Tags Archives

the incredulity of st thomas


Ready made – ready framed

History becomes a ready made. Whatever one makes or not, it already has a frame of history.


The problem of the ready made is to look at a “ready made” artwork without the discourse of the ready made.
Which is at this point no longer necessary.

As the concept has already been established (thus accepted by the establishment). But rather look at the ready made in a way one looks at any other ‘created’ artwork, thus without stigmatisation of the creative act.

Ready framed. The supposed ‘return to the painting’ acclaimed by the market, after all sounds like Donald Trump and “let’s make America great again”.


A ready framed – following Duchamp – a painter (manual creation) a ready-made does not require to be made by the artist. The ready framed is a similar construct with the difference that its background is photographic. And so the base of creation is not a physical/manual fabrication but an act of framing. In a ready framed an artist is utilising an already existing frame (e.g. made by another artist or existing as a result of historical contingency) as a creative act/gesture.

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

29/09/2016 A

Duchamp points towards the man who creates, as art is dependent only on his action, manifestation or simply a decision. But the artist will be and will create (whatever it implies) despite being believed in or not. Belief in the artist does nothing but reassures his position on the common and neutral ground, in-between, but nothing more.

For art to be however, what is paramount is to believe in art. If you believe, an urinal, or a place or even man’s life becomes art. Here, for anything to flourish truly, what is required is the belief which comes from two dimensions and two opposite ‘polars’: the belief (in art) of the artist and the belief (in art) of the spectator. Art is because of these two whose net force meets in the “inbetween” space (which always acquires sacred stigma whatever one would manifest or wherever placed it).

To me (any) art is simply an outcome of these two beliefs meeting one another.

I think the narrative of 3 spaces becomes clear with this (Engel mit Sphinx Gesichten):

The questions asked in the street, have a bit of a religious character, their aim is to lead the spectator to believe: 1 in himself and thus 2 in art. The statement neon in the studio is opposite, it is a belief in the creative act.