skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Acting (picture cards / democratic multiples). 2009 LEFT: de Wet plays Nerf. Right: Nerf plays de Wet
sample signatures
LEFT: de Wet's original contract to Nerf, witnessed by Ronan X (Johannesburg Art Gallery) 2003. RIGHT: Nerf's replacement contract to de Wet, witnessed by Francis Burger (South African National Gallery) 2009.
Witness. 6 July 2009 South African National Gallery
Painting. LEFT: Nerf by Barend de Wet 2004. RIGHT: Barend de Wet by Nerf 2004
Barend de Wet and Christian Nerf present experiments from their Authorised project 2003-2013
>
Acting (picture cards / democratic multiples). 2009 LEFT: de Wet plays Nerf. Right: Nerf plays de Wet
sample signatures
LEFT: de Wet's original contract to Nerf, witnessed by Ronan X (Johannesburg Art Gallery) 2003. RIGHT: Nerf's replacement contract to de Wet, witnessed by Francis Burger (South African National Gallery) 2009.
Witness. 6 July 2009 South African National Gallery
FRANCIS BURGER'S ENGLISH TEXT TRANSLATED INTO ITALIAN BY BIANCA BALDI
Ottenere più vicino
(Un testo breve su altro opere altro)
Giochi di amore
Che genera di pratica occupano questi oggetti (i bronzi)? Queste sono cose che sono che cosa sono.
Quello ha descritto l’altro come artista che ha cominciato giocando i giochi. Quando ci non erano più giochi da giocare si è arrestato. Ora lui fa questi cosi.
Non siete voi stessi
Gli oggetti bianchi sono qualcos'altro – ma ancora le opere di quello piuttosto che l'altro. Diventa occasionalmente confusionario quanto a quale sta attenando di essere l’altro. Ad altre volte, si trasforma in confusionario se l'altro sta tentando di essere quello, o in qualcos'altro complessivamente (o se uno sta tentando qualche cosa affatto).
Come testimone, piuttosto che un spettatore, uno è propenso pensare che alcune di queste cose possano avere qualcosa fare con voi. Ma nessuno di questo ha qualche cosa fare con voi.
Il caso non è chiuso perché non è stato aperto mai
Sappiamo che questo contratto non può essere preso seriamente i firmatari hanno firmato via le loro firme.
È precisamente questo dei voti che invita sia la nostra fiducia che loro.
Allora, parliamo di questo
A proposito di fiducia,e, implicitamente, verità [1], il rapporto che i collaboratori hanno forgiato fra se stesso è quasi ideale – le relazioni di lavoro quello conta sulla fiducia di entrambi che ciascuno funga da altri altro, e poiche’, quello dichiara, qualunque che cazzo che desiderano con il loro nome.
È che cosa è
Fra noi e l‘altre opere altro è un'affermazione sobria e quasi piacevole delle cose che sono che cosa sono – una sottomissione compassionate, non essere sormanto, ma cooperare semplicemente.
Ci sono altri modi, ma questo è come leggere queste cose. [2]
Come contrapporano la pietà fra il spettatore e l'oggetto fino a quella fra i due collaboratori?
Potrebbe la prossimità che il contratto impone loro suggerisce qualche cosa simile al tentativo precedentemente di descrivere il rapporto fra il spettatore e l'oggetto come pieta cooperativa? Quanto vicino fa l'imposizione di un rapporto venga ad essere ‘vicino’– a scambiare gli occhiali e sentire la pressione delle gomme di un altro attraverso le setole di un spazzolino da denti (è una differenza reale fra la spazzolatura dei denti di qualcuno e una stretta di mano?).
Potete essere vicini, compassionate, cooperativo, più vicino – con tutta la passione gioiosa che introduce la vostra mano nella stretta di un altro – ma per non soccombere o non essere inghiottoe.
In questo caso, l'altro non è il vostro vicino, potete parlare oggi, e mai ancora.
Il ponte del diavolo
Il contratto non è stato firmato nell'sangue. Qui, dove non ci sono padroni, non saranno anime sfortunate.
1. Un obiettivo per il futuro è di implicare la verità con l’onesta; per dichiarare che l’onesta richiede un impegno alla ricerca per la verità. Mentre può essere il progetto dello sciocco, il genere di cavalleria molto egoista che richiederebbe meriterebbe soltanto mai il rispetto più grande. Quelle agganciate in una tal ricerca diventerebbero l'unica gente che potremmo fidarci di mai, per fiducia dovrebbe contare sempre sull'onestà, e tali gente non si dicano bugie mai.
2. Una congiunzione di pietà e di cooperazione, progettato qui come senso descrivere un metodo con esperienza, conta sul mutualità implicito dalla coincidenza del ‘co-’ (quale non è semplicemente coincidente in quanto la coincidenza di entrambi i termini dissipa l'associazione della pietà con un forzato, equilibrio condiscendente piuttosto che coincidente).
