.

. . .

S: What mic is doing that?

PE: I don't know, might be this one.

Is it mine, no.

PE: (mutters) When Sturtevant's done talking, we'll open the floor for questions, but I just ask that people wait and speak into the mic, so that everyone can hear.

PE: walks off stage.

S: Okay, so this lecture is called Modes of Thought, uhm, we tried to uhm, yeah, that's Plato's Idea same Idea -- Why are we running this now? I have no idea. What we have to do is, I tied to put this on, um, on the, uh, Powerpoint and as I talk about different shows, uhm, then the images are supposed to come up, so you just have to wing it a little bit, okay? (clears throat)

Modes of Thought. Repetition. Repetition is displaced difference. Repetition is pushing the (?) of resemblance. Repetition is interior movement. Repetition is (?) representation.
The Fold. The fold of the interior without the exterior is a vast, barren, interior man. I'm talking about Foucault and Deleuze's Fold. Plato's Dual Action of Idea -- weh it doesn't look like Plato, does it -- Okay, so now this is running now on the show, so we'll just go through it, okay?

Plato's Dual Action of Idea is now the perpetual convolution of seeing. These are modes of thought that reflect the depth and width of the work, but perhaps do not give zip-zap, nor do flat, heavy questions concerning the work that result in murky waters, interfering information that pulls further away from understanding. But understanding is not the role of knowledge. Rather, knowledge is made for cutting. This is indeed my premise. There is a need for thinking, that great all-time high. There's a need for pure distance. Uh, the (plural/brutal?) truth is that this work is not copy, not only by intention in meaning, but also by interior structure.
To think copy in relation to the work is to render it impugnment. Today of course, everything is double, copy, re-do, re-done, reload. However, to go beyond the surface of art, to probe the understructure, the silent power of art, demands utilizing representation, duality, to drastically reverse content. Thus, when content no longer refers to the visible, there is the radical leap from image to concept.

From exterior to interior. With this, paradoxical and antagonistic method of resemblance, but not in itself resemblance, the source works are vigorously emptied, and they are able to fulfill their role as catalysts. The essential, insistent murmur of resemblance and that of identity are there, but transformed. The force, this force, as you use to push and impel thinking in gender polemics, to resist, to give visible action to dialectics, and open wide space for new thinking. Implicit in conceptual thinking is forward movement that develops further of initial thinking. And so the current work demands the action and sound of film, so I'm talking about when I first started to go into film, so, that's a great running dog. That's from a video called Infinite Exhaustion.

To backtrack. The early work was concerned with making visible the concealed, to move away from the surface of objects, to the understructure. Thus, the following shows contain the same dynamics but with different focus. The show Powerful Reversals, which was not anywhere near that, (pause) uhm, (long pause) so, okay,

I think we just, I think I just had to give this up here. Ah, the show Powerful Reversals presented objects that were used to demonstrate art's move from the interior to the exterior. This is art's crucial shift to subjectivity without transcendence. Sports is, is art. Ça Va Aller encompassed the changing parameters of art, a desperate move, not to divest itself by siezing any and all fields, an entrenchment that hides arts loss of power. This is to fill a hole. Interior/Exterior Visibilities was a photographic show that attempted to remove "seeing" by distancing the object, to void the power to see. This is to reveal. Recent video con -- Recent videos contain a dynamic difference with a displacement of concept over image. The image over image. It no longer lies on the surface but is the surface itself. A hard ball way to make thought visible, resemblance is no longer the ruling power, but (with) repetition placing its force in movement, light and spaces.

And so, the one just before that was the Dillinger Running Series, I don't know how many images we have on that. Uhm (clears throat), the Dillinger Running Series, an essential leap to video, that brought, full force, the conceptual idea that thought could be made visible by action. A step to the broader dimension of articulating visibilities. A work that contains extrinsic movement, imposing on intrinsic, (be)cause it was a video that moved around the gallery and it's me running, and so, well nevermind... Extrinsic movement imposing on intrinsic movement, immediacy bound to distance, exclusion fraught with inclusion -- here is space running. The diagonal line, the architectural light, the dark fold. This is the power of thought. The Dark Threat of Absence Fragmented & Sliced is a a floor installation of seven videos--why are we stuck on this? Are we stuck on this? This is Dillinger. Okay.

