1

LET GOOOOO . . . PART 1

CU

RA

TO

R |

JUS

T Q

UIS

T

GIO

RG

OS

KO

NT

IS

2

3

content images | the space [ p. 4 - p. 6 ]

#1│Giorgos Kontis [Gr.]

Text [ p. 7 - p. 12 ] introduction to LET GOOOOO . . . | Harmen Eijzenga

Authenticity in the Act of Painting | Giorgos Kontis Let Gooooo [of exhibition] | Giorgos Kontis

Images

Giorgos Kontis | vernissage [ p. 13 - p.15 ]

Text text vernissage | Harmen Eijzenga [ p. 16 - p. 17 ]

Images

work | [non]exhibition | Giorgos Kontis [ p. 18 - p. 25 ]

Text artist table | Harmen Eijzenga [ p.26 - p. 31 ]

Colofon

p. 32

see also programblog www.deschilderhetwerkenhetatelier.com http://letgooooo.wordpress.com ruimteCAESUUR: www.caesuur.nl LOST PAINTERS

LET GOOOOO . . .

4

LET GOOOOO . . .

R

uim

teC

AE

SU

UR

- TH

E F

OR

EFR

ON

T

5

LET GOOOOO . . .

ru

imte

CA

ES

UU

R - T

HE

FOR

EFR

ON

T

6

LET GOOOOO . . .

ru

imte

CA

ES

UU

R -

TH

E B

AC

K S

PA

CE

7

LET GOOOOO . . .

In

trod

uctio

n o

n LE

T G

OO

OO

O . . .

- Instead of making an exhibition we are going take exhibiting itself as the subject. - Instead of including a number of already classified ‘art’ objects, we will investigate the circumstances and perspectives from which all sorts of objects might be seen as ‘art’. - Instead of giving suchlike objects a place and later in the future, we will try to let the objects them selves point out their place. - Instead of focusing on a specific exhibition space, we are going to earmark an indefinite space as an exhibition space. - Instead of departing from a particular vision about or a certain idea over exhibiting we will follow the path along which a vision about or an idea overthe exhibit comes into being. - Instead of departing from the existing hierarchy of frozen relations between all people involved, ideas, objects and places we will melt that hierarchy into interaction between all those involved, bringing history and mythology to light. - Instead of offering the public an exhibition we will involve the public with the installation and

teamCAESUUR wrote earlier, ‘About the pro-gram content-wise we can only set out some outlines, draw contours as outflanking move-ments. The reason is simple: we wish to investi-gate new presentation and participation forms with the emphasis on contemporary art, under conditions that the study will impose or reveal’. ruimteCAESUUR is the imaginary center of these projects and presentations which occur with-out preconceived schemes. The presentation is in motion and surpasses eventual literal and/or figurative borders. A presentation can be a lecture, performance, happening, workshop, intervention or meeting in any way whatso-ever.

Just Quist will be the first curator of this series of exhibitions and events which will take place from March 22 2014 around ruimteCAESUUR in Middelburg. The matrix through which we want to let go: everything must be unsettled.

8

LET GOOOOO . . .

presentation of an exhibition. - Instead of making such an exhibition our-selves we will ask a guest to do so, according to these principles. - Instead of planning a certain length of time for such an exhibition we will take the time needed that such an exhibition appears to require. - Instead of asking for attention for a project which in advance could be assumed that it will be successful we ask all to descend into chaos from which every order comes forth. - Instead of therewith introducing a new order, a new paradigm, to create a new fundament, we will focus attention on the creative power that repeatedly dares to unsettle everything. Elucidation When arranging an exhibition it seems like everyone knows for himself how things should be hung, and the art is to convince the others or reach a collective agreement – but the real choices are made by the space itself. The organizers believe their comments, remarks

intr

od

uct

ion

on

LE

T G

OO

OO

O .

