#anyways literally every part of this quote absolutely destroys me but especially how he refers to althann and then the ending

[skitskatdacat63]

— Emperor Charles VI's diary entry on Count Althann's death

[text: "My only heart, my comfort, my most faithful servant, my soulmate, who loved me dearly as I did him for 19 years, [we] had a true friendship, we were one heart and one soul, and we never concealed anything from one another. He will always be in my heart, [my] beloved friend..I. have lost everything."]

[rebirthdilemmazine]

Evangelion: A FAQ

by @metaandpotatoes

Q: What, exactly, is an Eva?

A: Great question. An Eva is prehistoric goo heated to approximately 10000.9999999ºC then poured into a mould shaped carefully from the carcass of our quasi-religious-alien ancestors. After that, it’s flash frozen, rammed into the moon at light speed, and then animated for all our mecha fantasy needs.

Q: Doesn’t mecha imply mechanical though?

A: If you really think about it, isn’t the human body the most amazing mechanism of all? (#DYK the human hand has 27 bones in it? WOW! Don’t worry about what’s happening below. It can’t see you if you can’t see it.)

Q: Okay. So what are these giant robot monster machines for?

A: And when God created the Earth, He gave the life of His only forgotten Son so that humans may inhabit Him and use Him to break down the barriers between themselves and others and then stab the shit out of their hearts in a vain attempt to punish all life for being self-interested and self-sustaining.

Q: Is that really how the Bible goes?

Trust me, I have a divinity degree.

Q: Is this “barrier” situation like...a metaphor?

Oh no, it’s literal. There are invisible-but-totally-visible-because-animation Absolute Terror Fields between beings. Some beings have stronger fields than others, but rest easy knowing: Everyone is scared shitless of getting close to another thing. YOU ARE NOT ALONE. (Except you are. That’s why you must get in the robot.)

Q: Are you scared shitless of getting close to another thing?

Of fucking course I am, what do I look like, an empty shell existent in an equally empty universe?

Q: Why can’t Shinji get in the robot?

Why can’t you get out of bed every morning bright-eyed and bushy tailed without fail to go to your soul-sucking job?

Q: But he needs to like, save the world. I’m just helping capitalist drones buy shit they don’t need. Why can’t he get in the robot?

Are you really saving the world if you’re destroying it in the process?

Q: Hey, I’m supposed to be asking the questions here.

Fine. By logic of predestination, God has already determined who will be saved and who will be damned, so Shinji is just taking the logical path of not fucking things up any further trying to fight against that idea.

Q: So you’re saying Shinji is a Calvinist?

I’m saying that Shinji has never said he’s NOT a Calvinist.

Q: What’s up with all this religion anyway?

It’s right in the title: Neon Genesis Evangelion. There’s like, 20 layers of religion there:

Neon => neos => something new => New Testament

Genesis => creation => first book of the Old Testament (NB: Hebrew Bible) => the story of God’s new (soon to be old, because original sin and aging, WHAT FUN) creation etc., etc.

Evangelion => evangel => word for the Christian gospel (good news!) or for someone who goes around and evangelizes, aka spreads the good news (gospel!). (Evangelion also conveniently contains the word angel! Crazy amirite!?)

SO you could say that Evangelion’s title is like: New Beginning for the Good News (or the people that spread it). Whether humans or angels spread the good news...and whether...y’know, it’s actually good news is...well...up for the viewer to decide.

I, personally, welcome our singularity-obsessed orange goo overlords.

Q: Sounds like a lot of Judeo-Christian imagery is at play here...

HOLD THE FUCK ON WE DO NOT USE THAT TERM, THAT IS A MEANINGLESS TERM. EDUCATE YOURSELF: https://newrepublic.com/article/153867/arguing-bad-faith

Q: Can you give me the TL;DR?

TL;DR, “Judeo-Christian” erroneously equates two extremely different and complex religions, and carries the frankly offensive assumption that Christianity is a more evolved form of Judaism while leaving out a third religion that shares many of the same commonalities as Christianity and Judaism (Islam). 

