Collapse all

Open all

What the Soppen

  • Performance by Agatha Wara. Photo: Andreas Breivik

    No but, so what did Agatha do?

    She was being a dystopian sad girl, maybe in her room. Definitely in that co-co coat.

    I thought the retail magazine she was reading from was really funny, Teknikk magasinet.

    The performance was also bracketed by very cozy, happy music, and Ill Tariq’s soothing voiceover on family values. Is it Ill, Al, or lil Tariq?

    Impossible to know. Anyhow, in my memory now, the sound during the rest of the performance was just like fake thunder and lightening sounds.

    But I also heard this very industrial, digital, Fade to Mind-ish sound, and at other times some girl screaming or something. But what did she read?

    I couldn’t hear all of it, so often I just zoned out, and I think that was okay with her. But there was this thing about a new pill for prisoners that made 8 hours feel like a thousand years. Which is insane.

    That really is the most evil thing I have ever heard of doing to someone.

    I felt that it reminded me of just laying in bed, thinking, listening to music for a full day, like you don’t remember all that you’re thinking of, and in a way, the performance also felt like it was longer, or as if time had slowed down. She was speaking slowly, and only part of songs were played, but in the back of your head you would think that the whole song was playing, so like the pill, the performance seemed to extend time, or like my perception of time. Nicely done.

    Okey, so what else. Casey Jane?

    She was very funny, sort of comedy. Reminded me of white girl culture, or art culture, when you’re all into your horoscope, your cat, or your bikini wax.

    We also talked about why, or if, or how, that performance was art? You said something on how it’s difficult to be a standup artist

    Yeah, the thing that she’s doing her comedy about is really directed towards a crowd that often dosen’t really like standup comedy. So she dosen’t have this big commercial appeal. But she seems like she’s all about finding her own route in comedy, to do her own thing, and one way to survive like that is by calling the comedy performance art and gain access to another audience.

    Her subject are the personal effects of technology on life, when you’re trying to go to the grocery store, but your phone is ringing, or when you’re trying to get dressed but your phone gets in the way.

    Casey Jane also has this funny youtube show called Touching the Art, we should look at it some time, it’s really silly, deadpan, but also seriously funny.

    Then we had La Porscha.

    I like that everyone had her braids around their necks afterwards.

    But it’s like so hard to talk about. We were waiting a long time for her performance, and then it ended pretty fast.

    It was all very intense though. I was waiting for someone to die the whole weekend, and then she jumped off that tree with a noose around her neck. She said to me later that she was very emotionally overwhelmed by the notion of hanging herself.

    Yes, that was intense. And it reminded of a lynching scene.

    Performance by La Porscha. Photo: Andreas Breivik

    The piece had a lot to do with what is happening with race in America, but it was also very personal. She was reflecting on very grim things, talking about something very ugly and sad. Not necessarily making everyone happy. That is brave.

    Maybe everyone we are talking about today so far is like that?…. Not Tyler, his work make you happy and remember golden performances.

    Tyler was Grace Jones, gracious. Obviously, he’s a very trained performed. An icon impersonator. Funny how some artists can be imitated by any gender.

    Like, with the Grace Jones performance he was very on point and wearing a costume that was immediately identifiable. But with Judy Garland he had this funny gaffer tape thing. The tin man with a big ass. And also wearing little things that signified Judy Garland, but maybe like her in a space suit.

    Haha, yes, and that was his most sincere performance i think

    Ya, and also very fragile, its like he was just like “I can never be as great as Judy Garland!!!” so he just was more himself-as-Judy Garland, and that showed his relationship to her and it was really sweet.

    SOOOoooOOOooo Narcissister pulled an outfit out of her ass

    Performance by Narcissister. Photo: Geir Haraldseth

    Haha so funny

    No, really

    Wait, whaaaat

    Yes she pulled a mini skirt out of her pussy and then a scarf out of her ass.

    Wow that really shows the body as a piece of architecture…take THAT Carolee Schneemann

    Ya wow. But did you ever see her face? Nobody did, its like she is everyone and no one.

    I kept on humming to “I’m every woman” the whole week, imagine everyone was standing rite next to her the whole time and had no idea!

    There’s the striptease, the barbie doll, and her amazing body. She kind of does her routine, and she could have skipped one of the videos, but I think everyone was just blown away.

    What else. Synnøve Wetten stood up on the super high stage and looked out onto the audience, gave a super stark glare then she said something like “in a queer time and place”.

    Ya she reminded me of queen Cersei. It was pretty ominous, and then it started raining when she raised her hands and the music started.

    Yeah, I think she actually was like transporting us to another time and place, and also with the blasting electro music and that intensely blinking screen. But I’m not sure if she had had to spell it out. Her performance reminded of this video artist Aldo Tambellini, I learned about him in class, and he was making these intense environments with strobe lights and sounds, to like appeal directly to the senses.

    The transportation also reminds me of Monica Winther´s performance, which we haven’t talked about yet.

    I loved her fire dress and how she was growling and singing. Then the fiddler was like the devil, he had those VR goggles that were pretty scary, you couldn’t see his eyes.

    In Norwegian folklore there is a thing where the fiddle can make you possessed.

    Well it WORKED! And I think her piece was very site specific, folklore all out in the forest, smoke and light, troll-like. But also both those performances went on a bit too long.

    DJ DRIPPIN WET! The end.

Wet from your dreams

  • We’re press so we better be on that guest list.

    Haha, yes, I should be, at least, don’t know about you.

    Let’s go take a look at Nils Bech first? He’s performing inside the James Turrell installation, which is funny because Turrell is all about silence and contemplation.

    True. But the line is endless, he is only performing for groups of 8 at the time.

    Must be exclusive, and we don’t know what he is doing in there…

    What could he possibly be doing

    Let’s move up the forest, there are two other performances going on, by Peter Clough and Genevieve Belleveau.

    Clough is posing half naked on the ground, wearing small black briefs, high heel shoes, black football shoulder pads and is chained to a tree. He also got a special helmet with three separate digital screens showing videos of eyes and a mouth, on top of the helmet are small stairs with plastic figures. His breathing is amplified through a speaker.

    He’s like a live S/M sculpture.

    Yeah, nice posing. And look how the forest is like stuck to his butt. Hihi

    And those briefs dosen’t really do the job.

    Do you think he can see us? And is the video a distorted live feed of his eyes or do you think it is prerecorded?

    I’m not sure. Look, his mouth is upside down, it reminds me of this other artist Tony Oursler. Also, I’m really into his breath, it makes it all very intimate, sort of Darth Vader.

