top of page

Essays
Ludens Wager-Heads or tails?
&
Ludens - Anamorphic Works
By Jean Sorrente

GB Flagg.jpg

I am honoured to introduce you to Jean Sorente, also known as Jean Claude Asselborn, professor of French language and literature, novelist, philosopher and, at that time, art critic, the nightmare of many artists, who has followed my work for 16 years. Generous with irony and with brutal honesty. Although our meetings were often under latent tension and regularly ended in conflict, I enjoyed every conversation and every argument because they were authentic and constructive in a way I had never experienced before or since, without filters, political correctness or the intellectual hypocrisy of the Zeitgeist. His deep understanding of society and virtuoso eloquence opened me up to deeper insights into my work, what my art is about and why I do it.

 

In 2002 and 2003, I lived in New York. I exhibited at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, among others, and received offers from several gallery owners who explained to me the unwritten rules of the industry. I decided to ignore their rules and opinions on what to concentrate on in my work. I continued, grateful for the gift of being able to create anything I could imagine, be it an origami flying dragonfly, an omelette in the style of Giuseppe Arcimboldo's portraits for breakfast, stone sculptures, paintings or unannounced performances in museums and other public spaces. Jean criticised my manner; he called it selfish and immature of me to waste my talents and not share them with the world. What world? The world is full of people who don't care about me and my art, who are trying to make ends meet in their own way, some successfully, some not.

 

After our last discussion and the end of our association, he wrote me a letter announcing his intention to publish articles on my art. I thought, "So what? I'll still do whatever I want."

 

Reading the articles made me realise its true magnificence. He understood the thread of my work, perhaps more deeply than I did. Thank you, Jean, wherever you are. After so many years of silence, I want to see you again.

 

Basically, we both agreed that a large part of the art market is infected with the pathetic hypocrisy of various inflated egos, funded by various government institutions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and corporations to promote their brands, trends, ideologies, cultural colonisation, or international speculators who launder money on a large scale. Kudos to the exceptions! The question was how to deal with it. I didn't care what the market wanted or how I should bend over to accommodate it; I just want to create, so whoever likes it is welcome. He was more worried than me, and I was driving him crazy with my "So what? I live in the present and don't care about my place in art history. Fare well, and be alive" attitude. But never before, nor since, have I met such a connoisseur, lover and promoter of art. Unlike many birds of his profession who decorate themselves with other people's feathers, who cackle but never laid a single egg ;-)

​​

 

Ludens ' Wager- Heads or tails?

by Jean Sorrente

​

​

​

Commenting on such a proteiform work as that of Ludens is worthwhile only to multiply the entry points, as with a cubist object of which one could grasp all the perspectives at once. It is the opportunity, not to average out the odd and the dissimilar, but to highlight these as the occurrences of the same principle, one that at times governs the materialisation of a shape, and at others prosecutes a given historical moment.  That is to say that with this artist, plastic invention is bound up with a critical, or even political remelding.  Painting, sculpture, writing, directing performances, organising concerts, decorating interiors: all stem from the same logic. A wonderful allegory resumes this: the building of the ‘arche de la diversité’ for the 1998 carnival of cultures; at the same time charivaresque vessel cutting through history, a biblical promise of redemption and rebirth, and both phallic and uterine symbol expressing the human condition and its difference.  This ark resembles the ‘base-note’ dear to Francis Ponge, which by picking up and condensing the multiplicities of meanings, manages to express their deep poetry, a poetry experienced as a resourcing and recreation. What this poetry shows is an involvement in the rhythm of the world, and it is this which best defines the artist’s approach. This is not upfront and obvious.

First there is what Camus calls the moment of revolt, the birth of awareness.  We know what it means in a people’s democracy to be branded a cosmopolitan, a dissident and an unreliable element.  All these names are sentences, if not to incarceration, at least to silence and despair. This is what happened to Ludens in 1986: early adolescence in Germany, returning to Yugoslavia; military service; early experimentation; and the fateful year when, discovering the political police had opened a dossier, he decided to leave Belgrade for long tribulations throughout Europe before establishing himself in Luxembourg.  He is twenty-four years old when the training in experiencing socialist realism ends, and this trial will haunt the artist’s thinking- something which, in the context of the art of this end-of century, is not the least of the attractions of this work. This can be characterised by Heidegger’s phrase: the essence of truth is freedom.  To work is thereafter, for Ludens, to probe and test the validity of this.