. .

and instructions have a hand in the process of hanging the works, but they are in fact steered by the requirements of the objects and the space, the questions posed to the organizers. The installation can be seen as a choreography of movements in which works carried by the organizers move through space until space, objects and organizers reach an agreement. So, an exhibition becomes a work in progress in which the action of the installation itself is of essential importance, because the act of arranging the emptiness of the exhibition space gives meaning, a meaning whereby the works, individually and together with each other, also gain meaning. So, objects in the making become artworks, not only at the hands of the artist, but also in the exhibition space under the eyes of the public. So, the exhibition itself, the podium on which various objects gain significance as artworks through confrontation with one another and with the audience. So, the public is left with its own imagination and the necessity to look with its own eyes.

9

And because everyone is enclosed in their own ‘meaning-circle’ where everyone’s ideas are loaded with all sorts of associations, analogies, memories, expectations and prejudices, this requires each and every person to seek the evidences behind their own conceptions and perhaps that is liberating and receptive for one’s own imagination. 0n behalf of teamCAESUUR © Harmen Eijzenga

LET GOOOOO . . .

Authenticity in the Act of Painting ‘’ The postmodern critics of this cult of individual genius in turn claimed that it is a gross ideology-cal distortion to portray the making of art as a heroic act of original creation.’’ Jan Verwoert, ‘’ Living with Ghosts ’’ Abstract The question of the authenticity of a work of art, of painting specifically, is usually concentra-ted on whether the particular work is the original or just a copy - if it is genuine or a forgery - or even if a Titian’s work for instance is made by his disciples, his assistants or by the master himself. In this manner the work becomes inextricably connected to its creator and the verifying of its creation by the artist himself becomes the fundamental, maybe yet the simplest, criterion of its authenticity. With Modernism painting followed a self-aware and self-critical course. In the dissolution and redefinition of the painting form, terms and notions as spirituality, authenticity, truth,

A

uth

en

ticity in th

e A

ct of P

aintin

g │

Gio

rgo

s Ko

ntis

10

LET GOOOOO . . .

sincerity and purity became more and more present in texts of artists and theoreticians. What slowly took place was the turn of the painters gaze from the outer world to the self.

What seemed to have become more important and took the leading part was the emotional, spiritual world of the painter and the artist’s own expression. Parallel to this turn, and through its criticizing, painting –as a medium, as an act- was redefined. What firstly seemed to be the end of painting when it reached a point of exhaustion is actually the passing from Modernism to post-Modernism. It is a time that the discourse on painting is broadened and starts including different approaches, different ways to cope with the matters of painting, different proble-matics on what painting is and what art is in general. The modernist spirit, the quest of pure painting and currents such as Abstract Expres-sionism are followed by currents and styles like Pop art, minimalism and conceptual art. Painting opens up into several fields:

intr

od

uct

ion

to

LE

T G

OO

OO

O .

. .

intangible, conceptual, broken into several mediums. It appropriates sculptural forms, new media and moves beyond the boarder of the canvas frame. It becomes, in a way, expanded. The role of the painter changes. The artist’s relationship to the work and the authorship becomes questioned. The expectations, the concerns, and also the whole atmosphere alters and starts becoming something different as, for instance, the texts that are written, the new views that start prevailing, and the new notions with which artists are concerned. In Modernism, the matter of authenticity in painting became somehow clearer, in the sense that the objective was the artist, the painter’s inner world transformed into a work of art, the spiritual to material. This transformation presupposes the artist as the key figure behind the work. In post- Modernism, however, apparent shifts occurred. The work no longer took the form of the past. It sometimes becomes even intangible, and the role, the existence of

11

the artist is also quite changed and even questioned. By having the notions of the artist and the work in such expanded and the questioned forms, the relationship between them is at least seemingly altered. How could matter of authenticity be approached in such expanded forms and notions? © excerpt from an essay by Giorgos Kontis

LET GOOOOO . . .