The Dark Threat of Absence Fragmented & Sliced that constructs an agitated imbalance that is stuck and glued by transgression. The tight play between screens shows and makes sound an object of language, non action with time image, and movement, thought. In turn, it is also a jolting thrust forward to dislocate sovereignizing, pervasive strangulation on our modes of thought?

Cybernetics Rigid Loop, with its suffocating boundaries of limitation, excess, transgression, exhaustion, has created potent shifting mental structures by the reversal of hierarchies. Image or object, finite over infinite, information is knowledge, our truth is falsity, space is object is our place. Such reversals are fraught with dangers, creating interior jet-speed frisson that gives higher power to hate, violence, killing, greed, stupidity, absence. This is our cyberfold of our digital, paternal return.

We're going to go now into the Transgression of Visual Desire, which uhm, let's see, what do we have to say about that? Oh, it's because the images are not very bright or very good because there's too much distance between, so, I guess you just have to tolerate that. Okay. Mm, kay. Original sin is not -- this is Transgression of our Visual Desire -- Original Sin is not, is not original, but it most certainly is original sex. Sex is with Duchamp, is no longer viable. Sex no longer creates pleasure, sex is no longer crucial for creation. It's higher power rests in violence, killing, death, and into the vast barren interior of man. An absolute death of infinite absence that is a frisson gone bad. The falsity of sex jumps and jitters as in things. Art, of course, can be sexy -- uh, let's see I think I have something there (pause), this is a frisson gone bad.

Art of course can be sexy, the penis is a toy, ketchup is sex, ketchup noise is sex, white teeth are sex, shipping carts are concealed, controlled sex, painting is sex, big is definitive sex, a million watchers is a wet dream come true, money is sex, music is raw sex, sports are sex, Mickey Mouse is funny sex, interior visibilities are sex, insolence is nasty sex, sucked out content is sex, psyche replacement is dangerous sex, damage to the soul is sex, demise of the binary system is sex. Body parts are always a big winner. Even if in ads, green lips, or big breasts.

Truth most certainly is not sex.

But then again, falsity is hasty sex. Around or beyond things are the shabby inversions of satanic denial. Pulsating to, pulsating desire. Sex without mess, sex rampant with greed, fear, rave, rage, hate, pain, (laughs) stupidity. Sex is content, killing is content, death is content, food is content. This then is our visual desire of transgression.

So, I would just like to add -- That's it, basically. I would like to add, that, uhm, this really doesn't represent my current concerns. Um, Um, I'm very much now into the higher power of simulacra, and its disaster invasion, and it's, uh, terrifying power. But, I'm not gonna talk about that because that's a whole (n)other lecture. But this is what we should really be concerned about today.

So, we're going to open it up to questions, I hope there are questions ... (laughs) Okay.

. . .

Ah(l)et's see, I always try to think of a question to give people courage. One time someone asked a question and I gave the woman such a hard answer that it was (laughing) everyone was terrified to ask another question, so we don't want to do that. Let's see ... There must be some questions, huh. We have a question here from somebody down in the front row. (laughs)

Q When you say that you're talking about, um, your current interests focusing on the dangers of simulation -- simulacra


Q are you talking about, are you thinking about, um, things that our government is doing, are you thinking about war, are you thinking about entertainment

S: No.

Q no

S: No, no, none of those things Peter

Q Can you elaborate and clarify?

S: (laughs) Could I clarify, probably NOT.

Q No, no, that's the wrong question, nevermind.