(Un testo breve su altro opere altro)
Giochi di amore
Che genera di pratica occupano questi oggetti (i bronzi)? Queste sono cose che sono che cosa sono.
Quello ha descritto l’altro come artista che ha cominciato giocando i giochi. Quando ci non erano più giochi da giocare si è arrestato. Ora lui fa questi cosi.
Non siete voi stessi
Gli oggetti bianchi sono qualcos'altro – ma ancora le opere di quello piuttosto che l'altro. Diventa occasionalmente confusionario quanto a quale sta attenando di essere l’altro. Ad altre volte, si trasforma in confusionario se l'altro sta tentando di essere quello, o in qualcos'altro complessivamente (o se uno sta tentando qualche cosa affatto).
Come testimone, piuttosto che un spettatore, uno è propenso pensare che alcune di queste cose possano avere qualcosa fare con voi. Ma nessuno di questo ha qualche cosa fare con voi.
Il caso non è chiuso perché non è stato aperto mai
Sappiamo che questo contratto non può essere preso seriamente i firmatari hanno firmato via le loro firme.
È precisamente questo dei voti che invita sia la nostra fiducia che loro.
Allora, parliamo di questo
A proposito di fiducia,e, implicitamente, verità [1], il rapporto che i collaboratori hanno forgiato fra se stesso è quasi ideale – le relazioni di lavoro quello conta sulla fiducia di entrambi che ciascuno funga da altri altro, e poiche’, quello dichiara, qualunque che cazzo che desiderano con il loro nome.
È che cosa è
Fra noi e l‘altre opere altro è un'affermazione sobria e quasi piacevole delle cose che sono che cosa sono – una sottomissione compassionate, non essere sormanto, ma cooperare semplicemente.
Ci sono altri modi, ma questo è come leggere queste cose. [2]
Come contrapporano la pietà fra il spettatore e l'oggetto fino a quella fra i due collaboratori?
Potrebbe la prossimità che il contratto impone loro suggerisce qualche cosa simile al tentativo precedentemente di descrivere il rapporto fra il spettatore e l'oggetto come pieta cooperativa? Quanto vicino fa l'imposizione di un rapporto venga ad essere ‘vicino’– a scambiare gli occhiali e sentire la pressione delle gomme di un altro attraverso le setole di un spazzolino da denti (è una differenza reale fra la spazzolatura dei denti di qualcuno e una stretta di mano?).
Potete essere vicini, compassionate, cooperativo, più vicino – con tutta la passione gioiosa che introduce la vostra mano nella stretta di un altro – ma per non soccombere o non essere inghiottoe.
In questo caso, l'altro non è il vostro vicino, potete parlare oggi, e mai ancora.
Il ponte del diavolo
Il contratto non è stato firmato nell'sangue. Qui, dove non ci sono padroni, non saranno anime sfortunate.
1. Un obiettivo per il futuro è di implicare la verità con l’onesta; per dichiarare che l’onesta richiede un impegno alla ricerca per la verità. Mentre può essere il progetto dello sciocco, il genere di cavalleria molto egoista che richiederebbe meriterebbe soltanto mai il rispetto più grande. Quelle agganciate in una tal ricerca diventerebbero l'unica gente che potremmo fidarci di mai, per fiducia dovrebbe contare sempre sull'onestà, e tali gente non si dicano bugie mai.
2. Una congiunzione di pietà e di cooperazione, progettato qui come senso descrivere un metodo con esperienza, conta sul mutualità implicito dalla coincidenza del ‘co-’ (quale non è semplicemente coincidente in quanto la coincidenza di entrambi i termini dissipa l'associazione della pietà con un forzato, equilibrio condiscendente piuttosto che coincidente).
FRANCIS BURGER'S ORIGINAL ENGLISH TEXT
Getting closer
(A short text on other works other)
Love games.
What kind of practice do these objects (the bronzes) occupy? These are things that are what they are.
The one has described the other as an artist who began by playing games. When there were no more games to play he stopped. Now he makes these things.
You are not yourself.
The white objects are something else – but still the work of the one rather than the other. At times it becomes confusing as to which one is attempting to be the other. At other times, it becomes confusing as to whether the other is attempting to be the one, or something else altogether (or whether either is attempting anything at all).
As a witness, rather than a viewer, one is inclined to think that some of these things may have something to do with you. But none of this has anything to do with you.
The case is not closed because it was never opened
We know that this contract cannot be taken seriously because the signatories have signed away their signatures.
It is precisely this disavowal of vows that invites both our trust and theirs.
So let's talk about it
On the subject of trust, and, by implication, truth [1], the relation that the collaborators have forged between themselves is almost ideal – a working relationship that relies on the trust of both that each will act as the others' other, and do, as the one states, whatever the fuck they want with their name.
