Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Interview with Anne van der Linden

Nobody can avoid the radical in Anne van der Linden’s paintings; many also see the sentimental and peaceful dimensions of them. I’m seeking the human nature and tragedy that they are transcribing.
There are often contrasts between characters who are detached from the scenes depicted and those who are fully conscious and affected by them. This is the case in the painting where a child has his mouth and arsehole carved by the Alder king who also happens to be his father. The sadness on the face of the father who is teaching a lesson about life when the child seems blasé and bound by his flesh may be a profound statement about vice. This is tragic.
Also I respect very much that in Anne van der Linden’s paintings many different situations and relationships are present. The social patterns (gender, age, social class, lifestyles, sexual preferences etc…) aren’t always the same. When consumerism encourages people to define their identity so they can fit the market that has been designed for them, this multiplicity reminds us that we can face all the dimensions of our specie. The radical dimensions of these paintings work as a gargoyle: they protect something. Also Anne's paintings are sexy and hilarious!

Heavyshop: Anne van der Linden's website.

L: I’d like to know more about the different artistic directions you’ve explored… What were your different steps?

A: I started with improvised drawings, a mix of figures, symbols and abstract objects and lines, then I went to art school for 2 years and after that started a 3 or 4 year experiment with abstract painting. They were very thick, organic paintings, I tried to get away from consciousness and judgement in order to create a pure expression of inner feelings...well that was bullshit, I mean a deadlock for me which drove me close to depression, so after a 3 year break, I went back slowly to narrative art.

L: You wrote that your work was grotesque social pornography. Why? What should it mean? Is there something strategic in this term, something you believe in?

A: I cannot remember myself saying that, I should have said “obscenity” rather than “pornography”.
But truly there is something grotesque in my figures: they are so ambiguous, caught by a situation they don’t seem to belong to, assuming all the social codes while making them untidy, invaded by bestiality and at the same time so stiff and civilized. I think that this permanent contrast of order and disorder brings the sensation of social obscenity.





L: You’ve been involved in performances with Jean-Louis Costes? Could you describe these performances?
It was quite a long time ago, it was fun having a rock ’n roll band life style, touring and doing crazy things on stage, and a strange sensation of getting out of my body while I was acting, as if in a trance.

L: Any anecdotes or striking moments?

A: I got knocked in the face by a Swiss girl who came on stage while I was acting. After the show I went to get her and asked her why she did that, and her answer was “Did you see how they treated you on stage?” A feminist answer… Ha! Ha!






L: I have the feeling that many artists who’ve evolved in the same context as yours are quite reticent to comment about their work. What about you?

A: Commenting is something I need to do, it’s always an opportunity for me to clear my ideas, and put distance between myself and creation, that enables a renewed vision.
But it’s not so easy though. Sometimes the words are much lower than the image, just superfluous, or sometimes they kill the image! One has to find a way....I hope I do!!!



L: I guess that 90 percent of the « psychological interpretations » people want to make when they look at paintings are erroneous. When you have the opportunity to discuss your art, what sort of themes did the viewers questioned you about?

A: I don’t know, not that interesting in general... seems that most of the time viewers ask questions to themselves and not to me!
I don’t blame them but it’s just boring ... generally it’s about sex and taboos, things that they search for or, on the contrary, reject, or how I can live and assume such a type of art etc...
In general I believe that few people can look at a piece of art and penetrate its logic, only very sensitive persons can do that... or professional eyes...


L: What passes through your mind when you’re painting? What sort of correlation is there between what you’re representing and what you’re actually thinking? Any symbols? Signs?

A: I start from a drawing or a sketch, so while painting I first think about technical matters, how to build my image, the volumes, contrasts, colors and shape associations, so maybe what passes in my mind would be “sensitive thoughts”, how I feel my own body, the surrounding light (summer or winter light) etc...
Then while keeping working, an atmosphere takes place, that goes beyond the basic drawing and brings new emotions and references (dreams, other paintings, stories)...from that point the painting pulls me to it’s own meaning, and I have to possibly add the elements that it asks for..

L: Loads of your paintings are mise-en-scenes involving several characters, how do you construct the image? Do you improvise much?

A: I never improvise, it’s a long process, not so easy putting together all those characters, also I have no models as you can see.
So I have to draw and try first to build a choreography that I have only partly in mind at the beginning and which gets more precise while drawing, with the game of lines and shapes

L: In theses scenes maybe something both animalistic and ritual could be perceived?

