Painting and Atrocity: The Tuymans Strategy

Peter Geimer


1.Gaddafi, Oil on Canvas

Documentation of Muammar Gaddafis death on October 20, 2011, is not only found in well-known amateur videos and press photographs, but also in two oil paintings by the Polish painter Wilhelm Sasnal. Unlike the authors of the press photographs, Sasnal was not present at the event- the times of illustrators and painters being sent to actual scenes of world events (during the Crimean War of 1863, for example) are long gone. Sasnal did not approach the event as an eyewitness of the occurrence on October 20, but as a recipient of the imagery that was circulated worldwide shortly following Gaddaf's death, like the rest of us newspaper readers and Internet users. Sasnal shows two views of the body of the deceased as it had been laid on the floor of a supermarket's refrigeration room. In one of the paintings, Gaddafi 3 (2011, fig. 1), the corpse is viewed from a low vantage point. The legs stretch toward the viewer, the torso is thrashed into an amorphous mass, the face is obscured. In Gaddafi (2011, fig. 2), Sasnal pushes the unrecognizable state further. The mattress and corpse now lie in an empty room, and the body is replaced by an abstract entity of color, making any further deciphering of upper from lower body impossible. Here, the canvas looks like a battlefield onto which the artist clearly applied the paint straight from the tube in broad paths and swirls of poisonous green, red, and blue. The pastose relief of pure paint lifts itself from the canvas on the dark rectangle of the mattress, where Gaddafis dead body would have been visible.

  1. 카다피, 캔버스에 유채

    2011년 10월 20일 무아마르 카다피스 사망에 대한 문서는 잘 알려진 아마추어 비디오와 언론 사진뿐 아니라 폴란드 화가 빌헬름 사스날의 유화 두 점에서도 볼 수 있다. 언론 사진 작가들과 달리 사스날은 행사에 참석하지 않았다. 삽화가와 화가들이 세계 사건의 실제 장면(예: 1863년 크림 전쟁 중)으로 파견되던 시대는 이미 오래전에 지났다. 사스날은 10월 20일 사건을 목격한 사람이 아니라 카다피의 사망 직후 전 세계적으로 유포된 이미지의 수신자로서 사건에 접근했다. 다른 신문 독자 및 인터넷 사용자와 마찬가지다. 사스날은 슈퍼마켓의 냉장실 바닥에 누워 있던 고인의 시신에 대한 두 가지 모습을 보여준다. 그림 중 하나인 카다피 3(2011, 그림 1)에서 시체를 낮은 위치에서 바라본다. 다리는 보는 사람을 향해 뻗어 있고, 몸통은 무정형 덩어리로 부서지며, 얼굴은 가려져 있다. 카다피(2011, 그림 2)에서 사스날은 인식할 수 없는 상태를 더 밀어붙인다. 매트리스와 시체는 이제 텅 빈 방에 놓여 있고, 몸은 추상적인 색체로 대체되어 더 이상 상체와 하체를 구분할 수 없게 만든다. 여기에서 캔버스는 작가가 유독 한 녹색, 빨간색 및 파란색의 넓은 칠과 휘저음을 튜브를 통해 직접 페인트를 적용함으로써 분명한 전쟁터처럼 보인다. 순수한 페인트의 물감을 두껍게 칠한 부조는 카다피스의 시체가 보였을 어두운 직사각형의 매트리스를 캔버스로부터 스스로를 들어 올린다.

Sasnal has often used existing images as examples for his paintings-_for instance, in his work Bathers at Asnières (2010),

Sasnal은 종종 기존 이미지를 그림의 예로 사용했습니다. 예를 들어, 그의 작업 Asnières의 Bathers(2010)

Fig 1. Wilhelm Sasnal, Gaddafi 3, 2011. Courtesy of the artist.

Fig 2. Wilhelm Sasnal, Gaddafi, 2011. Courtesy of the artist.

the Georges Seurat painting of the same name. However, the Gaddaf paintings differ from the work about Seurat on two decisive points. Firstly, their model is not a painting, but a photograph. This connects a transfer from one medium to another, which did not occur casually or "innocently", it calls for a perception and thematization of its own. Secondly, in its iconographic adaptation, it does not deal with a historical motif of European high art, but with a news image that, for a few days in October 201 1, was at the center of international attention. The painterly adaptation of news imagery consciously superimposes an anachronism, both in terms of medium and iconography:. A contemporary, media-transmitted experience appears dressed in the garb of a traditional art genre. To the same degree, because of the fact that attention is directed toward the choice of motif, there will therefore always be an additional accompanying discourse thematizing the topic of painting-and an artist once again dedicating himself or herself to representing a historical event with oil on canvas, or perhaps it should be stressed that the artist still employs oil on canvas for this representation. This is especially valid for Gaddaf, upon which the body of the deceased is transformed into "pure" painting. a thick ball of oil paint in an impasto application. Recently, Sasnal also rhetorically supported the political entitlement of his painting: "Definitely, an artist must be aware of the world and the society which he or she is part of. (...] Painting is not a game, not something you do just for fun; it comes with a responsibility that I take very seriously.” Processes of painterly adaptation have been familiar at least since Gerhard Richter's paintings of photographs.

같은 이름의 조르주 쇠라 그림. 그러나 카다프의 그림은 두 가지 결정적인 점에서 쇠라에 대한 작업과 다르다. 첫째, 그들의 모델은 그림이 아니라 사진이다. 이것은 우연히 또는 "순수하게" 발생하지 않은 한 매체에서 다른 매체로의 전송을 연결하며 자체의 인식과 주제화를 요구한다. 둘째, 도상학적 각색에서 유럽 고급 예술의 역사적 모티브를 다루지 않고 2011년 10월 며칠 동안 국제적 관심의 중심에 있었던 뉴스 이미지를 다룬다. 뉴스 이미지의 회화적 적응은 매체와 도상학 모두에서 시대착오를 의식적으로 중첩한다. 미디어를 통해 전달되는 현대적인 경험이 전통 예술 장르의 의상을 입고 나타난다. 마찬가지로 모티프의 선택에 주의가 집중되기 때문에 회화의 주제를 주제화하는 추가적인 담론이 항상 수반되고 예술가는 다시 한번 역사적 사건을 기름으로 재현하는 데 전념하게 될 것이다. 캔버스에, 또는 아마도 예술가는 이 표현을 위해 여전히 캔버스에 유채를 사용한다는 점을 강조해야 한다. 이것은 죽은 자의 시신이 "순수한" 그림으로 변형되는 카다프에게 특히 유효합니다. 임파스토 기법 적용에서 오일 페인트의 두꺼운 공. 최근 Sasnal은 자신의 그림에 대한 정치적 권리를 다음과 같이 수사적으로 지지했습니다. "분명히 예술가는 자신이 속한 세계와 사회를 인식해야 합니다. (...) 그림은 게임이 아니라 하는 것이 아닙니다. 단지 재미로, 그것은 내가 매우 진지하게 받아들이는 책임이 따릅니다.” 회화적 적응 과정은 적어도 Gerhard Richter의 사진 그림 이후로 친숙합니다.

1•Achim Boncharde-Hume and Wilhelm Sainal, "A Conversation alvout Painting* in IN ilbeint ¡anal, ed. Achim Borchardt-Hame (London: Whitechapel Gallery:, 2011), á

According to Stefan Germer, the goal is "pictures about picture making, about the relationship between painting and photography, about the procedure and social status of the painter" Photographys comeback as painting denies it the right to an immediate access to history, and its subject places the medial transmission within the picture at the same time. If Richter refers to historical experiences, like in his cycle October 18, 1977 (1988), he adheres to the old responsibility of painting to address political themes while modifying it at the same time-because clearly, in the twentieth century, this responsibility could only be asserted by works of the new medium of photography. Germer writes, "The ambivalent character of Richter's works is stirring in that they are history paintings that show the problematic nature of representing the historical."* In her review of the recent Sasnal exhibition at Haus der Kunst in Munich, Süddeutsche Zeitung critic Carin Lorch also presented Sasnal's work in this context: "One of the greatest achievements of painters like Gerhard Richter or Luc Tuymans is that they still continue to paint, despite the availability of faster, more contemporary media like photography or video, despite the mass of imagery that cuts up each day into a kaleidoscope of images, and despite art history having identified abstraction as the end of painting.” The article, titled "Historienmalerei2.0" (History Painting 2.0), also expresses that we are dealing with a revival of an old genre already declared dead, and that this genre, however, has been deep cleaned by the media-critical reflection of Richter, Tuymans, and Sasnal. The realization "that they still continued to paint despite (it all)" is not meant to hint at a stubborn persistence of repeated forms of representation- on the contrary, it counts as an expression of critical behavior. It is not actually a copying of historical events- rather, it is a reflection of the conditions of the possibility or impossibility for such copying.