LET

GO

OO

OO

│ o

f ex

hib

ition

│ G

iorg

os K

on

tis

“I was delighted to receive the invitation by Just Quist to participate in the ‘Let Gooooo’ project. What came along with this invitation were firstly enthusiasm, based on the challenge of how to deal with the exhibit of my work, and secondly anxiety, because of the numerous ways that this could possibly take place and the need to invent and propose a more personal way. How do we deal with the ‘painted image’ and how and what the exhibition of it could be? Could it be a workshop or a form of exhibiting of the whole process that leads to the painted image, rather than plainly the display of the latter? My work is focused on painting and I see painting as a process whose outcome is what I like to call the painted image. The use and function of the painted image have become central in my contemplation on painting. How can it be displayed and how does it radiate itself? And more specifically in abstract painting: does it bear a religious hue, does it function as an Icon? Regarding the concerns of my art practice and by the occasion of Just’s invitation I decided to focus on the dialogue that can be created

12

between my work and the beautiful space of Ruimte Caesuur. Though, my ambition is this dialogue to take a more substantial character and through it the viewer to have the chance of an insight into my work and the questionings that surround it.” March 2014 - Giorgos Kontis

LET GOOOOO . . .

LET

GO

OO

OO

│o

f e

xh

ibit

ion

│ G

iorg

os

Ko

nti

s. .

13

LET GOOOOO . . .

Op

en

ing

│ G

iorg

os K

on

tis │ 22/0

3/2014

14

LET GOOOOO . . .

V

ern

issa

ge

│ G

iorg

os

Ko

nti

s │

22/

03/

2014

15

LET GOOOOO . . .

V

ern

issa

ge

│ G

iorg

os

Ko

nti

s │

22/

03/

2014

16

LET GOOOOO . . .

T

ex

t vern

issage

│ H

arme

n E

ijzen

ga │

22/03/20

14

. . .

this is not an exhibition but still there are some object in this space you might call paintings and the artist also is present, giorgos kontis and there is some public and I even noticed yet a critic yes – but yet this is not an exhibition for in an exhibition a work of art is displayed isolated from the context in which it’s made and it only can be seen as such it is purloined from the web in which it came into being and it is displayed in the web in which art theory and art critic and the curatorkind captured it it also is purloined from time and space in which it came into being and it is displayed in time and space of an exhibition in an exhibition space in this case all that is not the matter

for these works are created for this space and this space is made to provoke such works to that end in this space is made this wall as a white corner: a white that seems to consist of sheer light and these works moved themselves through this space in the hands and under the eyes of the organizers long enough to get them into dialogue or maybe one should say they achieved this result in dialogue with each other, with the space, with the wall and with the organizers the way giorgos wanted it and now they will continue this dialogue with all those present and not-present: the public, the critics and the theorists and the collegues of the artist but in that case one better could call this a theatre and in that case everyone present is an actor and now this wall presents itself as a piece of scenery, this door shows itself the backstage

17

LET GOOOOO . . .

Te

xt

vern

issa

ge

│ H

arm

en

Eijz

en

ga │

22/

03/

2014

entrance and there on the left high on the wall is nailed a frieze that by giorgos has shown itself to be “the dish washing series” although he hadn’t planned this time to make a frieze this series was smart enough to force him into that and at the other side has withdrawn itself in the highest a work that marked itself by giorgos as the divine and like the jewish god withdrew himself as the absent a god who will show himself if only we make his presence possible likewise these objects will show themselves as paintings if only we make them possible and then they will make us visible our intuitions with which they lead our eye to what we call “imagination” the possibility to assign meaning to what is not knowable for nothing and no one has any meaning of one’s own

you only get your meaning in your relationships to others each of us exists as a junction of meanings which each of us appropriated as one’s own identity wether we are humans, beasts, spaces, walls, windows, paintings, fictions, ideas or theories this is not an exhibition this isn’t a theatre either this is the real world welcome in the world of giorgos kontis © harmen eijzenga

18

LET GOOOOO . . .