TL;DR squared: We don’t use the term “Judeo-Christian-Islamic,” so you should immediately find “Judeo-Christian” to be sketchy af.

Also, the term gained popularity through use by mid-20th-century Christian evangelicals, who had a huge stake in 1) courting Jewish folks (who they didn’t really like but wanted to seem like they liked) and 2) getting the state of Israel established so that they can usher in the second coming or something. 

TL;DR squared part two: Once upon a time it was politically convenient for Christians to link themselves with Judaism, so they did, and it’s a useless term that we shouldn’t use outside of a very specific context.

Q: Speaking of, what is this Second Impact?

Oh that’s easy: Adam hurtled into Antarctica at lightspeed and sent the world into post-apocalyptic meltdown.

Q: Wait, Adam like...Adam Adam? Adam and Eve Adam?

In the words of Hideaki Anno: “Any moron should be able to tell this references Adam and Eve.”

Q: O-kay.

Look, what I’m going to say is: Neon Genesis Evangelion is a fascinating and important example of a decidedly non-Christian (in this case, culturally and personally) interpretation of quote-unquote Christianity—of like, the cool parts of Christianity. The apocryphal texts. The wacky subcategories of angels. The miracles. The Oedipal imagery.

That kind of batshit interpretation is important. It’s been happening the other way (e.g., off-the-wall Western interpretations of Zen Buddhism) around for a longggg time. These kinds of interpretations (some might call them “appropriations”) are, in my opinion, not fundamentally good or bad—the good or bad shit is brought on by, you know, using those interpretations to oppress and/or marginalize people. They are, however, fundamentally productive in that they make something new for the world to either chew up and digest into unusable diarrhea or mull over like cud until something even more productive or interesting results.

Like, the key to interpreting Eva through the lens of Christianity is to remember to put the lens of a non-Christian on top of it. Shit’s gonna be smashed together that people raised in Christian context don’t think are similar.

Like, Lilith doesn’t really register for most modern Western Christians, I’d venture, especially in the context of Adam and Longinus (got a lot of old and new testament mixing going on here).

But thematically, it makes sense: Fringe folks (from my understanding; this is where I disclaim that I spent 90% of my time in Divinity School studying Buddhism and angst) pin Lilith as the real first woman and therefore the original companion for Adam; Lilith getting run off the scene and replaced with Eve is kind of a crucifixion, I guess, seeing how women are usually treated by Christianity, etc. Did Anno go this far in his interpretation? Who fucking knows. The important part is that we can. AND WE WILL.

Q: Isn’t that cultural appropriation?

This is an interesting question that falls out of the scope of this shitpost of an FAQ.

Q: ...I’m out of questions.

That’s fine. You’ll come up with more later. I know because I am you and you are me and we always come up with more questions.

In the meantime: Take care of yourself. (Read: Take your antidepressants.)

[wingheadshellhead]

So I just read Jonathan Hickman's Avgers, Vol. 1: Avengers World which has that scene about how "it started with two men; one was life and one was death" in reference to Steve and Tony. What really confuses me and kind of makes me angry is why Tony is death? I don't really understand what it's referencing or what he's done to be Death. Like merchant of death and all that I get. But he's past his history now right? Even poetically in an avengers comic why is he still death? Wondering if you know?

i mean,,,,,,, i know fandom was briefly up in arms about this (not really but it was a Thing ppl were mildly salty about) but hickman never specifies who he’s referring to here. (the placement of the captions means nothing lmao, it’s literally just positioned in standard left-to-right reading order.) and actually, many ppl in fandom have taken that exact ambiguity and spun it on its head in edits and fics and especially re: mcu after ca: cw to cast steve as death, and tony as life as an interesting subversion of popular understanding of that quote where 616 tony = death, 616 steve = life. 

hickman’s writing style is very much about intense concept ideas and the big picture, he goes HARD on metaphors that make for great quotes and oneliners taken out of context but doesn’t often attempt to explain or further clarify what they mean. as someone who’s read most of his original comic east of west over at image, i can tell you it’s Classic Hickman to throw out that kind of dramatic ass statement and leave it up in the air as to who’s who just because it was memorable, it sounded fucking good, and it’s going to stick in people’s heads long after they’ve finished reading. and it definitely works bc this one ticks all three boxes.