S: No, when I'm talking about simulacra, I'm talking about it's how it's impositions on the art world and how, for instance, I I'm currently writing an essay and I'm trying to write it without using the artist's name and it's a bit difficult. But, um, there is, um, there is a current artist who is very much totally into selling who does really beautiful work but if you spend any time looking at it, it's very hollow. And instead of being different, the same is difference, it's same as same. So really it comes down to, it really sucks itself right into simulacra and simulacra of course is really just, I really think that we -- how can I say this -- I really think that if there are not some really good reversals in the way we think, if we do not pull ourselves away from cybernetics which I really don't think is possible, this, this, simulacra will become the most, the most important thing that we're involved with. And that relates back to (clears throat) how many is empty, and hollow. Yeah. If you don't use -- do any of you, do any of you read Foucault or Deleuze?

I hear a big roaring YES. (laughs)

Foucault and Deleuze are very interesting and Foucault particularly because he is a big challenge, and, um, they talk about the fold, so, uh, you have an interior and you have an exterior. And the exterior has to come to the interior and the interior to the exterior, but where we are now, everything is exter, exterior, so you have no, you have no references, you have no parameters, you have only the outside as your structure. That's not good.

That clarify things?

Q Is it just because it's false?

S: No, simulacra is not false. Oh no, no, this is why it's in higher power now, it is definitely not false. Simulacra is a very big number. And it's definitely not false. Yeah m. So it's changed, it's because it used to be considered false. But it's changed. It's no longer about model or anything like that. And it definitely is really, yeah, Okay.

Q What is it, replacing something that we need (... ?)

S: Well, you know someone said to me one time, "What do you want us to think?" and I said I don't want you to think anything, okay? I don't want to tell you what to think. I think it's basically what it comes to is there has to be some kind of ability to think, to reflect, to, to realize what to object, to be rebellious, and I don't mean walking down the street. But not to be trapped in some of this um horrible structures that really you know they suffocate you. Um, I just recently, I used to read, um, I used to read trashy books at he end of the day so I could go to sleep and (uh) now trashy books are not good, they're not good, and novels, if you read any current, most of the current novels, they're not, there's no character definition, there's narrative, but that's about it. They really have no substance, they have no essence. And, um, so no, I can't really tell you what to do. But I think thinking would help. Yeah. Thinking would help. And thinking doesn't mean that you decide to go to the supermarket. (laughs)

So when you're talking about the fold, is there, is the presence within the fold, that it's possible? And ...

S: Well, it's not, it's not a tangible thing of course. It's like bringing everything of a, I don't, I really don't know -- it's not tangible. Uh, it's not something you can take hold of. Is that what you're asking me?

Q Um, well just about the darkness that you're referencing, the interior hole, I mean, the, is that where there's some, I don't know, almost like, a positive, something, because you know it almost seems like there's a, it seems like it's very negative, this constantly being on the exterior and all this simulacra, is that where there's the kinda it seems like, uh, the possible positive place with, is it was it is within the darkness or within the fold is what I'm ... wondering .

S: Yeah, well I'm using darkness as a uh, as um, a mode of thinking, not actual darkness. But as you know, that ability to reflect and to mediate, to think, so I'm not actually talking about darkness.

Q I guess that's what I was talking about. Is that where there's some sort of hope or whatever is in that maybe a place for reflection or within that darkness, I guess.

S: Uh, are you talking about hope?

Q Nu-I don't know.

S: I'm sorry.

Q I don't know. I don't know if that's the word.

S: What are you asking me, here?

Q I don't know. I guess I'm curious about that, that darkness seems that there is that kind of possibility for something that isn't there in the simulacra or in the exterior.

S: Or in the what?

Q In the exterior, or in the simulacra. It seems like there's, that's the emptiness that's within the darkness.

S: No, no, this is really ... We should be in a seminar now.