Gio

rgo

s Ko

ntis│

wo

rk

Untitled│2013│150 cm. x 100 cm. oil and acrylic on canvas│2,800 €

Untitled│2013│150 cm. x 100 cm. oil and acrylic on canvas│2,800 €

19

LET GOOOOO . . .

G

iorg

os

Ko

nti

s│ w

ork

Untitled│2014│70 cm. x 60 cm.

oil and varnish on canvas│ 1,400 €

Untitled│2014│70 cm. x 60 cm. oil and varnish on canvas│ 1,400 €

20

LET GOOOOO . . .

G

iorg

os K

on

tis│ w

ork

Untitled│2014 │130 cm. x 90 cm. oil and acrylic on canvas│2,500 €

Untitled (The washing dishes series)│2013 each 30 cm. x 20 cm.

oil and acrylic on paper │ 400 € each

21

LET GOOOOO . . .

Gio

rgo

s K

on

tis│

22/

03/

2014

─ 2

7/0

4/2

014

22

LET GOOOOO . . .

G

iorg

os K

on

tis│ 22/0

3/2014

─ 27/0

4/20

14

23

LET GOOOOO . . .

Gio

rgo

s K

on

tis│

22/

03/

2014

─ 2

7/0

4/2

014

24

LET GOOOOO . . .

Gio

rgo

s Ko

ntis│

22/03/20

14 ─

27/04

/2014

25

LET GOOOOO . . .

G

iorg

os

Ko

nti

s│ 2

2/0

3/20

14 ─

27/

04

/20

14

26

LET GOOOOO . . .

G

iorg

os K

on

tis│ arist tab

le│

20/0

4/20

14

The first issue of this ‘artist talk’ concerns Giorgos’ remark during the set-up of his exhibition: HE: “You said, bringing in your paintings: “I had to reevaluate myself”. What did you mean by that?” GK: “Evaluation is about how to understand the process of the making of a artwork. I try to understand what I’m doing: the results of it take time to be understood. The criteria set by us towards our own works implies a dangerous question. I need to be grasped by something quite dramatic or poetic: this is what I want from art and from my own work, not as a result, but as a process. This means that I’m part of my own audience: I am the one who set the rules, invent the process, and this is, what “painting” is for me: the line of choices. I am involved in my own work.” JQ: “Evaluation is a secluded space within your development?” GK: “Evaluation is consideration: analyse, see the depths, trying to grasp, being the audience in my own work.”

LvdB: “Are you sometimes triggered by our own work, by the unexpected?” GK: “The unexpected is nice. There is an extra layer: ambition, how I would love my work to be. It’s a game: trying to understand why I want to do that.” GL: “Rothko said there is a moment when the work separates itself from the maker. How is that for you?” GK: “That’s not in my mind. For example: I didn’t want to make a frieze this time, but the work framed itself over there. It’s about the frame: the audience is a frame, and the space, the exhibition, time too. The work “ends” in the product, in a dialogue between my universe, the art world, and space and time, a dialogue with what already has been done.” HO: “You want to control the process of the making?” GK: “No, it is not control, but wanting t0 know, allowing, restraining, a game of control and letting go, to find answers and excuses, to find identity. And it also has tot do with my “painting”: being aware of my work.”

27

LET GOOOOO . . .

G

iorg

os

Ko

nti

s│ a

rist

tab

le│

20

/04

/20

14

The second issue concerned the relation between the placing of the work in an (exhibition) space and the viewing of it: “Place directs viewing” according to Giorgos. The question was triggered by Giorgos’ remark: “This is the divine”, entering the “backspace”, and the “religious hue” of his work, as he stated it, “as an extra layer in my work.” In this backspace he placed a painting high up on a frame, allowing light to enter over the white wall thereby giving this painting a religious hue as in a church; and high onto the opposite wall he placed the “dish washing”- series as a frieze not unlike the friezes on greek temples: you have to look up to them and consequently in the direction of the gods. GK: “It’s an Alice-in-Wonderland place: you can see them as divine, but you also can see them as a banner, in a highly commercial way.” JQ: “It sounds like you are trying to direct the interpretation af the viewer.” GK: “No, it is not directing or manipulating, it is a questioning. But this is my fear: I don’t want to impose my questionings, it is questioning the

