𝒎𝒊𝒅𝒅𝒍𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅: (𝒊𝒎)𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒌𝒊𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒏
gmtc presents
𝒎𝒊𝒅𝒅𝒍𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅: (𝒊𝒎)𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒌𝒊𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒏
𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐚 𝐠𝐮
09.01-09.30.2026
what we choose to eat–or not to eat–is never just a matter of personal taste. shaped by religion, culture, family, and community, the boundaries of what we can eat, cannot eat, and what we consider “food,” are constantly negotiated.
𝒎𝒊𝒅𝒅𝒍𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅: (𝒊𝒎)𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒌𝒊𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒏 is a project that brings together and overlaps different food rules, taboos, and personal experiences in one place. throughout september, artist 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐚 𝐠𝐮 transforms gmtc into a temporary kitchen, studio, archive, and meeting place to put these questions to the table.
graphic by @binvin.hrs
text edited by @av0cuddl3
𝒎𝒊𝒅𝒅𝒍𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅: (𝒊𝒎)𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒌𝒊𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒏
𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐚 𝐠𝐮
09.01-09.30.2026
𝒎𝒊𝒅𝒅𝒍𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅: (𝒊𝒎)𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒌𝒊𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒏 is a project that brings together and overlaps different food rules, taboos, and personal experiences in one place. throughout september, artist 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐚 𝐠𝐮 transforms gmtc into a temporary kitchen, studio, archive, and meeting place to put these questions to the table.
each exchange becomes ingredients for the next encounter. through workshops, collaborations, performances, and, of course, ongoing cooking and conversation, the project aims to gather stories, adapt recipes, and share meals. we invite you to share your story, bring recipes to adapt together, or join us in exploring the possibilities, impossibilities, and “𝒎𝒊𝒅𝒅𝒍𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅” of eating together.
this september, we look forward to meeting, talking, cooking, and gathering around the table with you at gmtc.graphic by @binvin.hrs
text edited by @av0cuddl3
https://www.instagram.com/p/DcwXWYNHBEw/?img_index=1
this program is supported by arts council korea.
`•.¸¸.•´´¯`••._.• 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐩
september 10, thursday, 5:30 - 7:30 pm
what do we eat, and what do we not eat? and where do we draw the boundaries between them? in this workshop, we will explore a collection of printed research materials that artist 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐚 𝐠𝐮 has gathered for 𝒎𝒊𝒅𝒅𝒍𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅: (𝒊𝒎)𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒌𝒊𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒏, looking at food rules and taboos across different religions, cultures, and communities. using these materials alongside our own experiences—foods we eat or avoid, favorite dishes, family food traditions, familiar recipes, and memories around food—we will each create a small zine.
n̲o̲ ̲s̲p̲e̲c̲i̲a̲l̲ ̲k̲n̲o̲w̲l̲e̲d̲g̲e̲ ̲a̲b̲o̲u̲t̲ ̲r̲e̲l̲i̲g̲i̲o̲n̲ ̲o̲r̲ ̲f̲o̲o̲d̲ ̲c̲u̲l̲t̲u̲r̲e̲ ̲i̲s̲ ̲n̲e̲e̲d̲e̲d̲.̲ you can start with a sentence or image that catches your attention in the research materials, something you ate today, or an ingredient you normally don’t eat. by cutting, pasting, writing, and making connections between different food rules and our own experiences, we will create our own small food archives.
𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴:
you’re also welcome to simply come with your curiosity! research materials and basic zine-making supplies will be provided.
if you’d like, bring one or two of the following:
* photos or recipes of something you recently ate or a dish you love
* recipes that you or your family often makes
* photo, text, or story related to a food or ingredient you don’t eat
* the ingredients list cut out from the packaging of a food product you recently bought
* any food-related receipts, packaging, menus, notes, images, or other materials
september 10, thursday, 5:30 - 7:30 pm
what do we eat, and what do we not eat? and where do we draw the boundaries between them? in this workshop, we will explore a collection of printed research materials that artist 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐚 𝐠𝐮 has gathered for 𝒎𝒊𝒅𝒅𝒍𝒆 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅: (𝒊𝒎)𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒌𝒊𝒕𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒏, looking at food rules and taboos across different religions, cultures, and communities. using these materials alongside our own experiences—foods we eat or avoid, favorite dishes, family food traditions, familiar recipes, and memories around food—we will each create a small zine.