    I also thought of Aphex Twin, one of his album covers.

    My only concern is the shoes, they look really cheap, like from Din Sko or something.

    Peter Clough, regram from #krkristoffer

    Ohh, only a real lady would know. But I heard his costume got lost on the plane.

    Right next by is Belleveau decorating a naked man with flowers. He is sitting on top of a tree trunk with his legs entirely covered in soil, and flowers in front of his eyes and in his mouth. She herself is wearing a light brown, see-through fabric.

    Look he’s wearing a chastity belt and she’s carefully decorating his penis. I once fucked a guy like that, he wanted to be dressed up like a girl and beaten up.

    And you did?

    Oh yes. It’s like a boner cage. I wonder if this guy is gay or straight? You know, if he has got a boner now.

    He’s gay, I know.

    So maybe not then. I bet she will end up hitting him with all those flowers, I’ve seen that kind of thing before.

    Na, I’m not sure, I know she’s been doing like live healing sessions on Skype, mindfullness kind of, “take a deep breath” and so on, all very calm and soothing.

    The breathing form Clough’s piece adds up nicely here. And look how stoic this guy is, bound to the earth, he’s not drooling or anything, but holding it up pretty good.

    Yeah, and everyone is very hushed, we’re the only loud ones.

    Let’s go and come back in an hour or so.

    At the main stage Marthe Ramm Fortun is reading a letter she has composed to Marina Abramovic. Fortun is randomly throwing stuff at the audience before she climbs a ladder and stands on a stage hanging in the trees, a kind of tree house. Here she is leaning outside the fences, only holding on to a yellow strap. At other times she is doing inelastic acrobatics, always while reading.

    I like the hardware store plastic bag she’s holding.

    And her outfit too, a purple jumpsuit of some sorts. But what is she saying?

    Genevieve Belleveau and Jos McKain, regram #marthe_elise

    Something on how Marina had three abortions and how she can hear the echoes of Rignes, Hoff and Trump in Marina’s rhetorics. Hoff is a collector and they all seem to favor economy over babies. “Don’t fuck up and get kids”.

    Look, now she’s flashing her tits. Fortun ends the performance by asking: “Marina, what is your mandate?”. Then follows a screening of a video by Zackary Drucker which looks like a Republican TV commercial, a “female misogynist”.

    She’s so beautiful. Golden blond hair, only that Versace t-shirt looks kind of odd, is it fake? Make America great again. I’m so patriotic right now.

    We love you too!

    America… it’s scary this election thing, but maybe it dosen’t even matter who wins, it’s all going to be shit anyways.

    But maybe degrees of shit? Isn’t Trump more shitty than Hillary?

    Trollkrem is delivering their opening speech, and next up is a performance by Marcel Alaca. But we go back to check the status on Clough and Belleveau while a song by Enya is blasting from the stage. Peter Clough is done, he is packing up and stopped breathing, but Belleveau is still going. Now, her male sculpture is standing and she transports him into a wheel barrow. She is struggling to push him on the uneven ground.

    Omg omg, this is so poetic with the Enya song in the background, it’s like we’re in some Disney movie along these fairies of the forest.

    And she didn’t beat him.

    Hehe, no!

    Are we going to cover more? Maybe Actuallys concert?

    Yeah, lets look at Actually.

    Actually Huizenga is performing a bit later, on stage she is joined by two half naked twink dancers, and a big white coffin. She has also got two guitarists playing from the top of the tree house stage. Our notes from this event does not read well, other than: BADDESSST! DANGEROUS! SOMEBODYS DAUGHTER WET FROM YOUR DREAMS. AH, CINDEEEE.

    I’m so glad it turned out to be a success, look how many people. Everyone looking at art.

    Yeah, see you tomorrow!

    Actually Huzienga, regram from #jimborama00

    View PDF


  • Vi begynner å se på kunst på Podium, deretter har vi avtalt å gå til Standard før vi skal høre på en samtale og boklansering med Torbjørn Rødland. Det regner og vi har litt dårlig tid.

    De siterer Camus i presseskrivet og da får jeg umiddelbart litt angst, er jeg smart nok for denne utstillingen?

    “In his lecture he addresses the artists, and speaks of language, reality and the responsibilities of artists, through a method where the goal is no less than: “total communication between all human beings”.

    Er det ikke litt poserende også, å namedroppe Camus? – Jeg tenker at det blir veldig abstrakt og vanskelig. Hva står det egentlig, utstillingen prøver å få fatt på et universelt språk?

    Noe sånt, og jeg tror kanskje håndbevegelsene i videoen kan være et forslag på et slikt språk, det er type iPhone-bevegelser som “alle” kjenner igjen. Swipe, knipe og trykke.

    Hva skjer med den urnen her da, en tjukk liten barnehånd som designer, klikker seg liksom gjennom et utvalg av mulige utseender. “Verden er bare et fingertrykk unna”.

    Okei, men vi har litt dårlig tid, skal vi snakke mens vi springer opp til Standard?

    Ja, det er en helt annen utstilling der oppe, mer tomhet, trash-objekter og sommerfugler. Jeg tror det blir bra å se disse to utstillingene sammen, og så høre på Rødland etterpå.

    Jeg likte veldig godt den foten som satt fast i en stein.

    Hva betyr tittelen da? Hjernen er for nær hånden? Eller var det hånden er for nær munnen?

    Hjernen er for nær armen.

    Armen er for nær hånden.

    Kanskje at man snakker før man tenker, i hvert fall ofte, det gjør jeg da.

    Eller at alt er språk, eller kanskje at vi oppvurderer hjernen som den ene kroppsdelen som tenker og kommuniserer. Mens kommunikasjon skjer med hele kroppen, egentlig. Jeg lurer på om utstillingen prøver å si at språket er utilstrekkelig Men samtidig tillater jo språket at man kan si uendelig mange ting, og det som ikke lar seg nevne med ord kan sies på en måte allikevel. Jeg mener, språket har potensial til å si svært mye med veldig stor presisjon, og en fordel er at andre forstår deg. Mens touch-bevegelsene egentlig ikke har så stort meningspotensial annet enn høyre/venstre, sexy/usexy.

    Silje Linge Haaland, Hjernen er for nær munnen, 2016

    Video er jo også et språk, og man kommer liksom ikke unna det. Utstillingen prøver kanskje å foreslå andre måter å kommunisere på, men litt etter innfallsmetoden synes jeg.

    Men man må finne et språk, og ta ansvar for at folk får med seg hva som sies. Og jeg tenker, hva med meg? Hva får jeg igjen av å se på kunsten.