functioning of the works, it’s about what they do. I do not want to impose, I want to sort out things in space. For instance: I didn’t want to make a frieze this time -” HO: “- but you were forced by the curator to do so.” (Laughter) GK: “ - but the space made me do so.” HO: “Yes, but this is a exhibition space, and here you can hang your works as you wish. But the backspace you can state as divine, as an Alice-in-Wonderland space, and then a theoretical discussion is inevitable, and you are imposing this discussion.” GK: “Yes, but I am questioning, not forcing. In that case I would manipulate myself.” GL: “Is it possible to hang the dish washing series in a different space or in a different position, so that you change their meaning?” GK: “Yes, but this is my fear: I don’t want to force them in a different meaning, the painting is reused in a different context, but people can think I misuse them, for they can’t see them. It is a play of control and let go, of joy and pain, because you see what you do, but you kill your

28

LET GOOOOO . . .

G

iorg

os K

on

tis│ arist tab

le│

20/0

4/20

14

darlings, I see what I’ve done and I love it, but then I see I have to repaint it, because then it would be more interesting.” HO: “People tend to look longer to the dish washing series, because it is difficult to see them, but they don’t discuss them in the backspace, but here, in the exhibition space.” GK: “Yes, they act as in a theatre: there you see but you don’t discuss there what you see.” JQ: “Most of the psychological, the emotional takes place in the studio, your concerns and presences are there.” GK: “The artist is a multi-layered structure. Questioning, self-reflexion, how to deal with my ambitions, emotions, the intellectual side, craftmanship, let loose, intuition – I can’t explain and I don’t want to explain, for I am part of my work.” JQ: “But when you see “this painting is finished”, and you have to acknowledge you are interweaved with all these paintings already done, it takes its place amidst all these theories, this heritage, and you conclude: it can be added – has this tot do more with your attitude?”

GK: “Yes, the danger is the question if you can add it to your list, it has to do with ambitions, and I don’t want to impose my ambitions, not in the display or in the making. I want to be free, I want to preserve the poetic function, and the question is how to manage that, find the language to preserve the poetic, the romantic, and not being dragged by your ambitions, or by this formalist dialogue as an abstract painter.” HE: “This was my third question: how you can find your line and keep the poetry. In your statement you write: “Painting as a process of metamorphosis which functions in a similar way to the use of language by poets.” “For instance: T.S.Elliot is extreme precise, intellectual and calculated, and at the same time he manages to give us his whole world, for example in this sentence: “Winter kept us warm”. And then there was a coffee break. After that: HE: “You cited Verwoert, who cited Derrida: “The task is to “learn to live with ghosts” and this

29

LET GOOOOO . . .

G

iorg

os

Ko

nti

s│ a

rist

tab

le│

20

/04

/20

14

means to learn “how to let them speak or how to give them back speech” undetermined enough to allow them to present themselves.” 1 GK: “Yes – you have to appropriate them and at the same time acknowledge that they have made your world as an artist. It is bad humor: we can stand higher, we can surpass, go further, and at the same time they are a huge burden, hugely derisive, difficult to deal with, they destroy our tabula rasa, they are the whole history with which you are in dialogue, you have to deal with them. I have my poetry besides them and through them. This is a beautiful dialogue: how to make them you who made you.” HE: “But you can’t make them, you have teo accept them.” For a moment the discussion proceeds without Giorgos: HO: “No no, it isn’t a philosophical question, it is not about acceptation, it is a love story, very romantic, you have many lovers, and you have to disappoint some of them.”

