Untitled - krinzinger projekte - Galerie Krinzinger

moscow:paradise

moscow:paradiseKRINZINGER PROJEKTESCHOTTENFELDGASSE 45 1070 VIENNA WWW.GALERIE-KRINZINGER.AT

TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION Constantin Bokhorov 6 ARTISTS’ PAGES Olga Chernysheva 10Dubosarsky & Vinogradov 12Dmitry Gutov 14 Valery Koshlyakov 16 OlegKulik 18 Tatyana Liberman 20 Igor Moukhin 22 AES+F 24 CubometrGallery 25 BIOGRAPHIES 26 CREDITS & IMPRINT 29 SPONSORS 315

INTRODUCTION6SOUL IS BACK: 2003Constantin BokhorovThis text is an introduction to theexhibition organized by the KrinzingerGallery and called Moscow: Paradise2002. Of course paradise especially inthis connotation is a tough hyperbole. ButI haven’t taken the title and for me it’s justinteresting why it has been put sobecause I believe that it reflects some shiftin relationship of west and east, which isan important contemporary paradigm.But the title is especially significant for mebecause in its perspective the notion ofsoul has the chance to come to light oneother time. In my opinion, this notionagain becomes of paramount importancefor the world culture but, because ofculture’s chronic disease happened withcoming to power of the era of mercantilism,remaining in the unjustified exile.Not coming to the roots of this notiondown to the depth of religious mysticism Itake only one aspect which is more closeand important to the art. Through soul artis connected to truth because it’scommonly known that if intellect iscontemplating truth in rational categories,soul does it in the images of art. Todaythis simple aesthetic seems obsolete andthe words sound too pathetic. The notionof soul which has become the figure ofthe deceitful clerical-bourgeois rhetorichas been deconstructed by the cultureitself. First Nietzsche overthrow the God,then the notion of soul has happily diedaway. But now to speak about art and notto mention soul becomes more and moredifficult (especially in perspective ofparadise).The notion of soul remains in the indirectforms in psychology and psychoanalysis.It obtains definite operative substitute inthe notion of sub-consciousness whichstarted actively functioning in culture, andis exemplified by Hitchcock’s “PSYCHO”etc. This sphere of abiding of soul I’d callcontemporary metaphysics, very fruitfulfor culture, though the soul than has amedical reading. Of course, not I shoulddevelop this subject for the enlightenedVienna audience and I believe thatRussians here are not able to give somethingof the first importance, though, so tosay, ‘surgery of soul’ is practicing by twovery influential Russian artistic movements:“Medical herme-neutic” group(Moscow) and artists grouping around theCabinet Magazine (St. Petersburg).But returning to the soul, I want to remark,that, perhaps, we live in the time makingall to suspect that the modern culture isstill suffering from the birth traumaimplicated in the question: “The babywasn’t poured out with the water whenthe act of reduction of soul has been performing,was it?”Of course, if soul is a creature with wingsleaving body in the moment of death it isnot worth any regrets. This concept wasmany times the object of punch and ironyof artists. Back in the end of the 70ies thepioneers of Russian contemporary art,Komar and Melamid, organized auctionsof souls with curious slogans, like “thesoul is the best investment”, and evensucceeded in selling the soul of AndyWarhol for 30 rubles (which was then $21). But in spite of all this fun the questionremained.

Because worth regrets is the fact that thefeeling of soul that gave to individualabsolutely unique position in relation tothe world, that gave him system ofcoordinate and definite mapping wherewas possible to act consciously, has goneaway. There wasn’t any creature withwings, and nothing palpable on thewhole, nothing that could be touched,fixed on the sensible film, weighted, ormagnetized, and what is even moremysterious there was nothing that couldbe really conceptualized. Though, therewas feeling of something that presentedsecretly but was not in a haste to revealand if revealed not to all.Maybe this is the very position/dispositionin relation to the world that can beunderstood only if to calculate its latitudeand longitude for which though doesn’texist any formulas and any appliance, andthat one has to attain itself. And in thissense, perhaps, a bit abstract, I believenecessary to reanimate this notion for theneeds at least of this text. If we speakabout paradise, God damn!Now coming to the point we shouldanswer the question: what artisticproblem is brought about by thisexhibition?The Paradise features the Moscow artand the Moscow artists, those whodemonstrated in the 90ies the maximumactivity and who was acknowledged andvalued by the Russian and internationalart system.This time was not easy at all for theRussian art. It met the problem that thedirect message has become impossibleany more. From one hand, the nationalthematic was exhausted by the verystrong and fruitful nonconformists of the80ies (Bulatov, Kabakov, Collective ActionGroup) plus the reality of this years inRussia was much powerful than any art;from the other hand, artists in Russiacouldn’t juxtapose anything to the veryelaborated western discourse which hassorted out all the contemporary artisticresources to numerous shelves andboxes mainly for the internal usage.Whatever emerging Eastern artist startedto do it was surely reproached in unoriginalityand inferiority, was told thatsomething similar exists yet. And whatwas really dramatic that this was baretruth.For instance, as committed critic, I shouldnow describe the works at the exhibitionand specify the western artists who haveinfluenced or even preceded them andthe well known tendencies they reflect.What I’m not going to do because Ibelieve that this is a secondary issue.I count that of the first importance is anevident contradiction intrinsic in theMoscow art. It bears signs of consciousunderstanding of its inferiority and at thesame time unquenched will and energy toprove its right for the own voice. The contradictionthat is even more obvious onthe background of its recognition.Strangely, the contradiction doesn’tdevaluate but contrary to that valorizesefforts of Russian artists of the 90ies andthis fact can be explained only by admittingthat common critical mapping isinfluenced by some fluctuatingphenomenon which I define as Soul. That7

