"Ever Is Over All" Interpretation - Some ideas to disagree with


While reading “Pipilotti's Pleasure Dome” article I’ve noticed one of the biggest paragraphs are about the Ever Is Over All, so I have decided to peak this art piece as a subject of discussion.

As for me it is hard to decide what kind of two ideas I could see in it is more important and truthful, so let’s say it is both. So, in Ever Is Over All I can see the ideas of feminism, and idea of nature domination.
Talking about feminism it is a good point to mention the main character is a woman. A woman who crushes the car windows with a flower. In this case, the flower might mean both – the symbol of woman’s weakness and beauty in a traditional stereotypic way, or the symbol of nature. Crushing windows is not something you expect a flower might do so it might be considered as a destroying traditionally men’s objects with a symbol of the feminine or destroying technologies by forces of nature. After the main heroine breaks a few windows while enjoyable and dancing-looking walking and with a smile on her face, the police officer passes by her, surprisingly, making a smile and saluting her, instead of arresting. It is also a woman, what makes sense in a feminist way of interpreting – women are the part of the law now, and they are on side of feminism. All action is supported by music, with some wild noises, bird’s songs, and folk-sounding drums. It plays a role in a nature interpretation because the sound is reminding us about the earth creatures living on this planet with us. Also in real installation all of these actions are supported with a video of flowers, similar as used for windows-destruction, growing freely. It goes at the same time with a walking woman. Basically, it is different scenes of flowers filmed from different places with a frame rotation. It has no clear border between each other, saying it is one. So just the same as mentioned before, free-growing flowers might mean either freedom and equality for women or the freedom of nature in its greatness and beauty.

Comparing with Robert Storrs interpretation, who sees the art piece only in a feminist way, I have some point to disagree in.
In comparing, we have an opposite view on flowers meaning. He describes the flower as “decidedly phallic” (Storr, 2016), what kind of means masculine in the way. Or sex concentrated. But definitely not a representing of weakness and beauty of a woman, as I used to describe it. I think it is not hard to find any oblong object as a phallic, and there is no sense to considerate on that kind of describing long objects. Almost any flower could be named phallic, and destroying windows with a water lily would be much harder to do.
Also, Robert describes the city view as a “pure fantasy” (Storr, 2016), what takes no place in describing and interpreting for me because I can’t see any unusual. Plus, he doesn’t really describe the music and sound role in his interpretation, while it is definitely not the least important part.

Despite on text higher, we steel do have seen the same main idea in the artwork. And no doubt we interpreted the artwork differently because we’ve seen in it in a different way. So it is still useful and interesting to read how other people interpret it, and what feelings the exhibition caused them.


Reference list:
Storr, R. (2016). The New York Review of Books. “Pipilotti’s Pleasure Dome” [Online]. Available at: http://www.nybook.com/daily/2016/12/26/pipilotti-rist-pleasure-dome/ (Accessed: 7 March 2019).

Комментариев нет:

Отправить комментарий