As the Fragments untitled on the whole, this work as well prompts us to ask about the blanks in written history, about authors, facts and personal memories. It is important to the artists to give the beholder a maximum amount of freedom for associative and subjective thought. Nevertheless, they also question themselves or, one might say, the responsibility of the artist as such, by presenting a text written by a fictitious curator together with the work.
Since mass itself doesn’t have the meaning and this shot exists only in domain of media representation, it means that this image seeks the signifier. Masses seek inscription. Does Doplgenger suggest “erased” signifier in the frame? There is no ideology represented by the image of the mass. There is always personification standing for the universal. Does this frame miss the image of the leader, which would actually be the counter-shot in this editing, and the representation of Gazimestan’s experience that history accepted?
Erasing the representation, the installation suggests that the frame – memory or the process, which fixes the experience – asks for new signified. However, masses cannot stand for the experience; just as the moving image, which repeats the experience, can’t be stopped in order to become fixed. Then, what do we have here? Repetition of the image is repetition of the experience – need of moving which any framing would stop. It seems that this impossible link presents the fissure that stands between the two: “what masses desire” and “what masses get at the end”. Benjamin argues that growing proletarization and growing agglomeration of masses are two sides of the same event. “Fascism”, he says “attempts to organize the resulting proletarian masses but not to dare into terms of property which cancelation masses demand. Fascism recognizes its anchor in allowing masses the expression but not achieving their right.” Since this particular event history marks as the key moment of fascisation of Serbia and the beginning of the fall of Yugoslavia, does Doplgenger offer decontextualisation by this installation? Maybe they attempt to stress the ambiguity of historical event that often stays invisible – “universal mass” being under fascisation and “mass proletarization” as a potential utopian sign?
This attempt of making the event ambivalent – should one “legitimate” or “criticize” – constantly eludes. There is no firm stronghold. There is no production of the sign. This elusion Doplgenger indicates by the setting of the bricolage itself – impossible montage of inadequate elements. There is no fixing. One cannot make conclusion. Dialectical self-reflection is performed here. It’s about exposing the Thought. Only that. The thought as process, not as object. The thought, which grasps but is not grasped. The thought that grasps something which could have happened but it didn’t. That is something which history didn’t “register” but it posses it in itself like invisible and silent flow, continuous transition.
History is irrepresentable. This is because history is not hidden presence behind representation, but history is a coming into presence, it is an event. It’s constantly happening and it’s constantly vanishing. The past the present, the future can’t be recognized in total and we can’t be fully “awaken” for history. History is always in transition according to the flux that isn’t continuous or linear. Exactly this lack of control – due to our passive attitude toward relation to history’s flow and which detains us from grasping the present at the same time – makes future unpredictable. Future based upon oblivion.
Contact us if you would like to get the entire text.