8is what has been done by Kulik,Koshliakov, Gotov, Dubosarsky &Vinogradov, Moukhin and some otherswho should be understood as therealization of the efforts of heart and ofspiritual experience.I’m quite conscious that this lastobservation doesn’t sound credibleenough. This is too personal and couldcause a lot of contradictions. So usingthis quite vague terminology, and thenotion of soul that is very ambiguous forthe modern language, I should at least putabsolutely clear WHAT I DON’T WANTTO SAY. I don’t want to say thatcontemporary art is some chosen area ofthe operation of soul; that soul in someway geographically linked to Russia oreven has some inclinations in it’s direction;that these Russian artists know somethingparticular about soul or in somespecial way work with it, or took letterspatent to its copyright; that only soulaprove all their doings; or that they dosomething especially valuable and good,better than other artists before them andnow around the world. Not at all: they arenot heroes, saints, or genius, and theydon’t reveal any special truth to the world.I speak without doubt about ordinarypeople, but what is important in myobservation is that behind their bestworks stands not skill, artistic excellenceor intellectual superiority, but the particularposition in relation to the world occupiedby them, occupied courageously, andwithout compromise, in spite of all thegood advices of honorable critics andreceipts of common sense; the positionwhich finally marked the system ofcoordinates for all their followers, thanksto what the fruitful situation has beendeveloping in Russian art in these years.And one other thing I DON’T WANT TOSAY that is implied in what was outlinedabove but that I want to make absolutelyclear. The notion of soul that I use doesn’tsuggest absolutely anything national. Thebest examples of the westerncontemporary art (from futurism anddadaism of the beginning of the century,to minimalism, and actionism of the 60ies)also aren’t the outcome of rational laborsbut resulted as the efforts of heart. Nopsychoanalysis explains the spiritualinsight of Andy Warhol or Joseph Beuys.Of course, the subject generates endlessspeculations which means that it is aninexhaustible phenomenon and in thisquality so valuable for the westernrationalism finding in it its other,sometimes not very pleasant for the sightbut which appears to be the cornerstoneof its main values: individuality, liberty andjustice.Another question is how, in what idea thespiritual efforts of Moscow artists revealedthemselves. I would put it that the best ofthem take in the situation of the historicalREGRESS, the only possible definition ofwhat is going on in today’s Russia, theposition of active un-involvement. Again ina not so absolutely obvious way: not all,not at once, not definitely. Also it shouldbe kept in mind that they have thecommonly known examples of the artistsof the 60ies which they could follow. Buttheir art proves, and I think it’s the mainreason why it should be interesting to thewestern viewer, that their position was

absolutely sincere and independent.I saw myself how Kulik was preparing forhis first dog’s performance and will neverforget how dramatic it is for a man toovercome himself, to turn from a prosperousbourgeois showman into thenaked, beaten, bleeding dog.To be active and not to be involvedhappened to be the most difficult thing forthe Russian culture of the 90ies. I thinkthat this position is very close to what isimplied in Malevich’s idea that the artistshould be lazy and that not the labor laysin the base of art but non-action.Summarizing the point, it’s possible to saythat in the 90ies the best Moscow artistshave been doing just that. They were idle,in the sense of Malevich, of course. Andquite paradoxically eventually their effortsrejoiced, which is exemplified by thishappy event.So now I think all is ready to expose themetaphor of paradise proposed as a titlefor this exhibition.At first, paradise is THE MEETING OFTIME AND PLACE WHERE SOULSREVEAL THEMSELVES TO THE SIGHT.And, from one hand, the Moscow artsituation maybe by chance, maybe onlyfor one instant, in the threshold of the newcentury revealed through certain art worksremarkable constellation of souls, which,from the other hand, this exhibition isfixing. In spite of all contradictions of itscuratorial text it reflects that Russian artwas not mould of actual themes andtopics but of soul and in this sense isreflecting the famous meta-projects ofmodernity: freedom and justice.Secondly, paradise is THE CONDITIONWHEN SOULS DON’T WORK AND AREHAPPY. As it was shown the possibility ofthis condition was proved by the newRussian art in the 90ies and in this senseit can be regarded as the successor of thetraditions of the great Russian avantgardeof the beginning of the century, thatbrought to light the idea of active nonaction.And finally paradise is the embodiment ofthe idea of JOY. And what can be morerejoicing than acknowledgement by thegreat western culture of the return of theRussian art (even at this exhibition): returnof one who was dead and is alive, waslost and found.I’d like to finish, reminding that there isparadise neither in Moscow, nor inRussia. Perhaps, now it’s something liketradition that the west is awaiting fromRussia some sign. Maybe this sign in thisnew Russian Art Exhibition Sequel’2003 isthe return of soul. I repeat again that soulis not the specific Russian oddness, butas once quite wittily observed Boris Grois,“Russia is the sub-consciousness of thewest”, and sub-consciousness is famousbecause it returns in quite grotesqueforms what we think about but are afraidto admit.9