A: Yes, it may be that: I am a lost and suffering animal in this world, and I demand with my art to the obscure forces that drive me to be favorable, not to hurt me.

L: Sometimes it seems that you’re taking the piss out of customs and lifestyles (I remember a painting depicting a woman shitting on a house and another one with a bride clasping a big phallus)…

A: Well...
Certainly I like to make things clear... married girls need eternal big dick rather than eternal big love... this can be a refreshing idea, and when I paint it I laugh !
But of course destroying the old statues brings chaos, who knows what will come out of it... We seek for order... then kill it...etc... then we have to find new models.
(One of the results of my having turned against old rules is my loneliness)


L: How do you perceive self portraits? Do you wish to keep distance with your art? I mean some artists want people to know that their art doesn’t show what they are, some don’t know what they are doing but afterwards want to understand something about themselves, and some try to express what seems to be blocked inside… Do you think you would fit in any of theses categories?

A: Hum! I can say for sure that my characters reassemble me, more or less, in terms of body structure... and the technique, one should pay attention to the way artists use their brushes for example: it is a language, a confidence by itself.
So this way, and avoiding private confessions, I can assert that my painting is me!!...the transcription of my body and soul.

L: Is it painful to paint?

A: No, very less than digging holes.




L: Is there something you want to say about your writings?

A: I read a lot but write very little, the last thing I wrote was “Je veux être ton singe” (I want to be your monkey) a short story that I illustrated... since then I’ve been quite locked.



L: Your videos?
A: I tried to put in action the themes of my paintings and it was fun, I did it with friends for the first one called “Le repassage” (the ironing), then for the 2 following, I collaborated with “professional” guys who tried to abuse me, and since then I haven’t done any movies again...
A good thing with painting is that you are the master of your world, you don’t need to deal with people

L: What are your projects for the future?


A: I’ve just made a book with the poet Jérôme Bertin, Voix editions.
I am having an exhibition in September in Lyon at the bookshop-gallery “Le bal des ardents”.
Then I’ll show 2 paintings in the big exhibition “De Clovis Trouille à Hervé di Rosa” at the museum Louis Selencq of l’Ile Adam,
Then a drawing exhibition in Lille this winter at the gallery “Une poussière dans l’oeil”.


32 comments:

ULAND said...

The questions about how much distance between the artworks she is seeking is an interesting one. I appreciated the honesty present in her assertion that her rejection of certain mores was inspired by a sense of loneliness..
I guess I've always had a nagging feeling when I look at, or listen to, very extreme forms of art that disallows me from fully embracing it ( in the sense of artistic inspiration, where you see something and say "I want to do something like that!"). It's this sense that it doesn't represent the varied hues of experience, but chooses one aspect of experience and exaggerates it to the point that it's divorced from real experience.
Like I listen to Xasthur, for instance, and I enjoy the sonic experience, but I'm struck sometimes by funny images of the Xasthur guy going to get pizza, or riding his bike to the corner store; is his bike ride a suicidal mission to get evil laundry detergent? Does he order the Satanic pizza? Are his tax forms written in the blood of children?
Maybe I'm getting off track. Not sure if you know what I mean by all this. I guess it comes down to questions of identity and authenticity;
I can't help but think that fully engaging with these modes requires some kind of psychic schism.Maybe that's part of the point, I don't know.
I know this theme has come up before, but I think that the grotesque/weird doesn't really come across unless it is contrasted with the norm. Violence is much more horrific when the subject is first humanized, etc.,
There is something in these extreme forms that does feel very real to me though, but I think, much like the work of Lovecraft, it involves a distance- provided by exaggeration to nearly cartoon levels-that allows for acceptance of an unreality; that unreality actually has the effect ( on me) of providing a "safe" space from which the contents can be apprehended; You can step into it and step out cleanly.
Lovecraft isn't scary to me. Xasthur doesn't make me understand suicidal thinking, and a lot of the more extreme graphic sexual/violent art doesn't reveal much to me about that subject.
- whereas the violence in a Dostoyevsky novel is often devastating, the supernatural in Henry James Turn of The Screw is deeply scary, Balthus really does reveal about sexuality, etc.,
I realize I'm cobbling together disparate examples here, and they are not meant to be perfect analogies.More to provide contrast.
So, ultimately, my reaction to a lot of work like this is one of ambivalence. I enjoy entering into those safe spaces where extremes can be viewed from a distance, but that distance means I can't take it on board in a meaningful way. What I appreciate more than anything about these works is the single mindedness that it requires to create these psychic spaces; I don't want to denigrate that effort one bit.