    Er teksten pompøs? Den nevner også flyktningkrise, og kan kunsten redde flyktninger? Det tviler jeg på, og da blir jeg med én gang litt kritisk. Men tror kunsteren det, at utstillingen kan redde noen?

    Jeg liker at det er pompøst og har mye patos egentlig, jeg synes det er morsomt, samtidig så kutter jo videoen veldig ned på det der, den er ikke like pompøs som teksten. Og jeg tror egentlig at kunsteren spiller med patosen, og at hun vet at utstillingen ikke vil redde noen opp fra middelhavet, men den jobber med å finne uttrykk som alle kan forstå.

    Jeg synes videoen blir litt symbolrunk, for den er veldig opptatt av materialitet, samtidig som objektene i utstillingen blir veldig lite viktige. Hvis at alt står i teksten hva blir da vitsen med å stille ut kunsten?

    Ja, hm. Jeg tenker uansett at det ser veldig ut som kunst, det ser veldig riktig ut, og jeg likte å sitte å se på videoen, den var avslappende og forunderlig, ting som snurra rundt, fuglelyder, plutselig en elv osv. Det er morsomt hvordan noen ting ser veldig riktig ut.

    Enig, utstillingen så veldig tidsriktig ut, internett og alt. Men jeg lurer også på hvorvidt Camus selv så for seg at tekstene hans skulle være et type universalspråk.

    Kanskje ikke? Men nå er vi fremme.

    Jeg har faktisk aldri vært på Standard, og se, her døra er låst.

    Ring på og vent, jaja, vi får vente da!

    Her er det litt annerledes kan du si, flotte fliser da gitt, litt som en offentlig badehall. Prislister, og se den fine bokhylla deres.

    Alle “gutta” er represent.

    Jeg tenker veldig mye på visningsrommet her. Og alle de der plastfuglene lager mye lyd. Vi er kommet til Robocop.

    Det er et gallerirom til, vi ser der også.

    Chadwick Rantanen, 2016 Installation view STANDARD OSLO

    Kunsteren har puttet altfor små batterier inn i disse objektene, men via et adapter så passer de allikevel, de går bare veldig fort tom for strøm. Og så har de fått sommerfuglvinger.

    Hva betyr det? Jeg skjønner ingenting. Funker synthene der borte? – Nei, de har stoppa, batteriene er for små.

    Jeg skjønner hva du mente med tomhet. På Podium så var det kanskje en mye mer tro på hva, eller at, kunsten kan “gjøre” noe, mens her har de kvittet seg med alle illusjoner.

    Ja, eller kunsteren har blitt litt eldre.


    Og så tenker jeg at på Podium ble objektene veldig sekundære, mens her er objektet hele ideen, det er nesten ikke noe annet enn objektene. Og med batteriene, og hvordan objektene er plassert blir alt liksom “feil”.

    Ambisjonene i de to utstillingene er veldig forskjellig, og jeg synes det er veldig tydelig at kunsten her er laget for et publikum, hvem er det de prøver å snakke til her? Er det bare kjøp og salg? Det plager meg litt, og jeg blir veldig oppmerksom på selve rommet, det tar mye plass og jeg hadde kjent på mye frykt hvis jeg skulle ha laget noe her.

    Ja, det kan du si, men så er det salg de driver med da, og er avhengige av for at ting skal gå rundt, Standard har gjort en veldig bra jobb, de er kompromissløse. På forrige Frieze viste de kun kvinnelige kunstnere, og de jobber også med yngre kunstnere som ikke selger så mye foreløpig.

    Det er jo en god ting. I tillegg blir veldig synlig her hvor viktig det er å ha et galleri, og å komme innenfor markedet, og ikke minst ut av offentlige støtteordninger, kulturrådet, kommunen og Fritt Ord. Galleriet gir kunsten og alt rundt et helt annen utseende, og kanskje mulighet til å tenke på andre ting? Eller tvunget til å tenke på andre ting.

    Ja, Fritt Ord er bare: Ord sa du? Håhå! 10.000kr!

    Camus!? 20.000! Værsågod.

    Filosofi? 30.000!

    Barn og unge! 3 millioner!

    Vi rekker Tronsmo akkurat, og de har såvidt begynt på det som er en samtale mellom Rødland og psykolog Finn Skårderud om utgivelsen av Confabulations, Rødlands nyeste fotobok. Rødland snakker om å konstruere minnebilder og å manipulere minnet slik at tilskueren får følelsen av at han allerede har sett bildet, eller at bilder tilskueren egentlig aldri har sett oppleves som en del av minnet og selvet. Skårderud sier at fotografiene ofte gir inntrykk av at noe er utenfor sin vante plass, “matter of out place”, i fotografiene er det er noe som skurrer og som får betrakteren til å stoppe opp. Rødland sier han er i dialog med kommersielle fotografier som er preget av harmoni og finnes i mote- og livsstilsblader, men som han mener blir skrikende meningsløse og flate. Allikevel mener han ironi og satire ikke tilfører annet enn en kritikk, så han forsøker å benytte seg av den glatte estetikken for å undersøke om det er noe mer mening der allikevel. I motsetning til reklamen blir kunsten derimot ofte klønete idet den prøver for mye på andre ting enn et rent visuelt tiltalende uttrykk. Dessuten stiller han seg i opposisjon til kunst som har avvist kroppslige drifter, eller kjølig analytisk kunst; kunst som kun forsøker å fremføre en kritikk mot samfunn og institusjoner. Han ønsker heller å gi fotoet mer bredde, emosjoner og erotikk. Dessuten snakker han om at kunstneren ikke nødvendigvis er et geni, og at personlige kriser ikke nødvendigvis skaper god eller interessant kunst, snarere dreier det seg om langvarig arbeid med et medium. Marie og Sverre skal på middagsbesøk og må gå, så jeg finner noen andre å snakke med.

    Spennende samtale da, litt langdryg kanskje, men det funka bra å bruke en psykolog som samtalepartner, det er jo jobben hans å snakke med folk.

    Ja, “si mer om det”, hehe.

    Jeg savnet at noen spurte om hvordan han forholder seg til en kritikk om male gaze, det er jo unge søte jenter overalt i bildene hans, og ofte ganske erotisk, lolitas.

    Hva ville han ha svart om det? Samtidig er det jo gutter inni boka også, som han på siste siden, og han er jo sykt pen, står det hva han heter? Og dessuten er det jo mye erotikk som ikke er knyttet til kjønn, som den appelsinen med hår som på en eller annen måte er merkelig tiltrekkende. I tillegg styres man jo litt av hva som tiltrekker en, hvor ofte har du med pene nakne gutter i det du lager liksom?