Stefan Germer에 따르면 목표는 "그림 만들기에 관한 그림, 그림과 사진의 관계, 화가의 절차와 사회적 지위에 관한 그림"입니다. 동시에 그림 내에서 중간 전송을 배치합니다. 리히터가 1977년 10월 18일(1988년) 주기에서와 같이 역사적 경험을 언급한다면, 그는 정치적 주제를 다루면서 동시에 수정해야 하는 회화의 오래된 책임을 고수합니다. 사진이라는 새로운 매체의 작품에 의해서만 주장됩니다.Germer는 "역사적 재현의 문제적 성격을 보여주는 역사화라는 점에서 리히터 작품의 양면성이 감동적이다."라고 씁니다. "Gerhard Richter나 Luc Tuymans와 같은 화가의 가장 위대한 업적 중 하나는 사진이나 비디오와 같은 더 빠르고 현대적인 매체가 있음에도 불구하고 여전히 그림을 계속 그린다는 것입니다. 예술사에서 추상화를 회화의 끝으로 규정했음에도 불구하고 매일을 이미지의 만화경으로 잘라냅니다.” "Historienmalerei2.0"(History Painting 2.0)이라는 제목의 기사는 이미 죽은 것으로 선언된 오래된 장르의 부활을 다루고 있지만 이 장르는 미디어의 비판적 성찰에 의해 철저히 청소되었음을 표현합니다. 리히터, 투이만스, 사스날. "그들이 (전부)에도 불구하고 여전히 그림을 계속 그린다"는 깨달음은 반복되는 재현 형식의 완고한 지속성을 암시하려는 것이 아니라 오히려 비판적 행동의 표현으로 간주됩니다. 그것은 실제로 역사적 사건의 복사가 아니라 그러한 복사의 가능성 또는 불가능 조건의 반영입니다.

2 Stefan Germer, "Die Wiederkehr des Verdrangten: Zum Umgang mit deutscher Geschichte bel Georg Baselitz, Anzelen Kiefee, Jorg Immendorf und Gerhard Richter,* in Germeriana Kunit, ed Julia Demand (Cologne: Oktagon, 1999), 14. (Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from non -English titles have been translated by Emilie Florenkowsky:)

3 Serfan Germer, "Ungebetene Erinnerung* in Gerhard Richte, 18, Olzeber 1977 (Cologne: Verlag der Bochhandlung (altber König, 1989), S1.

4 Carin Lorch, *Historienmalere1 20,; Saddleutsche Zeitung, Pebruary 3, 2012.

The three painters mentioned belong to different generations, which begs the question of whether the potential for painting developed by Richter can last in the long run. Is a painting that transmits a photograph from the Internet into oil on canvas automatically political, reflexive, or media critical? As I am not only concerned with the new "history painting" but also with the rhetorical flanking it has received from critics and art historians, in the following I won't further cover Sasnal's Gaddaf images, about which hardly any thing has been published. Instead, I will concentrate on the reception of Tuymans's paintings,.s

언급된 세 화가는 서로 다른 세대에 속하므로 리히터가 개발한 그림의 잠재력이 장기적으로 지속될 수 있는지에 대한 의문이 제기됩니다. 인터넷의 사진을 캔버스에 유채로 전송하는 그림은 자동적으로 정치적, 반사적 또는 미디어 비판적입니까? 나는 새로운 "역사 그림"뿐만 아니라 비평가와 미술사가들로부터 받은 수사학적 측면에도 관심이 있기 때문에, 다음에서 나는 거의 출판된 것이 없는 Sasnal의 Gaddaf 이미지를 더 이상 다루지 않을 것입니다. 대신 투이만스의 그림을 받는 데 집중할 것입니다.

2. Tuymans Exegesis

"In an age when painting was said to be dead, Tuymans experimented with film. [...] Tuymans now works in his studio everyday, perusing books to research his subjects. Nearly all his paintings are based on preexisting material such as drawing, Polaroids, illustrations, and film stills.

"그림이 죽었다고 알려진 시대에 Tuymans는 영화를 실험했습니다. [...] Tuymans는 이제 매일 자신의 스튜디오에서 작업하며 주제를 연구하기 위해 책을 정독합니다. 그의 그림은 거의 모든 그림과 같은 기존 재료를 기반으로 합니다. 폴라로이드, 일러스트레이션 및 필름 스틸.

5 However, it is not difficult to guess what sort of commentary Sasnal's Gaddaf paintings would generate. It would likely follow in the vein of the reception of Richter's and Tuymans's work: extolment of the reflexive potential of paintings that take on actual political themes, while at the same time questioning their representability and exposing a naive faith in images (which one usually accuses others of having). The first samples of this have already been made available. From a review of the Munich exhibition with the subheading, "The work of Polish artist Wilhelm Sasnal reflects the possibilities of painting in the age of photography", published in the newspaper Der Freitag: "Wilhelm Sasnal erases visibility in his works in order to expose them as representations, as the effects of media. (...] In the painting Gaddafi, which cites a news photograph, Sasnal repaints the dictator's dead body in thickly applied pigment to denote the superimposition of reality through its likenesses. in this way; the medium itself becomes the object.* Katrin Schuster, "Farbklumpengewachs,;" Der Freitag, February 11, 2012, Similarly stated in the Haus der Kunst's exhibition brochure: "The artist highlights the problematic excess of a perverted medialization of reality that increasingly manipulates our perception"

그러나 사스날의 가다프 회화가 어떤 논평을 낳을지 짐작하는 것은 어렵지 않다. 그것은 아마도 리히터와 투이만스의 작품을 수용하는 맥락에서 따를 것이다. 즉, 실제 정치적 주제를 취하는 회화의 반사적 잠재력을 찬양하는 동시에 회화의 재현 가능성에 의문을 제기하고 이미지에 대한 순진한 믿음을 폭로하는 것이다. 기타). 이것의 첫 번째 샘플은 이미 제공되었습니다."폴란드 예술가 Wilhelm Sasnal의 작업은 사진 시대의 회화 가능성을 반영합니다." Der Freitag 신문에 게재되었습니다. ...] 뉴스 사진을 인용한 그림 가다피에서 사스날은 독재자의 시신을 물감으로 도톰하게 칠해 유사성을 통해 현실의 중첩을 암시하는 방식으로 매체 자체가 대상이 된다.* 카트린 슈스터(Katrin Schuster), "Farbklumpengewachs," Der Freitag, 2012년 2월 11일, 하우스에서도 유사하게 언급 der Kunst의 전시 브로셔: "예술가는 우리의 인식을 점점 더 조작하는 현실의 왜곡된 중개화의 문제적 과잉을 강조합니다."