HE: “No, in my case as a writer, they are demons: I try to be genuine, I think I am writing, but these ghosts are writing.” GL: “Trying to be authentic is a highly western notion. Do we have to listen to them or leave them behind?” HE: “Trying to be authentic is one of those ghosts you have to deal with. In “I am saying...” it is not the “I” that is important, but the “saying”.” 1 GL: “But is it a problem for you, not to be authentic?” HE: “No, not al all: it isn’t even a question.” And then, Giorgos takes over again: GK: “The here and now is the question, as a sequence with other people. This line is not you, it is a line in history, in culture, the anonymity of writing on the wall, it is an endless murmur you are part of, the limits, or the barriers, of individuality are loosened, it is the anonymity of a river you are a part of, but you are part of it, this part exists (citing Foucault). Verwoert questions this: we have our favourite artists, so we celebrate their individuality. The ghosts are my ancestors, and

30

LET GOOOOO . . .

this is me. It is not only the ambitious thing: where do I stand, but also: where am I.” MP: “Yes, but is this a problem or a luxury? You are not only part of history, you are always pointed out as a painter, as a talent, and it is not only about the things around you, but also about the things inside you. It is a question of identity.” HE: “But you are part of history as a painter, and as a painter you loose your individuality.” GL: “Yes, but in the artworld ths is a big problem: you have to discern yourself from others, as a painter.” HO: “For me in Verwoerts text about these ghosts there is an extra layer: the ghosts of Adorno: after Auschwitz no more poetry. And for me the only thing that you can say about these ghosts is: awareness. Awareness of what? no idea. What this produces? no clue. Something to cling on? no idea.” GK: “Yes, but in this awareness we can do the same things.You have to let go instead of being obsessed with those ghosts. They might become a trap. All those things can act as norms, as rules, which you have to overcome:

you are guilty and you are innocent. HO: “It is this ambiguity: if you think you have to deal with it, it is harder to let go, if you find this is important.” HE: “You have to go beyond.” HO: “No no, that would be denial.” HE: “No, it is acceptance.” GK: “These are different positions: we have denial, acceptance, awareness, and it is this in-between states I have to deal with, the awareness of these ghosts.” HO: “If this implies consciousness of this awareness of history: I am OK.” JQ: “Yes, but how conscious you can be? The new generation are not so connected with this history, they have to deal with their own problems...” GK: “...their own ghosts, their own demons.” © Harmen Eijzenga

Gio

rgo

s Ko

ntis│

arist table│

20/0

4/20

14

31

LET GOOOOO . . .

G

iorg

os

Ko

nti

s│ a

rist

tab

le│

20

/04

/20

14

abbrev.: GK: Giorgos Kontis GL: Giel Louws HE: Harmen Eijzenga HO: Hans Overvliet JQ: Just Quist LvdB: Leni van den Berge MP: Michiel Paalvast

1 http://www.artandresearch.org.uk/v1n2/verwoert.html page 5 2 Herakleitos: “Don’t listen to me, but to what I am saying”

32

LET GOOOOO . . .

THE CHEERFUL SHAREHOLDERS & FRIENDS OF CAESUUR

is supported by

de Kattendijke/Drucker Stichting

colophon teamCAESUUR 2014-2015 Willy van Houtum | Giel Louws | Michiel Paalvast Harmen Eijzenga | Hans Overvliet curator Just Quist exhibitions space[s] ruimteCAESUUR | Middelburg catalogue text: ©Harmen Eijzenga | ©Giorgos Kontis ©Just Quist photos: ©Hans Overvliet | ©Giorgos Kontis works: ©artists logo: Niek Hendrix lay-out: Hans Overvliet Photo front, from left to right: Just Quist, Harmen Eijzenga, Giorgos Kontis, Willy van Houtum Before you share the texts and/or the images, please first contact caesuur@zeelandnet.nl

33

34

artist | Giorgos Kontis (Gr) | 22/03 - 27/04/2014

LET GOOOOO . . . PART 1

CA

TA

LOG

UE

Lange Noordstraat 67 4331 CC Middelburg www.caesuur.nl

curator | Just Quist