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