Traverse XXIII, March 13 - 31, 2019, Toulouse (France)
When an art is called “installation”, it implies an approach even if we can regret this appellation since “ephemeral”, in situ, a moving sculpture, taking up space, minimalism of a large screen with loop option, in other figures, refuses this enslavement to a place, for a closed use. He has to question his relationship with space, with those who approach it, it thinks itself in intersubjectivity. When an art borrows an ambiguous term connoting prowess, but however emancipates itself from the couple action-reaction/action-result; we can regret that one assimilates it to a live show, with its rules of completion whereas it is performative, that it exists through what it does.
When cinema hooks to its “experimental” or “different” name, it stands out, it is already out of step with what is expected, it does not bend to a normed social use, it overflows our habits of acceptance of the image and sound and signals itself by its research for other ways to make films. Video had to hang the term “art”, declaring itself of this field and reinvesting this image in criticism of the ready to think, the ready to see, ready to hear. From now on, digital writing invests a field of potentialities, starting from the generalized computer tool, globalized for social, professional, industrial practices…digital art makes its own initiative outside the practice of use.
This is the foundation of active forms of art such as thought, doing it in art… it is easy to prove, paradoxically, even before the name from which we start. So early, as a Koulechov claimed as the guiding principle of his project: “the study of the creative possibilities of editing. I would assemble the “unassemblable”, put plans in the most unusual disorder, and then look at what it produced.”
There is art only in a similar fundamental quest. By definition, art creates what does not exist, it is not a wise reflection of reality, point by point… It is fundamental… research.
However, false debates, including among inventors of forms/discourses/thoughts, would distinguish research from art. By sending the researcher back to the laboratory and the artist back to artworking, would we not be surreptitiously returning to an art of inspiration, an art of mindfulness, an art of muse whispering the way forward in the denial of this inseparability of research and creation.
The purpose launched is not historical, it does not awaken Leonardo and his machines, when mathematics was the basis of cosmetics. It can be, and then in digital language, form new spaces, scan inter-frame in algorithms, calculate the film metrically.
It can invent its own modes, work in metaphors and be at least or also a thinking of what makes the image now, without naivety.
On the way, the 2019 edition would like to invite us to think on what drives art; does it take paths close to research, thinking that it expresses the relationships that humans have with the world? Or is it a research in its own right constantly inventing new forms which are in themselves their own expressiveness? Or is it just fascination, a new Medusa?
No entry fee.
No constraint of length, nor year of production.