Tuymans nearly always focuses on specific meanings reaching beyond what is shown, often deriving his subject matter from historical facts"* Seven statements are combined into these few lines of commentary by Belgian gallerist Rose Van Doninck- a typical type of remark about Tuymans. The following assertions are primarily touched upon: (1) When Tuymans began working, painting was con sidered dead. Though today, Tuymans enters his studio "everyday to paint, thus finding a means of enabling painting to survive its alleged end. (2) Tuymans is not only a painter. He also carries out a sort of research, uses his studio for an intense study of books, and through this intellectual exploration often relates the themes of his pictures to "historical facts." Tuymans’s paintings have a meaning that goes beyond the visible and that cannot be deciphered through mere observation. We have to search for it somewhere outside of the picture. These stances are found in a similar form in almost all commentaries on Tuymans. On the occasion of his retrospective at Tate Modern in 2004, Emma Dexter wrote, "His painting betrays an awareness of the discourse of the endgame of painting” Here, an attest is made for the reflexive potential of Tuymans’s paintings. They are not simply paintings--they communicate an understanding about the idea that they are paintings, despite the claims made for the end of the medium, or perhaps even because of just this fact. One variation on this reading states that, precisely by painting, Tuymans has transcended the discourse on the end of painting.

Tuymans는 거의 항상 표시된 것 너머에 도달하는 특정 의미에 초점을 맞추며 종종 역사적 사실에서 주제를 파생합니다."* Tuymans에 대한 전형적인 유형의 언급인 벨기에 갤러리스트 Rose Van Doninck의 주석 몇 줄에 7개의 진술이 결합되어 있습니다. (1) Tuymans가 작업을 시작했을 때 그림은 죽은 것으로 간주되었지만 오늘날 Tuymans는 "매일 그림을 그리기 위해 작업실에 들어감으로써 그림이 주장하는 종말에서 살아남을 수 있는 수단을 찾습니다. (2) Tuymans는 단순한 화가가 아닙니다. 그는 또한 일종의 연구를 수행하고 책에 대한 집중적인 연구를 위해 스튜디오를 사용하며 이러한 지적 탐구를 통해 종종 그의 그림의 주제를 "역사적 사실"과 연관시킵니다. 투이만스의 그림은 보이는 것을 넘어 단순히 관찰만으로는 해독할 수 없는 의미를 지닌다. 우리는 그림 밖의 어딘가에서 그것을 찾아야 합니다. 이러한 입장은 Tuymans에 대한 거의 모든 주석에서 유사한 형태로 발견됩니다. 엠마 덱스터는 2004년 테이트 모던 회고전에서 "그의 그림은 회화의 종말론적 담론에 대한 인식을 배신한다"고 적었다. 여기에서 투이만스 회화의 성찰적 잠재력이 증명된다. 단순한 회화가 아니다. --그들은 매체의 종말에 대한 주장에도 불구하고, 또는 아마도 바로 이 사실 때문에 자신이 회화라는 생각에 대한 이해를 전달합니다.이 읽기의 한 변형은 정확히 회화를 통해 Tuymans가 회화의 끝에 대한 담론.

6 Rose Van Doninck, "Biography," in Luc Tuymans: I Don't Get It, ed. Gerrit Vermeiren (Ghent: Ludion Press, 2007), 197.

7 Emma Dexter,"'The Interconnectedness of All Things: Between History, Still Life and the Uncanny," in Luc Tuymans, ed. Emma Dexter and Julian Heynen (London: Tate Publishing, 2004), 16.

"Tuymans's works are all, without any question, paintings," remarks Ulrich Loock under the chapter heading "A Historical Challenge to Painting."S He follows with the argument that Tuymans has overcome the modernist notion of progress in painting by consciously employing a seemingly outmoded and unprofessional style: "With the appearance of belatedness and painterly clumsiness in his painting, Tuymans apparently frees his work from any modernist commitment to the category of the new and the problems of the medium itself”? Helen Molesworth drives the nail in even further: it is not only modernism that Tuymans has surmounted but postmodernism as well, in that

Ulrich Loock은 "회화에 대한 역사적 도전"이라는 제목의 장에서 "투이만스의 작품은 의심할 여지 없이 모두 회화입니다. 시대에 뒤떨어지고 프로답지 못한 스타일: "그의 그림에서 뒤늦게 나타나고 회화적으로 서투른 것처럼 보이면서 Tuymans는 분명히 새로운 범주와 매체 자체의 문제에 대한 모더니스트적 헌신으로부터 그의 작품을 해방시킵니다." Helen Molesworth는 못을 더욱 박고 있습니다. : 투이만스가 극복한 것은 모더니즘뿐만 아니라 포스트모더니즘도 마찬가지이다.

Tuymans broke from his postmodern predecessors' engagement with representational painting, a body of work characterized by the powerful neo-Kantian conception that the primary task of modernist painting was “precisely the working through the end of painting." These artists (such as Richter, Polke, Anselm Kiefer, Peter Halley, David Salle, or Ross Bleckner) typically produced paintings with the affective registers of irony, sentimentality, belatedness, or mourning. IO

투이만은 포스트모던 전임자들의 재현적 회화에 대한 참여를 단절했고, 모더니즘 회화의 주요 임무는 "정확하게 회화의 끝까지 작업하는 것"이라는 강력한 신칸트주의적 개념이 특징인 작품입니다. Polke, Anselm Kiefer, Peter Halley, David Salle 또는 Ross Bleckner)는 일반적으로 아이러니, 감상, 뒤늦음 또는 애도의 감정적 기록으로 그림을 제작했습니다.

8 Ulrich Loock, "On Layers of Sign-Relations, in the Light of Mechanically Reproduced Pictures, from Ten Years of Exhibition," in Luc Tuymans (London: Phaidon, 2003), 34.

9 Ibid., 36.

10 Helen Molesworth, "Luc Tuymans; Painting the Banality of Evil,;" in Luc Tuymans, ed. Madeleine Grynsztejn and Helen Molesworth (San Francisco: San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, 2009), 19.


Tuymans, according to Molesworth, left all these registers behind. "He does not merely paint from photographs or inrelation to them (he does not, for instance, project photographs onto the canvas like either Warhol or Richter); instead his paintings work against the spatial logics of both systems of representation."'

Molesworth에 따르면 Tuymans는 이러한 모든 기록을 남겼다. "그는 단순히 사진이나 사진과의 관계에서 그림을 그리는 것이 아니라(예를 들어 워홀이나 리히터처럼 캔버스에 사진을 투사하지 않는다), 대신 그의 그림은 두 표현 체계의 공간적 논리에 반하는 작업을 한다."

Appearing thoroughly tautological, Lock's insight ("Tuyman's works are all, without any question, paintings") would thus not be quite as obvious as it seems following Molesworth, Tuymans's art moves within a sphere where even merely hinting at medial differences has long been obsolete. In this case, the author pleads for a "semantic shif” anyhow: to "replace the word painter (with all its equally mignanimous and defiled connotations) with our century's most expansive nomenclature-_artist." 12

완전히 동어반복적으로 보이는 Lock의 통찰("Tuyman의 작품은 모두, 의심의 여지 없이 회화이다")은 따라서 Molesworth, Tuymans의 예술이 중간 정도의 차이를 암시하는 것조차 오래 동안 쓸모없게 된 영역 내에서 움직이는 것처럼 분명하지 않을 것이다. . 이 경우에 저자는 어쨌든 "의미적 전환"을 요구한다. "화가라는 단어(동일하게 사려 깊고 불결한 의미를 지닌)를 우리 세기의 가장 광범위한 명명법-_예술가"로 대체하는 것이다.12

Ultimately, nothing specific can be said about Tuymans’s reference to photography and film anymore, because all artistic media have entered into a phase of transcendence anyway. In the end, it would be irrelevant whether the paintings process.historical photographs or any other arbitrary resource. What can be gained from such an extermination of medial differences is concededly unclear. It makes a decisive difference if an artist who takes existing photographs or films as models remains within the respective medium- thus becoming, films about film or photographs about photography- or whether he or she changes registers, translating the technically created image into an oil painting, And one cannot understand why Molesworth continuously returns to the painting-specific aspects of Tuymans work, despite her semantic shift from painter to artist,

궁극적으로 모든 예술 매체가 어쨌든 초월의 단계에 들어섰기 때문에 사진과 영화에 대한 Tuymans의 언급에 대해 더 이상 구체적으로 말할 수 없다. 결국, 회화가 역사 사진이나 다른 임의의 자원을 처리하는지 여부는 관련이 없다. 그러한 중간 차이의 근절을 통해 얻을 수 있는 것은 분명하지 않다. 기존의 사진이나 영화를 모델로 하는 작가가 각각의 매체, 즉 영화에 대한 영화가 되고, 사진에 관한 사진이 되는가, 아니면 기술적으로 생성된 이미지를 유화로 번역하는 레지스터를 변경하는가는 결정적인 차이를 낳는다. , 그리고 화가에서 예술가로의 의미론적 전환에도 불구하고 Molesworth가 Tuymans 작업의 회화 특유의 측면으로 계속 되돌아오는 이유를 이해할 수 없다.