    Haha, joa, uansett så er han min favorittfotograf, jeg liker bildene veldig godt.

    Jeg og, kanskje fikk jeg litt overload av han psykologen bare, herregud er det sånn jeg høres ut når jeg begynner å liste opp forfattere og filosofer?

    Ja, du kan jo også være en P2-tante.

    Hehe, men jeg likte å høre på hva Rødland hadde å si om betrakteren, at han er interessert i at folk skal se noe meningsfullt, og dette med “matter out of place”, sitatet er vel: “dirt is a matter of matter out of place”, tror jeg, å sette ting i andre å uventede sammenhenger, men samtidig snakket han om å ikke bare skape surrealistiske bilder, for det virker kanskje som en billig utvei.

    Man må jo få noen inngangsverdier, kanskje det er her den erotikken kommer inn da, fordi bildene ofte virker veldig inviterende, og også å spille på noe som virker litt godt og litt vondt. Spesielt inviterende med reklame-estetikken og duse, fine farger, alltid bra lys.

    Ja, inviterende: kom hit, men ikke forklarende. Rancière snakker jo om at gode fotografier er de som stiller en situasjon i “bero”, at et en situasjon er arrestert akkurat før eller etter noe har skjedd. Og jeg tror det kan beskrive Rødlands bilder. De virker meningsfylte, også uten at han trenger å si så mye om dem, egentlig, ja nettopp inviterende. Og det var bra å gå hit etter de to andre utstillingene, for det er jo en forskjell mellom å si noe som alle kan gjøre seg opp en mening om, og det å insistere på at alle skal forstå, eller komme fram til, nøyaktig det samme.

    Torbjørn Rødland, Midlife Dilemma, 2015


Green Screen Looking at Selected Video Art

  • We had planned to look at Bill Viola’s The Reflecting Pool, because I was taking a class on early video art, and this was one of the videos on the curriculum. However, I had learned from various sources that Viola was not one to trust,

    He’s maybe one of the most commercially successful video artists. Others hated his videos, although I still kinda like them, because they’re pleasant to look at, meditative in a way, which is maybe the point, buddhism and everything.

    Maybe we can never understand buddhism when we’re living in a capitalist society, because you know, here’s a thing that asks you to not care about anything at all, but just be.

    Whereas we’re too used to have to do something useful, like making money?

    Sort of, yes

    I don’t know, I’m a bit skeptical. Spirituality… introspection…

    Anyways, let’s rather look at this film by Mekas: Award presentation to Andy Warhol. A rich jewish girl posing, cute but very awkward?

    And Andy Warhol, it must be old, or he very young. Now he’s handing out food from a basket. They all eat, this guy getting a aubergin, what’s that in english? Eggplant?


    Yeah guess so, he’s working at it real good. Looks like a family photo, the composition I mean.

    The rich girl is eating an apple, really hot. She looks spaced out, as if she left her body.

    Nice music,

    Siri, what is the music?


    Jonas Mekas, Award presentation to Andy Warhol, videostill

    Could be! Family photo, yeah, they look like an ideal family, the sort you can run off to, find nice people.

    To escape your own?

    Yeah, but also, Andy Warhol was really close with his mum.

    Oh, I didn’t know.

    There’s also this guy now who talked about his mum at the club in Orlando taking bullets to save him.

    Yes, horrible.

    Anyways, this reminds me of Thanksgiving, everyone happy, the room is too crowded, everyone eating.

    I was celebrating Thanksgiving once in America, and the friend who invited me was from Minnesota, so they have Norwegian grand-grand parents or something, which is important to them, so they made “lefse”, or rather “lompe”, which was really nice and funny, and they made me be the judge of the how good lefse it was.

    Haha, yea, people from Minnesota are all about their heritage. Do you wanna watch Andy Warhol eating a cheeseburger?

    Yeah, sure, I’ve already seen it though.

    Oh ok, maybe we don’t have to look at Andy Warhol eating a cheeseburger. Here’s another video, by Wegman, haha.

    Hahaha, two dogs baking.

    The lighter side of life. Dogs are great for art.

    Very ‘dead pan’, looks exactly like whatever cooking show.

    Yes, and the dogs are very well trained, they must be sitting inside the dress, while some person is sitting behind them using their hands.

    Very funny, I follow this group on Facebook “internet dogspotting”, this must be a #internetdogclassic.

    So what other videos did you look at in class?

    We can go through our Vimeo album, here’s one by Keith Sonnier: Color+Wipe from 1973. I think they’re using this kind of “external keying” technique. Which is like using a green screen, only here a bit more primitive, because they’re not using expensive studios or editing techniques, but just a sheet of paper which they manually move in front of the camera, and then key out the sheet in order to use it as a screen where they can project another image, in the image. It’s the same sort of technique Viola is using in his pool video. So although it looks hightech, it’s very low tech and inexpensive.

    It looks very beautiful, very nice colors. Sort of an abstract painting.

    And this early stuff was very much about democratisation of the TV-medium.

    Yea, very much democratic, suddenly everyone could make videos, and also steal whatever, everything is up for grabs, who gives a shit. Let’s look at this guy Nick Zed, here’s one: Penetration films.

    Boy at a cemetery, evil voiceover. Looks kinda like Mike Kelley?

    Yeah, it does, only this guy was in New York, I’m not sure if they knew each other. Look at this guy without an arm, and now this other evil guy who’s waving around an extra arm. Zed’s videos often include people with handicaps.

    Kinda grotesque. Look, the arm dosen’t fit. Nice effects though.

    Yes, Zed is using a green screen too.

    Oh no, a vagina shot. Can we look at this here, in the middle of the restaurant? Is the boy going in?

    Yes, going in.

    “Penetration films”.

    It’s part of a film reel, and they’re sort of like Any Warhol’s screen tests, the same format: catching a moment in time and documenting people. Here, the 90s rave scene. “Cinema of transgression”. Zed was also an author so he wrote the crazy evil monologue earlier. He’s borderline smart / insane. We can go on with the green screen theme, let’s look at Charles Atlas, he made videos with the choreographer Michael Clark and Leigh Bowery.

    Oh, yes, let’s do, I actually saw Clark perform in Los Angeles. So Venus in Furs, is it the title? At least it is the song playing.

    Yeah, maybe both.