n̲o̲ ̲s̲p̲e̲c̲i̲a̲l̲ ̲k̲n̲o̲w̲l̲e̲d̲g̲e̲ ̲a̲b̲o̲u̲t̲ ̲r̲e̲l̲i̲g̲i̲o̲n̲ ̲o̲r̲ ̲f̲o̲o̲d̲ ̲c̲u̲l̲t̲u̲r̲e̲ ̲i̲s̲ ̲n̲e̲e̲d̲e̲d̲.̲ you can start with a sentence or image that catches your attention in the research materials, something you ate today, or an ingredient you normally don’t eat. by cutting, pasting, writing, and making connections between different food rules and our own experiences, we will create our own small food archives.
𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴:
you’re also welcome to simply come with your curiosity! research materials and basic zine-making supplies will be provided.
if you’d like, bring one or two of the following:
* photos or recipes of something you recently ate or a dish you love
* recipes that you or your family often makes
* photo, text, or story related to a food or ingredient you don’t eat
* the ingredients list cut out from the packaging of a food product you recently bought
* any food-related receipts, packaging, menus, notes, images, or other materials
읽는 미술 Reading Art
요즘미술 Art these days, Seoul
2026. 9. 3.(목)~9. 23.(화)
https://www.art-thesedays.com/readingart/
▤ 참여작가: 구민자, 김소희, 김솔, 김시원, 김연주, 김정은, 레이첼슈더, 맹성규, 문상훈, 박용석, 오인환, 윤소린, 이윤수, 이미혜, 이정식, 임윤경, 전지인, 정아람, 정지수, 조수민, 조우희, 황귀영, 현세진, k
Gu Minja, Kim Sohee, Sol Kim, Kim Siwon, Yeonjoo Kim, Jungeun Kim, Rachel Schuder, Seonggyu Maeng, Moon Sanghoon, Park Yong-seok, Inhwan Oh, Solin Yoon, Yoonsu Lee, Meehye Lee, Jungsik Lee, Yoonkyung Lim, Juen Jiin, Ahram Jeong, Jisoo Chung, Sumin Cho, Woohee Cho, Guiyoung Hwang, Sejin Hyun, k
▤ 전시기간: 2026. 9. 3.(목)~9. 23.(화) *월요일 휴관
▤ 기획: 요즘미술 (박용석)Park Yong-seok
동시대미술에서 언어는 작품을 이해하기 위한 수단만은 아니다.
언어는 종종 작품 그 자체의 구조가 되고, 때로는 이미지가 감당하지 못하는 지시와 논리를 떠맡으며,
어떤 경우엔 이미지보다 먼저 존재해 이미지를 규정하기도 한다.
미술을 ‘본다’는 행위는 흔히 즉각적이고 감각적인 경험으로 이해되지만,
이미지는 언제나 동시에 읽어내야 한다. 현대미술은 더욱더 그렇다.
언어를 가지고 작업한다는 것은 기억과 경험을 소환하고, 관계를 만들고, 과정을 수용하고,
시간 속에서 작동하는 행동을 만드는 일이기에, 수행적인(performative) 미술이 된다.
언어는 발화되거나 쓰이는 순간에 비로소 존재하며, 그 자체로 하나의 사건이다.
언어적 구조로 작업한다는 것은 따라서 완결된 이미지를 제시하는 대신, 발화·기록·소환·관계 맺기라는
행위를 작품의 조건으로 삼는 것이다.
그러므로 작품은 보여지는 대상이 아니라 매번 다시 일어나는 사건에 가까워진다.
《읽는 미술》은 이러한 언어적 태도를 지닌 작가들을 소개한다.