Despite their individual differences, all of these authors Imply that the simple fact 'Tuymans paints is not self evident, but that it calls for genealogical justification. In addition to thin, the allusion to the ambiguity and elusiveness of his paintiny. also belongs to the constants of the Tuymans exegetin: “Lue Tuymans paints figuratively and yet his pictures deny a palpable legibility"»; his pictures "change between perceptability and retreat to the undefinable"'*; and "every one of Tuymans's works is basically a balancing act between the promise and the total denial of visual satisfaction."'S

이들 작가들은 개인차에도 불구하고 '투이만 그림이 자명한 것이 아니라 족보적 정당성을 요구하는 단순한 사실'을 내포하고 있다. 얇은 것 외에도 그의 그림의 모호함과 애매함을 암시한다. 또한 Tuymans 주해의 상수에 속한다: "Lue Tuymans는 비유적으로 그림을 그리지만 그의 그림은 뚜렷한 가독성을 부정한다"»; 그의 그림은 "지각 가능성과 정의할 수 없는 것으로의 후퇴 사이의 변화"*, "Tuymans의 모든 작품은 기본적으로 약속과 시각적 만족의 완전한 부정 사이의 균형을 이루는 행위이다."'S

11 Ibid, 21

12 Ibid, 17

The paintings are striking in their "emotional impenetrability, [....] they possess and produce a kind of silence, a demonstrable lack of legibility, even a difficulty that outstrips their subject matter per se." This praise of impenetrability is sometimes programmatically declared directly in articles titles. Montserrat Albores Gleason titled her observations of Tuymans "I Still Don't Get It," leading one to believe that even after thorough examination of the paintings, their meaning still cannot be pinpointed. ' It is clear that this position should not be understood as self-doubt on the part of the interpreter, but as praise of the works' hermeneutic inexhaustibility-_-they are loaded with far more meaning than can be expressed with mere words.

그림은 "정서적으로 뚫을 수 없는 [....] 일종의 침묵, 명백한 가독성 부족, 주제 자체를 능가하는 어려움을 소유하고 생산한다." 침투 불가능성에 대한 이러한 찬사는 때때로 기사 제목에서 직접 프로그래밍 방식으로 선언된다. Montserrat Albores Gleason은 Tuymans에 대한 그녀의 관찰에 "나는 여전히 이해하지 못한다"라는 제목을 붙였으며, 이는 그림을 철저히 조사한 후에도 여전히 그 의미를 정확히 지적할 수 없다고 믿게 만든다. ' 이런 입장을 해석자의 자기 의심으로 이해해서는 안 되며, 작품의 해석학적 무궁무진함을 찬양하는 것으로 이해해야 한다는 점은 분명하다.

Here, it should naturally be brought into account that comments of this kind belong to the stereotypes of contemporary-art discourse and, in this respect, represent no particularities of the writings on Tuymans."* Such statements follow a simple dramaturgy: First, they construct a very unlikely gestalt: the backward, pedantic art observer who feels personally threatened by ambiguity, who wants to be able to neatly label all works, demands irrevocable truths from artworks, and certainly does not want any surprises from a museum.

여기에서 이런 종류의 논평은 현대미술 담론의 고정관념에 속하며, 이러한 점에서 투이만에 대한 저작의 특수성을 나타내지 않는다는 점을 자연스럽게 고려해야 한다. 그러한 진술은 단순한 드라마투르기를 따른다. 첫째, 그들은 매우 있을 법하지 않은 게슈탈트를 구성한다. 모호함에 의해 개인적으로 위협을 느끼고, 모든 작품에 깔끔하게 레이블을 붙일 수 있기를 원하고, 예술작품에서 돌이킬 수 없는 진실을 요구하고, 확실히 하지 않는 퇴보적이고 현학적인 예술 관찰가. 박물관에서 놀라움을 원한다.

Fig 3. Luc Tuymans, Der Architekt, 1997. Courtesy of Zeno X Gallery, Antwerp. Photo : Felix Tirry.

13 Exhibition text for "Lac Tuymans: When Springtime is Coming* at Haus der Kanst, Munich, March2-May 12, 2008,*SDa72&La1.

14 Eugen Blume, "Zwischen den Bildern,;* in Lac Tigmans: Signal (Berlin: Staatliche Musta zu

Berlin, 2001), 18.

15 Stephan Berg, "Twilight of the images," in Lac Thymans The Arena, ad. Stephan Perg (Oth)der:

Hatje Cantz, 2003), 15-17.

16 Molesorth, "Lac Tuyman," 21.

17 Montserrat Albores Gleason, I Still Don't Get It, in Lac Tigmans. I Don't Get le, 169-75.

18 A few lines taken at random from current art reviews, exhibition catalogs, and muscom wall texts: (As) paintings are superficially enticing, with the charm of their good form. Bat, a closer look shows that their pictures deny a clear analysis, *(Bi) paintings are sho of their unconscious perceptibility while simultaneously using their iconography to question the suspicions of the mainstream* *(Ck) work is extremely difficule to grasp It is difficult to describe, and one is unaware of whether we are now dealing with sculptures, installations, or environments. They are consciously unconventionalDinterestedin the gray zones and the gaps, which evade clear classification”;etc.

Through the power of its subversive potential, the artwork stands out against the backdrop of such fatuousness. At the end, all contours disappear in the dark drawer of subversion. It is interesting that the praise of impenetrability-_-and of reflexive painting in the case of Tuymans- pertains to an art that is based upon highly political themes at the same time: colonialism, the Holocaust, 9/11. In Tuymans's case (and in Sasnal's as well), it is less about the general question of meaning and the function of painting, despite--or due to -its proclaimed end; it is about the much more concrete question of painting's competence in light of themes of contemporary history. The question is therefore so imposing because the images of today and of the last 150 years), which are meant to represent daily events, are precisely not circulated as oil on canvas. There is no need for justifying artists' transposition of this reservoir of media imagery through an old technique, but it also does not go without saying that this is an artistic approach. In the case of Tuymans, there is obviously a direct connection between the extremely reduced, wan, emptied appearance of his paintings and the discursive force of the historical subjects they engage. The functioning of this idiosyncratic antagonism between an "indefinable" painting and its hermeneutic superstructure is best shown through concrete examples.

3. Sipping at the Real

Take Der Architekt (1997, fig. 3). This pale, dominantly white-blue painting centers on a figure fallen to the ground. A diagonal horizon line indicates the end of a sloping area--a monotone, empty space enclosing the figure. With body slightly rotated the fallen person turns back toward the viewer. Instead of our gaze being met by a human face, a roughly painted white spot gapes back, as if to render the architect's physiognomy forever unrecognizable. It is well known that Tuymans took the motif from an amateur 8 mm film that showed Hitler's architect and minister of armaments, Albert Speer, while on winter holiday, Tuymans isolated one still image from the film sequence, in which Speer, having fallen to the ground, squats in the snow with skis and poles. In 2001, Der Architekt was exhibited at Hamburger Bahnhofin Berlin. The exhibition catalog is noteworthy for its design, conceived by the artist, that mimics the Nazi propaganda magazine Signal, thus dealing with a publication of the Wehrmacht that was translated into the languages of the occupied countries, or the "allies abroad," in order to spread the political mission of national socialism. The format and design of the Berlin catalog were adapted to those of the magazine, and it was titled Numero7 1944. The cover bears the red Signal logo and a blurred image: the negative of a historical, industrial-era villa, zoomed in onto an unspecific detail of its exterior--a typical Tuymans layout of deprivation. The detail came from a color photograph taken by the artist near the house where the Wannsee Conference took place. With this graphic mimicry of the Nazi periodical, both artist and museum decided for a form of assimilation that links these reproductions of Tuymans's paintings with historical documents. Furthermore, the director of the memorial site for the House of the Wannsee Conference, only marginally involved with Tuymans, made a contribution to the catalog that primarily serves as a concise account of the historical background, lending the catalog the feeling of an informational brochure of civic history. In addition, six historical photographs of "German farmers" are reproduced in the catalog, along with old advertisements from the Deutsche Bank and the companies Siemens and Auto Union, a full-page portrait of SS officer Reinhard Heydrich, and a copy of a typewritten protocol of the Wannsee Conference with the file number K210407:

In the course of the practical execution of the final solution, Europe will be combed through from west to east. Germany proper, including the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, will have to be handled first due to the housing problem and additional social and political necessities. The evacuated Jews will first be sent, group by group, to so-called transit ghettos, from which they will be transported to the east. SS-Obergruppenführer Heydrich went on to say that an important prerequisite for the evacuation as such is the exact definition of the persons involved.'°

In proximity to these documents, Tuymans's oil paintings gain an aura of political volatility. The artist states in the catalog that it was his original plan to show the paintings himself at the location of the Wannsee Conference instead of in a museum; it is not made clear in the catalog as to why this never transpired. Tuymans gives the impression that, in the end, deciding against it was a gesture of modesty and humility. On the other hand, the memorial's director wrote that their premises are logistically not suitable and that an exhibition would thus be out of the question. Without a doubt, the emphatic charge of the paintings would have doubtlessly increased if they were presented at the historical location as intended by Tuymans. At the scene of this event, their exchange with the historical aura would have been more dynamic than that experienced from within the magazine based on the Nazi journal.

19 Luc Tuymans: Signal, n.p.


They would have become effortlessly enmeshed in the spell of world history: But why, at the end of the twentieth century, does an artist pain a film still of the architect and minister of armaments, Albert Speer, on canvas? What is the aesthetic, intellectual, or political value of this image? And to what, exactly, can this image’s provocation or agitation be attributed? Unfortunately, the Tuymans exegesis has the tendency to replicate the indefinability for which the work is praised. As a rule, the notion of where the paintings' reflexive or aesthetic potential should lie cannot be grasped. The Berlin exhibition's curator writes about Der Architekt,

그들은 쉽게 역사(미술사?)의 마법에 빠지게 되었을 것이다: 그러나, 20세기 말에 예술가(뤼크 튀이만)는 왜 건축가이자 군부 장관인 Albert Speer(나치 선전 영화의 등장 인물)이 등장하는 영화 스틸 이미지를 캔버스에 옮겼을까? 그 이미지의 미학적, 지적 또는 정치적 함의는 무엇일까? 그리고 그 이미지 갖는 도발성, 동요시키는 요소는 어디에서 기인하는 것일까? 애석하게도, 튀이만의 주석(해석)은 그 작품이 주목받는 설명하기 힘든 무언가를 '복제'하는 듯이 보인다. 일반적으로, 회화가 지니는 반영적이거나 미학적인 잠재성은 구체적으로 파악될 수 있는 것이 아니다. 베를린 미술관의 큐레이터가 Der Architekt(Albert Speer을 지칭하는 듯?)에 대해 쓴 글을 보라.

'That the fall of the elegant skier--the steep, frozen slope, the reckless momentum, and, finally, the crouching in the snow with pointed planks could be held as a metaphor for his life could not have been anticipated by anvone at the moment of the incident. It was the historv for which he stands that first enabled this banal event to be translated into a metàphor one no longer decipherable via the moxie of language It was the picture- arrested between the filer image and the painted image as the image of history- that first presented the artist with this possibility of interpretation. Now, one could ask whether the film insage alone, along with is caption doesn't suttice in communicating that we are dealing with the Reich main architect and minister of wartime produc tion- with someone at the mercy of the homophilic attractions of male bending, a power conscious mega/oenaniac. Would the film image not be enough to inform us that we are dealing with the man who found atoneatent follosting the Nurembeng Teals in Spranddau- Albert Speer? Even after another inspection of the film image in the context of this newly gained insight, it still remains disappointingly banal. It will not become art, regardless of how much more we know of its history. Tuymans's painting, which doesn't deny its historical contexts, is very openly committed to tradition: stretched canvas, use of brushes and paint. It vibrates with the resonance of a panel painting 20

'우아한 스키 선수의 추락--가파르고 얼어붙은 슬로프, 무모한 추진력, 그리고 마침내 뾰족한 판자로 눈 속에서 웅크리고 있는 것이 그의 삶에 대한 은유로 받아들여질 수 있었다는 것은, 사건의 순간에 누구에게도 예상될 수 없었다. 이 진부한 사건이 더 이상 언어의 moxie(? 비격식으로 '용기'라는 뜻이던데...)를 통해 더 이상 해독할 수 없는 은유로 번역될 수 있게 한 것은 그(튀이만?)가 주장하는 역사관이었다. Now, one could ask whether the film insage alone, along with is caption doesn't suttice in communicating that we are dealing with the Reich main architect and minister of wartime produc tion- with someone at the mercy of the homophilic attractions of male bending, a power conscious mega/oenaniac.(이 부분이 의역도 불가능 할 정도입니다 ㅠㅠ... Albert Speer라는 가상인물의 시대적 면모를 영화 이미지만으로는 충분히 설명해낼 수 없다는 말을 하는 것 같은데...) 영화 이미지만으로는 우리가 Sprandau-Albert Speer에서 Nurembeng Teals(?)를 따라 속죄를 발견한 사람을 상대하고(연상하고) 있다는 것을 알려주기에(전달하기에) 충분하지 않은 것일까? 맥락에 따른 영화 이미지에 대한 새로운 시각에서 영화 이미지를 다시 보더라도 (영화 이미지 자체만으로는) 여전히 실망스러울 정도로 진부하다. 우리가 그 역사에 대해 더욱 많이 알고 있더라도 그것(영화 이미지)은 예술이 될 수 없다. 역사적 맥락을 부인하지 않는 튀이만의 그림은 (회회적)전통에 매우 명징하게 전념하고 있다: 캔버스와 붓, 물감을 사용한다는 점. (튀이만의 회화는) 패널 페인팅의 공명으로 진동한다.

Here, the commitment to painting is once again highlighted as a particular quality of Tuymans's work. But what is meant by "very openly committed to tradition"? How should one imagine a painting that actively denies this tradition and suppresses canvas, brush, and paint? Above all, one has still not learned where the aesthetic or intellectual surplus value lies in the painterly adaptation of historical amateur films. Most likely, the following find is indeed worth considering: "The architect fallen in the snow appears to us to be a well-chosen metaphor for a person whose reality is not unlocked by historical documents or testimonials. However, the poetry of the painted image suddenly and strangely allows it to become all-encompassingly understandable."- So, the quality of painting would exist in how the protagonist of the Third Reich "suddenly and strangely becomes poeticized? The following statement is equally dubious: "It is of course absurd to want to explain the source of Tuymans’s image to the viewer. The photographic excerpt's materiality becomes totally nullified in painting. It surpasses its banality, so to speak, and becomes exalted in painting, a medium whose images arise from the hand. They are channeled by both body and mind and not only by intellect."22

20 Blume, "Zwischen den Bildern," 17.

21 Ibid., 18.

22 Ibid.

Fig. 4. Luc Tuymans, Gaskamer, 1986. Courtesy of Zeno X Gallery, Antwerp. Photo : Ronald Stoops.

