TOTART: Natalia Abalakova & Anatoly Zhigalov
PANEL DISCUSSION
Installation
2005
“WE” project. X Moscow International Forum of Art Initiatives 2005 “МЫ/WE”. Moscow State Exhibition Hall Novy Manege
Material: Triptych 200х150/200х150/200х200. Canvass, oil. A table for conference, 10 chairs, cloth 200х300, texts in files А4, magasine (imitation) «МУ», platform 300х500, the angle 15º.
So from now on there must be no more lies:
You must speak the truth to one another,
Since we are all parts of one another.
St. Paul. Letter to Ephesians
Panel discussion means (beside other things) “the discussion of the socially significant issue by a group of specially selected people”, and in Russian it is “round table”. “Panel” in Scotch means “defendant, accused”, it is also have the meaning of the “panel board”.
If we have a wider look at the issue it is the understanding of the language of globalisation in the process of its emerging as another cultural dialect or globalisation of the language itself.
The process includes the claim of inhibition and permissiveness of the modern culture and at the same time its destructiveness.
Using that language one can design exhibition environment as the cluster of mutuallity integrating energy fields where according to Tony Negri “production and art go ex nihilo, not adjustable by any calculations, but inspiring dreams, asking questions, reviewing hypothesis and speaking of history”. Street graffiti of epoch of 1968s students’ riots are at the same time the definition and violation of language boarders, which, according to Leo Trotsky “exist to be breached”.
So, what does it mean? New conjuncture, another soap balloon living a short moment to be forgotten and dissapear from the globalized language of the modern culture, which has become commonplace, the language which, is some kind of amalgam, a mirror, “waiting to be forgotten”.
Nevertheless, “Gernica” in UN Headquarters in New York for some reason happened to be covered by the blue cloth on the day when M.Powell was calling world community “To Arms!” The fact that called multiple public protests. Is it true that the language of the modern culture is impregnant with some unbearable message?
Is there any understanding that WE are something that should emerge at the crossroads of the notion MY not wishing to see “the alian”; an archaic idea of the “people’s body”; MAY demanding that reality is ruled by imagination? Where do WE meet – in the temple, the square, or the round table? A sencer, a cobblstone, a microphone...