personally, i don’t think hickman specifically intended one of them to be Life personified or Death personified; that’s hyperbolic even for hickman’s level of drama. and with steve and tony, at least, i think he knows full well that he’s dealing with Humans at the end of the day and not metaphorical embodiments of things. 

so what i think about the quote, specifically: 

1. it’s more useful as an axiomatic representation of tony and steve as polarising forces then as a literal statement where both correlate exactly to life or death; this is the unstoppable force meets immovable object facet of their relationship. 

hickman’s vol. 5 was very much about exploring and interrogating this part of steve and tony’s dynamic and driving it to its very limits. while i don’t know that i was totally satisfied with vol. 5 as an avengers comic bc i like seeing my kids get along and not constantly trying to murder each other, hickman definitely Gets steve and tony. he Gets their dynamic and the drama and tragedy that can come from such an important, intense and deeply profound relationship that’s grounded in so much history and personal stakes and emotions. tony and steve being best friends for over a decade and such important figures in each other’s lives will never negate the fact that they have very different ethical alignments and moral philosophies. and for two people who are absolutely compelled by those things in everything they do, going head to head with someone that happens to land at the polar opposite of them on the spectrum is always going to go down like… well… y’know. civil wars. universes dying. just bc that’s literally how much marvel has invested in them lol.

but i respect people / characters who respect themselves too much to bend just bc someone they love, or people they love, wants them to. i respect characters that will stand their ground and stick to their convictions even though it’d be easier not to, esp. when they’re risking someone they love. and conversely, just because steve and tony can’t agree on everything doesn’t mean their relationship suddenly becomes null and void. they’re too vastly similar but also different people who’d sooner die then stop fighting for the thing(s) they believe need to be fought for; this is something they know in their bones about each other, they know each other too well to expect anything less from the other person.

2. they can both be both. and this is Literal given that steve’s last act in the final moments of the 616 universe ‘as we knew it’ (bc there’s some debate – spoiler alert? – that the all-new all-different universe that marvel is currently set in is not 616 but a completely different universe and the 616 that existed before is legitimately just dead) was to take one of tony’s suits and try to murder him. granted, the ‘tony’ that was tony in the final moments of the 616 universe ‘as we knew it’ was also Not Really Tony, and i fully believe that the influences of Superior Tony were still lingering and tainting his overall Tonyness. in that instance, if you were going to be very simplistic and reductionist abt your interpretation of the quote, steve was definitely death. but Again, they are Both Both. tony spent (spends lbr) pretty much all his time in vol. 5 prophesizing death and destruction like 616′s very own cassandra; as Not Really Tony / still sorta superior iron man he pilots the godkiller to massacre an entire alien race from invading and destroying earth; building bombs, and being fully behind the plan to kill other planets to save earth-616.

you’re right that 616 doesn’t bring up his past as often as mcu does anymore because it’s considered literal ancient history (as in bronze age 60′s history that’s been written to death, although i’m of the opinion any good tony stark writer Can and Will find a way to write his past into modern relevance). tony’s narrative and the nature of his character, however, (sb driven by guilt and accountability and the knowledge that he’s alive bc of the sacrifice of a man who died to save him – i.e. yinsen) will always inevitably feature death, his history, and his subsequent transformation. talking about 616 and specfiically tony’s actions and choices in hickmanvengers doesn’t really help my point but to talk about tony + death in general, regardless of the universe, ‘death’ also doesn’t have to be the BadTM concept it’s usually thought of as. mcu tony canonically refers to himself as a phoenix, and the Afghanistan / Vietnamistan incident is metaphorically a ‘death’ for tony stark the charcter and his rebirth as Iron Man, the Golden Avenger. in any universe, tony’s hero narrative hinges on that rebirth and transformation as a symbol of his capacity for heroism and Goodness, of taking his ugly past and former ignorance and mistakes and transforming it into something wholly and purely driven by bravery and sacrifice. 

