the video: 'charming'
This work came to be during the development of a R.S.O.L. presentation: Sticks and Stones (an Eddy of New Taboos). This presentation was about identity and violence. Specifically, I was interested in the violence through words, by which the identity of the victim is re-defined. If identity is a construction of positive and negative relationships that are formulated to function as a particular 'understanding' of an individual, its formulation sometimes opens the way to acts of violence. Specific forms of 'understanding' require specific re-actions.
This is an important insight, also from the perspective of the works in the presentation - which are all about 'violence' to a greater or lesser extent. It's important, because the presentation brings these particular works together under a certain 'understanding'. Both the presentation and the works themselves have a specific structure, a constitution. This constitution, as a formulation does, produces its 'understanding'. To be precise: the constitution makes a specific understanding possible. So the inner coherence of the works comes into the context of the coherence of the presentation. A mutual influencing.
While developing this presentation, the image of 'Christ on the Cold Stone' came to mind. This is an iconographic representation of the scourged and mocked Jesus, in the court of the Roman governor Pilate (Mt 27, 26-31). It is a somewhat forgotten image, unlike the crucifixion or the resurrection we don't see it anymore, often.
Then released he (Pilate - TK) Bar Abbas unto them (the people - TK): and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified . Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying , Hail , King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him. (Mt 27, 26-31)
I went looking for a sculpture of 'Christ on the Cold Stone' to possibly include it in the R.S.O.L. presentation, in combination with the lyrics or an audio adaptation of the pop/punk song 'Prince Charming' (1981) by Adam and the Ants. As soon as this combination had come into my mind, I was captivated by it - I was interested in it. The song itself is part of my history because it appealed to me when I was eleven years old, partly because of the music video. I suspect that as a boy I liked (apart from the lyrics - which I only partially understood at the time, the deviant rhythm and the absence of a traditional song structure) that the artist took on different personas in the clip. Pretending became possibility. The game became real, one could 'be' different people.
I remembered a video recording that I had made in 2007, on a holiday in Brittany, of a church in a fishermen's village where 'Christ on the Cold Stone' was set above the gateway. I had done that with one of the first 'hard disk' video cameras, which I had purchased at the time, partly because our children were small then and I wanted to document that. I was able to locate this recording in the chaotic camera archive and convert the file to file formats used by today's software. This made possible to shape the work that grew in my mind as a video, from that old recording.
In this work, 'charming', I chose to use some lines from the lyrics of the song:
Don't you ever - don't you ever - stop being dandy, showing me you're handsome
Don't you ever - don't you ever - lower yourself, forgetting all your standards
Prince Charming - Prince Charming - Ridicule is nothing to be scared of
Prince Charming - Prince Charming - Ridicule is nothing to be scared of
During the audio recording of this text, it became clear to me that the duration had to match the duration of the video recording. I chose to keep the rhythm of the song in the audio recording, but omit the melodic structure. I speak, chant, the text in a whisper. This reinforces the ambiguity of these words in combination with this image. The whispered chanting also gives the words something harsh. Something that can already be found in the words 'don't you ever': 'don't you dare...' At the same time, whispering may also refer to a thoughtful mood, like how a song fragment - a few sentences or a tune, can play through your mind when walking somewhere. This makes the relation between the image and the sound ambiguous.
Why was Jesus accused? What wrong did He do? The image of 'Christ on the Cold Stone' shows Jesus after the governor has succumbed to the voice of the people, asking him to crucify Jesus. Leaders, prominent figures of 'the people', had accused Jesus of sedition and lies. A crowd went along with that. The governor found no evidence of Jesus having done so, but under the pressure of the people, handed Jesus over to his soldiers, who mocked and beat Him, spit on Him, and placed a crown of thorns on His head. In another version of the story in the Bible, after this scourging and mockery by the soldiers, Pilate brings Jesus again before the assembled people. He then says to the people about the scourged: 'Ecce home - Behold ye man' (Jh 19, 5).
The accusation of Jesus is about His identity. The question is: who is He, who He Himself says that He is and who 'the people', or 'the others' say that He is. In short, it is about: how is Jesus 'seen' or 'understood'. His own story of who He is was subordinated to what others said about Him. They said that He said, that He is the king of the Jews, and at the same time they say that He is not that at all. That is why Jesus was mocked: well 'king', here is your crown - and a crown of thorns was pressed into His head. And: I kneel before you, 'king' - and He was spat on and beaten in the process. It no longer mattered who Jesus really was, or who He Himself said He was. What counted, what was acted upon, is what the perpetrators said of Him. Their formulation of the victim's identity made their acts of violence possible: the formulation demands the act of violence.