Q Sorry

S: No, that's really, um, no, that's not the way it goes at all, but I don't know how to start, I'm sorry. I really don't know how to start from A to Z to straighten that out a little bit. Um, let's see if I could think of something. I don't think so. You know, when you have, um, when you have something developed conceptually it's very complicated and very complex and so it's very difficult for me to start at the beginning and go forward. But, um, you could read, you could try reading Foucault, Deleuze, and they're very interesting to read and you just don't read it like, you know, read it first and don't try to understand anything and then read it again (pause)

Q Okay, sorry. I guess what's more thinking of Irigaray and

S: I can hardly hear you, are you talking?

Q I'm sorry I keep thinking of Irigaray and the, the, the the Lu-see EE-REE-GAH-RAI, the French, philosopher ...

S: Are you saying (revigorize/figurize?)?

Q Sorry, I guess I'll talk to you after (laughs)
I don't want to waste your time.

S: Yeah, talk to me after. That's a good ending.
Now it's very difficult to, um, to do that and, um, and I think probably my lecture I'm working on for next time goes into that more and clarifies that a bit. But, um, this is also like somebody with a transgression (of a) visual desire said to me: "How come everything isn't about sex? Why is that sex?" (laughs) and of course, it isn't about sex. It's about transgression, it's about desire, and it's about objects. So nothing is you know, head on, like that. You have to make leaps, da da da, and you have to have distance, you (mumbles/need) distance. Does that help you a little bit? Not at all.

Have any other questions?

Q Yeah I have a -- over here. Uh, I'm just gonna ask it. Do you have any physical practices to help you think, to facilitate thinking?

S: Do I have any difficulty what?

Q No, like, physical, things that you do with your body that help you when you're trying to wrestle with an idea or to stimulate your brain.

S: Yeah, I try to sit still (laughs).

Q I mean, really, that's it, you say, I'm going to sit still for an hour today. I just feel very overstimulated by the life that we have right now. Um, and sounds like you're dealing with that, so.

Q I deal with things very physically and I just wanted to know what you would do. Or what you do.

S: What I would do? When I'm doing what? (laughs)

Q It's just that you have

S: I'm not, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to ask me. What I do when I'm doing

Q When you want to think. What do you do with your body ...

S: Oh, well, you don't, you don't sit down and say, "Okay, now I'm going to think"

Q Mm-hm.

S: It doesn't quite happen that way. No, no. It doesn't happen that way. It, um, if you have. Firstly, any, if the work is totally, and it is all conceptual thinking it develops so you have threads that go through the thinking. But you never sit down and think. You know, you never sit down and say "I'm thinking." If you're doing, if you're doing, um, let's say I'm doing a lecture and, um, so you have, so you have an idea of what you want to say or what you feel should be said and then if you start writing and that develops itself, and if you're talking about more, um, a more profound kind of thinking. That, that comes in long term, you know, that just isn't something you do like that. And so that's in some ways why you talk about light, horizontal light, and space and stuff because, um, when you get something that is, partic -- that really triggers something in your head, it's very, it's very -- gives you a big time high.

Q Can an exhibition like the Qui -- Can an Exhibition like The Quick and the Dead, the one we're here for, is that something that could be an antidote for the negative you see?

S: Um, yeah. Yes, definitely. I think the exhibition is extraordinarily beautiful, I think the museum, this museum is beautiful and people here in Minneapolis are very lucky to have this Museum. Um, I, I think that, um, not only (?) particularly impressive because the museum difficult as a space, extremely difficult as a space, so to install a show is very tricky business. And, uh, it's beautifully installed, it has threads, it brings you through different things, your head goes different places, yeah, definitely.
Anybody else?

Q Hi.

S: Hi.

Q Uh, thinking about the show and your work in the show, I was hoping you wouldn't mind commenting on the Beuys Fat Chair. I was noticing that it had a range of years next to it in terms of the date of the work and I was wondering if that meant the process of making it or thinking about it took a while, or -- And also, you and Peter, how did you guys come to think of that specific work for the show?

S: What was the last question, how did I what?

Q How you and Peter. the curator, came to think about that work for the show.