i mean, yes, sure, if ppl are going to sit there and only take the label at face-value: death = bad / awful / terrible / only referring to his past as a weapons manufacturer and merchant of death, then yes, that would be a shitty interpretation to swallow as a tony fan. but seeing as how comics is a medium that’s built on constantly evolving and changing characters / worlds / entire universes, death as ‘rebirth’ is a very justifiable and canonically valid reading of tony. 616 tony has died multiple times, literally and figuratively, and every time he’s rebuilt himself bigger and better and stronger. the connotations of death within hickman’s own narrative and world-building is heavily linked to metamorphosis and resurrection. the final act of his avengers run and the centrepiece of the secret war event ended with the revival of the 616 universe. not to get too philosophical and existential here but death isn’t even really an End in the comics medium bc nobody and nothing ever permanently ‘dies’; it’s not possible to associate the concept with a definitive ‘end’, which makes most of the negative imagery surrounding ‘one was death’ redundant. i’m all for intrepretations of ‘death’ that are closely interlinked, if not entirely hand-in-hand, with ideas of rebirth, rebuilding, evolution, etc.

anyway, avengers world is great and i fucking love it so even if i haven’t swayed your opinion, i wouldn’t let the quote override your enjoyment of the overall comic. which, i hope you do enjoy, bc the happiness doesn’t last in hickmanvengers. buckle in for the long haul my guy.

[freedomtofandom]

LORD OF SHADOWS by CASSANDRA CLARE **Review**

Alright peeps, I’m back. If you’re wondering why my blog has been so dead this summer it is because I was in a technological dead zone for the majority, only being able to connect to wifi once a week if I was luck, I do like to live on the edge ;). But I did have time to read this gem, and even though I’m late on the train per usual, I will still voice my thoughts!

To start things off, I would give Lord of Shadows an 8.5 out of 10. I was very pleased with this book and the ending left me screaming (with both rage and sadness). To be completely honest, I still haven’t stopped thinking about this book and wondering HOW IS EVERYTHING GOING TO GET RESOLVED WITH ONLY ONE BOOK LEFT IN THE SERIES!! THERE ARE SO MANY LOOSE ENDS! I CAN’T EVEN IMAGINE HOW LONG THE NEXT INSTALLMENT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE!!!

I can be calm, I swear! This book had a delightful dark undertone, with thought provoking themes and situations that boggle the mind. The plot is a series of unexpected twists and the determination of a family to stay together no matter the cost. The book brings into play the question of, “how far would you be willing to go for the ones you love?” And, “how far is too far?” And, “does it even make a difference?”

The characters were extremely well fleshed out, well plotted and three dimensional. The world of Shadowhunters was brought even more starkly to life and the situations these characters were thrust into was both heartbreaking and frustrating to the point of actual critical thought. 