It is what it is
Between us and the other works other there is a sober and almost pleasant affirmation of things being what they are – a compassionate submission, not to be overcome, but simply to cooperate.
There are other ways, but this is how to read these things. [2]
How does the compassion between the viewer and the object match up to that between the two collaborators? Could the proximity that the contract imposes on them suggest something similar to the attempt above to describe the relation between the viewer and the object as a cooperative compassion? How close does the imposition of a relation come to being 'close' – to swopping spectacles and feeling the pressure of another’s gums through the bristles of a toothbrush (is there any real difference between brushing someone's teeth and shaking their hand?)
You may be close, compassionate, cooperative, closer – with all of the joyous passion that brings your hand into the clasp of another’s – but not in order to succumb or be engulfed.
In this case, the other is not your neighbour, you may speak to him today, and never again.
The devil's bridge
The contract has not been signed in blood. Here, where there are no masters, there will be no unlucky souls.
1. A goal for the future is to implicate truth with honesty; to state that honesty requires a commitment to the search for truth. While it may be a fool's project, the very selfish kind of chivalry that it would require would only ever deserve the greatest respect. Those engaged in such a quest would become the only people we could ever trust, for trust should always rely on honesty, and such people would never lie.
2. A conjunction of compassion and cooperation, intended here as a way to describe an experienced approach, relies on the mutuality implied by the coincidence of the co- (which is not simply coincidental in that the coincidence of both terms dispels the association of compassion with a forced, condescending equilibrium rather than a coincidental one).
(A short text on other works other)
Love games.
What kind of practice do these objects (the bronzes) occupy? These are things that are what they are.
The one has described the other as an artist who began by playing games. When there were no more games to play he stopped. Now he makes these things.
You are not yourself.
The white objects are something else – but still the work of the one rather than the other. At times it becomes confusing as to which one is attempting to be the other. At other times, it becomes confusing as to whether the other is attempting to be the one, or something else altogether (or whether either is attempting anything at all).
As a witness, rather than a viewer, one is inclined to think that some of these things may have something to do with you. But none of this has anything to do with you.
The case is not closed because it was never opened
We know that this contract cannot be taken seriously because the signatories have signed away their signatures.
It is precisely this disavowal of vows that invites both our trust and theirs.
So let's talk about it
On the subject of trust, and, by implication, truth [1], the relation that the collaborators have forged between themselves is almost ideal – a working relationship that relies on the trust of both that each will act as the others' other, and do, as the one states, whatever the fuck they want with their name.
It is what it is
Between us and the other works other there is a sober and almost pleasant affirmation of things being what they are – a compassionate submission, not to be overcome, but simply to cooperate.
There are other ways, but this is how to read these things. [2]
How does the compassion between the viewer and the object match up to that between the two collaborators? Could the proximity that the contract imposes on them suggest something similar to the attempt above to describe the relation between the viewer and the object as a cooperative compassion? How close does the imposition of a relation come to being 'close' – to swopping spectacles and feeling the pressure of another’s gums through the bristles of a toothbrush (is there any real difference between brushing someone's teeth and shaking their hand?)
You may be close, compassionate, cooperative, closer – with all of the joyous passion that brings your hand into the clasp of another’s – but not in order to succumb or be engulfed.
In this case, the other is not your neighbour, you may speak to him today, and never again.
The devil's bridge
The contract has not been signed in blood. Here, where there are no masters, there will be no unlucky souls.
1. A goal for the future is to implicate truth with honesty; to state that honesty requires a commitment to the search for truth. While it may be a fool's project, the very selfish kind of chivalry that it would require would only ever deserve the greatest respect. Those engaged in such a quest would become the only people we could ever trust, for trust should always rely on honesty, and such people would never lie.
2. A conjunction of compassion and cooperation, intended here as a way to describe an experienced approach, relies on the mutuality implied by the coincidence of the co- (which is not simply coincidental in that the coincidence of both terms dispels the association of compassion with a forced, condescending equilibrium rather than a coincidental one).
FRANCIS BURGER'S TEXT TRANSLATED INTO ITALIAN BY GOOGLE
Getting closer
(Un breve testo su altre opere di altri)
Love giochi.
Che tipo di pratica questi oggetti (il bronzo) occupare? Queste sono le cose che sono quello che sono.
L'uno ha descritto l'altro come un artista che ha iniziato da giocare. Quando non vi sono più giochi si è fermato. Ora fa queste cose.
Non siete soli.
Il bianco oggetti sono qualcosa d'altro - ma il lavoro di una piuttosto che l'altro. A volte si confonde, per uno che sta cercando di essere gli altri. In altri tempi, diventa confuso, come se l'altro è il tentativo di essere l'uno, o qualcos'altro del tutto (o se sia sta cercando qualcosa a tutti).
Come una testimonianza, piuttosto che uno spettatore, è incline a pensare che alcune di queste cose può avere qualcosa a che fare con voi. Ma niente di tutto questo ha qualcosa a che fare con voi.