OLGA CHERNYSHEVA10HUMAN NATUREOlga ChernyshevaOne can feel how human nature yearnsfor its ancient and eternal basis - vegetablenature. It is especially obvious in theRembrandt etchings where a humanbeing is detached from the environmentthat had created him only for the momentof acting. He is visible then. But his legsare already about to interweave with thetree roots, the body diffuses into light orswells with the complex full-bodiedshadow. A little more, and he would meltinto the surrounding elements. Hisexistence is guaranteed but by the specialdivine will, gathering him together. This isthe kind of pausing that we have here. Itcould be characterized as a state ofanabiosis, detachment from the rhythm oftime and consequently, entropy. Or asenchanted and awkward states connectedby the intense resistance to thepassing social and political regimes. Theirslow and endless life is full of its own privatemystical joy. All is left to do is to letoneself be enchanted by it.ANABIOSISTatiana Salzirn, in: “European Photography”,No. 70, winter 2001/2002Life in today's Russia - full of desperateand for the most part unfulfilled hopesthat used to be harbored by the millions -supplies Chernysheva with an enormouswealth of material. Fishermen near iceholesand little trees wrapped in sackclothappear in freshly fallen snow, and characterizeRussian life over the period of thelong severe winter. In anxious expectationof a catch, fishermen have to sit motionlesslynear ice-holes for hours in intenselycold weather. To avoid freezing, theyenvelop themselves in a transparent polyethylenefilm so that they begin to look likeblocks of ice or snowdrifts. But it is difficultto determine what has been hiddenfrom view by this diffuse curtain – the lastpossibility in the struggle for survival, or aform of recreation and pleasure? Plantstoo are wrapped up to protect themagainst frost. But what form of life isactually hidden inside the cover? Allegoryturns into mockery. [ … ] Photographyand life are of a similar nature; photons oflight are at their origins. During anabiosisthe process of photosynthesis is haltedand life comes to a standstill. In OlgaChernysheva’s view, anabiosis, or sleepeven more so, is the image of Russia.Sleep is a mutation of time, a transition toanother phase. In this sense, her studiesof nature do nothing other than addressthe mystery of being, the fate of objects,people or whole countries. Discoveringthe future is only possible through a carefulstudy of the present, through discreteimages of objects. Chernysheva’s photographspresent the world in a state ofpeace and quiet, prior to the explosion ofhistory, when events are clearly distinguishablein the present and not compoundedby time, when every image is a valuableunit serving to measure a life or an epoch.right page:OLGA CHERNYSHEVA“Anabiosis”, 2000-2002from a series of 8 photographs104 x 72 cm each, Ed. 5

DUBOSARSKY & VINOGRADOV12SOCIAL REALISM FOR SALEPatricia Ellis, from the catalog of theTirana Biennial 2001 / FlashArt Oct. 2002Dubosarsky & Vinogradov are designedheroism for the 21st century. Siftingthrough the rubble of Russian mythology,Dubosarsky & Vinogradov are re-mixingfolklore for the next generation. Spin-doctoringa new glasnost: a true power forthe people type of propaganda. Samplingfrom every fad in the book, Dubosarsky &Vinogradov piece together a black marketparadise. Social realism for sale: moreglamorous than ever, a cut above the rest.90IES – ART IS AS SIMPLE AS MOOINGAnatoly Osmolovsky, in: Dubosarsky &Vinogradov, Soros Center for ContemporaryArt Moscow, 1999 (excerpt)The collaborative work of AlexanderDubosarsky and Vladimir Vinogradovstarted in 1994. Before, Dubosarsky wasknown as one of the most active participantsin the Gallery in the Trehprudnyalley, which, being supervised by AvdeiTer-Organian, showed extremely intensiveexhibition activity. Weekly exhibitionsactionshad been grasping the attentionof the Moscow art scene for more thantwo and a half years. However, in 1993the gallery terminated its activity, theauthors’ circle disappeared and each participantstarted to look for his own way incontemporary art. While Dubosarsky exhibitedin the Trehprudny alley his friend andfuture partner Alexandre Vinogradov wasgraduating from the Surikov Institute. Hisknowledge and abitilities obtained in theinstitute were the most influential for thecontemporary project practise. […] In1994 the Moscow situation had beenmarked by the appearance of radical art -an absolutely different art situation, whichlater became extremely famous (sometimesit was also called Moscow actionism).At that time radical art, mostly focusedat highly aggressive and brutal performances,was the most noticeable andpopular method for communication withthe society. In its turn, radical art startingwith the first actions (at the end of 1989)argued with the circle of the Moscowconceptualism that had appeared in theSoviet age. In spite of the declining interestto esoteric conceptualism, it keptquite distinctive influence in the Moscowart context. […] However, contrary to radicalswho created an image of an antihero,of an anarchist terrorist and provocateur,Vinogradov & Dubosarsky tried toconstruct an image of a post-perestroikapositive hero. Their main task was to synthesizea new Russian style, which, on theother side can provoke misunderstanding(misunderstanding is the main attribute ofinterest) in the field of art. This misunderstandingin the situation of total decline oftraditional interpretation schemes, totaleconomic and social state instability couldbe achieved only by demonstrating acomprehensible and simple gesture. […]Critics were trying to find out: what is it?Another turn of sots-art in different socialconditions? Apology of a new Russianstate? Intellectual infantilism, craziness orpossible madness? New aestheticism orsimulitionism? I think that all this interpretationsare similarly probable, they do notreflect the complicated and contradictoryidea of Vinogradov and Dubosarsky, butrepresent the spontaneous and schizophrenicpost-perestroika Russian reality. […]