Ok, spoiler time. If you haven’t read the book, turn back now! DO NOT READ THIS PART IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK!!! I’M WARNING YOU! YOU ARE MISSING OUT ON A GREAT BOOK IF YOU ONLY GLEAN YOUR INFORMATION FROM HERE!! The Blackthorns are back in the middle of a terrible situation, Julian and Emma especially as they struggle to at first put aside their feelings for each other and then, when that doesn’t work, hide their feelings from each other. Lets just say, Shadow hunters are notoriously bad at communication. Anyways, Emma knows that parabati who love each other grow to be too powerful, leading to the death and destruction of those around them whom they love. That is real dumb, I hate it, I keep hoping there is a way around it, but each option seems worse than the one before. So then, all these centurions show up at the L.A. Institute and since they are special and elite, they think they just own the place! Christina finds out that perfect Diego is actually engaged to Zara, another centurion who is the legit worst! We find out later that she is part of a rising group within the shadow hunter ranks called the cohort, who want to register downworlders and limit their general lives. Thats right, the cohort are shadow hunter Nazi’s, which lovely little Kit points quite frequently. I really appreciated Kit’s presence in this book, because he gave us an outsider view of shadow hunters, always baffled by their refusal to use “mundane” medicine and anything else that could be actually pretty useful. Anyways, he buddies up with the twins, Ty and Livvy, who take him under their wing in a sense. About mid way through, after attacks by squid demons, we find out that Malcolm is in fact, not dead (big surprise) and he still needs Blackthorn blood. The kids end up escaping to London. Meanwhile, Mark was tasked with the job of rescuing Kieran and Julian, Emma, and Christina followed him into Farie. They end up accomplishing this task and then meeting the seelie queen who promises aide to the shadow hunters in a war against the unseelie king in exchange for the black book, and she also tells Julian of a way she knows to break the Parabati bond. They all end up back in London, the unseelie king sends the riders of Manon after them all, Emma kills one. Annabelle shows up when Emma and Julian go to hunt her, Magnus Bane gathers everyone back together. Annabelle shows up again, agrees to testify to the Clave. Magnus passes out right before the meeting, Annabelle goes crazy with the mortal sword in the middle of testifying, Robert Lightwood dies and LIVVY! LIVVY IS STABBED WITH THE MORTAL SWORD!!!!!!! (RIP MY HEART!)

So, that’s the basic overview of what exactly is going down in this book and I actually skipped a few things because I want to get down to the analyzation of what exactly I think is going on here. 

“He forced the thought back. He could hear Emma’s voice, a whisper in the back of his mind. A warning. But Emma was good in her heart: honest, straightforward, a terrible liar. She didn’t understand the brutality of need. The absoluteness of whet he would do for his family. There was no end to it’s depth and breadth. It was total” (Clare, 654).

This is one of many quotes that delves into Julian’s mental justification of his actions throughout the book, whether good or bad. Anytime Julian lies, plots, manipulates, and terrorizes in the name of his family he always comes back to the question of, “how far will I go?”. And every time, he comes back to the conclusion that there is literally nothing he will not do to protect and defend his family, there is no low he will not sink to. The problem is that this blurs when it comes to things that he wants/desires as well, namely, Emma. Protecting your family is a good and honorable cause, yet destroying every parabati bond ever made simply because you made the mistake of being parabati with the person you are in love with is really overboard. The parabati rely on each others power in battle and even for life saving healing. To take that away would be devastating and tragic, and yet Julian considers it. Emma seems to be his only voice of reason at the moment, his only impulse control, that why I was actually expecting her to die in this book. Take away Emma and Julian becomes a villain, Malcolm 2.0. His motives are constantly marred, he is often referred to as “ruthless” and even admits that Emma is the only one who is truly holding him back from the edge.

I predicted in Lady Midnight that Julian would become a villain, and I am still sticking to that. His and Emma’s only hope of getting their curse problem fixed was through Robert Lightwood, he seemed understanding and willing to work with them. He’s dead now and I’m assuming the next counsel is going to be terrible. Therefore, Julian and Emma are going to continue to try to fix things on their own, until things really get out of control.

Also, something is up with Cortana, I think Emma is getting power from more than just the wacked up parabati bond and the fact that Cortana broke the mortal sword means there is going to be trouble in the next book for her. We’ll see what happens.

Predictions? Livvy’s not dead (PLEASE!!), Emma dies, Julian turns evil. I will go into more detailed predictions later, probably closer to the release of the third book after more research, but this is what I am sticking with now. I will also go into some further analyzation when I have my brains more together, the ending of this book really worked a number on me!!

If you can’t tell, I really liked this book!! It was great! Chat with me if you have any comments, I definitely did not cover everything and love talking about books! :D 

Stay curious my friends! Never stop reading!!

[thissurroundingall]

Peter Morrens

On trying to be the third person.

Dutch translation

Date of interview: February 2018

Estimated reading time: 12 minutes

Close to Antwerp, in a sunny Merksem studio, I meet a welcoming, lively Peter Morrens (°1965). It always takes some getting used to his unbridled energy; the most important characteristic that makes him the inspired, versatile and hard-to-define artist whom I have now been following for a couple of years. Peter is represented by Ghent based Kristof De Clercq gallery and involved as a drawing/graphics professor at LUCA Ghent. He does lectures, performances and produces a multitude of series and editions under just as many heteronyms. Until 2016, together with artist Rik De Boe, he ran the exhibition space Voorkamer in the city of Lier.