Il caso non è chiuso, perché non è mai stato aperto
Sappiamo che questo contratto non può essere presa sul serio, perché i firmatari hanno firmato via le loro firme.
E 'proprio questo disconoscimento di voti che invita sia la nostra fiducia e la loro.
So let's talk about it
Sul tema della fiducia, e, implicitamente, la verità [1], la relazione che i collaboratori hanno forgiato tra di loro è quasi ideale - un rapporto di lavoro che si basa sulla fiducia che ciascuno dei due agisce come gli altri ', e fare, come afferma, qualunque sia il cazzo che vogliono con il loro nome.
E 'quello che è
Tra noi e le altre opere di altri, si aggiungono un sobrio e quasi piacevole affermazione di cose essere quello che sono - un compassionevole presentazione, per non essere superati, ma semplicemente di collaborare.
Ci sono altri modi, ma questo è il modo di leggere queste cose. [2]
Come funziona la compassione tra lo spettatore e l'oggetto corrisponde a quello tra i due collaboratori? Può la vicinanza che il contratto impone loro di proporre qualcosa di simile in precedenza il tentativo di descrivere la relazione tra lo spettatore e l'oggetto come una cooperativa di compassione? Come chiudere l'imposizione di un rapporto di essere venuto a 'chiudere' - a swopping spettacoli e di sentire la pressione delle gomme di un altro attraverso le setole di uno spazzolino da denti (non vi è alcuna reale differenza tra lo spazzolamento dei denti di qualcuno e agitando la mano?)
Potrebbe essere vicino, compassionevole, cooperativa, una più stretta - con tutte le gioiosa passione che porta in mano la chiusura di un altro - ma non in ordine di cedere o essere inghiottito.
In questo caso, gli altri non è il tuo prossimo, si può prendere la parola a lui oggi, e mai più.
Il ponte del diavolo
Il contratto non è stato firmato nel sangue. Qui, dove non vi sono maestri, non ci sarà sfortunato anime.
1. Un obiettivo per il futuro è quello di coinvolgere la verità con onestà, l'onestà di affermare che richiede un impegno per la ricerca della verità. Anche se può essere un pazzo del progetto, il tipo di cavalleria egoista che richiederebbe solo meritano sempre il massimo rispetto. Coloro che sono impegnati in una ricerca diventerebbe l'unico popolo che potremmo mai la fiducia, per la fiducia dovrebbe sempre fare affidamento sulla onestà, e queste persone non sarebbero mai mentire.
2. Un insieme di compassione e di cooperazione, inteso qui come un modo per descrivere un approccio esperienza, si basa sulla reciprocità implica la coincidenza della co-(che non è semplicemente una coincidenza, in quanto la coincidenza dei due termini dissipa l'associazione di compassione con un costretti, condiscendente equilibrio piuttosto che una coincidenza uno).
(Un breve testo su altre opere di altri)
Love giochi.
Che tipo di pratica questi oggetti (il bronzo) occupare? Queste sono le cose che sono quello che sono.
L'uno ha descritto l'altro come un artista che ha iniziato da giocare. Quando non vi sono più giochi si è fermato. Ora fa queste cose.
Non siete soli.
Il bianco oggetti sono qualcosa d'altro - ma il lavoro di una piuttosto che l'altro. A volte si confonde, per uno che sta cercando di essere gli altri. In altri tempi, diventa confuso, come se l'altro è il tentativo di essere l'uno, o qualcos'altro del tutto (o se sia sta cercando qualcosa a tutti).
Come una testimonianza, piuttosto che uno spettatore, è incline a pensare che alcune di queste cose può avere qualcosa a che fare con voi. Ma niente di tutto questo ha qualcosa a che fare con voi.
Il caso non è chiuso, perché non è mai stato aperto
Sappiamo che questo contratto non può essere presa sul serio, perché i firmatari hanno firmato via le loro firme.
E 'proprio questo disconoscimento di voti che invita sia la nostra fiducia e la loro.
So let's talk about it
Sul tema della fiducia, e, implicitamente, la verità [1], la relazione che i collaboratori hanno forgiato tra di loro è quasi ideale - un rapporto di lavoro che si basa sulla fiducia che ciascuno dei due agisce come gli altri ', e fare, come afferma, qualunque sia il cazzo che vogliono con il loro nome.
E 'quello che è
Tra noi e le altre opere di altri, si aggiungono un sobrio e quasi piacevole affermazione di cose essere quello che sono - un compassionevole presentazione, per non essere superati, ma semplicemente di collaborare.