In contemporary art, language is not merely a means of understanding a work. Language often becomes the very structure of the work itself; at times it takes on the reference and logic that images cannot bear; and in some cases it exists prior to the image and determines what that image will be. To “see” art is commonly understood as an immediate, sensory experience, yet an image must always be read at the same time. This is all the more true of contemporary art.
To work with language is to summon memory and experience, to build relations, to admit process, and to produce actions that operate within time — and in this it becomes performative art. Language comes into being only in the moment it is spoken or written; it is itself an event. To work with linguistic structures is therefore not to present a completed image, but to take the acts of speaking, recording, summoning, and relating as the very conditions of the work. The work thus becomes less an object to be looked at than an event that occurs anew each time. Reading Art introduces artists who hold to this linguistic attitude.
구민자 〈100〉, 2015 | 종이에 인쇄, 100장의 카드 | 각 6.4×8.8cm
Gu Minja, 〈100〉, 2015 | Print on paper, 100 cards | 6.4×8.8cm each
〈100〉은 알베르 카뮈의 소설 『이방인』에서 하나의 문장만으로는 인물이나 장소, 상황을 특정하기 어려운 독립된 문장 100개를 골라 만든 작업이다. 원래의 서사에서 떨어져 나온 문장들은 각각 한 장의 카드에 인쇄되어 한 벌의 카드를 구성한다.
여러 사람이 둘러앉아 카드를 섞은 뒤, 차례로 한 장씩 카드를 내며 그 위의 문장을 소리 내어 읽는다. 문장의 순서는 매번 새롭게 만들어지고, 서로 관계없던 말들은 앞뒤의 문장과 우연히 연결되며 대화나 독백처럼 이어진다. 누가 누구에게 말하는지, 어디에서 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지는 끝내 분명해지지 않지만, 읽기가 계속될수록 파편적인 문장들 사이에는 뜻밖의 관계와 상황이 생겨난다.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DdDueGoAUQF/?img_index=5https://www.instagram.com/p/DdDueGoAUQF/?img_index=5
신문 위에 차려진
2026년 6월 24일 - 2026년 8월 30일
신문박물관 6층 미디어 라운지 PRESSEUM, Seoul
참여작가 구민자, 김은하, 최가영
기획 이윤하, 김현주
https://www.presseum.or.kr/exhibition/special/exhibition-20/
《신문 위에 차려진》은 서로 다른 시대의 밥상을 통해 우리가 살아가는 방식과 먹는 방식을 함께 돌아보는 전시입니다. 생존을 위한 먹거리를 넘어 생활과 사회를 잇는 매개로서 ‘식(食)’을 탐색합니다.
동시대의 식문화는 어느 때보다 풍요롭고 다채롭습니다.
요리가 오락이 되고, 미식이 취향의 언어가 되고, 밥 한 끼를 둘러싼 이미지와 서사가 문화 콘텐츠로 재가공됩니다.
그런데 무엇을 먹을지, 어떻게 차려 먹을지, 어떤 식탁을 좋은 삶의 지표로 여길지는
오래전부터 여러 매체를 통해 문제시되었습니다. 신문은 그 흐름의 가장 가까이에 있었던 매체입니다.
신문은 위생과 개화의 언어로 식생활을 개량했으며, 표준적인 요리 레시피와 가정 이미지로 근대적 가족의 이상을 제안하고, 영양 정보와 식품 광고, 외식·미식 기사로 시대마다 달라지는 식문화의 기준을 세웠습니다. 이는 음식을 경유해 사회 구조와 가치관, 국가 정책과 소비문화, 젠더 이데올로기가 복잡하게 교차하는
상황을 보여줍니다.
《신문 위에 차려진》은 최초의 근대적 민간 신문이 등장한 1896년부터 1990년대에 이르기까지
신문이 기록한 한국의 식문화를 살핍니다.
지면 위에 차려진 음식들은 각 시대의 식문화가 사회의 변화와 맞물려 상호작용한 과정을 드러냅니다.
신문 사료와 함께 미술가 구민자, 김은하, 최가영의 작품을 선보입니다.