    Michael Clark, Venus in Furs, videostill

    Four dancers, or maybe it’s only two. Several layers on top of layers, the background seems like some cloth, a spiralling brown, yellow, green, curtain or bed cover, patterned with roses or grapes perhaps. The dancers are green screened on top and wearing clothes by Bowery: rosey cloaks which also doubles as balaclavas, and purple shining stockings. Kind of medieval meets burlesque. Gender confusing, is that a vagina or penis? They are crawling, doing gymnastics, dancing ballet, lifting, kissing feet. Here’s also a DIY horse, and suddenly a naked woman. The music keeps looping with it’s whiny, insisting, guitars, and a fiddle.

    I think the green screen expands to a more beautiful space, like with Mekas too.

    Mekas, how so?

    Well, I mean, remember Mekas’ dungeon/cellar in the video we saw earlier, and I think, maybe Atlas’ movie was shot in a same kind of location, while both go past that to show something way nicer.

    True, very true. Dosen’t it also look like “internet art”? Only, it’s made in ’88?

    Yea, same time I was born!

    No way! i thought we were the same age, 89! Ahhhh

    Anywaaays! Did you see Kim Kardashian at the Met a few years ago? This punk thing. She was very pregnant and wearing a floral gown, which looks very much like a dress Bowery designed and wore once. I wonder if she knew what she was doing.

    Heh, no I didn’t see. What else, do you want to look more at Bowery?

    Or more green screen, there’s this film called Daisies, Russian or Hungarian, really weird and very nice. Feminist, anarchist. And there’s this fighting scene with scissors, but I can’t seem to find it.

    Maybe we can look at something of Merce Cunningham, I haven’t seen much of him, really.

    He’s got a super nice one where he is doing a lizard, but I can’t remember the name.

    Beach Birds for Camera seems like a nice one. Dancers in tight white suits while the upper body is in black. Ohhh, beautiful boys. And look at the composition of the dancers, almost like a painting.

    mmm, yes, very beautiful, we should take a screen shot.

    Merce Cunningham, Beach Birds for Camera , videostill

    Was Cunningham a contemporary of Clark? Must have been, no? Only Clark is more messy, or, I don’t know, i also thought of Venus in Furs as very clean in a way, but more punk? Or queer? More colors certainly, camp?

    Yeah, also think of the ballet in Clark, maybe if it hadn’t been for all that other stuff, it would only have been classic ballet?

    Good point

    Anyways, on the topic of parallels and Kardashian, let’s look at one more artist, Pipilotti Rist. There’s this one art porno video.

    Deconstructed bodies, green screen, keyings all over. Who’s body? Close up of a vagina, dickhead, or is it just a flower? Mash of everything, water, sunflowers, birds, colors, stroking. A field seen from the window of a traveling car, or train? The camera is also traveling past the bodies in a way, or sort of in motion all the time, water running and dissolving into lava or the universe. Is it erotic? Can it be “porn” if it isn’t?

    Hehe, no? Maybe? Yes?

    Haha, I’m not sure. Someone else told me about “political porn” this other day, and I thought, maybe art and politics are the things I would least think of when looking at porn. But then I’m also always thinking about representation, so maybe it could be a good thing, only if it’s not overt or in your face.

    However. You know Beyoncé’s vid where she’s smashing those cars? She must taken it from this other video by Pipilotti. A documentation from a performance she did, I think. So she was actually doing crimes, smashing windows with this big, big flower. And she looks like she’s always about to have a fucking meltdown.

    Pipilotti Rist, Ever is Over All

    Haha, I didn’t know this. But yeah, I think Beyoncé on the other hand got a very strange smile which I can’t interpret. Like if she can’t decide whether she’s having fun or feeling bad, guilty and criminal.

    Hm, yea, foremost, I think it’s feminist. And liberating in a way, smash this!

    True, I also read an article the other day on Sansa in Game of Thrones, and how we can’t know what she’s thinking or planning, but we’re left to our own interpretations, which is a good thing, because female characters so often are delt roles and plotlines that are not hard to figure out. I also wanted to look at these commercials by Chris Burden, which are not commercials, or they do everything wrong as they don’t attempt to sell anything, but suddenly presents something a regular TV-spectator wouldn’t anticipate, sitting there in his sofa.

    Ha, they are funny, I always think of Burden as this manly guy, doing manly things.

    Yea, hehe, true. But I wonder if these “ads” are more subversive, or like, I think maybe “things” are more efficient

    But efficient at what? one must ask of course

    In that they look exactly like any other commercial, but something is off. Like the cooking dogs? Or Mekas’ family portrait? I mean, maybe there’s a greater potential to say something different by making it appear that you’re saying the same thing everyone else is saying.

    I see what you’re saying, and it made me think of this video, Too Many Cooks at Adult Swim. Which is seemingly an introduction to any other soap opera, you know the lame presentation of all the characters, but it just goes on and on and on forever.

    Haha, nice, very funny. BUT IS IT ART??

    Haha, exactly. Also Ryan Trecartin etc., you know. hyper reality-TV.


  • Vi tok bussen til Henie Onstad kunstsenter for å se på utstillingen med Nikolai Astrup og fire andre samtidskunstnere (-grupper). Samtidskunsten skal peke på økologi og prinsipper for utvikling av et bærekraftig landbruk, står det på nettsidene, og utenfor kunstsenteret har Benjamin Alexander Huseby laget en hage med “ugress”, mens Åsa Sonjasdatter har plantet kjøttpoteter og laget en kompostutedo.

    Jeg liker veldig godt fargene han brukte, oljemalingen.

    Ja, se palmebladene på dette bildet, minner meg om Torggata Botaniske.

    Hehe, men jeg liker bare ikke hus i malerier, det ser ofte feil ut.

    Her er det rabarbara.

    Og se denne kjolen, fine mønstre.

    Jeg liker hvordan han har latt tynne trær og greiner komme i forgrunnen på noen av maleriene. Andre malerier ser ut som når du skal ta et bilde og passer på at det ikke kommer noe “i veien”, mens her kommer rare trær og blader liksom foran motivet og skaper mer dybde i bildet.

    Dybde, og andre forhold til naturen, heh. Det hadde ikke jeg tenkt på.

    Arbeid med naturen er et tema som går igjen her tror jeg, alle jobber i hagen med et eller annet. Det er også et dikt, ganske kjent, som er skrevet til Vårnatt i Hagen, av Olav H. Hauge: “Kan hende drøymde dei um dette her / å møtast på ein klote, på ein stad / der hegg og apal stend i syreblad”. Han har jo skrevet om Katten også. Men dette er en sonett, Petrarcasonett faktisk…


    Hehe, men det er et veldig fint dikt, lurer på om de har tatt med i utstillinga.