Why is it "absurd to want to explain the source of Tuymans’s image to the viewer"? This allusion to the source material’s irrelevance is found only a few lines after the author's own description of the source material. Part of the mythologization of this painting is the claim that it transcends its underlying photographs and film, leaving them behind--the claim that the film image is "totally nullified in painting." But it is the opposite case: film and photography must be continuously called up and kept alive as energetic models, as it is only through these that painting can obtain its sensory effects. The model images provide a reservoir of the real, and it is from here that Tuymans attempts to borrow the explosiveness of his own pictures. Moreover, there is a questionable differentiation of high and low art underlying the quoted comments. In order to exalt the painting, the film on which it is based must be debased at the same time. Only when the film image of the fallen Speer has been made to appear as "disappointingly banal" is it possible for the hand of the painter to elevate it to the status of art. But there is nothing justifying this seemingly obvious hierarchy. In fact, it is questionable whether Tuymans's version in oil boasts a higher complexity than that of the historical film.

There is another strategy underlying the painting Gaskamer (Gas Chamber, 1986, fig. 4). A watercolor drawing, made by the artist at the former Dachau concentration camp, was the basis for this picture. Constrained in warm, brown tones, the painting roughly indicates the interior of an empty room. As soon as one has noticed the title of the work, the dark markings on the ceiling and the hint of a drain cover on the floor can be decoded as components of a gas chamber. Unlike Der Architekt, Die Zeit (4/4) (1988; the adaptation of an historical portrait photograph of the SS member Reinard Heydrich), or Our New Quarters (1986; after a historical photograph of Theresiensta Gaskamer is not based upon a certain photograph. One coula claim the opposite, as this time the painting draws its mez from the discourse on the inability to represent the Holocaust which, in the mid-1980s, had experienced a renewed topicality largely due to Claude Lanzmann's film, Shoah (1985). In his filmic montage of interviews with extermination-camp survivors, Lanzmann made a conscious decision to abstain from using historical imagery--the witnesses and their spoken accounts were to be the focal points. Any accompanying images, in addition to those of the protagonists, primarily showed the emptiness of the historical settings. Over time, Lanzmann's renouncement of historical image material expanded into a real ban on representation. In an interview, he stated that there is no image of the Holocaust. And if he were to find filmed recordings made inside the gas chambers, he would destroy them straightaway,? Behind this stance, there is an obvious conviction that there are incidences that, by nature, evade representation (and others that do not)-_-a picture that purports to show them would thus be an impossibility. Based on four photographs taken in secrecy by Jewish prisoners in the summer of 1944 at Auschwitz, George Didi-Huberman's response to this concept is that, on the contrary, it is only possible to represent Auschwitz. This obviously did not mean that there is a conceivable form of representation that could adequately reconstruct the reality of the camp.

23 Claude Lanzmann,"Holocauste, la représentation impossible," Le Monde, March 3, 1994.

24 See Georges Didi-Huberman, Images in Spite of All: Four Photographs from Auschwitz, trans. Shane B. Lillis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008).

Nevertheless, the attempt to visualize-~-as imprecise, fragmentary, and futile it may necessarily turn out--still represents a legitimate possibility for debate, should one wish to abandon the invocation of the unrepresentable.* In addition to Didi-Huberman, Jean-Luc Nancy and Jacques Rancière also have criticized the discourse on the Holocaust's unrepresentability: Nancy hinted that this dictum remains diffuse in the end: should this mean that one cannot represent the Holocaust? But to what exactly can this inability be attributed? And, must one then separate history into representable and unrepresentable events?' Where would the reasonable borders be drawn? Or does this mean, rather, that one may not represent an event like the Holocaust? In this case, a representation would be possible yet objection-able and, as a consequence, forbidden. In order to justify a moral proscription of this kind, there would need to be a tenet or a principle responsible for enacting such a ban. This binding principle cannot be identified, however,'S Therefore, Rancière also criticized the inflationary use of the term "unrepresentability" and warned to avoid phenomena that have an "aura of the holy horror." Being unrepresentable is not a trait of certain incidences. No event demands to be represented or not to be represented. There should always be a possibility for choice.» It is astonishing that the Tuymans exegesis seems, thus far, to have been passed over by thoughts like these. In the words of the artist, his gas chamber in oil is an attempt "to approach the really terrible thing that cannot be depicted!"" Commentators have repeated this phrase in various versions. According to Molesworth, Tuymans's paintings "attempt to represent historical atrocities that are putatively unrepresentable."28

25 See Jean-Luc Nancy, The Ground of the Image, trans. Jeff Fort (New York: Fordham

University Press, 2005).

26 See Jacques Rancière, "Are Some Things Unrepresentable?," in The Future of the Image,

trans. Gregory Elliott (London: Verso, 2007).

27 Luc Tuymans, "Artist's Writings," in Luc Tuymans, 130.

28 Molesworth, "Luc Tuymans," 18.

29 Dexter, "Interconnectedness of All Things,"

" 24.

With Dexter we read, "So painting as reproduction fails continually in his work, and this failure, this disguise, allows him to depia the unrepresentable, for example, the Holocaust."» Inanev publication Ulrich Wilmes states, "The representability of the in-fact-unrepresentable is a challenge that perhaps only paint can equal. That is to say, in Tuymans's work the representation of horror is a circumspect exploration of the representability of horror."3© Finally, Loock: "Gas Chamber (...] fails irreversibly in its task of providing any kind of accurate picture of its object, as this object itself is deprived of any possibility of representation. It is the formulation of this failure which (__) is stressed by the production of an aesthetic appearance. The disguise is impenetrable, allowing a painting such as Gas Chamber to preserve the image of the gas chamber.” What exactly is meant by these comments is unclear. How does the unrepresentable allow itself to be represented? Either it is not unrepresentable at all and can thus be represented, albeit with inevitable incompleteness, or it in fact evades any form of visual representation, in which case the painting ultimately does not show a gas chamber. It was obviously intended that Tuymans's Gaskamer represent this failure itself. To his interpreters, it is an image that flaunts its own failure. Here, we are once again encountered with a variety of discourse on the reflexivity of painting. As to how Gaskamer exactly engages in showing something while simultaneously showing that the thing shown is unable to be shown-~-this remains a mystery. Moreover, the painting actually only presents an empty room. When taking the title into consideration, it becomes readable as the representation of a gas chamber. But above and beyond this, aching the works superstructure is not done vin the image or its meaning, Dexter's praise of indifference is also disconcerting:

30 Ulrich Wilmes, "Painting History," in Borchardt-Hume, Wilhelm Saunal$

31 Loock, On Layers of Sign Relations, 51.

Herein lies a clue to this methodology. 'Tuymans has flattoned out the hierarehy of the genres of painting that exist within his own practice. He paints a cardboard box with as much care and attention as he paints a gas chamber. This treatment hints a wider political and iconographie significance, but also suggests how Tuymans has developed his own method for representing the uncanny and the repressed.”

Why the equating of a crematorium to a cardboard box, of all things, should entail "a wider political and iconographic significance" remains the author's secret.

Unlike Neo Rauch, who stages scenes of semantie overkill with his overpopulated pictures, Tuymans draws up the very opposite with pale colors, empty spaces, white space, and removal. Whereas with Rauch it is overabundance, with Tuymans it is meaningful emptiness that sets the hermeneutic machine in motion. A formidable posse has already been summoned in the explanation of Tuymans's paintings: Hannah Arendt, Walter Benjamin, W. G. Sebald, Benedict de Spinoza, Sigmund Freud, Immanuel Kant, Jacques Lacan, Theodor W. Adorno, Jacques Derrida, Jorge Luis Borges, Charles S. Peirce, and many others, Bery writes, "Thymans derives the material for his painting from a repository of images that refer to reality but no longer stand directly in contact with it." This is quite an exact description of the reservoir from which this painting is nourished. It sips at the real, at the atrocity of the gas chamber and the banality of evil, while at the same time managing to remain in the preserve of autonomous art.

32 Dexter, "Interconnectedness of All 'Things," 16.

33 Berg, "Twilight of the Images," 11,


Questions for Peter Geimer

Isabelle Graw

I have two questions, or remarks rather, about your excellent talk. Namely, I agree with you that art criticism has made it too easy by conjuring up the aesthetic topos of an openness of meaning, and the Tuymans exegetes especially abet his work with this manner of mystification. All the same, I wonder whether your argument doesn't ultimately lead to a break with the aesthetic topos of the irreducibility of art. Would this not be hasty in light of artworks that are of interest to us precisely because they do not erupt with evident meaning and cannot be immediately explained away? How do I differentiate this “good" aesthetic topos of an openness of meaning from the questionable obfuscation at work in Tuymans?