Logœme said...

I guess very often at the first glance her work seems to be extreme… One has either to fight repulsion or to tame his fascination for violence to actually start looking at the other dimensions of it. Actually when you look at the faces you can observe that they are never sadistic. Most of those paintings, I think, have something to say about relationships and human boundaries. Uland you should observe how delicate and peaceful some paintings are. The fact that some of them appear to be so radical just proves that she doesn’t want to avoid the strength of life and nature. I still have to write the introduction for this post so very soon you’ll have a more precise idea about what I mean.

ULAND said...

No, I see in the brush strokes, forms and color a certain beauty, but I don't think responding to the surface content is negligent, as it is so strong and concerted.

I'm not attacking this sort of work, I'm just offering my thoughts about it in earnest. Like I wrote, I do enjoy it, but it is in a limited way.

ULAND said...

The proposition that her work could not be described as "extreme", as we understand the term, I just don't buy.

Logœme said...

They are extreme.

ULAND said...

I really don't want to seem like I'm pecking at you, but I do have to mention that traditional sex/gender roles were in place long before market capitalism or modern consumerism. One could argue that efforts to transcend these bonds are examples of those forces at work.
Okay, I'll leave it alone from here on out.
I'm glad you're doing these interviews and don't want to dominate the discussion..

Logœme said...

It seems that you've never looked at Michelangelo’s paintings: in a lot of ancient art there is equilibrium: both gender are equally represented, which is not the case in twentieth century art. My sentence is: “When consumerism encourages people to define their identity so they can fit the market that has been designed for them, this multiplicity reminds us that we can face all the dimensions of our specie.” So Uland, you are arguing that old people still live with young people? You may also argue that products designed by our society do not target precise people and encourage them to stay where they fit best? 90 percent of the adverts portrait the same types of relationship. I’m not saying that Anne doesn’t play with gender role. She obviously does, and her work is also about that. I’m writing that she doesn’t always represent the same relation which seems to be quite rare nowadays. Her work may be difficult for people who are obsessed by products (art products) which are fitting their sexual preferences, life style and age.I’m sorry her work is emotional. Fuck people who think the devil is a anethetised logo. This fight between diversity and complacent and frigid social organisation is as old as mankind, Epicure organised parties where slaves and women had the same position as privileged men. Consumerism doesn’t.

zeke said...

Thanks for posting this interview and examples of Anne's art Logoeme, I wasn't familiar with her work previously.
I really don't understand your response Uland, there's work on EBD that obviously tries hard to be just 'grotesque' (including my own at times) why not pick on that?
I see Anne's work as a satirical, imaginative attempt to deal with the confusing chaos of life and if you can't use art for that purpose, why bother?

ULAND said...

Look, I thought it was clear that I wasn't "picking on" anything. I'm trying to describe my reaction to not just her work, but work like it and I also included what I do like about it. By all means, disagree with me, but there's no need for ad hominems.

Gaiihin: I'm not suggesting that consumerism offers the kind of "diversity" you seem to like, but it is offering a different form of it in terms of the loosening of traditional social structures that disallowed a lot of variation in terms of sex/gender. If you look at the form homosexual culture in the US has taken, for instance, it is very much a consumerist vision that is being identified with. Consumerism offers a vision of freedom for all who can afford the product, just as sexual identity politics are things only the priveleged learn about in college. I'm sure there are many instances of various groups or ideas forming throughout Western History that challenged traditional systems, but they haven't had real influence, except in looking to them after the fact.It didn't take root. It is Modernist Liberalism ,that brings us our notion of "sexual freedom" today, in my opinion, and it's impossible to seperate from consumerist cluture.

Anonymous said...

@Zeke: I though you would have known Anne, she’s part of the type of zine you read.

@Uland: This has nothing to do with consumerist culture. Medicine, philosophy, science, and etc also have nothing to do with consumerist culture. Luke, you should think about primitive cultures, and the Geeks and the Vikings before you make any statement about sexual freedom. But anyway I wasn’t talking about freedom. You missed the point and I’m not going to argue with somebody who is incapable to read without having a preconceived idea about what I write. You helped me however to understand why so many artists don’t read comments.

