It has occured to me, when i used the term the historic level, I meant subconsciously the height of times. As it is after all the height of the panda.
The installation, although making a direct and clear reference to the concept of the historic level (used by Ortega y Gasset in the context of its raise) is in fact treating the very problem only as a secondary one. The true problem is then hidden behind the literal reference of the text. After all, the line of the ‘level’ is determined by the height of the panda, and so the other of the historic, and one could say the paramount one, that of the ‘height of times’.
Minimisation or miniaturisation is a contemporary procedure, and indeed it can be observed on all fields. This can be understand not just by the means of size, which is a common occurrence in the field of technology but also in the context of time, for instance in cinematography.
Overall as in the copy of the painting of The incredulity of Saint Thomas what was observed is a certain simplification, but in a way of becoming simultaneously more primitive. This simplification and primitivisation is a wider metaphor but it is also very panda like.
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.
Civilisation implies script and as such preservation of history (and it as a concept) and that consequently implies the rule of law and possibility of retrospective verification. And as such civilisation is a situation which opposes the idea of the ‘survival of the fittest’.
Demise is profitable and greed runs the world. Hunted by the past where ideologies were abused by those in power we reject it a priori. That is why contemporary man does not believe, and consequently that is why contemporary politicians have no strong clear ideologies. That is a clear path into the disintegration and demise alike that of pandas.
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.
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.
Consumerism, globalism, capitalism, means of control of the society, the panda which prevents us from being critical is juxtaposed with critical thinking in art which begun the contemporary art discourse as we know it.
The work functions on the borderline between absurd – laughter and despair as one relays common tragedy and failures of contemporary societies.