ES Well, you know that piece was gone -- done -- a long, long time ago, so it's -- it would be difficult to go back and think what the, to identify the thinking process on that. (coughs) Part, part of the installation in which it's a room with a light bulb give the piece a separation and it gives the piece a lot of power as opposed to where it's just sitting. And, uh, do most of you know Beuys's work? Probably, huh. Well in Darmstadt where they have that Fat Chair it's in a glass case, and it's probably a good idea because this is organic material, but, um, so, I think of that piece basically as kind of pulling you back and maybe triggering something. Yeah. Maybe it triggers (fat) hamburgers, I don't know. No, I'm kidding. No, so that there would be a kind of distance, and there would be kind of a, um, um, yeah, distance is a good word. So that it triggers something in your thinking. Okay.

Q Thank you.

S: I have so many people in this audience, you must have more questions. Come on.

Q Do you create to learn what you're thinking?

S: Pardon me?

Q Do you create to learn what you're thinking -- is that part of your process? Because I think a lot of people in this room are having a difficult time articulating the different ideas and creating those maps like you said, in creating those threads. Is part of why you create so that you can learn what you're thinking?

S: Why do I create?! Is that what you're asking me?

Q No I'm asking if you DO it as, as a way of learning and understanding what you're thinking. Or do you create with the direct intent to make external what has gone on previously?

S: Um, no each piece, each piece is done, is, is -- af, after I moved to videos it became very different. But when I was into painting and sculpture, each piece was predominantly trying get people to the silent power of art, the understructure of art. And, um, in terms of, um, video I, um, basically I think the work just has to be considered that hopefully it would build up some kind of, um, thinking, but trigger thinking. Which means, but you know, in, within yourself. For instance, I don't think, um, no, I'm not gonna say that. I think that's basically. I feel that I'm not being very articulate either. So I don't know how I can hep you here. Uh.

Q My question is a little specific and maybe it can provide some thread here. Uh, returning to your mention of Deleuze and Foucault, if one was going to approach a work or two of those thinkers, read in relation to your practice, which of those two would you recommend as a specific pathway?

S: Oh, it's really, it's really not, um, yeah, I wouldn't, I would recommend both. (laughs) Yeah, because, you see, the interesting thing about Deleuze is that he really plays, you know? And so sometimes he plays and it gets really mucked up and it's not very interesting. Fou-Foucault is very, like, he always pulls your head somewhere else. And he not only pulls your head somewhere else, he really does trigger thinking because of the way he writes and the structure he uses for his writing. But then, you know, I came out of, I really did come out of Kant and Hegel and Nietzsche, and so that gives me a very firm structure to work with, which is very different. But I think if you wanted to read them, you know, I really do go back to them all the time, when I'm feeling a little brain dead I go back to Foucault and read him and (mumbles). You, which I think I mentioned, you should, you don't read them to understand them immediately you just read them. And then as you re-read them you start beginning to -- to

Q Well, where would you recommend people to start with the process, which specific texts

S: Pardon me?

Q Which specific texts would you be a great, a good, place to start with that process?

S: Oh, well, oh, I think the, the easiest, which won't be easy, it would be the interviews, Foucault interviews, of which there are several volumes. That would be the easiest to start with because he's more, he's more, into, um, he's more into explaining, okay, or trying to clarify the thinking. So I think taht would be the easiest and the best, yeah. And they're all translated in English, so.

Q I have a question about the different, but related, um, systems of music and art, particularly in art reproduction, often times it's about claiming a territory. In music, reproduction's become normalized as performance, and I'm curious in your early works if there had been an earlier relationship between you an music performing or thinking about music as a text that can be played in which you inhabit the the work, but don't necessarily possess the work. Whereas, well, just go with that.

Well, I must say that I am very much into music, you know, I listen to music a lot, but no, it would not be related to, to, directly to the work -- at all. But, um, but then that would be maybe like having a ground of Nietzsche and so forth and so on if you have a very big ground in music then that probably adds something to your dimension, you know, yeah.