Logœme said...

I’ll have to remove all the comments from this post because it took me time to do it, English isn’t my first language so it was difficult. Anne is an important artist for many people who are doing art with me and for me and inside the underground and may be inside the institutions. Uland you just didn’t discuss her stuff but you took the opportunity of it to attack an art movement which you don’t like, but you know may be many duckers are related to it as well. So now I’m going to tell you what I think about contemporary drawing: first they used the term “drawing” because in the sixties and the seventies the institutions valued drawing very much. Second they want them to be contemporary because they do not tolerate us, I’m drawing and I think I live in the same world as you, you fucking contemporary ignorant drawer. They also use this word contemporary because they want to be part of art history and they want to exclude other people from it. Then they use the structures which belong to the uncompromising underground to develop themselves and to create the sensation that they are cool and fresh and open minded. They ate people who are following Otto Dix, Max Beckman, Kathe Kollwitz and George Grotz and may actually call them degenerated artists. They also are shallow. I know Frederic Fleury is part of contemporary drawing but his work is so close to Anne’s paintings that I’m OK with him. “Contemporary drawing” sounds like “contemporary art”. How could an art movement which looks like a school where everybody does the same thing call them contemporary drawing? They are supposed to be comics lover but they consider comics isn’t art. they just go to comics festival to promote their work. Their moral is issued from early twentieth century moralistic lies about the wonderful grace of naïve and clumsy stupid intension. I may leave EBD. I’m not happy.

ULAND said...

I feel I'm being misunderstood too, so we have that in common.
Primitive culture in the West is long dead.I feel like picking and choosing different elements of that culture to promote as an ideal is a form of modern consumerism. We can only really view them through modern lenses.

Zeke- I see a lot of different qualities going on in your work that are not present in Anne's. What you present often seems more like a certain Underground comics drawing tradition pushed to it's breaking point. It is extreme and grotesque sure, but in terms of what is being made grotesque, and to what end, I see very little similarity to Anne's work. ( WHICH AGAIN- I like for certain reasons!)

And really, if everybody seems to want some kind of echo chamber where the same sentiments bounce off and from all of us, I see no point in even having a comments function.
Have you guys read art criticism? I don't want to sound like an asshole, but I guess it's too late.
If we're honestly telling each other that we can't deal with, or don't want to deal with each others' perspectives, offered in earnest, then I think we should rethink the form of this blog and make that clear. Nothing of what I wrote has been mean spirited or dismissive. In fact, I think it was pretty light in tone. All of it was based on impressions I get from what Gaiihin has posted, nothing more. It was not meant to be some kind of authoritative treatise on what everybody should be drawing or not drawing.

Echo chamber, here we come!!

ULAND said...

Don't know how it got cut out, but it should've read:

"Primitive culture in the West is long dead.I feel like picking and choosing different elements of that culture to promote as an ideal is a form of modern consumerism. We can only really view them through modern lenses. Sexual freedom, as we understand it, is in service of personal, individuated liberty; concepts that are not to be found in primitive cultures."

Logœme said...

How dare you call the greeks primitive? And the Vikings?

SEAN ÄABERG said...

Logœme, don't delete the comments. Period. That's not in the spirit of this blog. This has been an interesting discussion until it ceased to be a discussion. I don't think Luke said anything wrong here. Please leave this discussion here. I found this work to be interesting, i had a hard time relating to it, but i like the figures quite a bit, the chunkiness of them is very satisfying. The themes... i don't know what it's all about... sexual frustration? sexual confusion? something. I'll go through & read this all more thoroughly, but i really wanted to put my foot down & say that there should be no deletion of comments. Period.

ULAND said...

Greek culture was based largely on hierarchical authority structures. The kind of sexual relations that were deemed okay in that culture were in the context of these social bonds, often directly in service of these social contracts. To apply our conception of sexual liberation to the Greeks doesn't ring true to me. Sure, there was more variation, but the context in which this took place was much more hierarchical.

Logœme said...

I don’t agree with you. I’m not writing about sexual liberation anyway I’m writing about paintings which contain loads of different relations… in contrast with the work of Antoine Bernhart for example who is very obsessive.

ULAND said...

You presented the types of relationships that Anne presents in the context of liberation from the consumerist order, which demands fixed sexual/class/age identities.
This is a minor quibble, with not much to do with the quality of Annes' art.