세 작가는 음식 이미지와 음식을 제조하는 행위, 그 배경에 놓인 기호, 유통 시스템, 기억 등을 다룸으로써 사람들의 인식과 욕망이 배열되는 문화적 장치로 우리의 식탁을 바라봅니다.
이들의 작업은 신문 속의 역사적 장면과 만나, 과거의 식탁이 지금의 미디어 환경과 생활 감각 안에서 비판적으로 다시 읽힐 가능성을 열어줍니다.
예술 작품과 신문 사료가 마주 보는 이번 전시가 먹는 일에 내재한 힘을 새롭게 발견하는 계기가 되기를 바랍니다.
Life Live - The French Perspective (1997)
by Mick Finch | ||
| Contemporary Visual Art Magazine (N°14), 1997. | ||
| ||
Paris has recently hosted two major shows surveying aspects of British art.A Century of British Sculpture at the Jeu de Paume last summer traced the history of an English-based avant-garde, placed under the unsteady umbrella of sculpture. Life/Live attempted to survey the most recent forms of so-called radical artistic practice to have emerged in Britain since the late-eighties. Central to the exhibition was a review of the artist-run spaces that have proliferated in London and other British cities over the last decade. But on another level, the exhibition singled out the work of particular artists who, having cut their teeth exhibiting in independent spaces, could now be described as mainstream. An older generation of artists including John Latham, David Medalla and Gustav Metzger were also represented, bringing to the selection a historical perspective and sense of tradition of practice. The implied tradition was broadly conceptual, and the majority of the work fell into the categories of installation, photo-based work, documents, video and film. The exhibition's title, Life/Live, implies that the broad character of work shown is a type of realism. The catalogue reinforces this view, describing the 'abject' feeling that runs through the selection as an engagement with social, ephemeral and everyday issues. Much of the work consciously revisits 'radical' aspects of a historical avant-garde - especially that of the 1960s and 70s. Suzanne Pagé highlights one example of this in her preface to the catalogue, where she describes a Situationalist spirit as being at work within the British scene today. This observation is in many ways true. A preoccupation with cities and spectacle (the English equivalent to spectacle in this case being mass entertainment) was shared by the Situationalists, who were active between 1968 and 1972. What is not clear is how much the artists selected for Life/Live really share with Situationalist aims. That group was a highly politicised movement which described the phase of capitalism emerging in the 1960s in terms of a globalisation of consumer culture where spectacle or entertainment would be the mechanism to produce a public necessary to sustain consumerism. The Situationalists were in essence political activists who tried to act in defiance of the 'spectacularisation' of society because they saw that unless this mechanism of consumerism was opposed, 'revolution' was not viable. Guy Debord's writings were at the heart of Situationalist thinking and his book The Society of the Spectacle has had much influence on a younger generation of artists in the last few years. Similarities between Life/Live and the Situationalists may, however, be only skin-deep. The quote of Debord's which prefaces this article contains the dilemma that contemporary artists face if they wish to make 'radical' art. The predominance of large-scale video, installation and photography in the exhibition directly addressed forms of spectacle. French critics have been quick to pinpoint the contradiction which lies unresolved in the Life/Liveartists' use of these media. Reviewing Life/Live for Art Press, Eric Troncy quoted an extract from the exhibition catalogue by Gregor Muir. Muir's observation epitomises a largely French critical perspective which has not exported to British shores: 'We are talking about a generation traumatised by the visual sensationalism of the entertainment industry. What I'm sensing of late is that artists have seized upon video as a means of forging a working relationship with the mass-media. This is borne out in the recent trend for video projections on a cinematic scale which acknowledge all the seductive qualities of cinema whilst revealing how certain artists are seduced by a moving image - that big - of their own making. More than anything, artists are seduced by the spectacle of video projection, often without questioning the fundamental principles of spectacles in terms of heavy-handed posturing.' The underlying question in Muir's observation is what, if any, is the radical nature of an art form which uses the apparatus of spectacle? Political radicalism can be positioned on the left or right, but Debord states that anyvanguard using spectacular forms may find that its best intentions are 