The works on display in the exhibition are damaged in their structure and imagery. Their origins were once photographic or cinematic. The different and diverse worlds from which they originate no longer exist.
They are votive offerings, given to restore disturbed balances and relationships. Or to reveal them in the first place.
Now some of their disturbances are being processed in a third dimension. Are the works being made suitable, suitable for what? We recognise the good in the imperfect.
The works in each series build on each other. Sometimes like sequences of a film strip, sometimes as deposits of fragments from other canvases within them. Or they support and hold each other through their formal arrangement.
What about repair or healing? Are the works objects of repair or healing, are they subjects, are they capable of repairing or healing by virtue of their existence? Or is it both?
Yes, with the patches, bandages and all the other things, they are repaired or healed to a certain extent. The question remains: are they repaired in the sense of a temporary fix or healed in the sense of a complete repair of all damage? Will it be prostheses, i.e. repairs, or retired parts of the image material that are accumulated there, which we need for speculative technology and to heal works of art, and this is not about restoration, but about political wounds, memories and reconciliation as part of the artistic process? Sustainability, the circular economy and the right to repair also play a role, of course. Why shouldn’t this also apply to art?
Hmm, does everything have to be repaired or healed, or do we also live with what is no longer perfect? Hello, aha, what role does transformation play in this? Prostheses, implants, innovations. A tarnished reputation placed value on good clothing, repaired tools for repair, and dedicated art of restoration. No, no, yes, yes, more, but not right now, thank you.