top:DUBOSARSKY& VINOGRADOV“Wolfs”, 2002oil on canvas150 x 150 cmbottom:DUBOSARSKY& VINOGRADOV“Summer”, 2002oil on canvas200 x 300 cm13

DMITRY GUTOV14THREE COMPONENTSViktor Misiano, in: "Zeitwenden",Kunstmuseum Bonn, 1999, p. 126-127(excerpt)Dmitry Gutov’s creative activity consists ofthree components. Obviously they arepresent in his latest projects; therefore,they already existed in his earlier works ofthe 90ies. Those were hand-paintedcanvases depicting wallpaper fragments.They looked old fashioned, in the spirit ofthe 60ies, with the geometrical stylisticstypical also for the 20ies. Gutov’s earlierworks appropriated the stylistics of theRussian constructivism, linking it with thelanguage of Russian avantgarde. Trying togive a schematic and formula of Russianavantgarde aesthetics one can use VictorShklovsky’s words “Art as a Method”.Gutov is faithful to this principle in all hisworks: they are built upon total rooting ofa pithy part of a work in its material andformal structure. Thus, one of his workswas made as a giant installation: cloudswere floating high above the forest field,and the clouds consisted of badmintonshuttlecock (“Shuttlecock”). Whether theshuttle-cocks are floating above theground, earth and wooden planks layupon the surface: in his work titled “Overthe Black Mud” the floor of the Moscowgallery “Rigina” was covered by themuddy black earth and the audience wasmoving along the wooden light planksthrown over the mud. This effectivenessand effectness of the method lies both inthe idea of hand-made wallpapers, andvideo where the change of a shotcoincides with the change of a posture.However, Gutov’s work is not a Russianversion of American minimalism. He doesnot read Clement Greenberg but marxistaesthetologist Mikhail Lifshitz and philosophicalclassics - Marx and Hegel.Gutov’s art opposes to the avantgardeidea of linear construction of the artlanguage, his creative activity isconsecutively historic. […] However,Gutov’s historicism has nothing to do withpost-modern deconstruction. On the contrary,it is vital and natural experience ofthe past as something actual, and work ofa thought born by reading of aestheticsand philosophy by Hegel. […]However, Gutov’s art is not a “MuseeImaginaire”. He appropriated one phrasefrom his spiritual teacher, a marxist,Michail Lifshitz: “It’s time to say good buyto the petty intrigues of reflexion”. Thatphrase has become Gutov’s slogan notonly in his polemics with self-sufficientintellectualism of conceptualism (the mostalien trend in the Moscow art of previousdecade), but also in his polemics with theidea of art autonomy. Gutov is obsessedwith reality and he represents still actualfigure of a social artist with an activecritical point of view. […]right page (top):DMITRY GUTOV“Flag”, 1999digital print on textile180 x 300 cmright page (bottom):DMITRY GUTOV“Sascha from Urupinsk”, 1997/2002series of 4 b/w photographies40 x 60 cm, Ed. 10