Ci sono altri modi, ma questo è il modo di leggere queste cose. [2]
Come funziona la compassione tra lo spettatore e l'oggetto corrisponde a quello tra i due collaboratori? Può la vicinanza che il contratto impone loro di proporre qualcosa di simile in precedenza il tentativo di descrivere la relazione tra lo spettatore e l'oggetto come una cooperativa di compassione? Come chiudere l'imposizione di un rapporto di essere venuto a 'chiudere' - a swopping spettacoli e di sentire la pressione delle gomme di un altro attraverso le setole di uno spazzolino da denti (non vi è alcuna reale differenza tra lo spazzolamento dei denti di qualcuno e agitando la mano?)
Potrebbe essere vicino, compassionevole, cooperativa, una più stretta - con tutte le gioiosa passione che porta in mano la chiusura di un altro - ma non in ordine di cedere o essere inghiottito.
In questo caso, gli altri non è il tuo prossimo, si può prendere la parola a lui oggi, e mai più.
Il ponte del diavolo
Il contratto non è stato firmato nel sangue. Qui, dove non vi sono maestri, non ci sarà sfortunato anime.
1. Un obiettivo per il futuro è quello di coinvolgere la verità con onestà, l'onestà di affermare che richiede un impegno per la ricerca della verità. Anche se può essere un pazzo del progetto, il tipo di cavalleria egoista che richiederebbe solo meritano sempre il massimo rispetto. Coloro che sono impegnati in una ricerca diventerebbe l'unico popolo che potremmo mai la fiducia, per la fiducia dovrebbe sempre fare affidamento sulla onestà, e queste persone non sarebbero mai mentire.
2. Un insieme di compassione e di cooperazione, inteso qui come un modo per descrivere un approccio esperienza, si basa sulla reciprocità implica la coincidenza della co-(che non è semplicemente una coincidenza, in quanto la coincidenza dei due termini dissipa l'associazione di compassione con un costretti, condiscendente equilibrio piuttosto che una coincidenza uno).
FRANCIS BURGER'S TEXT BACK-TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY GOOGLE
Avvicinarsi
(A short text to other works of others)
Love games.
What kind of practice, these items (bronze) acting? These are the things that are what they are.
One described the other as an artist began to play. When there are more games stood still. Now do these things.
You are not alone.
The white objects are something else - but the work of one rather than another. Sometimes it is confusing for someone who is trying to be others. In other times, becomes confused, as if the other is trying to be the one, or something else entirely (or if you're looking for is something for everyone).
As a witness, rather than a spectator, is inclined to think that some of these things can have something to do with you. But none of this has anything to do with you.
The case is not closed, because it has never been opened
We know that this contract can not be taken seriously, because the signatories have signed away their signatures.
It 'just that disallow votes that invites both our faith and theirs.
So let's talk about it
On the issue of trust, and, by implication, the truth [1] the report that employees have forged between them is almost perfect - a working relationship based on trust that each of the two acts as the other ', and then , as he says, whatever the hell they want with their name.
And 'what is
Between us and the other works of others, is a sober and almost pleasant affirmation of things being what they are - a compassionate presentation, not to be overcome, but simply to work together.
There are other ways, but this is the way of reading these things. [2]
How does the compassion between the viewer and the object corresponds to that between two individuals? Will the closeness that the contract requires them to propose something similar before attempting to describe the relationship between the viewer and the object as a cooperative of compassion? Closing the imposition of a relationship coming to 'close' - a swopping shows and feeling the pressure of the tires of another through the bristles of a toothbrush (there is no real difference between the brushing of teeth someone and shaking his hand?)
Could be close, compassionate, cooperative, closer - with all the joyful passion that brings up the closure of another - but not in order to sell or be swallowed.
In this case, the other is not your neighbor, you may speak to him today, and never again.
The bridge of the devil
The contract was signed in blood. Here, where there are no teachers, there will be unfortunate souls.
1. A goal for the future is to involve the truth with honesty, honesty to state that requires a commitment to the search for truth. Although it may be a crazy project, the kind of chivalry that would require only selfish always deserve the greatest respect. Those who are engaged in a search would be the only people who would never trust to the trust should always rely on the honesty, and they would never lie.
2. A combination of compassion and cooperation, understood here as a way to describe an experience, is based on reciprocity implies the coincidence of co-(which is not simply a coincidence, since the coincidence of the two terms dispels the association of compassion with a forced, rather than condescending balance a coincidence)
(A short text to other works of others)
Love games.
What kind of practice, these items (bronze) acting? These are the things that are what they are.
One described the other as an artist began to play. When there are more games stood still. Now do these things.
You are not alone.
The white objects are something else - but the work of one rather than another. Sometimes it is confusing for someone who is trying to be others. In other times, becomes confused, as if the other is trying to be the one, or something else entirely (or if you're looking for is something for everyone).
As a witness, rather than a spectator, is inclined to think that some of these things can have something to do with you. But none of this has anything to do with you.
The case is not closed, because it has never been opened
We know that this contract can not be taken seriously, because the signatories have signed away their signatures.
It 'just that disallow votes that invites both our faith and theirs.