당신의 훌륭한 연설에 대해 두 가지 질문, 의견이 있어. 예술 비평이 의미의 개방성이라는 미학적 *토포스를 고안함으로써 그것을 너무 쉽게 만들었다는 것에 동의해. 또한 투이만인들은 특히 이런 신비화 방식으로 그의 작품을 부추겨. 마찬가지로, 당신의 주장이 궁극적으로 예술의 환원 불가능성이라는 미학적 토포스와 단절로 이어지지는 않는지 궁금해. 이것은 명백한 의미로 설명 될 수 없기 때문에 우리가 관심 있는 예술 작품에 비추어 보는 것은 성급하지 않을까? 의미의 개방성에 대한 이 "좋은" 미학적 토포스를 투이만 작업의 불명료함과 어떻게 구별할 수 있을까?

(*topos 토포스: 전통적 주제 사상, 진부한 관습)

My second question revolves around the motif of reflection. In the first instance, I share your skepticism regarding the common formula of a painting itself reflecting the condition of its possibility or its impossibility. It is too seldom demonstrated what such reflection actually looks like and where it takes place in the work. The moment we say that an artwork reflects something, we also simultaneously attribute subjective-like faculties to it. They should have the capacity for thought processes, which would elevate them to a sort of quasi-subject. This tendency to model artworks after subjects has a long tradition in aesthetics, one that reaches from Hegel to Benjamin and on to Adorno. Here, the artwork is conceived in analogy to a living subject. There is a questionable, anthropomorphic projection at work here as well as the wish to elevate artworks to the status of a better person. But to abandon this projection altogether would mean that we no longer grant artworks what most expect from them--agency. Giving up on agency seems problematic as well-why then should we be interested in art-works when they cannot do anything, not even reflect? Against this backdrop, I wonder if you are you pleading for giving up on the motif of reflection altogether or whether you argue for a more precise application of this assumption? And what would it look like if we rooted our claim that artworks are able to reflect in their own materiality?


두 번째 질문은 반성의 모티브를 중심으로 전개돼. 첫 번째 예에서, 가능성이나 불가능의 조건을 반영하는 그림 자체의 일반적인 공식에 대한 당신의 회의론을 공유하게되었어. 그러한 반성이 실제로 어떻게 발생했는지, 그리고 그것이 작업 어디에서 일어나는지는 알기 어려워. 우리가 예술작품이 무언가를 반영한다고 말하는 순간, 우리는 동시에 주관적인 것을 작업에 귀속시키고, 그것들은 사고 과정을 위한 능력을 가져야하며, 사고 과정을 일종의 하나의 부주제로서 끌어 올릴 거야. 주제화 이후에 작품 모델링하는 것은 헤겔에서 벤자민, 아도르노에 이르기까지 미학에서 오랜 전통을 가지고 있어. 여기에서 예술작품은 살아있는 주제와 유사하게 표현돼. 의인화같은 투영뿐 만 아니라 예술 작품을 더 나은 사람으로서 표현하려는 소망이 담기지. 그러나 이러한 인간적 투영을 포기한다는 것은 우리가 더 이상 예술작품에 가장 기대하는 것, 즉 작품 속 작용을 부여하지 않는다는 것을 의미할 수 있어. 작품 속 작용에 대해 포기하는 것도 문제가 있지. 그렇다면 왜 우리는 아무것도 할 수 없고 반성도 할 수 없는데 예술 작품에 관심을 가져야 할까? 이러한 배경을 전제로, 반성의 모티브를 완전히 포기하라고 말하는 것인지 아니면 이 가정을 좀 더 정확하게 적용하자고 주장하는 것인지 궁금해. 만약 우리가 예술작품이 물질성을 반영할 수 있다는 우리의 주장을 고찰한다면 어떻게 생각될까?

Response to Isabelle Graw

Peter Geimer

You are absolutely right. The problem of such a strong critique of Tuymans and the Tuymans exegesis is related to the difficult differentiation between positive openness and obfuscation. It would be a nonsensical demand to expect a similar form of stringency from an artwork as from a political stance or from the argumentative conclusion of a thesis. So, the point is not to demand a clearly understandable message from the artists or to insist upon a position that does not suit their means of working. Tuymans and his exegesis seem to me to be a good example of the aesthetic topos of an openness of meaning in art having taken on a sort of life of its own on an inflated scale--and this, in fact, after needing to historically assert itself first over the regulated system of genre hierarchies, attribution of functions, etc. Tuymans is therefore a good example, because his paintings' extremely reduced and consciously emptied and paled appearance corresponds to an excessive attribution of meaning in their reception. The stronger the removal of meaning is visually evident, the more emphatic the search for profundity becomes. What I describe as the "Tuymans strategy' is intended as a process that, on one hand, utilizes the blessing of an "autonomous" art, obliged only to itself. But the process also grasps for the greatest possible--and most politically charged-themes at the same time, in order to settle them within the realm of the canvas in the form of rich particles of reality. A political dimension of painting is partially cited while remaining so unbinding and free of risk that one could say everything and nothing about it. Beyond just Tuymans, I wonder much more about many of his commentators, who attest a special explosiveness and reflexivity to this apolitical art. In short, there is no plausible case against ambiquity. But ambiquity is not a characteristic that just approaches artworks. It is not available or given; instead, it must be produced. How wel Dis works, if at all, depends on individual cases. Your second question follows well here because, just like Waits openness of meaning, art's reflexivity also seems to me to be a category whose rise is not self-evident.
<in fact, I believe that historical and systematic survey of the term ‘reflexivity-or also often "self-reflexivity*~-would be useful and necessar;? find "self-reflexivity: to be a more problematic term. in the phis sophical sense, reflexivity in itself would probably have sufices as the referentiality of a thought is already addressed theren The supplement "self works here merely as an emphasis, as. Niklas Luhmann once observed with the supplement ‘radica'n radical constructivism. It would deal with a rhetorical enhancement, like one would also encounter in an organic grocery store where food would be pitched as "naturally pure:) Works like Viktor I. Stoichita's L'instauration du tableau (1993; the English translation, strangely, is titled The Self- Aware Image) bind the theme of painterly self-referentiality or "meta painting" to concrete, historical situations. In the case of Stoichita this is somehow the development since the fourteenth certury from altarpiece to mobile panel painting. My impression is that beyond such historical specifications, reflexivity/self-reflexivity has meanwhile become a type of discursive wild card, an aesthetic seal of quality, which can be attributed to the works of all eras and genres. According to this, complex and reflexive pictures are those that not only show “something but also thematize the conditions of this showing at the same time. Sub-complex pictures are those that only show "something" and become absorbed in this heteronomous reterentiality. In my opinion, this difference seems to be extremely questionable. Here, old hierarchies of high" and low or"strong" and weak" pictures are repeated-or in terms of the painting of the nineteenth century, modern and salon painting.>