VALERY KOSHLYAKOV16MOSCOW, KREMLIN, CARDBOARDBarbara WittwerThose sleeping under bridges certainlyappreciate the qualities of cardboard.Those selling their wares in the open-airknow the value of a windbreak made ofcardboard. When children build their firstplayhouses, they make them out ofcardboard. Cardboard boxes in the attic –containing books, items no longer used,memories. Cardboard boxes that transportdreams of the “good life” – videorecorders, televisions and kitchenappliances, PC’s or wall units. Whoeversaid cardboard is just cheap packingmaterial to be disposed of after use?Corrugated board is an invaluablyfavourable material, available in enormousquantity, well suited for large areas, easyto transport and fit, flexible and muchmore durable than its reputation suggests.Corrugated board is structured andstable, both warm and soft in itscolourfulness and material effect. Itconsists of little more than surfaces thatdo not take themselves seriously andalways act in the service of what liesbeneath.At the mention of the word “Kremlin”, thelistener sees in his mind’s eye more thangolden domes and towers with the redstar – he also associates the term withRussia’s political seat of power. Anyonewho has been there will also know theMoscow Kremlin as one of Russia’s mostimportant cultural heritage sites.Irrespective of soviet star or double eagle:while emblems may change, such sitesoutlast revolutions.In this sense, the subject of the cardboardpictures is not merely an external ‘postcardmotif’, but a symbol, the weight andsupra-individual, social importance ofwhich have grown in the course of its history.The themes of the picture series arenot arbitrary, but depict places ofidentification, places where history, aesthetics,style and belief are concentrated –in short, places that exude culture.The painting style used in the cardboardpictures is extremely casual, demonstrablymore academic sketch than‘modern art’, uncontemporary to somedegree.Cultural continuity in difficult, painful,exciting times of upheaval: whichcontemporary, modern material couldconvey this theme better than cardboard?right page:VALERY KOSHLYAKOV“Moscow. Kremlin”, 2000mixed media on cardboard340 x 140 cm

OLEG KULIK18THE SAME. ENTER SKOTININ,MAN ON ALL FOURSMila Bredikhina, 1994 (excerpt)Freud believed that the figure of a humanbeing standing upright is at the beginningof the cultural process. A human beingstands upright and then irreversible processestake place: smell is no longer valuable,genitalia become conspicuous asnever before, shame appears, sexualexcitement becomes almost constant – inother words, the road to culture is clear.And so too the road to dissatisfaction. Inthe case of the latter, energy is significantlydepleted and the tired mind isinclined to go again on all fours. Oleg Kulikwent on all fours as a result of an excessof energy. This makes him resembleProfessor Presbury, a character fromConan Doyle’s story, Man on all Fours. Anold professor obsessed with a passion fora young woman easily climbed verticalwalls at night, squealed and jumped,teased dogs and unfortunately came to abad end. The source of his mysteriouslyenergy was simple enough: it was a sexhormone of a black headed monkey. […]Kulik claims that it is sufficient for a humanbeing to become the other in order to bean animal, to go on all fours when he orshe loses shame, acquires the sense ofsmell etc. In this process, identifyingoneself with an animal as a non-anthropomorphicOther, one is not losingconnection with one’s own species. Onthe contrary, treating one’s “animal” passionswith such consideration guaranteesattention on the part of other people. Inthe moment of existential inspiration Kulikis pulled away from human beings. Hecould follow the lead of Fonvizin’s character,Skotinin, and say: “What sodomy.I’d better take a walk around a cowshed”.But, unlike Skotinin, Kulik is sure thatinevitably he will be discovered in thatuncivilised place, that culture will catch upwith him. In other words, no matter whereKulik goes with his libido, he would nevertake a walk without being ready tointroduce it into cultural spheres: hewould never walk around a cowshedwithout a video or a camera, without atape recorder, a microphone etc. […]PARADIS ARTIFICIELIrina Kulik (excerpt)Oleg Kulik, who has long existed in thehypostasis of the “Dog-man”, suggests aradically new strategy in his project titledThe New Paradise: a suicidal, doomedattempt to transgress the borders of thehuman and the borders of culture. WhenKulik became an animal in his earlier projectsand performances, he inevitablyturned into a show himself, instead ofbeing an artist or a spectator, and hisresponse to the eternal “don’t-touch”impermeability of a museum was to bitspectators breaking through the barrierfrom the opposite side. The New Paradiseis a project where Kulik goes back to thehuman. He tries to restore the image ofthe lost paradise combining the images ofman with the natural world, which haslong appeared to be the world, which ispossible only when we are absent. […]top: OLEG KULIK“The Mad Dog”performance, 1994b/w photography30,5 x 41 cmbottom: OLEG KULIK“Giraffe, Museum of Nature(New Paradise)”, 2001c-print on aluminium124 x 208 cm