During the interview, he is in perpetual movement, gesticulative and hyperasociative. His knowledge and gift for remembering quotes are impressive. The somewhat roguish reserve of first soon makes place for a familiar openness. Few sentences get finished and when they are, they end up somewhere completely different than where they started. Because every turn is interesting though, I but gladly follow. After two hours of talking, Peter asks me if the interview has already started…

How should we look at your studio set-up?

Well, to start with, I always work in notebooks. I never fail to carry those things with me. Afterwards, those early ideas get into a transitional phase. That’s what you’re looking at right now. I’m always working on different things at once; I look upon those works as building blocks to be puzzled together in the gallery or exhibition space. I like to be very thoughtful about how something is shown; I think it’s just as important as making the work itself. I may use about every medium at my disposal and wouldn’t like to be known as the ‘grey charcoal artist’. I really love to experiment around.

Could it be that something comes together in your drawings?

Yeah, that’s certainly true. Nevertheless I always search for something else… when I apply one method for too long things start to go a bit too smooth. I’d prefer some resistance in my process. Something has to be a little bit ‘off.’ It’s about the intensity by which something happens. I rather like the idea of walking on a cutting edge, making metaphors literal. A framed piece can be taken apart again, repainted, destroyed. Besides, I am interested in art history, film, literature, and music. I’d like all of those things to find their place. I mean, knowledge doesn’t have to burst out of the work, but still… I presume that if you have made a drawing of it, you can really start to understand something.

I rather like the idea of walking on a cutting edge.

Times change. Do you consider yourself to be post-modern? What role do topical affairs play within your work?

I don’t really think about myself in those terms. But I do hope that the current state of the world is in my work. I even perceive it as the role of the artist. I think it’s important not to fall into retrograde traps, which happens very easy when you work with psychological affects. I find that post-modern attitude quite disturbing regardless of it being the era from which I stem. What especially bothers me is the ‘anything goes’ mentality. On the contrary I really like to be very conscious of how, where and why a work comes to be. Of it being truly lived and existential. In a way you could say that the basic materials may or could be banal.

You mean anecdotal?

Rather how the story of a work’s genesis also becomes part of the work itself. In that respect, the artist always talks about the genesis of a work. What’s important to me is that everything carries its own inherent energy and this has everything to do with how different works are juxtaposed. I’d like to add that I almost never show my work in this studio set-up. I find it very hard to allow people in this private try-out area.

What especially bothers me is the ‘anything goes’ mentality. On the contrary I really like to be very conscious of how, where and why a work comes to be. 

Your drawings often refer to the photographic. What is the role of craftsmanship in your work?

Of course it is a base to start from. Still, I only try to apply graphical assets to the point where they evoke contrasts within a set-up. I can work with flashy colors and sculpture as well; sometimes I splash a whole space full of paint for some wild performance. Just yesterday I scribbled down a huge, very banal penis just because I felt like it. I don’t know what I should do with it; maybe I’ll make an installation with it later. Still I understand lot’s of people may find that your best work is the work in which you show your mastery of the medium. But craftsmanship can also mean scribbling down some stupid doodle in one try. Anyway, it demands enormous concentration. Sometimes you can conceive the clearest of thoughts just to have it blown away by ambiguity one second later. You encounter those energies in life as well.

When is a piece finished?

When it has left the studio I guess? There’s that constant stress about something that is finished. Maybe it’s an impossible decision to claim you have completed a piece. Making drawings under the heteronym Herman Smit it’s clearer. They’re drawings after nature, made on sight and in one go. They’re finished when the landscape or portrait is interpreted with the accompanying emotion. This takes something between ten minutes and an hour or so. Herman Smit belongs to the nineteenth century more than this one. I’m thinking about a new show with ‘his’ work, given not much has been showed by him lately. It’s also an extension of my constant need to write everything down, the little notebooks I carry with me constantly.

