Home

Exhibitions
Current and Upcoming
Previous

Artists
Francis Alÿs
Sven Augustijnen
Pierre Bismuth
stanley brouwn
Manon de Boer
Rineke Dijkstra
Mario Garcia Torres
Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster
Douglas Gordon
Joachim Koester
David Lamelas
Sharon Lockhart
Tino Sehgal
Philippe Thomas
Tris Vonna-Michell
Ian Wilson

Newspaper

Library

E-news

Instagram

« moi je dis, moi je dis…. » [en]
by Stéphanie Moisdon, 2003

One cannot write about Tino Sehgal’s works without committing a first anomaly, by

attempting to give them a title, to describe or to list them, that is, to enter into rivalry

with the form of the work itself, which is the affirmation of what it is. These works can

be understood as a series of traps, which render the artist and the viewer complicit,

more by means of play than by default, of the context in which they come about, of the

place in which they are exhibited; of the mercantile system which will, in order to sell

them, inevitably seek to extract them from the trap. Sehgal’s pieces do not reflect any

of an artwork’s characteristics for the simple reason that, most often, the difference

between what is a work of art and that which isn’t, is solely a formal difference. At the

heart of the processes and exchange values, he unifies concept and production, the

multiple and the unique, aura and demythologisation, and allegory and alienation in a

precarious equilibrium. This work opposes certain illusions of what one could call the

militant modern avant-garde, whilst nevertheless observing the mechanisms by which

the art work is a spectacle destined to sacralise merchandise, to dissimulate

regulations/deregulations of a system that precisely never really succeeds in

distinguishing itself. Tino Sehgal does not seek to identify himself with an artist, a poet,

a playwright or an economist. He seeks most of all to dis-identify himself of everything,

to disconcert the definitions of art and to see what, amongst forms and activities, is

indissociable from thought. Even if Marcel Broodthaers constitutes a kind of poetic

reference, Sehgal does not necessarily consider with that same melancholy that art

has entered an irreversible era of the devaluation of meaning, accomplished at the

benefit of the law, of the mere value of exchange. Even though his pieces sometimes

appear destined to reveal the relationship of dependence that links the artist to the

economic system, they are nonetheless also completely autonomous, and disalienated

from this critical and political perspective. Tino Sehgal seeks to discover up to which

point the artist remains master or slave of his own strategies of visibility, enunciation,

commercialisation; in which way he withdraws from and plunges back into banality. He

aims for a mental reality beyond a visual reality and rediscovers the implacable (which

is not irony) of affirmation. A sort of objective writing (against subjectivity), a machine

for saying what is there, without excess, to say what is seen, a space without objects

which is not a void, because the void is another formal invention, that is ideological and

restrictive. By entitling his exhibition at Galerie Jan Mot Le Plein, he returns to this

misunderstanding of the void, and suggests a contradictory and antagonistic reading of

the space. Because speech, singing, movements, replace the necessity for the

presence of things; which doesn’t mean that these things have disappeared but that

they could just as well be absent. He doesn’t install stagings, but arrangements,

devices of which the implications multiply and develop in a programmed manner over

various incidents; exterior, contingent events: the institution’s opening hours, the

duration of the exhibition, the agreement made with the guards, the presence of the

surrounding artworks, the circulation in the space. Sehgal’s tautologies (This is good,

This is propaganda) are true by definition, and serve to situate the exhibition spaces.

He envisages art as such and takes as material the components, the techniques of

dispersal, but also its formats, its conventions, its true or false hypotheses. In this

register of tautology, Sehgal is interested in the gap between the signature and the

entitled work, between designation and the errors of enunciation. The fact of not

carrying out the actions himself and providing instructions to executioners, allows him

to bifurcate the stakes of all classification: of the performance as category and of the

conventions of involvement (the body of the artist presented as a guarantee of his

investment), which provokes a sort of liberation for the spectator, a cancellation both of

identification and mythical projections. Now that Duchamp’s irony and Warhol’s aura no

longer suffice to maintain, under new conditions, the paradigm of the readymade, the

question today is to find out which instance is still in a position to declare authenticity or

inauthenticity. The signature with Sehgal, his proclamation, is this possible instance

which indicates and affirms a determined reading, an order founded in oneself (« This

is good » equals saying « this is art »). Via these affirmations, which contain their own

solution, he renders obvious the retreat of knowledge, expertise; this competence,

which allows to determine the meaning of an enunciation. Tino Sehgal’s signature does

not dominate the representation or the space, it doesn’t refer to him as a real

individual; it represents a place which allows ample space for other, equivalent

identities. By means of repetition of the signs of self, Tino Sehgal’s enunciations finally

liberate the work from the character of the author and vice versa and testify this rupture

in front of the public. In his interventions, the inflationist repetition of the signature, the

title and its distribution within the space is in correlation, paradoxically, with a kind of

negation: absence of the work, and of its author or of the artist. The signature only

signs its own repetition, even if this formal absence doesn’t necessarily signify a

complete refusal, but a manner of conceiving communication as a symbolic circular

exchange of questions and answers, of words and of objects. The museum guards and

gallery staff are part of this system of communication; they are the instruments, the

relays that allow the artist to pursue his demonstration. Neither subjects nor objects,

they simply form part of the material elements of a proposal that seeks to verify the

post-Duchampian question of the museum as medium, to know whether it is the

museum that makes the work or the work that makes the museum. Duchamp affirms

that only the artist’s signature suffices; that it is stronger than the institution. With

Buren, the signature is the institution; he has no need to place his signature. Tino

Sehgal inscribes himself into this perspective, in producing a third voice, a

displacement; a subversion of the historical function of the signature and the

readymade. With him usage has the upper hand over syntax, when a phrase succeeds

in making itself understood as a proper noun. We know that the artistic discourse, at

least in its most modern tradition, veers above all towards a critical discourse, that has

been held in the interdependence of an affirmation – a judgement – and of a denotation

– an object (whether this is sensitive or not). In this obliged point of encounter, a

commonplace has imposed itself, a topos, a place for invention. That which Tino

Sehgal bestows upon the place of his signing, is precisely this space of invention, its

necessity: why invent? Why even « present a world » which would « add to » reality?

To produce a discourse, a fiction, a representation? Perhaps merely for the creation of

employment.

 

Works by Tino Sehgal (°1976, lives in Berlin) have been shown this summer at

Manifesta 4, Frankfurt and in the exhibition ‘I promise, it’s political’ at the Ludwig

Museum, Köln. Le plein is the first solo exhibition of the artist in a gallery. Tino Sehgal

won the art prize of the Bremen Kunsthalle.

 

Translation by Kate Mayne