'Christ on the Cold Stone' shows Jesus after all this is said and done and before he was martyred. The question is still: Who is this anyway? This mocked and beaten man, who with Pilate's words became an image of "man" in general? Is man who 'they' say he is, or is he who she, he or they her-, him or themselves say he is? Or - is man something else, apart from how he, she or they is understood?
Especially in this image we see a victim of mockery in word and deed. A suffering person. In the context of the Church, this is paradoxical: for the victim is honored with a statue above the gate of the church building, the house of God. This victim is understood from the beginning in Catholic Christian culture as being both man and God. So, God is victim and mortal here, aspects that logically cannot be reconciled with aspects associated with universally applicable concepts of divinity. Because these are usually concepts such as: omnipotence, inviolability, immortality, spirituality and avenging injustice. In practice, this means that a specific, historical victim is worshiped as Deity.
The words of the audio recording say: don't you dare not being 'dandy' (that is: excellent) - don't you dare to humble yourself and forsake your principles. That sounds like some kind of threat: don't you dare, or else... Prince charming refers to the fairytale prince, who saves the girl and saves her from misery. The text adds: ridicule (mocking) is nothing to be afraid of. Which is reminiscent of: Words don't break me. All these propositions are ambiguous, paradoxical when applied to a victim who is scourged and humiliated, and certainly not 'dandy', but who is nevertheless venerated. The suffering victim is honored as a prince who saves and delivers from suffering. And doesn't the victim's suffering actually show that rather it's wiser to be afraid of ridicule?
I have called the work 'charming', a conjugation of the verb: to charm, which means: to affect by or as if by magic / to please, soothe, or delight by compelling attraction / to endow with or as if with supernatural powers / to protect by or as if by spells, charms, or supernatural influences / to control (typically by charms (such as the playing of music) / to practice magic and enchantment / to have the effect of a charm : fascinate (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
The formulation of one's identity works like a spell. Suddenly we 'see' someone as that what we think and say of someone. That can be for better or for worse. But by such a formulation of identity, of such an 'understanding', the actual person suddenly - as if by magic - becomes 'interesting'. Suddenly we 'see' a factual appearance as a certain identity. We see someone in the light of a specific formulation of their identity. Think of the movie star. A person like so many others, but because of the formulation of their identity as a 'star', this person suddenly becomes special, desirable, interesting. Think of the political leader. But also think of the victim. Suddenly we see the actual appearance by a certain formulation of its identity, as a danger, a threat or as an evil.
Behold ye man.
But, who and what is man?
This is an important insight, also from the perspective of the works in the presentation - which are all about 'violence' to a greater or lesser extent. It's important, because the presentation brings these particular works together under a certain 'understanding'. Both the presentation and the works themselves have a specific structure, a constitution. This constitution, as a formulation does, produces its 'understanding'. To be precise: the constitution makes a specific understanding possible. So the inner coherence of the works comes into the context of the coherence of the presentation. A mutual influencing.
While developing this presentation, the image of 'Christ on the Cold Stone' came to mind. This is an iconographic representation of the scourged and mocked Jesus, in the court of the Roman governor Pilate (Mt 27, 26-31). It is a somewhat forgotten image, unlike the crucifixion or the resurrection we don't see it anymore, often.
Then released he (Pilate - TK) Bar Abbas unto them (the people - TK): and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified . Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying , Hail , King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him. (Mt 27, 26-31)
I went looking for a sculpture of 'Christ on the Cold Stone' to possibly include it in the R.S.O.L. presentation, in combination with the lyrics or an audio adaptation of the pop/punk song 'Prince Charming' (1981) by Adam and the Ants. As soon as this combination had come into my mind, I was captivated by it - I was interested in it. The song itself is part of my history because it appealed to me when I was eleven years old, partly because of the music video. I suspect that as a boy I liked (apart from the lyrics - which I only partially understood at the time, the deviant rhythm and the absence of a traditional song structure) that the artist took on different personas in the clip. Pretending became possibility. The game became real, one could 'be' different people.
I remembered a video recording that I had made in 2007, on a holiday in Brittany, of a church in a fishermen's village where 'Christ on the Cold Stone' was set above the gateway. I had done that with one of the first 'hard disk' video cameras, which I had purchased at the time, partly because our children were small then and I wanted to document that. I was able to locate this recording in the chaotic camera archive and convert the file to file formats used by today's software. This made possible to shape the work that grew in my mind as a video, from that old recording.
