The silence at work
Daphné Le Sergent |
from 16 juin 2012 to 10 septembre 2013
The question which arises to every artist: “What is the image?” seems to take a turn in Perrine Lacroix’s work: “What is the image in situ?”
What is the image when it’s installed and therefore perceived in the environment or rather what in this environment makes the image? Does it mean that the image could be thought an event, fortuitous meeting of development conditions of the figure in this environment giving place to a sensation? Visual and sound percepts, tactile imprints and kinesthetics compete in creating an image. But what would then be the place of emergeance of this image? The environment itself where the image takes place or the inner sensitive space where the image is printed. To summup, the true question would be: «Does the event-image come mostly from the external or the internal world», from «it» or «me»?
What is this image that touches us and stirs us? Could it be the tension between interior and exterior that pushes Deleuze to use the “it”?
Could it be the distance between interior and exterior, between sensitive image and percept, between look and see? Could this image hail from this liminal space impossible to seize, witch seems to be always fluctuated, unstable to the slightest movement of the body, mind or reality? In this sense, the image could take place only by the constant fluctuation of the invisible border, tiny gap between interiority and exteriority, extension as well as breaking.
(…)
Is there use or importance of different structures, boxes, architecture taking place in opening and closing game in Perrine Lacroix’s work (Castles in the air, 2004, Semi-S, 2009, Wasteland, 2010) always having the idea of diversity: 8° separates the enclosure of cinderblock from Wasteland with the walls of Buy-Self’s exhibition space; Semi-S is surrounded by the walls of the Chelles’s centre of art. This diversity seems to be a possibility of a reversal about which we are not sure whether it is interior or exterior, wall or partition, shelter or sculpture. Could it be the challenge of the artist to invite the interior to the exterior, like in IN-T, 2009, where states recompose a forest plot in apartment, or like in MON-T, 2009, where a mound of earth is moved into domestic space? There would be no preset “me”, no fixed and stable interiority, no determined border between interior and exterior witch makes this “me” a non changeable identity. On the contrary, it seems to be “it”, the event that arises in space and locates in this irruption the thing and the experienced intensity. Is it the image in situ? That’s it what settles a conception of the visual image very closed to the sound image. Unlike the optical vision which is based on the contours, drawings, and slides reaching suchwise the limits of forms; hearing allows to locate sound sources and the presence of things in the perimeter, going from near to far without borders being necessarily drawn between the world and itself. The exterior always comes to the interior; the interior - the voice - is always directed to the exterior.
Voices. We can hear them in the installations like Wasteland where Razika, an algerian woman, tells her story life of waiting for her husband whom she hardly knew. Or also like in the Balcony in the forest, 2011, one page of Julien Gracq’s novel, placed on the ground, witch awakes the inner voice of its readers. There are also the titles, witch use the sonority of letters: Semi-S, IN-T, MON-T, and activate the voice of the viewers. The territories engaged by the sound have never the determinate delimitation; it is the waves that dissolve the spaces frozen in visible. May be that’s why the voice in the Perinne Lacroix’s works takes place in the structures; the Razika’s voice in the open cinderblock architecture, the voice of roman novel lecture in the exhibition space closed with panels. The voice raising from space is it the ascension mouvement? Is it the voice of the image that could take of the reality? Is it the uprising of those resisting to the disappearance?
What is the image when it’s installed and therefore perceived in the environment or rather what in this environment makes the image? Does it mean that the image could be thought an event, fortuitous meeting of development conditions of the figure in this environment giving place to a sensation? Visual and sound percepts, tactile imprints and kinesthetics compete in creating an image. But what would then be the place of emergeance of this image? The environment itself where the image takes place or the inner sensitive space where the image is printed. To summup, the true question would be: «Does the event-image come mostly from the external or the internal world», from «it» or «me»?
What is this image that touches us and stirs us? Could it be the tension between interior and exterior that pushes Deleuze to use the “it”?
Could it be the distance between interior and exterior, between sensitive image and percept, between look and see? Could this image hail from this liminal space impossible to seize, witch seems to be always fluctuated, unstable to the slightest movement of the body, mind or reality? In this sense, the image could take place only by the constant fluctuation of the invisible border, tiny gap between interiority and exteriority, extension as well as breaking.
(…)
Is there use or importance of different structures, boxes, architecture taking place in opening and closing game in Perrine Lacroix’s work (Castles in the air, 2004, Semi-S, 2009, Wasteland, 2010) always having the idea of diversity: 8° separates the enclosure of cinderblock from Wasteland with the walls of Buy-Self’s exhibition space; Semi-S is surrounded by the walls of the Chelles’s centre of art. This diversity seems to be a possibility of a reversal about which we are not sure whether it is interior or exterior, wall or partition, shelter or sculpture. Could it be the challenge of the artist to invite the interior to the exterior, like in IN-T, 2009, where states recompose a forest plot in apartment, or like in MON-T, 2009, where a mound of earth is moved into domestic space? There would be no preset “me”, no fixed and stable interiority, no determined border between interior and exterior witch makes this “me” a non changeable identity. On the contrary, it seems to be “it”, the event that arises in space and locates in this irruption the thing and the experienced intensity. Is it the image in situ? That’s it what settles a conception of the visual image very closed to the sound image. Unlike the optical vision which is based on the contours, drawings, and slides reaching suchwise the limits of forms; hearing allows to locate sound sources and the presence of things in the perimeter, going from near to far without borders being necessarily drawn between the world and itself. The exterior always comes to the interior; the interior - the voice - is always directed to the exterior.
Voices. We can hear them in the installations like Wasteland where Razika, an algerian woman, tells her story life of waiting for her husband whom she hardly knew. Or also like in the Balcony in the forest, 2011, one page of Julien Gracq’s novel, placed on the ground, witch awakes the inner voice of its readers. There are also the titles, witch use the sonority of letters: Semi-S, IN-T, MON-T, and activate the voice of the viewers. The territories engaged by the sound have never the determinate delimitation; it is the waves that dissolve the spaces frozen in visible. May be that’s why the voice in the Perinne Lacroix’s works takes place in the structures; the Razika’s voice in the open cinderblock architecture, the voice of roman novel lecture in the exhibition space closed with panels. The voice raising from space is it the ascension mouvement? Is it the voice of the image that could take of the reality? Is it the uprising of those resisting to the disappearance?