'offset by the reactionary element present in all spectacles'. This reactionary element is most certainly present in the British scene shown byLife/Live - the apolitical or anarchic gloss of the scene does little to conceal this fact. This reactionary element emerges as a product of the very public this art addresses The 'Brit Pack' have become a media phenomenon which is quite unprecedented in the British scene (with perhaps the exception of the 'Tate Bricks' scandal many years back). What has changed drastically is that many Brit Pack artists have become media personalities like pop stars. Few readers of tabloid papers would have linked Carl Andre's name to the Tate Bricks, whereas Damien Hirst has become synonymous with sharks and divided cows. The power of Saatchi in this relationship is enormous. A Saatchi purchase legitimises work and types of artistic practice, acting as a bridge into museum spaces. it is also significant that the 'abject', or 'grunge', aesthetic at work in Brit Pack art has for many years been prevalent in advertising images. Embedded in fashion photography, pop videos and advertising is a grunge attitude which another generation would cynically describe as the aestheticisation of alienation - 'let's feel good about being down' (the blues were an even older phase of the same process). Art is mirroring marketing and vice-versa. In France a 'public' of this type does not exist. The French simply do not have a tabloid media which shocks its readership by sensationalising what is passing for art in 'high culture'. Perhaps weary after more than one hundred and fifty years of épater les bourgeois, the French simply accept that avant-gardism seeks shock effects. The lack of a highly 'mediatised' visual art scene in France is probably due to the fact that there is just no audience for it. The lack of a powerful advertising mogul/art collector in Paris is also noticeable. So why are the French, institutionally, spending so much time and money surveying the current British scene? One cynical explanation refers to the election victory of the right wing RPR party under Jacques Chirac, who is keen to transform the French economy by means similar to those of the Thatcherite agenda of the 1980s. So far his attempts to do this have met with considerable public opposition, but nevertheless he has been cutting funding in various public-sector fields: the arts in France have been a prime and easy target. There is a feeling in France that the massive state funding of the arts does not parallel the success and the quality of work made by its artists. One French artist I met at the Life/Live opening simply said that he felt the exhibition was a signal to the French artistic community, showing how it should operate under free market conditions. if public money dries up, French artists will have to take their chances. The privatisation of French culture will perhaps prompt its artists and administrators to examine the British art scene as a model of how the artist functions as entrepreneur. This reveals a view of the contradiction bound up within the 'Brit Pack' avant-gardist posture which Debord identified long ago. Without its media gloss and glamour, the Brit Pack appears to some Gallic audiences as a group of cultural entrepreneurs running independent spaces which mirror the institutional structure of the 'official' art world. To be an 'outsider' and in the vanguard is a tactical position which always has its eye on insider structures. Another French artist I spoke to, who practises as an installation artist, lamented the British scene's lack of any real intellectual, critical, theoretical or political ground. He gave me a critical essay, by a British group called Poster Art, entitled 'They're All Going Down'. The essay gives an account of the Brit Pack as being simply the products of a right-wing, free-marketeering enterprise culture. They indicate one of the major problems of British criticism when it deals with the contemporary scene: 'There is almost no criticism. Evening Standard art critic Brian Sewell is held up as a kind of ultimate old fart bogeyman, tainting any negative criticism with the same old fart's brush. it is only recently that the media has come to grips with contemporary art at all, so there is a total lack of historical context. The writers who are scared of becoming Brian Sewell retreat into fawning description.' Negative criticism of the Brit Pack on its home soil tends to be as reactionary as the art it is rallying against. Sewell is the extreme of this. Since the mid-eighties, after the School of London hype, there has been inertia. Critics tends