Tags Archives



Why does Julian find Josephine a sad creature? Because of its limited frame, timeframe ? Because of the ‘limits of the state action’, the liberty which tethers her?

The question of the museum, the last legacy of the enlightenment in the “Camp of Achilles” will resurface once again and probably for the last time. The museum is the camp, withdrawn from the time of the present, of its matters, necessarily separated, it has to be. How can study – the ideal activity of the enlightenment- be conducted otherwise?

So the museum will be recurring narrative in the “Camp of Achilles”.

There, Josephine will play the main role, the work of art, passing through times and dreams of humanity, the vestiges of memory and history. Once she is dead, then (and before she is not, not enough time will have passed for it to be accepted), well once she is dead she will thus become part of art history and no museum will be able to encompass her. She, the artwork, will be no more. She will be art history. After all, art is the very energy and imperative of creation conducting us, and conducted by us at the same time, from the times immemorial. A cube could have never encompassed it. In making a cube we have achieved nothing close to perfection, but an illusion of any achievement at all.


The whole point is

When Josephine dies, how to tackle the case of her status as a work of art.

It is in fact simple. When she dies, the work of art will be no more. Josephine will become part of art history and will be thus artwork no more.


Klein’s “Antropometrie” are by all means images of death. There is no life in the controlled carcases of women, as they have neither will nor freedom. Klein creates some kind of Danse macabre which honestly and rightfully should disgust in its chauvinist structure.

On the other hand “Shadows and other signs of life” are full of life. They are after all traces, records of life which is free and under no control, like any true artistic activity.


Whether it is of greatness or not, I feel it impossible to make different kind of work at this point of history


In the camp of Achilles.


This film is dedicated to all the art and artists, and the human’s constant insatiable urge to create. For Josephine it is a role of her life. A life of a work of art. Alike Achilles, once her time and role are over, she becomes part of history.


Anything in art you take or make and then claim and assume: it is a work of art.

And it changes your life and it changes everything.

So you take a rabbit and you don’t stuff it or carry it dead (although you could do that too) but claim it art while letting it live. And it changes everything. It becomes your work. And together with it you explore all the new possibilities. Because however big or small, it is your achievement.


Joseph is what i call a panda rabbit, and interestingly enough despite popularity of both, the rabbit does well what panda doesn’t – creates life. Rabbit, being pagan symbol of life is then opposite to the panda, which in a sense, becomes symbol of death.

And this way, this contemporary Thanatos found its way into the contemporary society, which being scared of death more than ever before, embraced him fully.

29/09/2016 B

Dear Julian,

I came to a conclusion the placement of the neon next door in the flat was very good, I would even go as far as to say of grave importance.

I haven’t read your texts yet but I have a feeling you see the role of Duchamp much further than I do (in this work), which is also fine because I always approve of exterior ideas developing my works in the directions I had less interest in. Elements of this work (in all cases) are very Romantic. The three figures brought up, function in a similar way to folk and ancient stories did in Romanticism. Thomas, Duchamp and the panda (who has something of a mystical creature in the installed works) are all symbolic by all means and mythologised at the same time. The important thing, as I have briefly mentioned, is this does not take Duchamp with his historic heritage (despite such approach being unavoidable at any rate, to me is not the key) but rather as a symbol, through the myth, and so a Duchamp both understood and misunderstood. The three symbols are in a different way representing different natures of a human being, and that is then put into the framework of the dynamic of belief, as I mentioned in my previous letter.


Berlin, 29/09/2016