So let's talk about it
On the issue of trust, and, by implication, the truth [1] the report that employees have forged between them is almost perfect - a working relationship based on trust that each of the two acts as the other ', and then , as he says, whatever the hell they want with their name.
And 'what is
Between us and the other works of others, is a sober and almost pleasant affirmation of things being what they are - a compassionate presentation, not to be overcome, but simply to work together.
There are other ways, but this is the way of reading these things. [2]
How does the compassion between the viewer and the object corresponds to that between two individuals? Will the closeness that the contract requires them to propose something similar before attempting to describe the relationship between the viewer and the object as a cooperative of compassion? Closing the imposition of a relationship coming to 'close' - a swopping shows and feeling the pressure of the tires of another through the bristles of a toothbrush (there is no real difference between the brushing of teeth someone and shaking his hand?)
Could be close, compassionate, cooperative, closer - with all the joyful passion that brings up the closure of another - but not in order to sell or be swallowed.
In this case, the other is not your neighbor, you may speak to him today, and never again.
The bridge of the devil
The contract was signed in blood. Here, where there are no teachers, there will be unfortunate souls.
1. A goal for the future is to involve the truth with honesty, honesty to state that requires a commitment to the search for truth. Although it may be a crazy project, the kind of chivalry that would require only selfish always deserve the greatest respect. Those who are engaged in a search would be the only people who would never trust to the trust should always rely on the honesty, and they would never lie.
2. A combination of compassion and cooperation, understood here as a way to describe an experience, is based on reciprocity implies the coincidence of co-(which is not simply a coincidence, since the coincidence of the two terms dispels the association of compassion with a forced, rather than condescending balance a coincidence)
Painting. LEFT: Nerf by Barend de Wet 2004. RIGHT: Barend de Wet by Nerf 2004
PRESS RELEASE
Thieves, poets and others have adopted working under a pseudonym since time immemorial. Now it’s commonly used online, one simply adopts an AKA and voila one has a clean slate. Now everyone can live a secret life. In this case the artists have voluntarily given up their names to one another, both Barend de Wet and Christian Nerf have been experimenting under each other’s names since 2003, to what extent may never be known.
“…in the autographed picture cards you take each other’s place. But this is not the first time either of you has acted” (laughter) Sebastian Charilaou in reference to the work Acting.
The smallest exhibition space in South Africa, even smaller than Abrie Fourie’s Outlet gallery, has been crammed full of stuff by artists de Wet and Nerf. This month they present sculptures with prints, film and text done by one another as well as something by guest artist Francis Burger in the AVA’s New Media room.
“While filming the closeness surpassed anything I could have imagined and we couldn’t help laughing. And wearing Barend’s spectacles made it all the scarier, like an out of focus B-Grade skin flick” comments Nerf on making But Not.
Displayed alongside one of the original contracts, witnessed in 2003 by Ronan X at the Johannesburg Art Gallery, will be a replacement version for the other, witnessed in 2009 by Burger at the National Gallery.
“Christian does whatever the fuck he wants with my name*” says de Wet
* [text referring to contract dated 28 July 2003] I, Barend de Wet, agree to allow the artist currently known as Christian Nerf to use my name … 33 times within the next 10 years.
“…in the autographed picture cards you take each other’s place. But this is not the first time either of you has acted” (laughter) Sebastian Charilaou in reference to the work Acting.
The smallest exhibition space in South Africa, even smaller than Abrie Fourie’s Outlet gallery, has been crammed full of stuff by artists de Wet and Nerf. This month they present sculptures with prints, film and text done by one another as well as something by guest artist Francis Burger in the AVA’s New Media room.
“While filming the closeness surpassed anything I could have imagined and we couldn’t help laughing. And wearing Barend’s spectacles made it all the scarier, like an out of focus B-Grade skin flick” comments Nerf on making But Not.
Displayed alongside one of the original contracts, witnessed in 2003 by Ronan X at the Johannesburg Art Gallery, will be a replacement version for the other, witnessed in 2009 by Burger at the National Gallery.
“Christian does whatever the fuck he wants with my name*” says de Wet
* [text referring to contract dated 28 July 2003] I, Barend de Wet, agree to allow the artist currently known as Christian Nerf to use my name … 33 times within the next 10 years.
SOUTH AFRICAN ART TIMES WRITES...
Christian Nerf is Barend de Wet (maybe, sometimes)
2009-06-26
Evidence of this collaboration will be on display in the diminutive New Media room at the AVA in July. The show, entitled ‘Other Works Other’, will include dozens of sculptures, prints, film and text. In addition to swapping signatures, the pair also show new works based on each other’s concepts. According to the artists, Nerf has produced new ‘white’ sculptures in the tradition of de Wet, while de Wet has manufactured new ‘bronze’ works, ala Nerf. Nerf's de Wet sculptures are made exclusively out of other artists' work.
Also on display, will be the original contract, as well as a “replacement”, witnessed by Francis Burger at the South African National Gallery in 2009, and what the duo describe as “a little something” by Burger.
De Wet and Nerf both have a reputation for trickery and the provision of questionable documentary evidence. Nerf’s collaboration with Douglas Gimberg in 2008, ‘Escape to Robben Island’, in which De Wet was also involved, was shrouded in mystery. Although the trio claimed to have built a boat and rowed all the way to Robben Island, the only evidence of the mythical voyage, which was provided at the time of exhibition, was a thoroughly suspect, pixelated image of the small craft on the water. The image was exhibited in the same room at the AVA where de Wet and Nerf’s current show will be held.
De Wet made the news more recently when his performance ‘The Difference between Life and Art: I knit, you not’, at the Blank projects booth at the Joburg Art Fair, was cancelled a short 9 minutes in. De Wet, who stood knitting naked, was indignant about the censorship at the time, which fair organisers claimed was down to the Blank Projects’ Booth’s proximity to the children’s art booth.
http://www.arttimes.co.za/news_read.php?news_id=920
2009-06-26
“Christian does whatever the f**k he wants with my name” says Barend de Wet
In a shock disclosure, Cape Townian tricksters Barend de Wet and Christian Nerf have revealed that they have been using each other’s signatures since 2003, “to an extent which may never be known”.
Evidence of this collaboration will be on display in the diminutive New Media room at the AVA in July. The show, entitled ‘Other Works Other’, will include dozens of sculptures, prints, film and text. In addition to swapping signatures, the pair also show new works based on each other’s concepts. According to the artists, Nerf has produced new ‘white’ sculptures in the tradition of de Wet, while de Wet has manufactured new ‘bronze’ works, ala Nerf. Nerf's de Wet sculptures are made exclusively out of other artists' work.
Also on display, will be the original contract, as well as a “replacement”, witnessed by Francis Burger at the South African National Gallery in 2009, and what the duo describe as “a little something” by Burger.
De Wet and Nerf both have a reputation for trickery and the provision of questionable documentary evidence. Nerf’s collaboration with Douglas Gimberg in 2008, ‘Escape to Robben Island’, in which De Wet was also involved, was shrouded in mystery. Although the trio claimed to have built a boat and rowed all the way to Robben Island, the only evidence of the mythical voyage, which was provided at the time of exhibition, was a thoroughly suspect, pixelated image of the small craft on the water. The image was exhibited in the same room at the AVA where de Wet and Nerf’s current show will be held.
De Wet made the news more recently when his performance ‘The Difference between Life and Art: I knit, you not’, at the Blank projects booth at the Joburg Art Fair, was cancelled a short 9 minutes in. De Wet, who stood knitting naked, was indignant about the censorship at the time, which fair organisers claimed was down to the Blank Projects’ Booth’s proximity to the children’s art booth.
http://www.arttimes.co.za/news_read.php?news_id=920
MILES KEYLOCK OF THE MAIL & GUARDIAN WRITES...
Similar, but different
2009-07-10
Few artists embody (or rather, disembody) Oscar Wilde’s comment in De Profundis that “most people are other people” more than Barend de Wet and Christian Nerf. With their shared affection for clever conceptual wise-cracks, pseudonyms and matching spectacles, they appear strangely similar. But, the breakwaters between their identities have started to crumble. Their new exhibition takes this concept to its logical, identify-obliterating conclusion. Titled Other Works Other, the exhibition is built around a simple shock disclosure: they have been using each other’s signatures since 2003, “to an extent that may never be known”.
Through a series of prints, films and text that show the artists mirroring each other, theft itself is reconsidered, becoming a hushed quotation, unadvertised reference and reflection. “Christian does whatever the fuck he wants with my name,” bitches De Wet. But at the same time he confesses to entering into a devil’s pact that allows Nerf to use his name “a total of 33 times within the next 10 years”. Just what kind of artistic partnership is this? These works acknowledge that stolen goods always engage in a dialogue with their point of origin.
Something pilfered achieves posterity in a backhanded devil’s bargain; buying immortality through the recreation of existing “ideals” and the partial replication of what in modernism is longed for most of all; the grace of originality and the safety of a stable fixed identity.
2009-07-10
Few artists embody (or rather, disembody) Oscar Wilde’s comment in De Profundis that “most people are other people” more than Barend de Wet and Christian Nerf. With their shared affection for clever conceptual wise-cracks, pseudonyms and matching spectacles, they appear strangely similar. But, the breakwaters between their identities have started to crumble. Their new exhibition takes this concept to its logical, identify-obliterating conclusion. Titled Other Works Other, the exhibition is built around a simple shock disclosure: they have been using each other’s signatures since 2003, “to an extent that may never be known”.
Through a series of prints, films and text that show the artists mirroring each other, theft itself is reconsidered, becoming a hushed quotation, unadvertised reference and reflection. “Christian does whatever the fuck he wants with my name,” bitches De Wet. But at the same time he confesses to entering into a devil’s pact that allows Nerf to use his name “a total of 33 times within the next 10 years”. Just what kind of artistic partnership is this? These works acknowledge that stolen goods always engage in a dialogue with their point of origin.
Something pilfered achieves posterity in a backhanded devil’s bargain; buying immortality through the recreation of existing “ideals” and the partial replication of what in modernism is longed for most of all; the grace of originality and the safety of a stable fixed identity.
Ed Young's Diary said...
Other Works Bother
06.07.09
On the rare occasion, I sometimes frequent exhibitions at the AVA, but not that often. I am a fan of the AVA and in particular the artreach fund, which aims to support young deserving artists with financial aid, material bursaries and the like. But sometimes the shows are a bit on the weak side. And sometimes they are just really bad. But tonight, I am informed of a new opening by conceptualists Christian Nerf and Barend de Wet. I am very excited.
I invite my American friend Kim along, as she has not had too much time to indulge in the contemporary art scene. Braving the cold, we arrive at the space and grab a Glass of Spier wine, bless their souls. We stroll around the space, only to find three dreadful exhibitions. The first room showcases an installation by newcomer Wessel Snyman. The Birds is a piece made up of used ATM slips. The statements are folded into origami birds and suspended from the ceiling. It is an apparent commentary on the current financial climate of South Africa. I feel that it speaks more about the exorbitant bank charges we normal folk face with our debit cards. Anyone remember Bridget Baker? But the show is not that bad.
We move around the rest of the space art-kissing everyone and ignoring the dodgy paintings on display. I whisper in my friend’s ear that I think we came to the wrong show, smiling and waving politely across the semi-crowded room. We leave the space and I bump into Stellenbosch lecturer Katherine Bull. I tell her that I mistakenly thought it was Nerf / de Wet exhibition. She explains that it is and that their contribution is in the tiny multimedia room. I embarrassingly admit that I did not even go upstairs as I had a good view of the crap on the mezzanine level from downstairs.
The media room is small and crowded but we eventually catch a glimpse of the work. But luckily it does not demand a lot of attention and the room is cleared very quickly. It is another contract work in which de Wet and Nerf, signed over their signature to each other for a given period. There had been some interesting manifestations of the piece in the past but this is not one of them. There are some objects in vitrines, the physical contracts and post card works. There is also a small projection portraying de Wet and Nerf brushing each other’s plaque infested cavities. But it is all over in a pan of the space.
We go for a drink and I wonder why these conceptualists don’t have stronger concepts. And fellow trouble man Douglas Gimpberg curates the exhibition.
http://artheat.net/diary/diary.html
06.07.09
On the rare occasion, I sometimes frequent exhibitions at the AVA, but not that often. I am a fan of the AVA and in particular the artreach fund, which aims to support young deserving artists with financial aid, material bursaries and the like. But sometimes the shows are a bit on the weak side. And sometimes they are just really bad. But tonight, I am informed of a new opening by conceptualists Christian Nerf and Barend de Wet. I am very excited.
I invite my American friend Kim along, as she has not had too much time to indulge in the contemporary art scene. Braving the cold, we arrive at the space and grab a Glass of Spier wine, bless their souls. We stroll around the space, only to find three dreadful exhibitions. The first room showcases an installation by newcomer Wessel Snyman. The Birds is a piece made up of used ATM slips. The statements are folded into origami birds and suspended from the ceiling. It is an apparent commentary on the current financial climate of South Africa. I feel that it speaks more about the exorbitant bank charges we normal folk face with our debit cards. Anyone remember Bridget Baker? But the show is not that bad.
We move around the rest of the space art-kissing everyone and ignoring the dodgy paintings on display. I whisper in my friend’s ear that I think we came to the wrong show, smiling and waving politely across the semi-crowded room. We leave the space and I bump into Stellenbosch lecturer Katherine Bull. I tell her that I mistakenly thought it was Nerf / de Wet exhibition. She explains that it is and that their contribution is in the tiny multimedia room. I embarrassingly admit that I did not even go upstairs as I had a good view of the crap on the mezzanine level from downstairs.
The media room is small and crowded but we eventually catch a glimpse of the work. But luckily it does not demand a lot of attention and the room is cleared very quickly. It is another contract work in which de Wet and Nerf, signed over their signature to each other for a given period. There had been some interesting manifestations of the piece in the past but this is not one of them. There are some objects in vitrines, the physical contracts and post card works. There is also a small projection portraying de Wet and Nerf brushing each other’s plaque infested cavities. But it is all over in a pan of the space.
We go for a drink and I wonder why these conceptualists don’t have stronger concepts. And fellow trouble man Douglas Gimpberg curates the exhibition.
http://artheat.net/diary/diary.html