According to the artist’s words her pieces which many times get an initial impuls through historical events or texts, but never unfold solely around this topic. In the case of ‘ANATOMY’ its seems to be as well a search for forms of truth. But to understand this only as an interpretation of changing viewpoints – as one might be tempted, when looking at the striped bare material presented in the exhibition space – seems not appropriate for the effort taken and an eventual complexity one tries to grasp. It is for this helpful to read the artists interview (link here) to get a better understanding for what forms of expression she tries to achieve.
|… That’s why I think my works are a lot less â€œabout historyâ€, than about languageâ€¦ A similar idea is found in a quote from Michel de Certeauâ€™s â€œLâ€™Ã©criture de lâ€™histoireâ€ (The Writing of History, 1975): â€œCe que nous appelons dâ€™abord lâ€™histoire|
|nâ€™est quâ€™un rÃ©cit.â€ (What we first call history is merely an account.) He means that history is never objective, the subject/author/speaker always resounds in the language. There is no such thing as a clear divide between the naked fact and the interpretation, or taking this a step further, fact and fiction. …. (read)|
Despite my wishes (or the emerging desire when being in the show) for a further layer, of what she describes, to become visible as a translation within the staged installation – it is nevertheless an exhibition worth to see and getting into thoughts about IMO.