Sometimes you can conceive the clearest of thoughts just to have it blown away by ambiguity one second later.

When does your work border on the performative?

Herman Smit can be viewed as a performance. Trough him I try to activate and confuse the gaze. People may wonder who this Herman is, where he comes from, what drives him to make these drawings. I let him die in 2005, when his first book got released. When I look back upon it now, of course it’s very clear how much his work relates to my oeuvre, that it’s not two different people at all. Pessoa, who toyed around with exercise of style and sampling genres as well, also influenced me in that respect. I always combined a multitude of activities, thought many aspects of being an artist to be interesting.

What will stay with you from Voorkamer, the exhibition space you ran together with Rik De Boe?

Oh, I learned, worked and experienced so much there. Especially the notion of simultaneity and combining different work methods came to realization in Voorkamer. Doing it together with Rik, who thinks quite differently about stuff than I do, gave us a dialectical framework. The juxtaposition of my rather activist, very physical tension with Rik’s more historicizing, intuitive approach was the core power of the project, like a balancing exercise. Also the fact that we considered ourselves as artists rather than curators. Because the influence of a curator over a work or oeuvre can be so overtly big and almost more important than the content of the work itself. First and foremost, we tried to have a visual discourse. We weren’t interested whatsoever in if an artist was represented by a big gallery or had just left school. We really made exhibitions about works of art.

How do you decide if something does or doesn’t work?

When I look around my studio I see a lot that doesn’t (laughs). We have such an unimaginably rich art history. If I’ve seen a bad exhibition, an interesting image may pop up right around the corner: in a book, a movie or where ever. There’s a lot to be inspired by. That quantity and richness is incredible. Even our very local art history goes back forever. Of course I can be mad sometimes about an image, although lately I’m much more able to put such things in perspective. Especially when it comes to art school I can still be aghast sometimes. You’re granted such sacred time in an educational context. What a pity it is to waste all that.

When I was in school, people like Wim Mulders (art theorist red.) were very engaged in the field of contemporary art and encouraged us to really push the boundaries of our atelier. This gave me a firm theoretical and historical ground that I have leaned on ever since. My students must know that all doors are open as long as they go out by themselves. Everybody wants to talk, be curious and approachable. Those boundaries are absolutely not as rigid as they might seem. 

Isn’t it so that nowadays, there’s a lot of emphasis on credibility and name; the contests someone has won, the magazines someone is featured in?

I don’t think, for example in Voorkamer, that we cared about credits. Also in the academy or the art world in general there wasn’t much opportunity to make a name for yourself. Maybe I was lucky in that respect? Anyhow, there was never the ambition to strengthen my market value or anything like that. Maybe this isn’t so interesting? I wonder, did we talk about the work yet? (laughs)

Of course we did, but I think it’s also relevant to talk about being an artist.

I think it’s interesting when you say something about the ‘surface’. Maybe it’s very superficial to talk exclusively about the work itself. But an artist always just lingers on the surface. He touches it while making a drawing, painting of sculpture. He covers and scratches it. Maybe this is a psychoanalytical way of saying it, but it’s like the boundary between talking and making an interpretation. Who’s talking when one talks about oneself? He who speaks or he who listens? Is that the same person? Actually it’s quite hard to get to the heart of things. Hence the surface is the place where you dwell most of the time.

My work probably is a catalogue raisonnée that will only be finished when I’m dead. Maybe the others can even complete it or make additions. Of course I can’t reach that ideal position of the outsider. At the same time I also try to create work as a ‘third person’, that distance is quite necessary.

Actually it’s quite hard to get to the heart of things. Hence the surface is the place where you dwell most of the time. 

Do you think of yourself as a protagonist in your oeuvre?