TATYANA LIBERMAN20THE BODY AS REFLECTIONO.Shishkin, in: "The Body as Reflection",Segodnya, Nov. 25th 1994 (excerpt)Parts amount to more than the whole. Thenumber of details cannot be ascertained.If we view parts on the whole and thewhole world as a particular instance, wecan make a definite conclusion: detailsare always more impressive than whatthey make up because they are closer tous and more concrete.Lying on the beach on a summer holidaywe are in a most directly tangible contactwith a colossal cosmic body. But wecertainly don’t see it as an astronautwould from the orbit. Our immediatejudgement is that the Earth is a flatsurface overgrown with grass andstretching to infinity. The farther away weare removed from the object, the morechanged it looks. From the far edges ofour galaxy the Earth must look like a pointof light and still farther away - thephantom will totally disappear from view.The works of Tatyana Liberman study theexistence of an object in its transition fromthe particular to the general. The shadowplays the role of a brake in that process,which is needed for close scrutiny. Thesubject thoroughly examined in them isthe sculptured female torso, armless andheadless, as found in excavations ofancient ruins by the Europeans of theclassical revival period. The words"ancient Greek or Roman" actually soundto us as synonyms of "fragmentary". Weare used to looking at broken statuesvisualizing them as whole in our minds.But that is the charm of the past - it canonly be properly seen by the schizophrenicfragmentary consciousness.The shadow has with Liberman stillanother important function - a disorientingone. The mesh through which light falls onthe rough surface exists only in theimagination of the onlooker as a call fromemptiness, a simulation of the nonexistent.Where might the strange scenesdepicted in the photographs take place?Just in the mind of the artist who provokesthe environment to generatephantoms? Or in the world of variations inthe brain of God, or some God-likeSupercatalog where the eternal creationof sculptured human trunks must betaking place? Armless, legless, headlessancient marbles are rotating in semi-darkness,strangely weightless, somewhatlike X-mas tree decorations. [ … ]It would be even more logical to viewLibermans experiments from anotherangle - as experiments conducted onpeople. A live nude body has always symbolizedin art the absence of time,arbitrariness of space, and strangeness ofBeing. "Enough of the black", said Degas."Enough of the white", we might echo.Between black and white are the ancientmarble torsos - just traces of light on thesurface of the photographic film.right page (top and bottom):TATYANA LIBERMAN“Anonymae”, 1999b/w photography, Ed. 1055 x 74 cm

IGOR MOUKHIN22MOSCOW–PARISOlga Sviblova, in: “Moscow-Paris”,Moscow House Of Photography, 2001Igor Moukhin started his career as aphotographer in the middle of the 80iesduring the epoch of the wave of a newsoviet art when underground showed onthe surface of the soviet art life and provokeda big interest in the West. The timeof Perestroika gave birth to a newgeneration of artists whose names arenow undoubtedly engraved in the historyof national and world art. At that time theworld had rediscovered Russian photographicmodernism of the 20-30ies andfirst of all such classics of the Russianphotography as Alexandre Rodchenko,Boris Ignatovitch, Arkadi Shaikhet.Nevertheless, photography still remainedout of focus of curators’ and critics’attention and existed in the state of acertain immobility. There was only a fewnumber of photographers (such as BorisMikhailov, Boris Saveliev, AlexandreSlusarev, Ilya Kabakov, Eric Bulatov,Grisha Bruskin, Igor Moukhin etc.) whosework was broader than a traditional photoreport. Using the patterns of thecontemporary art they worked in the fieldof Social Art, the strongest movement ofthe Russian underground at that time.In 1988 Igor Moukhin showed his series“Fragments” and “Monuments” whichmade him one of the leaders of the newRussian photography. Both projects werededicated to the ruins of the sovietempire. The Soviet propaganda hadalready lost its influence and the AugustPoutch of 1991 had defined the differencebetween the soviet past and a newdirection of development of the country.The post perestroika epoch marked a“Babylonian” mixture of the sovieteconomics, aesthetic, mentality and thenew Russian reality, new tendencies supportedespecially by the younggeneration. It was youth which becamethe main theme of Moukhin’s works in the90ies.Moukhin’s work is a bright and fullreflection of the first decade of theRussian capitalism performed precisely bymeans of a cinematographic-like staticimages. The series “People in love” (1996)is the conscious act of refusal andresistance against the military interventionin Tchetchnya. This series became “a visitcard” of the new Russian photographydefiling the myths “we are the happiest”and “we are the most miserable”. IgorMoukhin’s works do not bear theinfluence of the critic and romantic realism.The photographer tries to catch theenergy of a social space and of aconcrete person which allowed him tocreate a rigid, bright and dramatic imageof Russia at the edge of the 21st century.In 1999 Igor Moukhin works in Paris withinthe framework of the artistic exchangebetween Moscow and Paris. [ … ] TheProject “Moscow-Paris” unites the twolatest series by Igor Moukhin and reflect aunique specificity of both cities. In a veryfine and delicate way the works revealcommon features of existential problemsof the citizens of Paris and Moscow,especially of their youth.right page (top and bottom):IGOR MOUKHIN“Moscow”, 1990 - 2001b/w photography30 x 40 cm