Bringing up a new perspective, one perhaps recalls Otto Mühl and the Vienna Aktionists of the 1960’s, a deliberately extremist and provocative politico-artistic tendency that specialised in corporal expression, with all that entails in dead ends and cheap demagogy. Nevertheless, art as a performance has allowed other artists, more consequent ones, to discover a critical and ethical vocation. And it is this questioning, freeing art from aestheticism and eclecticism, that Ludens takes up for his own use, this same questioning that is at work in forms of expression as different as performance, action painting, painting or sculpture.  To create is not to barricade oneself in an ivory tower workshop; it is to directly intervene on reality or at least to situate it.

Aesthetically speaking it is worth meditating on Picasso’s lesson: that he painted, sculpted, modelled and drew the interior, to arrive at the manifest shape. To each figure, to each representation, its specific plastic definition.  Roundness to express the character of this specific animal, a square to signify that face, simple verticals for this element of the landscape. The reason being, Leo Steinberg says, that to draw everything in the same style would be to admit that we are outside. This gives continuity to the formal diversity of Picasso’s work.  Ludens simplifies the discourse. The base note, determining all others, for all subjects comes down to a masculine principal and a feminine principal, a co-incidence of opposite similars like that of Ying and Yang, encompassing the range of dichotomies, antinomies and complementarities (as in sculpture: round and square, soft and hard, smooth and rough; in performances, frameworks and improvisation; in painting or set decoration, the inside and the exterior, etc.), the whole taken up in a dialectical relationship that does not eliminate differences, but expresses these and their tension.

With Ludens, it is essential to understand that a representation of the body also displays a historical moment, an event in a society; and we must further accept that the audience is the one that will probe the ever-already sexual nature of the representation, and will own and inhabit the experience.  An experience of qualitative difference, not of a concept.  Ludens is not projecting his fantasies into his representations; it is the bodies, time and society that produce their own metaphorical dimension, and they do this to the measure that they are themselves imbued and carried by the same.

This is the link between the painting, the sculpture, the writings, performances and interior decorations; only the rendering changes. Continuity establishes itself between the questioning of the female body in the sculpture (as in the wonderful copper-sheet sculptures) and its crucifying in the performance ‘Auf’s Kreuz’ (1989, in the pop-tragedy  Ana-Marijuana)- this is worrying, provocative and far from the kitsch of a Bettina Rheims, to give an example. The same continuity shows between the body bathing in the amniotic space of the painting, and that irradiated by a stained-glass door; the same again between the realities of two bodies and the fragmented and highly stylised representation of the female sex.

This work, shifting from representation to presentation, modifying our perception of the body over time and distance, is the most remarkable output of Ludens’ work. In doing this, this art avoids the shoals of bathos, melancholic nihilism or missionary ideology. There is an indelible optimism that drives the work, a will to belong to the world, a joyful affirmation of being and existing. The whole is resumed in the artist’s name, Ludens: he who is playful, who thus plays, who pushes contradictions, overcomes them and who thus frees himself from their constraint.

This play of art, and this art of play, that from the interior express the bodies and the world in their factuality, have therefore an ethical meaning, so much so that the disciplines addressed by the artist appear as so many facets or mirrors of the same prismatic reality: the individual in his humanity, appetite for happiness and fulfilment, and will for emancipation and freedom; and in that same moment of joyful self-exultation; that ‘concern’, in the sense given by Lévinas, of the other.

Here, to crystallise a contrario this same ‘concern’: Helden, a monumental complex installation presenting eight variations on the theme of the heroic illusion. In the centre, a concrete cube, all around worms in plaster, dice, cobblestones, and camouflaging the whole, a cam-net canopy. The cube is alternately white or grey, with dressed edges, chipped, blank or covered with symbols and names.  Variation n°6 presents a montage of cut-out canvases that the viewer can recompose.  Each variation invents its own heroism, which depends on its understanding of the story.  Heroism thus appears as the last extremity of ideological waywardness, the apex of servitude. How many innocents sacrificed, how many despots ‘sanctified’ by the mantle of heroism; how better to show up the aberrations of history and sensitise the onlooker to its logic, which is that of aberration? This is the wager of such an installation. Thus, a proteiform, multifaceted oeuvre, understood as a whole, playing on the chain of contiguity and association, ethical and political questioning- this is the exception incarnated by Ludens. All the more interesting in that art offers few examples of such consequent and elaborate research- to be convinced, one only has to look at the invariable solipsisms, the recurring artistic aphasias of today. This is where Pascal’s wager- heads or tails -takes new meaning: to wager, push contradictions, remind all that art is first contestation by deed.