All of my sensibilities are captured in the work. Also my social engagement, my obsessions. Care and attention are connected to the way I work, implying affection, a physical act. One makes a double if one creates something. When I make a self-portrait of me as a child, the work isn’t as much about me as it is about ‘him’. Who is who can be understood in a multitude of ways. There are different layers. In this drawing I’m a kid, so we look back in time. The drawing is based on a picture that I didn’t take myself. Which connection does that image have with the now? There’s a shift in medium, size, time and perspective. Again that distance, the attempt at being the third person.

There’s a beautiful painting by Zurbarán in which a young Jesus is playing with a crown of thorns. A magnificent game with the position of the viewer towards time. Of course we all know what’s going to happen later on, yet we see a deceptively peaceful interior. A whole realm of images is evoked, which I think is absolutely marvelous. In the mean time, it is the viewer with whom a game is played: of course Zurbarán is the one in control and he knows very well what he’s doing.

You also produce text drawings under the name Point Blank Press, how do these images come about?

Up to this day, more than two thousand drawings where produced under the name Point Blank Press. Mostly they are sentences or words that I picked up somewhere. It can also be free associations that have an internal origin. Actually it’s a continual exercise in auditory observation. Usually there’s a fixed day on which I work on the Point Blank Series. For me, they are drawings based on the stuff of language.

There is a vulnerability on the border of what is and isn’t an image. Often it comes down to a decision, a choice. Tadeusz Kantor has an interesting view on that, the way he lost his faith in painting because it is ‘just’ a reproduction of reality, the way he looks for unpractical objects to be given use. Because for him the poor, worn out, banal object has an artistic value. ‘L objet entre l’eternite et la poubelle’. The object between eternity and the trash can. It makes me feel good about things that I can decide to completely change their value at whatever moment I desire.

Like Tadeusz Kantor said, a work of art is an object between eternity and the trash can.

In your house there’s also a small studio, how do the two workspaces relate to one another?

At the moment I have an open space here that functions as an archive but can be used to make big, physical and dirty work. For the smaller pieces I tend to stay at the drawing board in my home. There were times where I made the big charcoal drawings at home as well, but for a number of reasons that was very unpractical. What’s so nice here is the huge wall where I can prepare a show or gallery set-up. Depending on the project I repaint the whole room in different shades of grey, which I also use in my exhibitions.

The first part of the day usually takes place at home. The Point Blank series for example are always worked on early in the morning. Afterwards I leave for the studio, meaning a transition to a different mindset. A lot of sketches and notes come about when I’m on my way, thus the movement between home and working space is essential. It’s the idea of ‘the moving observer’. I tend to have a hyper focus on details. Whilst moving, this attention is amplified. To get more of an overview I work towards installations, I can’t seem to get that panorama in a single piece. An installation must look like a room in which you enter for the very first time. Only then one can see everything and nothing at the same time. Only after that, a close-up on different parts happens. The way your gaze moves tells you something about yourself. For me, it is very tactile, almost sensual. I often look for the odd, something that speaks of the political aspect of the public space. An interaction between that what makes me warm inside and that what makes me angry. This happens best in an unfamiliar place, that’s why there needs to be perpetual change in the studio set-up. If you want to say something in a public debate, you should also leave your comfort zone. This implies a physical act. I think all of my work is the result of rather heavy physical action. I really dance while I’m working. It’s a very rhythmical, hypersensitive thing, very much related to music of course; we didn’t even talk about that! (laughs)

What do you listen to when you’re working? I can imagine something punkish…

Well, I do stem from the punk generation and I really like that DIY mentality. But I was never a real punk; I listen to a huge variety of music, ranging from chansons to free jazz and everything in between… I like pumping rhythms and intrusive dissonants that make me think of my work in a way. The energetic, emotional aspect of music is something that excites me and a thing I strive for in my visual work and performances. Wait, let me play you something so the readers can also hear! (laughs)

Peter Morrens’ work is on view until 17/11 at TRUST, the collection presentation of S.M.A.K. in Les Brasseurs, Liège.

Kristof De Clercq

S.M.A.K.

Les Brasseurs

Voorkamer

Interview: Maxim Ryckaerts

Photography: Lola Pertsowsky

English editing: Tyche Beyens

_