parce qu'elle est un peu féministe

Pipilotti Rist, vit et travaille en Suisse.

Her method of working with primarily video and film.

She’s a contemporary European pioneers in this field.

She wants to open her senses with no preconceptions of life, like a child because she always feels reborn in the best possible way.

For example: Das Zimmer, in 1996

At the 2005 Venice Biennale, her plan was under way to produce a comprenhensive presentation of Pipilotti’s œuvre, which reveals another dimension of Pipilotti’s creativity.

The image of the artist that she herself forge in connection with what she’s viewing is part of artistic reception. Ideally, though, we would forget the artist while we’re looking at, hearing or feeling the art. Similarly, the way you as a viewer become immersed in a work of art differs according to your personal notions about the period or the country where the art comes from.

This might be helpful, but it can also be distracting and distorting, and get the way of identification. Does Art need to have a name different in front of the production?

For example: Pipilotti Rist’d calls herself Konrad Schnabnowski, in fact, she really is a man who lives as a woman.

MILDNESS

Pipilotti Rist is a feminist, that’s a point of honour and logical, so long as society’s horizons are not equally accessible for everyone.

She can’t fully achieve the same nonchalance or power that she to some extent explicitly look for or distil in her works.

Sometimes, she views herself as neurotic and anxious, but she made a conscious decision not to directly transfer such feelings into her works, even if she doesn’t deny them either.

About morality or an ethics of behaviour, you can lose your innocence, like when someone says you are so spontaneous, you are so warm-hearted, so you are so attentive…something you don’t talk about: “I want to hold the door open out of my own free will. At the moment I find all this quite confusing.”

Petites parenthèses, à propos des ouvrages « féministes » que je ne vous conseille pas de lire

-Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, l’anti-Œdipe, Ed de Minuit, 1972.
-Michel Foucault, Histoire de la sexualité I. La volonté de savoir, Gallimard, Paris, 1976.

-Michel Foucault, Histoire de la sexualité II. L’usage des plaisirs, Gallimard, Paris, 1984

-Michel Foucault, Histoire de la sexualité III. Le souci de soi, Gallimard, Paris, 1984.

-Jacques Lacan, « Encore », Le Séminaire, livre XX, Seuil, Paris, 1975.

-Craig Owens “The discourse of Others. Feminists and post-modernism”. In Beyond Recognition.Representation, Power, and Culture. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1992.
-Simone de Beauvoir, Le deuxième sexe, Gallimard, Paris, 1949.

-Hélène Cixous, Entre l’écriture, Des femmes, Paris, 1986.

-Catherine Clément, Julia Kristeva, Le féminin et le sacré, Stock, Paris, 1998.

-Linda Nochlin, « Pourquoi n’y a-t-il pas eu de grands artistes femmes ? » (1970), in Femmes, Art et Pouvoir et autres essais, trad de l’anglais (US) par Oristelle Bonis, Jacqueline Chambon, Nimes, 1993.

Mais, je vous conseille :

-Griselda Pollock, Vision and Difference : Feminity, Feminism and Histories of Arts, Routledge, Londres, NY, 1988.

-Judith Butler, Trouble dans le genre. Pour un féminisme de la subversion, traduit de l’anglais (US) par Cynthia Krauss, la Découverte, paris, 2005.

-Judith Butler, « La fin de la différence sexuelle », in Défaire le genre, Paris, éd.Amsterdam, 2006.

-Françoise Héritier, Masculin/Féminin : la pensée de la différence, Odile Jacob, Paris, 1996.

-Yves Michaud éd, Féminisme, art et histoire de l’art, Paris, 1994.

-Posséder et détruire, Régis Michel éd., (cat.expo., Paris, Musée du Louvre, 2000), Paris, 2000.

TECHNIQUEMENT de la fantaisie au rêve :

Pipilotti : “ Where is the camera ? What function is assumed by the eye? How can I be modest without becoming depressive? When you observe the world’s development on a bigger scale-like how many millions of years it took us to evolve from mud to what we are today-you see just how minute we are. How can we judge ourselves with modesty, without becoming nihilistic? However much I might wish to remove myself from my own time, I’m completely rooted in it. As artist it is our task and duty to heed our dreams and the subconscious. It is our job to examine more closely everything that usually gets swept aside for the sake of productivity. To create a distance.”

“Exactly- and in doing so we also heighten our sensitivity in everyday life. It’s almost as if this were a kind of deal between the people and culture. What we offer are dreams and distanced reflection in a concentrated temporal and sensual form. I can tolerate living like this, bordering on schizophrenia. Sometimes misunderstandings arise, like the idea that because artists are allowed to materialise fantasies and dreams, they automatically live in a dream world. For which they have to bear the penalty of being poor. I think there are still so many clichés about artists.”

She likes to create in spaces where people can circulate and spend time together, without them actually owning the work. She’s interested in the democratic aspect of art and yet she lives off its fetishization. It’s about the idea that cultural insights can implant themselves in us and contribute to evolution, that there is such a thing as cultural evolution that is rooted in our flesh. For a long while she used to hold pretty clear political ideas. That’s probably what is called wisdom. She used to be much more strongly commutted to left-wing ideas. She believed that everything we are is conditioned by our education, religion and social context. People tried to sweep the issues of genetic conditioning under the carpet. She still hasn’t found any definitive answers in the discussion about science and educational theory.