Logœme said...

I’m not writing about liberation. I didn’t write that consumerism demanded fixed sexual/class/age identities and I don’t think it does, I wrote consumerism demanded specialised products for people who would have defined their identity and lifestyle. I’m probably more writing about “taste” than about mores. I’m not giving you the ultimate solution for her work, it’s just a detail. And I’m not even saying that her aim was to approach and look at different situations. I’m writing that her work does and it’s a quality among others and this quality isn’t that usual.

Logœme said...

Yea Sean, Anne wrote me that I shouldn’t delete the comments as well. So… Luke, thank you for your feedback, you were courageous. I guess I’m intriguing you and you are intriguing me but we have to find a way too ensure that we’ve understood one another before we start to argue about values, I mean it offend me to read that I could be identified as the author of statements which I didn’t make. This is may be a good sophist technique to dismiss other people points of view but I’m not dupe. So we need to use a method based on understanding before we fight, I’m sure we’re going to fight again. Why not having a good argument about why contemporary drawers are more contemporary than other drawers? This is out of the point but btw the increase of wealth, health changed mores and implied consumerism; consumerism is one of the consequences it isn’t a cause.

ULAND said...

Consumerism and more wealth sort of go hand in hand, at least in Global Capitalism.

Yeah, I'm sure we'll but heads again. We clearly have divergent views on a lot of things, but I hope we can deal with those in a way in which we both gain something from it.
We'll get there..

Anonymous said...

Consumerism and more wealth sort of go hand in hand, at least in Global Capitalism.

Then: Aristocracy and more light (reason) sort of go hand in hand, at least during the Renaissance.

I’d rather write: Aristocracy and more light (reason) coexist, at least during the Renaissance.

Aeron said...

Crazy paintings, I appreciate the weird sexual imagery. I'm a great fan of Antoine Bernhart and his ilk. This type of imagery taken to the extreme is the most intriguing to me but can make selling and showing the work difficult I'm sure. There was a showing of Stu Mead's "Krampussy" in which an artist involved in the gallery boycotted their own exhibit because of his paintings. You can read about it in the comments here - http://www.pileup.com/babyart/blog/?p=257

But regarding an echo chamber, it seems likely to happen as most of us are, if not on the same page, at least within a few chapters of the same book. Criticism is very welcome, and the concept of contrasting a subject to something of an opposite design. The grotesque next to the beautiful to emphasize the other, as white to dark, is a concept I'd like to explore myself. You've mentioned this before Luke and I think it's a good concept to continue bringing up. I think it would be good to see a lot of our work composed with this idea in mind.

But agaiihine, thank you for taking the time to do this interview, very great read. It's always fascinating to learn of the process of other artists. I look forward to more of your posts, something you might ask the artists in the future is a photo of their work space, something I'm always interested in seeing!

Logœme said...

@Aeron: I’ll ask for photos. I’m preparing 3 interviews: two comics artists and… an artist you’ll really enjoy… So you like Stu Mead? His animation in Les Religions Sauvages (LDC) was censored in London. I’m not so sure about him. I like some works. But it just reminds me of all the problems Franz von Bayros had (the marquis was not allowed to stay in many cities!)

@Uland: Your sentence seems to be a political statement; mine is objective. But I guess this discussion leads us to something interesting: why “extreme art”, as you call it, should be criticised from an exterior point of view; why should it not be analysed with its own content and values? Why shouldn’t we look at peculiar pieces; why should we look at each of them in term of its relation to “extreme art” as a whole? During the last argument we had (for my picture hug) I didn’t like the fact that your position was too exterior. For example I’m Ok when you write about Street art on your blog but I’d like you to write as well about Contemporary Drawing, it would be more honest. Why is contemporary drawing “contemporary”, is it not a frustration some people have? Are they not excluded from the institution (from “Contemporary Art”) and isn’t this word “contemporary their desire to be part of them? Why do they use small publishing? Is it not a consequence of this frustration? Why do they remember neither the pamphlets which were written before the XXth century, nor the Dadaists publications, nor the punk publications which are the ancestor of the DIY movement? Did their propensity to overrate drawing issue from the critiques made by institutions and museums in regard to old art when drawings had for only purpose to prepare paintings? After all isn’t their uniformity “original kitsch”? I’m a bit severe here with these questions because I’m looking at a part of contemporary drawing only… So after all the two question are: what is contemporary drawing from an exterior point of view? What is it inside its guts?