Q Are you finding in Paris, uh, there are a group of artists that uh you have an opportunity to meet with and a related question are there any artists in the current exhibit that you have conversed with.

S: Oh, well, uh, the last, I would not answer. In Paris, uh, now I don't really, uh, I don't hang out with artists. So, um, but there are, you know, Parisians are highly intellectual, I mean, the way, I wish I had been brought up in French education. So basically I spend my time with, um, people who are critics or curators or people like that, you know, that are into talking a lot about heavy numbers. Yeah, no, I don't really hang out with artists. No. That answer your question?

Q I lost the mic.

S: You lost the mic.

Q Thank you.

S: Okay, is that it? One more? Okay.

Q Hi, I remember reading an interview, a Warhol interview, where he was being asked about his work, and, um, the question was, can you explain the work, and, um, Warhol said, "I don't know, why don't you ask Elaine?" And I was curious, if you could just comment briefly on your relationship with Andy or, um, just fill us in a little bit on that.

S: I really didn't know Andy very well. I saw Andy. But then I think, I think at some one interview I think I said, "Once you know Andy, there isn't mush more to know." So, but he was, um, uh, Andy was just an absolutely wonderful person and, um, he was also extremely shy, which you know didn't didn't, well, I guess it was pretty obvious too. Um, yes it did, we were standing outside the gallery and this young student was pestering Andy about his process and he says, "Ask Sturtevant," you know. So, but also I tell you, you know, he had a wonderful sense of humor in many ways so one time he, he had a show at Gagosian in New York this was years ago and it was his piss paintings on bronze. So we were standing outside the gallery in New York and he said, "So Elaine, why don't you do one of my, my piss paintings?" And I said, "Andy, I don't have the right equipment." And he said, "Well, uh, Bianca did one." And I said, "Shit, I didn't know she had a prick."
So, everybody laughed, but Andy was deep red. He was so, he was so embarrassed, you know. Yeah, yeah, but I didn't really see him that much, I saw him a few times at the Factory. I saw him mostly when I, I never really sat down, I had him a few times at the house for dinner and, um, but I saw him mostly at parties and big dinners and stuff like that. But he, he was a great guy. He really was. Yeah, we, we're very lucky to have Joe Wax here today, who is head of the Warhol Foundation in New York City. Uh, yeah. So he could probably answer any questions about Warhol.
Yeah. Mm, kay. Is that it?

Okay, thank you very much for coming, huh.

Thank you.

  Video (reference) 6885 words
2011 - Trustisms On not knowing how to consume the work of Jenny Holzer, but having always wanted to trust in it nonetheless. Lists of phrases are selections as trusted by each author, from Holzer's Truisms.


Participate / 参加するには、ここをクリックして下さい


Jenny Holzer's Trusisms, Risograph print on colored paper

8.5 x 11 in each sheet

[For Works of Art on Paper, TMMA, 2012:] Risograph print on paper, endless copies (for the duration of the exhibition) 11.375 (ideal height) x 8.25 x 11.375 in
2011 self portrait  

bag (white), endless edition
dimensions variable
2011 Double Portrait As a pair or not; a commentary on meaning and translation. Stacks of Gonzalez-Torres/Kwon/Storr/Ault's and Gonzalez-Torres/Spector's Felix Gonzalez-Torres, respectively, collated as if the books complete with covers and end page blanks.

Image by A. Russeth.


Double sided print on paper, endless copies height varies x 39.375 x 27.5 in
2011 Hints & Incidentals Tourist Objects, part 2.


See mirror. Various
2011 Gestures mask (engaging two): S, M, L
Godard still (requiring two): S/M, S/L
your tender/tender/tender (requiring two): S/M, S/L, M/L
tenuousness (to speak of two): S, M, L

- - - -white

Industry standard work gloves, thread dimensions variable
2011 Ideal Weight A portrait of Felix Gonzalez-Torres; wrapped-as-a-pair candies bagged or piled to the average weight of two hearts.  