​

Published in  Nos Cachiers, pg. 65-69
Translated from the French by Mark Cunningham

​

The well-known writer, under the pseudonym Jean Sorrente, Belgian / Luxembourg writer, art and literary critic Jean-Claude Asselborn is the author of several novels, reviews and art books. At first, he also worked under the pseudonyms Alphonse Maintes, C. Malans or Claude Méréan. He writes his works in French and teaches French at the Athénée de Luxembourg.

He received, in 1993, for 'Nuits' the Prix Tony Bourg ', 1998' Le Vol de l'Aube 'and for his oeuvre, the Prix de la Libre Académie de Belgique; and in 2003, the Servais Prize 'for' Et donc tout un roman '. In addition, Asselborn is since 1998 member of the "Académie Libre de Belgique".


 

Ludens - Anamorphic Works
By Jean Sorrente

A power plant. In the background, the UN building. Pictured against the light, the factory reminds one of a mosque, Hagia Sophia with its characteristic minarets, for instance.  Echoes of ‘A season in hell’ where Rimbaud grows used to ‘ordinary hallucination’ and sees ‘plainly a mosque in the place of a factory’. And indeed one reads on it the graffiti Power Station followed by The mosque of Sheikh Sam. 

 

The second photo shows water closets, with the caption A.K.A. Diplomatic Shit Eater. There is also UNOWC.  No doubt the occasion for a detour past Marcel Duchamp and, to stigmatise the horrors of technology, his urinal of 1917.  Further on – in God we trust-The Watch Tower, world HQ of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Read God’s word / the Holy Bible daily, revamped in Just Do It with its Central Parking System.  From animal training to the fiduciary value of the dollar is but a step.  Which is why one could smile at the juxtaposed photograph that advises in Greek to "Give me all your money." These days, it's true, pardons are priceless.  Finally, you can go your way, the middle way, not that of Lao Tze, late at night in the Harlem subway, propped up on crutches or lying down on the rails.
       
This gives you a tale, a narrative canvas.  Of course the images, photographic as it happens, are representative. But the accompanying titles focus the meaning as legenda- passages to be read- what one should read into them, if not see. The photographic record is not immune to qualifying happenstance. Rimbaud again: ‘I explained my magical sophisms with the hallucination of words’. Which is the meaning one has to give to these distortions, anamorphoses, depraved images.  One thinks of the aberrations of perspective explained by Jurgis Baltrusaitis: decoys, trompe-l’oeil, exchanges between object and subject, meaning and image that never swap over, unless by misunderstanding. And if the image represents, it problematises the depiction in the same way that the legenda challenges the receiver to read it as cliché, proverb, or maxim.  This is to show the relationship, always symbiotic, between meaning and image.  It is also to cultivate equivocacy, to highlight the dethroning of the symbol by a new rhetorical invention.  This proceeds by Freudian steps of displacement and condensation, or if you wish, by metaphor and metonymy.
       
The visible image becomes coded, and the interpretation points out the disconnection, the space between the atoms of an apparently solid and dependable representation. The equivocacy accelerates the slide from metaphor to metonymy, object of desire that, as photographed, reveals the repression of this desire.  And repression is always sexual. But here, everything takes place in a parodic mode, and this is the breaking of taboos, not their reaction. They are put into play, made play of in the game made between what is seen and what is said.  And if one remembers that the artist-photographer is called Ludens, one understands the playful dimension of these aesthetic, political and ideological paradoxes.
       
As Baltrusaitis wrote: ‘Anamorphosis is not an aberration where the reality is subjugated by the mind’s eye.  It is an optical trick where the apparent eclipses the real.’  With Ludens, this eclipse is instead an unveiling, a revealing.  The ideology elicited by every image does not stop reality from intruding, as an ironic mirror image.
       
Translated from the French by Mark Cunningham.


 

bottom of page