In this work, 'charming', I chose to use some lines from the lyrics of the song:
Don't you ever - don't you ever - stop being dandy, showing me you're handsome
Don't you ever - don't you ever - lower yourself, forgetting all your standards
Prince Charming - Prince Charming - Ridicule is nothing to be scared of
Prince Charming - Prince Charming - Ridicule is nothing to be scared of
During the audio recording of this text, it became clear to me that the duration had to match the duration of the video recording. I chose to keep the rhythm of the song in the audio recording, but omit the melodic structure. I speak, chant, the text in a whisper. This reinforces the ambiguity of these words in combination with this image. The whispered chanting also gives the words something harsh. Something that can already be found in the words 'don't you ever': 'don't you dare...' At the same time, whispering may also refer to a thoughtful mood, like how a song fragment - a few sentences or a tune, can play through your mind when walking somewhere. This makes the relation between the image and the sound ambiguous.
Why was Jesus accused? What wrong did He do? The image of 'Christ on the Cold Stone' shows Jesus after the governor has succumbed to the voice of the people, asking him to crucify Jesus. Leaders, prominent figures of 'the people', had accused Jesus of sedition and lies. A crowd went along with that. The governor found no evidence of Jesus having done so, but under the pressure of the people, handed Jesus over to his soldiers, who mocked and beat Him, spit on Him, and placed a crown of thorns on His head. In another version of the story in the Bible, after this scourging and mockery by the soldiers, Pilate brings Jesus again before the assembled people. He then says to the people about the scourged: 'Ecce home - Behold ye man' (Jh 19, 5).
The accusation of Jesus is about His identity. The question is: who is He, who He Himself says that He is and who 'the people', or 'the others' say that He is. In short, it is about: how is Jesus 'seen' or 'understood'. His own story of who He is was subordinated to what others said about Him. They said that He said, that He is the king of the Jews, and at the same time they say that He is not that at all. That is why Jesus was mocked: well 'king', here is your crown - and a crown of thorns was pressed into His head. And: I kneel before you, 'king' - and He was spat on and beaten in the process. It no longer mattered who Jesus really was, or who He Himself said He was. What counted, what was acted upon, is what the perpetrators said of Him. Their formulation of the victim's identity made their acts of violence possible: the formulation demands the act of violence.
'Christ on the Cold Stone' shows Jesus after all this is said and done and before he was martyred. The question is still: Who is this anyway? This mocked and beaten man, who with Pilate's words became an image of "man" in general? Is man who 'they' say he is, or is he who she, he or they her-, him or themselves say he is? Or - is man something else, apart from how he, she or they is understood?
Especially in this image we see a victim of mockery in word and deed. A suffering person. In the context of the Church, this is paradoxical: for the victim is honored with a statue above the gate of the church building, the house of God. This victim is understood from the beginning in Catholic Christian culture as being both man and God. So, God is victim and mortal here, aspects that logically cannot be reconciled with aspects associated with universally applicable concepts of divinity. Because these are usually concepts such as: omnipotence, inviolability, immortality, spirituality and avenging injustice. In practice, this means that a specific, historical victim is worshiped as Deity.
The words of the audio recording say: don't you dare not being 'dandy' (that is: excellent) - don't you dare to humble yourself and forsake your principles. That sounds like some kind of threat: don't you dare, or else... Prince charming refers to the fairytale prince, who saves the girl and saves her from misery. The text adds: ridicule (mocking) is nothing to be afraid of. Which is reminiscent of: Words don't break me. All these propositions are ambiguous, paradoxical when applied to a victim who is scourged and humiliated, and certainly not 'dandy', but who is nevertheless venerated. The suffering victim is honored as a prince who saves and delivers from suffering. And doesn't the victim's suffering actually show that rather it's wiser to be afraid of ridicule?
I have called the work 'charming', a conjugation of the verb: to charm, which means: to affect by or as if by magic / to please, soothe, or delight by compelling attraction / to endow with or as if with supernatural powers / to protect by or as if by spells, charms, or supernatural influences / to control (typically by charms (such as the playing of music) / to practice magic and enchantment / to have the effect of a charm : fascinate (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
The formulation of one's identity works like a spell. Suddenly we 'see' someone as that what we think and say of someone. That can be for better or for worse. But by such a formulation of identity, of such an 'understanding', the actual person suddenly - as if by magic - becomes 'interesting'. Suddenly we 'see' a factual appearance as a certain identity. We see someone in the light of a specific formulation of their identity. Think of the movie star. A person like so many others, but because of the formulation of their identity as a 'star', this person suddenly becomes special, desirable, interesting. Think of the political leader. But also think of the victim. Suddenly we see the actual appearance by a certain formulation of its identity, as a danger, a threat or as an evil.
Behold ye man.
But, who and what is man?