Cellophane wrapped candies, ideal weight 500-700 grams (22-24 ounces)  9 x 12in cellophane bag, dimensions variable
2011 INFJ, Ltd.  

Engraved acrylic sign in holder

2.5 x 8 x 2 in 
2011 Onsen Matches a particular winter/spring skin tone when drowned.

Elastic hair tie, (93% silk 7% elastane) sheer suit with tonal topstitching Custom US ~XS
2011 Excuses L: embossed WENT TO GO SEE ABOUT TOBIAS WONG


Post-it notes 3 x 3 in, dimensions vary with installation 
2010 Bad News Rope that unravels for the weight of a person. R.I.P. Tobias Wong.

Joined and braided and woven aluminum, silk, and pure silver tinsel-type lengths 17.4 ft length
2008 Architectures of Nonchalance, Descriptions to follow.

- - - - -

Pencil on paper 24 x 36 in each
2008 Interruptions for five Philippine churches (a driving aside) Churches in the Philippines were located and programs associated with the patron saint of the church were used to image a use-value for the buildings apart from their ritual function. Programs specified were meant to index the progress of (5) fellow section-mates.

top, l-r: Church surrounding existing bridge near Rizal (specified to Saint Peter, patron of bridge builders; access to the church is through the existing trolley that traverses the bridge, the church rises with floodwaters) / Library hung within Santo Jerome (the patron of scholars) in Morong
bottom, l-r: Preschool in the towers of and perched within the back interior façade of Santo Nicolas (the patron saint of young children) in Mati; Observatory in the west tower of Santo Domingo (the patron saint of astronomers) in Metro Manila; Well with Chapel at the foot beneath the Miagao Cemetery capilla in Iloilo


In the Philippines, the serialized monument of the Catholic Church dominates the built landscape, and continues to serve as an agent of cultural repression. However, the church has provided the ground for a third way (outside of assimilation or disappearance) to enter the alibi of Filipino cultural identity. This third way consists in transforming the secular economy which places them in solidarity with their colonized past. Their specificity/culture is still defined by the colonized, by a given, by a system of representations and as an object of exploitation, but has found its affirmation in a set of rituals and revisions deployed within the situation created by capitalist imperialism.

The most apparent view of the church in the Philippines is one which seeks to equalize the colonizer and the affected body – the relation is reflective, falsely erasing the difference between subject and object. As a perpetual outsider to my own culture, I believe that architecture is an intermediary, similar to the role of saints for whom the churches are named. The given view of the church can be re-placed and reanimated, functioning in order to maintain a separateness.


- -
- - -

Pencil on paper (3) 18 x 24 in; (2) 3 x 15 in
2007 Chocolate Factory L: Main complex; R: Program scattered throughout the site. Competition submission.


Pencil on paper 18 x 24 in each sheet    
Repeats [This work is old. In image, respectively:]
WENDEL An Abridged History 2005/8. Oil on canvas; 48 x 48 inches.
MARTIN Crazy April 200_/8. Acrylic, enamel, gouache, gold leaf on board; 10 inches diameter.
ROESING [1 of 3] 2007. Acrylic, gouache, pencil on chipboard; 32 x 24 inches.

Others, not [/that may never be] imaged.
SCHIFF Blue Field 2010. Acrylic & gouache on paper; 7 x 9 inches.
SCHIFF Plants 2008. Acrylic & gouache on paper; 5 x 7 inches.
ROESING [1 of 3] 2007. Acrylic, gouache, pencil on chipboard; 12 x 9 inches.
ROESING [1 of 3] 2007. Acrylic, gouache, pencil on chipboard; 18 x 15 inches.
WENDEL A Culture of Life 2005/7. Oil on canvas; 48 x 48 inches.
M. -- 2004. Acrylic & gouache on wood panel; 3.25 x 5.75 inches.
M. Polaroid 2004. Enamel on transparency. edition of 2; 4.25 x 3.5 inches.

Ref. col. W. Ref. col. W.