AES+F24LE ROI DE LA FORÊT –LE ROI DES AULNESÂEkaterina Degot, in: “NU The Nordic ArtReview”, 2001The project "The King of the Forest" is aseries of performances in different countries(Russia, Sweden, Egypt, France, Italyetc.).The "King of the Forest" is a mythologicalcreature of Europe. It kidnaps beautifulchildren and hides them in its palace. Thisplot was used in a poem by J.W. Goetheand in a novel by Michel Tournier (titled"Le Roi des Aulnesâ"). For the first performancein throne hall of the Catherine IIspalace in Pushkin town we chose morethen two hundred pupils of the specialballet and sport schools and some childrenof model agencies fromSt.Petersburg, all of them from 3 and 5 to11 years old.The unhappy paedophilic protagonist ofMichel Tournier's "Le roi des Aulnesâ" -after which the work of AES+F is named -was a keen photographer, sublimating hisobsession in obsessive representation." Inthe performance "Le Roi des Aulnesâ"children are represented in a large crowd,and there is a totalitarian twist about it.Are they victims looking at the invisibletyran giving them orders as in Tournier'snovel where children are entering the Naziyouthcamp and the totalitarian fascinationwith the fragile young beauty is addressed?Are they called by an invisible ForestKing who will take the mout of this life,turn them into statues? Or are they generatingthe stereotype themselves, willinglyentering the realm of the image?Like the children on these photographs,many artists today including AES+F arewalking a rope of glamour stereotype,since they feel this is the only way throughthe abyss. Some are balancing dangerously,some are brilliantly falling and catchingthe rope again: the point is to be onthe edge. In any case, the show is unavoidable:these are those to be shown,these are those to take the ingrateful jobof representation.bottom:AES+F“Le Roi des Aulnesâ”, 2001-02inkjetprint on canvas120x140cm

CUBOMETR GALLERYCUBOMETR GALLERYV. Dubosarsky & A. VinogradovDear friends,Facing you is our new project, a gallerywe called “Cubometr”. Admittedly, lastsummer, we saw something like this inChelsea, New York. We admired theartist’s clever idea: he had used corrugatedboard to model a certain space, withabstract art painted on its walls. We conscientiouslynoted down the author’s nameso as to refer to him if need be. Of course,we have since lost this valuable note.Forgive us, our unknown American friend!Center for Contemporary Art for its supportand interest. Godspeed!center and bottom:two videos shown in the Cubometr gallery during the “Politika-Buff” (video festival from Ex-URSS, curated by Genia Kikodze)OLEG KULIK (middle)“With you I'm a beast”, 2002videotape, 3 min.RADEK COMMUNITY & DMITRY GUTOV (bottom)“Demonstration”, 2000videotape, 5 min.As, for almost a year, we nurtured thisidea of a little gallery, we invented exhibitions,discussed our visions, and consultedcolleagues. Then, the moment camewhen we realized that it had to be donethere and then.Our baby has virtually inexhaustibleresources: solo exhibitions or internationalbiennales, advertising drives or performances,mass media or nonspectacularprojects. We are open to cooperation withartists, curators, and various institutions.Your wildest fantasies as well as projectsthat could not be implemented for onereason or another can now be translatedinto reality at the cubic metre gallery.Every exhibition project will culminate in afull catalogue in Russian and English.The gallery opens with an internationalvideo festival, “Politika-Buff” (curatorGenia Kikodze). Before breaking a symbolicbottle of champagne, we wish toexpress our deep gratitude to the National25

BIOGRAPHIESAES+F (Tatyana Arsamasova, 1955; LevEvsovich, 1958; Evgeny Sviatsky, 1957and Vladimir Fridkes). Started their activitywith projects exploring the theme of thehuman body (Decorative Anthropology,1991; Body Space, 1995 etc). Theanthropological interest was for them,though, only pretext for the calculatedintellectual provocation. In the projectswhich followed raised the whole spectrumof challenging mass-media themes balancingon the edge of polite-correctness(Islamic Project, 1996; Suspects. SevenInner and Seven Righteous, 1997; Defile,2000-2001; King of the Forest, 2001-2002). Noted figures at the Moscow artscene, participants of many internationalexhibition projects (Biennale de Lyon,2000; Gwangju Biennale, 2002; etc.).OLGA CHERNYSHEVA , 1962. In the80ies studied film scenography in theState School of Cinematography, thanpassed the course at the Riecksacademyin Amsterdam. Has a particular eye for thedeep metaphysics of reality and has beenable to express the specific transitive characterof today’s Russian life. Works in differentmedia: drawing, video, photography,installation. Involved in numerousprojects of Russian and internationalinstitutions and galleries. In 2001 herinstallation was presented within theframework of the Russian project at theVenice Biennale.VLADIMIR DUBOSARSKY, 1964 andALEXANDER VINOGRADOV, 1963. Artduo which gave the second birth to theMoscow painting school. Educated in thefortress of soviet social realism traditions,the Surikov Art School in Moscow. Later26brought fine manner of painting to servethe eccentric pop-culture. This contradictorysynthesis resulted in a specificgrotesque imagery and expression, whichattracted the living interest of curators,critics and influential Russian and internationalinstitutions. Participants of numerousRussian and international art events(Secession Vienna, 1997; 3rd BiennialMontenegro, 1997; “Russian Madness”,Biennale de Valencia, 2001; "Davaj!Russian Art Now.", Berlin, 2001, MAKVienna, 2002; etc.).DMITRY GUTOV , 1961. Educated as artcritic and historian of art and in many ofhis projects explores the contradictorynature of contemporary art. At the end ofthe 80ies opened for the Moscow art theromantic of the decorative style of the60ies. Later came to works without particularmanner or media but marked bythe distinctive leftist ideas. Has a widestexhibition mapping equally involved inregional education art projects all overRussia as well as in prestigious internationalmega-events (Venice Biennale,1995; Zeitwenden, 1999; L'autre moitiede L'Europe, 2000)VALERY KOSHLYAKOV , 1962, painterfrom the southern region of Russia(Rostovsky Region) where he started asstage decorator in a musical theatre.Developed his own original style and techniqueof painting, painting on roughcardboards which he uses formonumental architectural compositions,dramatizing the nostalgic feeling of thegolden age of culture. Shares his timebetween Moscow and Berlin and isequally active in both art scenes.