    Jeg liker hvordan han var helt manisk på å male blader, det er jo også et arbeid med naturen, og se her hvordan han får med alle ulike typer blader og teksturer. Det er ikke bare grønt.

    Kanskje han hadde god kjennskap til trær og planter, at han visste hva de het og hvordan de så ut liksom.

    Kan godt være. Men la oss se på St.hans-bålene, det står at hardingfele var ulovlig i Norge frem til 1920 fordi den ble forbundet med djevelens musikk.

    Ha, det visste jeg ikke, men jeg kom på en annen forfatter, Hans E. Kinck, som har skrevet en novelle som heter “Felen i vilde skogen”, og nå får jeg bruk for norskpensumet, for i den historien da, er det en som spiller hardingfele og blir helt gal, han spiller og spiller mer og mer intenst før han mister alt og rømmer ut i skogen. Så kanskje de er inne på samme tema. Kinck var også ekspresjonistisk, naturmotiver mystikk, og så videre. Og jeg vet ikke om jeg ville sagt at økologi er den mest presise beskrivelsen her, jeg nevnte jo arbeid, men kanskje mystiske landskaper eller “naturkraft”, eller noe.

    Tittelen er Norske landskap da, og det er jo ikke alltid om å gjøre å finne den mest altomfattende beskrivelsen.

    Neinei, men se her Åsa Sonjasdotter skriver også masse om arbeid, og industrialisering, poteter og poteter. Astrup stakk jo av fra industrien og lagde seg en egen gård.

    True. Og selv om det er mye tekst så står folk og leser.

    Ikke sant, det er skrevet som en ganske spennende fortelling, hun har en god tone. Egentlig så leser jeg mest og så skipper jeg nesten bildene.

    Men sier hun at det er for mange mennesker på jorda? Burde det bli færre?

    Jeg vet ikke om det er helt dét hun sier, hun kommenterer vel mer at industrialisering, eller kommersialisering, eller hva vi skal kalle det, av kunstgjødsel har gitt en voldsom økning i verdensbefolkningen, og man kan jo kanskje si at den økningen er motivert av å skaffe flere potensielle kunder og kjøpere av kunstgjødsel, eller poteter da.

    Jeg skulle ønske hun kunne si mer om denne kjøtt-poteten, jeg lurer på hvordan den fikk det navnet. Men jeg liker Haraway sitatet her, og at Åsa kaller naturen for “Henne”.

    Ah, jeg vet ikke helt, Haraway sier jo at hun heller vil være en cyborg enn en goddess.

    Hehe, la oss se mer på Huseby da, her er det en sopp.

    Den reflekteres også, fine fotografier. Åh, jeg lurer på hvem denne modellen er, han ser veldig bra ut, er det en vi kjenner tror du?

    Hehe, kanskje, kjenner du noen med mange føflekker?

    Usikker. Men se her dette øyet med et lite hår som stikker ut og skaper uorden i det ellers veldig ryddige motivet. Type samme virkemiddel som Astrup kanskje? med de der trærne i forgrunnen mener jeg.

    Sant, en liten detalj der altså.

    Så du det andre rommet, hvor arkitekturen liksom ledet oss frem mot vinduene? Og så var det plutselig et tre som dekka hele utsikten, og så “hagen” med ugress. Det var veldig fint gjort, ingen verker på veggene heller, og etter å ha sett all naturen til Astrup så så jeg trærne, bladene og gresset liksom ekstra godt gjennom vinduet. Susan Sontag, som jeg leser nå da, sier at kunsten, og omtalen av den, liksom kan skjerpe sansene våre, eller opplevelsen av verden, kanskje. Eller, at vi kan se en stein som om det var første gang jeg så en stein, blabla.

    Du lille litteraturnørd.

    Hehe, okok. Her er Futurefarmers da.

    Vet du, jeg tror ikke jeg gidder å se på det engang.

    Ah, men jeg vil i hvert fall prøve å forstå hvorfor jeg synes det er så irriterende.

    Kanskje fordi alle verkene deres har en mega lang tekst for å forklare hva det er for noe.

    Denne skal skape debatt om allemannsretten, de har gått fra Bjørvika og ut hit og tatt med seg rusk og rask de fant på veien. Dritspennende da, litt ståltråd som de bruker til å gjerde inn ulike plastsekker

    skal det skape debatt? Om hva da? Setter verket noen premisser for å diskutere noen ting i det hele tatt? Det inviterer ikke akkurat til samtale.

    Ja, nei, det er ganske platt. Men dette er siste rommet, videoer.

    Åja, fra Tunet til Astrup, eller deromkring?

    Ja, og så har de noen sitater av ham også. Jeg liker det, ustillingsarkitekturen ligner mye på den i Astrup-rommene, og videoene har de samme motivene som maleriene, bare at her er det levende bilder.

    Samme farger også, eller “palett”, ja det ser bra ut.

    Ja, og han/de? var også glad i ugress, eller hvorfor noe kalles ugress kanskje.

Kunst&kultur på historisk museum

  • La oss gå på kulturhistorisk museum. Jeg tenkte dessuten å lure deg med dit fordi Pride-utstillinga fortsatt står der.

    PRIDE! Javel, ja.

    Hehe, ja. Vi får se hva annet de har også, kanskje noe greier fra Egypt og vikingene, liker du det?

    Ja, det synes jeg er interessant da, men så rart at den Pride-utstillinga står her?

    Vikinghjelm, foto: Kulturhistorisk museum

    Det er litt rart, ja, og jeg forstår ikke helt hvorfor, kanskje fordi det var så nærme Pride-park.

    OK, la oss se. Er dette vikingtid eller middelalder?

    Å jeg vet ikke, hvilket årstall var det igjen? Her er det i hvert fall mye fine utsmykninger.

    Disse småtingene, er det reproduksjoner eller ekte? 

    Ser ekte ut?

    Jaa, og her kommer vikingtiden.

    Se på disse rare dukkene de har laget som forestiller guder.

    Ja, og så barnslige, noe moren min kunne laget av en gammel strømpebukse.

    Haha, vi lagde sånne på barneskolen.

    Hva er disse, små hatter i sølv? Smykkeskrin, eller en type brystholder?

    Na, ja, se her på disse modellene, de brukes som en brosje, eller hva kaller man det. De holder klærne på plass.

    Ja, stemmer, veldig 70-tallsmote på modellene. Typisk HF på Blindern, mye ull, grove stoffer, ruter og blasse farger. Sikkert koselig en kald morgen på lesesalen.


    Neida, takk, vi bare titter vi.

    Jeg kommer ikke over hvor tåpelige disse dukkene er.