Logœme said...

Yea I have a good story about censorship as well. For the first dada exhibition, some people called the police… but the pigs couldn’t do anything: the picture which was controversial was a reproduction of Goya!!!

SEAN ÄABERG said...

I looked up this ALder King fellow... seems very interesting.

ULAND said...

"@Uland: Your sentence seems to be a political statement; mine is objective."

Are you sure about that? How have you come to this conclusion?

"But I guess this discussion leads us to something interesting: why “extreme art”, as you call it, should be criticised from an exterior point of view; why should it not be analysed with its own content and values? "

Nothing has it's own set of values. Every set of eyes brings there conception of value to whatever they see. Some values are shared by many, some are not, obviously.

"Why shouldn’t we look at peculiar pieces; why should we look at each of them in term of its relation to “extreme art” as a whole? During the last argument we had (for my picture hug)"

"extreme" is only used as a rough description. The use of it rests in shared ideas of normality. If you don't share those ideas, or seek to question them, that is okay.

" I didn’t like the fact that your position was too exterior. For example I’m Ok when you write about Street art on your blog but I’d like you to write as well about Contemporary Drawing, it would be more honest. Why is contemporary drawing “contemporary”, is it not a frustration some people have? Are they not excluded from the institution (from “Contemporary Art”) and isn’t this word “contemporary their desire to be part of them? Why do they use small publishing? Is it not a consequence of this frustration? Why do they remember neither the pamphlets which were written before the XXth century, nor the Dadaists publications, nor the punk publications which are the ancestor of the DIY movement? Did their propensity to overrate drawing issue from the critiques made by institutions and museums in regard to old art when drawings had for only purpose to prepare paintings? After all isn’t their uniformity “original kitsch”? I’m a bit severe here with these questions because I’m looking at a part of contemporary drawing only… So after all the two question are: what is contemporary drawing from an exterior point of view? What is it inside its guts?"

I don't know how to answer your questions about contemporary drawing, as I'm not sure what that exactly describes. I made no bones about my critique coming from my subjective position alone; I didn't make claims to authority, but was sharing ideas gleaned from impressions gathered.
I'm not sure how this distinction between "seeing inside" vs. responding to surface is made, only that you're saying I'm not seeing the "guts".
It might be more instructive if you'd describe those "guts" in the objective fashion you're (obviously) more capable of than I am.
As far as the "street art" rant on my blog goes, I'm not sure how it translates to this discussion. I was taking on a pretty broad conception of "street art" as it is presented by the media. I don't see contemporary drawing being presented in a similar way.

ULAND said...

In more general terms, I'll say that the drawing of yours that I criticized had such a strong, stylized surface, that it is impossible to view it through any other lens; the harsh surface is an intrinsic part of the content. If I was missing something, it might be because I didn't see the surface in the same way you did, but it also might be because you overwhelmed the surface with stylization.

There is no objectivity to be found in these discussions. I think maybe you might need to become more willing to accept ideas about what you present that diverge from yours. You cannot control perceptions.

Jonathan Canady said...

I think Anne van der Linden's work is EXCELLENT.

Thank you for the excellent interview LOGŒME!

I appreciate you introducing me to this wonderful artwork.

Logœme said...

Nothing has it's own set of values. Every set of eyes brings there conception of value to whatever they see. Some values are shared by many, some are not, obviously.

This is true, obviously, Uland but I think it’s good to try to perceive the artworks the way the authors perceive their work. That’s what I mean. I can tell you that Anne’s paintings should be looked at as if they were landscapes… Searching for their meaning could be boring. That’s what she thinks. I think they also are interesting in their context and for values which they brutally defend or question. And actually searching for their meaning may be boring… But inventing some meaning for them could be very delightful. That’s may be what “narrative” art is about. One the other hand abstract art sometime was supposed to be about seeing what ever one wanted.

Anonymous said...

Le détail qui tue : la main qui griffe le bras dans le bidet en flammes.

Marcel Ruijters said...

I would rather call the blandness of modern-day's mainstream culture 'extreme', than Ms Van der Linden's obviously satirical works (which I like). If there is some intelligence at work, art can be, - whether you like it in the end or not - impressive in some way. What is capable of shocking me however, is stupidity.