네 말이 전적으로 옳아. 투이만인과 그의 해석에 대한 비판의 문제는 긍정적인 의미의 개방성과 불명료함 사이의 어려운 구별과 관련이 있어. 정치적 입장이나 논제의 논증적 결론에서와 같이 예술 작품에서 유사한 형태의 엄격함을 기대하는 것은 무의미한 요구일거야.
예술가들에게 명확하게 이해할 수 있는 메시지를 요구하거나 그들의 작업 수단에 맞지 않는 입장을 고집하는 것이 아니야. 투이만인의 해석은 예술에서 의미의 개방성에 대한 미학적 토포스의 좋은 예가 부풀려진 것처럼 보여. 실제로 이것은 장르 계층 구조, 기능의 귀속 등의 규제된 시스템에 대해 역사적으로 먼저 주장할 필요가 있었어. 따라서 투이만인은 그의 그림이 극도로 감소되고 의식적으로 비워지고 창백한 모습이 그들의 지나친 의미의 귀속에 해당하기 때문이야.
의미의 제거가 시각적으로 강하게 드러날수록 심오함에 대한 탐색이 더욱 강조돼. 내가 "투이만 전략"으로 묘사하는 것은 한편으로는 "자율적 인"예술의 축복을 활용하고 그 자체로만 의무를 지우는 과정으로의 의도야. 그러나 그 과정은 또한 현실의 풍부한 물성의 형태로 캔버스의 영역 내에서 그들을 정착시키기 위해 가능한한 가장 큰 - 정치적으로 부여된 주제를 동시에 파악해야해. 회화의 정치적 차원은 부분적으로 인용되고, 구속력이 없고 위험이 없기 때문에 모든 것을 말할 수 있지만 그것에 대해서는 아무 것도 말할 수 없어. 투이만을 넘어, 나는 이 비정치적 예술에 대한 특별한 폭발성과 반사성을 증명하는 그의 많은 논평가들에 대해 훨씬 더 궁금해. 요컨대, 모호성에 대한 그럴듯한 사례는 없어. 하지만 양면성은 예술작품에만 접근하는 특성이 아니야. 그것은 사용할 수 없거나 주어지지 않아. 대신에, 그것은 생산되어야 해.
웰디스가 어떻게 작동하는지는 개별적인 경우에 달려있고, 당신의 두 번째 질문은 여기서 보여지고 있어. 왜냐하면, Waits의 개방성처럼, 예술의 반사성 또한 나에게 상승이 자명하지 않은 범주로 보이기 때문이야.

<in fact~ painting 부분은 이해가 안가네요 ㅠㅠ>

But mainly, the underlying criteria appear unclear to me. How does one recognize reflexivity? How can reflexive and nonreflexive pictures be differentiated from one another? What even stirs the will and the need for determining such differences? What distinguishes self-reflexivity from mere self-reference? And foremost, who or what is actually the subject or the actor of this reflexivity? Is it the artist, who materializes his thoughts and actions, so to speak, and stores them in his work? Or is it the work "itself"? Can paintings, sculptures, or installations "think"? Generally, I can follow the idea that not only human subjects but also works or things can act-"actants" in the sense of Bruno Latour. In this case, another alternative notion of "acting" is needed. As with Latour's "symmetrical anthropology,” if something like a broken electric door opener that disables me from entering a building "acts" and, in this respect, is part of society, then it does so without mandating any intention or will toward the object of such action. The things act, but they do not mean anything; they have an effect on us without articulating an autonomous will in doing so. In the discussions on the reflexivity of art, I do not see such a differentiated concept. If W. J. T. Mitchell, for example, speaks about pictures “wanting" something from us or that they have "desires" and so forth,' it seems to me to be just a one-to-one transfer of intentionality and subjectivity from people to artifacts. Either one actually be-lives that paintings--like the aliens in Steven Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)-think, act, observe us, and want to make contact with us, or one uses these expressions in another improper or ironic sense, which would then need to be made more precise. It also seems to me that in the current application of the term "reflexivity," many different traditions blend indistinguishably, to a certain extent. A very different variation than Mitchell's talk on the life of paintings is, for example, Clement Greenberg's teleological program of systematically clearing away all external references until the artwork finally arrives at its media-appropriate self. This also houses an idea of the actual "self" of an artwork that ponders itself as well. Yet another variation comes from the diverse reception of Aby Warburg's ideas on the energetic potential of paintings. It seems that all of these traditions and figures of thought culminate here today in an unclear concept of "self-reflexivity." I read recently in a piece on Manet that painting questions itself. Such sentences are often seen, and presented with a great deal of self-evidence. In my view, it would be a worthwhile task to question the genealogy of such statements and to specify the understanding of self-referentiality that informs them.

그러나 주로, 근본적인 기준은 나에게 불분명해 보여.
반사성을 어떻게 인식하는가? 어떻게 반사적인 사진과 비반사적인 사진이 서로 구별될 수 있는가? 무엇이 그러한 차이를 결정하려는 의지와 필요성을 자극하는가? 자기 성찰과 단순한 자기 참조를 구별하는 것은 무엇인가? 그리고 무엇보다도, 이 반사성의 주체나 행위자는 누구인가? 말하자면 자신의 생각과 행동을 구체화하여 작품 속에 저장하는 것이 작가인가? 아니면 작품 자체인가? 그림, 조각, 설치물이 "생각"할 수 있는가? 일반적으로 나는 인간의 주체뿐만 아니라 일이나 사물도 행동할 수 있다는 생각을 브루노 라투르의 의미에서 볼 수 있어.
이 경우 '연기'라는 또 다른 대안적 개념이 필요해. Latour의 "대칭 인류학"과 마찬가지로, 건물에 들어가지 못하게하는 깨진 전기 도어 오프너와 같은 것이 "행동"하고, 이 점에서 사회의 일부라면, 그러한 행동의 대상에 대한 의도나 의지를 생각하지 않고 실행하지 않을까. 사물은 행동하지만 아무 의미가 없어. 그들은 그렇게함으로써 자율적인 의지를 분명히하지 않고 우리에게 영향을 미치지. 예술의 성찰성에 대한 논의에서는 그렇게 차별화된 개념이 보이지 않아. 예를 들어, W. J. T. Mitchell이 우리에게 무언가를 "원하는"그림이나 "욕망"등을 말하면 의도와 주관성을 사람들로부터 유물로 일대일로 전달하는 것처럼 보여.
스티븐 스필버그(Steven Spielberg)의 "제3종과의 조우"(Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 1977)에 나오는 외계인들처럼 실제로 그 그림들이 살아있거나, 우리를 생각하고, 행동하고, 관찰하고, 우리와 접촉하고 싶어하거나, 아니면 다른 부적절하고 아이러니한 의미로 이러한 표현을 사용한다면 좀 더 정확하게 만들 필요가 있을거야.
또한 "반사성"이라는 용어의 현재 적용에서, 많은 다른 전통들이 어느 정도 구별할 수 없을 정도로 혼합되어 있는 것 같아. 그림의 삶에 대한 미첼의 이야기와는 달리, 예술 작품이 마침내 미디어에 적합한 자아에 도달할 때까지 모든 외부 참조를 체계적으로 제거하는 클레멘트 그린버그의 목적론적 프로그램이야. 이것은 또한 자신을 숙고하는 예술 작품의 실제 "자아"에 대한 아이디어를 담고 있지. 또 다른 변형은 그림의 활기찬 잠재력에 대한 Aby Warburg의 아이디어를 다양하게 받아 들인 거야. 이러한 모든 전통과 사상의 인물들은 오늘날 "자기 반사성"이라는 불분명한 개념으로 여기서 절정에 달하는 것 같아. 나는 최근에 마네에 관한 한 작품에서 그림이 스스로 질문하는 것을 읽었어. 그러한 문장들은 종종 보여지고, 많은 자기 증거를 제시해.내 견해로는 그러한 진술의 계보에 의문을 제기하고 그들에게 알려주는 자기 참조에 대한 이해를 명시하는 것이 가치있는 일이 될 거야.

1 See W. J. T. Mitchell, What Do Pictures Want? The Lives and Loves of Images(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 28.


국문으로 해석하기 어려웠던 부분들

broad paths and swirls : 칠함과 휘저음 / *path

pastose relief : 물감을 두껍게 칠한 부조 / *relief

-> 평소 대화에서는 마띠에르 정도로 통용해서 쓰는 것 같음.


TIP 최대 크기 25M 파일을 20개까지 업로드할 수 있습니다. 이미지는 드래그해서 순서를 조정할 수 있습니다.

저 주말동안 실신하듯 잠만 자서... 이제 부지런히 번역 시작이요!!! ㅠ)!)!ㅠㅠ


TIP 최대 크기 25M 파일을 20개까지 업로드할 수 있습니다. 이미지는 드래그해서 순서를 조정할 수 있습니다.