BIOGRAPHIESOLEG KULIK , 1961. As two other exsovietartists received wide acknowledgmentof the international institutionalsystem, Kabakov and Mikhailov,originates from Ukraine. In the 80-90iesmade a brilliant art career full of scandalsand contradictions from the instructor ofan amateur art club in the remote villageto the international art celebrity, enteringinto all most prestigious ratings and takingpart in the biggest international art forums(Istanbul Biennale, 1999; Sao PaoloBiennale, 1999; Venice Biennale, 2001).The subject of his art is the deep ecology:it explores the phenomenon of the animalin the human being.TATYANA LIBERMAN , 1964. Professionalphotographer. In many of her worksmakes point on the female body: in someas subject of desire, in some as idea-fix ofcommercial advertisement, in some aseternal image of art (project “Antonyms”,1999). Another direction of her art is eroticismof common objects (project“Vegetables, fruits and sea-products”,1997), the theme which lead her to moreabstract metaphysic of time, light andlogical combinations (project “Game withLight”, 2001). Participant of manyexhibitions in Russia and abroad.IGOR MOUKHIN , 1961, Moscow bornphotographer and artist. Started in theend of the 80ies with metaphysical photoseriesdepicting the transformation of thesoviet cultural object in the time of transitionand changes. Got internationalacclaim for his sharp-eye city-scopes,done first in Moscow then in Russian provinceand then in the world capitals (Paris,Vienna). Author of socially orientatedelaborate photo panoramas as the project"Youth in the Metropolis" at the MoscowPhotobienale 1998. Participant ofnumerous international shows focused onemerging east European Art in the 90ies("After the Wall", 1999; "Davaj!", 2001).CONSTANTIN BOKHOROV , 1961.Curator, art critic, historian of art. In the90ies took active part in the institutionaldevelopment in Moscow (Regina Gallery,National Centre for Contemporary Arts).The organizer and administrator ofnumerous projects in the framework ofactivity of these institutions (Commissionerof the Russian Pavilion at theVenice Biennale, 1995-1999). Author ofcritical texts reflecting on contemporaryart in the logic of institutionaldevelopment. As a curator produced anumber of experimental projectsintegrating art in the context of ethical(Without Permission, 1992) and existentialissues (Conforming / Nonconforming,2001).27

CREDITS & IMPRINTThis publication was printed on the occasion of the exhibition „moscow: paradise“,which was shown in Salzburg (July 22th – August 31st 2001), Vienna (May 25th – July12th 2002) and in the Galerie der Stadt Wels (January 30th – March 7th 2003).CREDITS:We would like to thank the following persons and galleries:All the artists and writersConstantin Bokhorov for his tireless encouragementGalerie Christine König, Vienna (Olga Chernysheva)XL Gallery, Moscow (Dubosarsky & Vinogradov, Oleg Kulik, Tatyana Liberman, IgorMoukhin)Fine Art gallery Ltd., MoscowAIDANGALLERY, Moscow (Valery Koshlyakov)Guelman Gallery, Moscow (Dubosarsky & Vinogradov, Dimitri Gutov, ValeryKoshlyakov, Oleg Kulik, Tatyana Liberman)Claudio Poleschi Arte Contemporanea, Lucca (Dubosarsky & Vinogradov)IMPRINT:© 2003 by Krinzinger Projekte, Vienna, the artists and Constatin Bokhorovexcept the pages of AES+F and the cubometr, which are © Galerie Knoll, Viennaedited and published by Krinzinger Projekte, Schottenfeldgasse 45, 1070 Wienphone +43 1 512 81 42Galerie Krinzinger, Seilerstätte 16, 1010 Wienphone +43 1 513 30 06e-mail galeriekrinzinger@chello.atidea of exhibition and catalog: Dr. Ursula Krinzingercuratorial concept:Constantin Bokhoroveditorial office:Severin Dünsergraphic design:Severin Dünserphotographic reproduction of the works: Angelika Krinzingertechnical assistence:Stanislaw Piwowarczyk, Tillman Kaisertranslation: translingua, Graz (Koshlyakov), Andrey Patrikeev (Kulik, Paradis artificiel)printed by:Druckerei Goldstein, Obachgasse 26, 1220 Wien29

SPONSORSGesellschaft derFreunde derbildenden Künste31

paradisemoscow: