“TRAP” is a reaction to consensual political art, which can basically be reduced to “reality police”—a concept I borrow from Jacques Rancière. Here, “police” doesn’t only refer to an institution of repression, but also to a “distribution of the sensible” that determines what can be seen, said, thought and felt within a given system.
Go to an art show which “tackles a problem”, “addresses issues”, or “explores possibilities” and you usually get out of there with nothing more than a new fun fact, or a vaguely augmented idea of something you were already convinced by. Is it because of oversharing artists? Simping curators? Lazy critics? The description of reality is not enough, and neither are obvious metaphors, flacid reviews, nor bland analysis.
I like how artworks tend to generate stronger meanings and feelings when operating as “conceptual traps”. The straightforwardness of what they seem to imply, the simplicity of what they are supposed to show or say, hides a deeper, more opaque and sincere interpretation. A simple, playful, yet strong dialectics: getting the idea, seeing its limits, and understanding that something is hiding patiently behind.
There lays a toilet. There stands a printed table. And there, two photos and one note. There, at the hidden core of the works lingers something beautiful to me, because it’s always “more” than it seems.
I dont expect people to leave a show and occupy the streets. I just seek discussion, debate, doubt, trouble. The misinterpretation of the works is a shield. The difficulty of transmission is a condition. The temptation of seduction is a test. And what’s the reward? Definitely not truth. My guess is a sharper feeling.
–Simon Gerard