    Og sitatene de har på veggene: “Vikingene var voldelige”. “Det var forskjell på folk.” “Kunst ble verdsatt.”

    “Noen trodde på andre guder.”

    Jeg liker sitatene fra Håvamål da, alt det andre virker litt random.

    Men her stopper utstillingen visst, vi må gå tilbake den samme veien.

    Jeg tror vaktene kjeder seg ganske godt, det virker ikke å skje så mye nytt eller forandringer her.

    Ja, jeg leste nettopp en bok om rettssaker fra virkeligheten. Én av dem handlet om en vakt som jobbet på et museum hvor vaktene egentlig skulle rullere rundt i utstillingen, men denne vakten ble glemt og rullerte aldri, så han satt ved siden av den samme skulpturen hver dag i 20 år. Vakten begynte å fantasere om statuen og snakke med den, hva betydde den egentlig, hva var denne statuen? Til slutt ble vakten gal og ødela statuen og drepte flere museumsgjester.

    Nei! Haha, huff da. Kanskje vi kan gi den boka til vaktene her. Men jeg så de rullerte i stad.

    La oss gå opp, der har de antikken og egypterne.

    Antikken har fått et veldig lite rom, men mange plakater og mye tekst.

    Ja, vi rutsjer videre.

    Arktis da, sjamanisme, det er spennende.

    Flotte kostymer. Men du, når var vikingtiden igjen, fant vi ut av det?

    Nei husker ikke, kanskje vi må ned igjen og se én gang til.

    Her er det samer, en bildeserie fra da til nå, men se så normale de er.

    Litt pussig å stille ut samene slik. Er de så merkelige at de kan puttes i et museum?

    Vet ikke, her er indianere. Det er den etnografiske samlingen.

    Ja, og her fra Mexico. Men jeg synes alt dette er litt problematisk altså, spesielt når utstillingene ikke virker å knyttes opp mot noe “kulturhistorisk”, men bare forsøker å vise oss spesielle klær og rare folk fra fjerne steder. Det kulturimperialistiske museum?

    Ja enig. Her er vi i Egypt.

    Mumien mangler, den er til restaurering, ferdig i slutten av juni.

    Ja, det er jo fortsatt to dager igjen av juni. Tror du dette også er en mumie?

    Eller er den bare av tre, vanskelig å si.

    Dette siste rommet er bankhvelvet, her er det en tegneserie som viser hvordan de reddet Norges gull ut av landet da tyskerne kom.

    Ja, spennende, litt barnevennlig med den tegneserien. Fra det ene til det andre, mye forskjellig på dette museet.

    Enig, la oss gå opp, til Pride-en.

    Det er et flott bygg da.

    Ja, men å gud, her har de tapetsert hele trappa med tekstplakater, HVEM GIDDER Å LESE ALT DETTE?

    Haha, ok ok.

    Se denne pidestallen laget i speil, queen – of fucking – everything, står det på sidene.

    Og en krone i speil på toppen. Kanskje alle kan speile seg og være queens, eller noe.

    Her er det et sitat, men hva betyr I-en i LGBTI igjen?

    Jeg mener det er intersex, uten at jeg er helt sikker på hva intersex er.

    Her er det et helt rom med fotografier og selvportretter.

    Denne da, en gutt som balanserer en pølse på nesa.

    Ja, alle bildene er liksom sentrert rundt nesa, og alt er “in limbo”. Pølsa har fått en liten knekk, det er bacon på den, et jordbær og et blåbær. Pølsa trekkes liksom ut mot verden. Mens her balanserer han et par spisepinner med ris og en 17. mai-sløyfe.

    Er det snakk om å være norsk, men samtidig ikke være “norsk nok”, kanskje?

    Ja, kanskje det, men da leser vi veldig mye inn i fotografiene.

    Skal vi ikke det da?

    Ja, nei. Jeg tenker mer på om det er kunst eller ikke. Konteksten her i museet er jo veldig merkelig, og veldig førende mener jeg. Tenk på alle de andre utstillingene her med “eksotiske” drakter og så videre, det er jo ikke et kunstmuseum, men et historisk museum.

    Ja. Denne gutten har også en veldig slående drakt.

    Jeg synes dette bildet er ganske erotisk egentlig. Fin positur.

    Her er det en jente i en trapp, en gutt i en stol, en jente med bøker på hodet, en annen står i skogen. Denne jenta har masse ledningsrør rundt halsen, eller det kan være whirlies tror jeg; et instrument man kan enten blåse i eller snurre rundt i lufta.

    Dette bildet minner meg om Felix Gonzales Torres, du vet, det bildet hans av to puter hvor det nettopp har ligget noen. Men avstanden mellom putene her er veldig stor, kanskje de ikke likte hverandre så godt, og alt er ute av fokus, i duse farger.

    Ja, jeg husker det bildet.

    Men er det kunst, eller hva er det? Det virker som om de veldig gjerne vil at det skal se ut som kunst. Det ser liksom veldig kunst ut, samtidig som det ikke gjør det.

    Undertittelen på utstillingen er “A feminist, artist and activist queer exhibition”. Ticka av ganske mange punkter altså, men en kunstner utstilling da? Ikke kunstutstilling. Ikke vet jeg. Og den biten om aktivisme irriterer meg litt, ofte kan aktivisme bli overtydelig og endimensjonalt.

    Se denne komposisjonen her, en stol, et brannslukningsapparat, litt skribling på veggen og dette fotografiet da, det er en installasjon i seg selv.

    Hehe, ta et bilde. La oss gå tilbake til det første rommet, kanskje det egentlig er to forskjellige utstillinger?

    Jeg liker dette selvportrettetet, en kvinne som ligger på en seng med et speil hun holder opp på skrått og betrakter seg selv. Det er veldig forførende, eller “undrende”, eller i bero. Jeg lurer på hvor kameraet er, man ser det jo ikke i speilet. Kanskje det er et annet bilde som er klippa inn i speilet. Jeg liker det veldig godt, altså.

    Zanele Muholi heter hun, de andre bildene her også, alt i svart hvitt. En kvinne med håret satt opp fullt av klesklyper.

    Kanskje klesklypene er et spill med stereotypier og forventninger til hvordan kvinner fra Afrika ser ut. Utfordrer det fordommer?

    Eller bekrefter dem?

    Det er kanskje en risiko, spesielt her på museet.

    Zanele Muholi, BONA, CHARLOTTESVILLE, 2016

“Dumb as a painter” or “brain filled with air”

  • We started looking at art at the second floor of Kunstnerforbundet this opening night, – paintings everywhere. – What does the press release say?  – It says “Matisse, historical burden, tradition, flowers, art and life, institution, etc.”. – So the exhibition is kind of a “state of the painting 2016”? – Yes, exactly. And Mostly male, as usual. – Well.