to challenge the contemporary scene on the grounds that it is 'non-art', asserting in their defence the 'true' art values which are invariably species of humanistic painting and sculpture. The political gulf between the Brit Pack and the Fogeys seems about as wide as that between Thatcher, who was 'not for turning', and Major in his 'back to basics' phase. There is, however, a body of criticism, theory and history that is not being mobilised in the face of the Brit Pack phenomenon. The space available in this article does not permit an extensive exploration of this, but it is worth mentioning some other non-Fogey examples of what the negative end of the polemical response to Brit Pack art might be. One only has to examine the discussions in the 1960s and 70s for support. Art and Language practised within the context of the international conceptual avant-garde, but came to question that practice - mainly as it seemed to serve the very system that it set out to oppose. This started to become clear in the late 1960s - particularly after the exhibition When Attitudes Become Form, which in 1969 became known as the seminal survey exhibition of conceptualist art. Philip Morris sponsored the event, and a statement by the president of the company was printed in the ICA catalogue. Although it is a short text, it still makes interesting reading and proves that, even during the heady days of the sixties, corporate capitalism was quick to identify itself with avant-garde practice. Progressive aspects in the arts could, by association, benefit the progressive ideology of business interests: 'The works assembled for this exhibit have been grouped together under the heading new art. We at Philip Morris feel it is appropriate that we participate in bringing these works to the attention of the public, for there is a key element in this new art which has its counterpart in the business world. That element is innovation - without which it would be impossible for progress to be made in any segment of society.' For this reason groups like Art and Language became resolutely anti-avant-garde in their position, and more and more absorbed in a Marxist-based critical framework. interestingly, this suspicion of an avant-garde stance involves a deep but critical reading of Clement Greenberg's writings, particularly his essay 'Avant-Garde and Kitsch' of 1939. The art and social historian T. J. Clark, in an essay titled 'Clement Greenberg's Theory of Art', discusses kitsch in a way which seems to sum up the mechanisms powering Brit Pack art today: 'Kitsch is the sign of a bourgeoisie contriving to lose its identity ... It is an art and a culture of instant assimilation, of abject reconciliation to the everyday, of avoidance of difficulty, pretence at indifference, equality before the image of capital.' Michael Finch is a British artist working in France.  Life/Live was at the Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, October 1996 - January 1997, and continues at the Centro Cultural de Belém, Lisbon, until 21 April 1997 http://www.mickfinch.com/life_live.htm |
French Toast Drawing (1996-9)
dimension; A4 and variable.Drawing with ball pen, magic marker, blue ink.
The drawing is depicting an actual sculpture “French Toast Sculpture”, which is subject to the liquid of milk and wine. 
Related to Hotel paper drawings, 2009
Disquiet Tectonica / Tectonic Disquieta 불안한 구조/구조적인 불안 (2002-2004)
Invitation, Disquiet Tectonica / Tectonic Disquieta
collective exhibition, audio-video-text-architecture installation
collective exhibition, audio-video-text-architecture installation
Douglas Park, Kris Delacourt, Nico Dockx & Michelle Naismith
Richard Foncke Galerie, Ghent, 2002
Richard Foncke Galerie, Ghent, 2002
Disquiet Tectonica, DVD,
(A collaborative research project on new audiovisual writing and uncanny architecture)
all images constructed and edited by Michelle Naismith
all sounds edited and /or generated by Nico Dockx and Kris Delacourt
recoreded at spoutnik studio / ERBAN Ecole Regionale des Beaux-Arts de Nantes
text and voice by Douglas Park
Nantes 2002, Curious, Antwerp, 2002
- 감독 : 미셸 나이스미스, 니코 독스, 크리스 델라쿠르, 더글라스 파크
- 제작 : 2002 | 14:29 Min. | Digital | Color
- 미셸 나이스미스의 영상과 스틸 이미지, 니코 독스, 크리스 델라쿠르의 음악, 그리고 더글러스의 파크의 텍스트와 음성이 어우러진 시청각적인 텍스트와 기묘한 건축에 대한 공동 연구 프로젝트이며, 벨기에의 리처드 퐁케 갤러리 전시에서 처음 발표된 작품
불안한 구조/구조적인 불안(Disquiet Tectonica / Tectonic Disquieta)
2004 (summer): screening of ‘Disquiet Tectonica remix’: video installation, in collaboration with Kris Delacourt, Michelle Naismith & Douglas Park, Naples, Italy, invitation through Francesco Bonami.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)