    Let’s go look at these paintings of crabs, big canvases, I really like them. In a way, the crabs evacuate thought. It’s no thinking, just painting.

    You are a painter too, right?

    Yes, so I can do that.


    We also look at paintings made with plaster, clothes, plastic and so on, one of them is bearing the mark of a foot.

    Do you think it is the artist’s foot?

    Sure, but also the angle looks impossible, how could he make a print of his foot like that? Maybe its just sculpted.

    Maybe. These paintings are more akin to sculptures, one of them is draped with a red cloth, as if covering a nude female body, yet the motif is not figural. Abstract paint sculptures.

    They’re a bit “crusty” perhaps. – Like the clown.

    We move into another room but its not so exciting, so we go downstairs into “Overlyssalen”. Here, the artist Terje Nicolaisen has a room and a full exhibition all by himself.

    The paint is still wet. Oil, you can smell it.

    it’s the fernissage

    The what?


    Ah, yes, lol. And lots of patterns, I love patterns.

    This horse looks like it is trying to run away.

    Yeah, and look at its eyes. It’s as if it’s smiling. And kinda flirtatious too.

    Smirky smile! Almost like the Maybelline girl, you know?

    Haha, yes, sneaky. It’s trying to run and seduce at the same time, not quite sure what to do when. Ambiguous.

    Next, here is a portrait of guy with glasses, apparently. But the glasses are not really painted, yet the painting gives an impression of glasses, instead there are cuts in the canvas.

    He’s like steam punk. Or that guy from Happiness, who died, Seymour Hoffman.

    Haha, yes exactly. Or also like some generic white straight guy, or my teacher at university. – It’s a lot easier to talk about these paintings.

    Yeah, maybe the pieces upstairs needs more time, like tomorrow we’ll have more things to say.

    Here are more patterns, this red building with yellow windows. The building looks dirty, white and gray paint mixed with the red.

    And the pattern is kinda shitty, like off grid.

    Windows, people looking out. Horse and eyes, guy with glasses, but no. There’s something going on here about ‘looking’, I think.

    This priest is holding on to a guy, scolding him, giving a reprimande. I think he is saying: “You are too old”.

    Haha, oh no.

    Here is another guy, or is it the same guy?

    Maybe it’s all the same guy?

    The guy who painted? Or who is painted?

    Both? No?

    We also get a quick glimpse at some fabrics, and vegetables arranged as flower bouquets. But the wine is out. We move to QB Gallery by cutting the corner through WILLAS contemporary; a gallery showing very expensive photo art. Today they have gardens on display: green, black/white, brown. 50 000kr and upwards. The show at QB is called “NEOLITHIC GRAFFITI”, and they still have beer.

    Let’s look at this fabric because it’s super nice. And also, what’s interesting is that this kind of weaving is done by a very expensive machine, you can tell for sure. You make a pattern, either by hand or using the computer, and then you feed it to the machine which weaves it all together. And there are not so many machines like these, but KhiO got one, and some other nordic schools too. Which is to say that art like this is a very nordic phenomenon, or kind of expression.

    Is it a good or evil machine?

    I don’t know yet, maybe both.

    What’s funny is that weaving, which used to be kind of a women’s handicraft, now is done by this very impressive technomachine.

    Yeah, exactly. There’s also a strong tradition here, with Frida Hansen and that other one, Hannah Ryggen. Ups, I shit a lighter.

    Haha, watch out. Anyways, here, the technological medium is very much dictating artistic possibilities, is it not?

    Something like that, I wonder whether the pattern is made by hand or computer.

    Maybe it’s made in paint, like paint.exe

    What? Well, I think the guy at Kunstnerforbundet also used the same machine.

    Heyy, what are you guys up to? You look so smart with that book and pencil.

    We are looking at art, can’t you tell?

    Ohh, looking, “Jeg ser, her er så underligt”. It’s a poem by Obstfelder, I’m that brainy guy too, you know.

    Haha, yes, good one, ‘looking’ is really the theme of today.

    We also get to look at a small photo of Angela Merkel, but cannot decide wether she is a president or chancellor, and what the differences are. – She’s anyways center/right. – Like Hillary. The brainy guy talks about fisting his way into KhiO. We make some remarks about the show at Astrup Fearnly which is opening tonight as well. 

    Because, who is this Alex Israel guy? I thought I knew Los Angeles, but this guy I never heard of. Yet, he is supposed to be the epitome of art in LA, which is certainly not the Los Angeles I know.

    Ah no, he’s just some stupid celebrity. Clichés. They call him the new Andy Warhol.

    Blomqvist Kunsthandel is right next door to QB, today they are having a preview of the upcoming auction: “SAMTID, MODERNE OG KLASSISK & ET EKSKLUSIVT UTVALG ELDRE NORSK SØLV”.

    No wine left, but CUPS, silver cups.

    And Melgaard, don’t you like him?

    I don’t know, kinda love/hate.

    Here are some romantic paintings, the sunset and all, I’m a real sucker for romantic paintings.

    Me too, they look good. I also like romantic poetry a lot, not romantic love, but from the period, you know.

    Yea, but I always get embarrassed by romantic poetry.

    The contemporary stuff is the worst.

    Here is some other Warhol impersonation.


    This boy is interesting, naked on the beach, looking out on the sea. I was witnessing a discussion earlier on whether Munch’s naked male bodies are erotic or not, and I certainly decided “no”. Which is funny when compared with a Swedish painter of almost the same period, Eugène Jansson, who’s motifs are exactly like this – a naked boy portrayed from behind. But his paintings are super gay.

    Yeah, funny, I don’t think this is erotic either. It’s just a boy who happens to be naked.

    Yes, same with Munch. There’s something about the posture, or what body parts are in focus.

    Sometimes you just know but can’t tell why, like whether something is real or not. Oh look, this painting reminds me of those movie characters who are like: “yes, really, I am an artist.” And then they show you something like this to prove their point.

    Hahaha, oh my, yeah. And it’s very 90ies, something my aunt would have liked.

    There’s also a weaving here by Frida Hansen, certainly not made with the machine. We must have come full circle.


September 2019

49 timer i Lofoten

January 2019

Looking for love in all the wrong places

March 2018

Dreaming in America

Trippin’ at the gates of womb

December 2017

Deilig er julen

November 2017

John Savio på Studiesalen


September 2017

Ut i vår hage

Sing Your Life

August 2017

Lines and Caricatures