Bluerider ART 學術評論｜ Angela Glajcar 安格拉·格萊札 Dr. Andreas Beitin

Dr. Andreas Beitin

安德魯·貝廷博士藝術史、應用文化科學以及現當代歷史學家，著作包括二十世紀德國繪畫和圖形中尖叫主題論文。擔任ZKM當代藝術博物館館長、歌德學院藝術顧問委員會主席，以及Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft、卡爾斯魯厄理工學院 (KIT)、RWE 基金會、大眾汽車基金會）眾多藝術評審團和學術顧問委員。

Angela Glajcar 紙藝裝置 一個相對面的組合
Angela Glajcar’s Paper Installations – a Synthesis of Opposites
Dr. Andreas Beitin 安德魯·貝廷 博士

雕塑家 Angela Glajcar 由於她創新地使用紙作為材料，創造作品因廣闊幅圍 和由此產生的空間美學，使她的紙藝裝置體現了一個非凡的代表地位。 Glajcar 以她獨特的方式展示了紙張不單輕且易碎，也同時具有份量且堅固。 通過她的作品，她為觀眾提供了對此媒材截然相反特徵的直觀感知。

作為一名雕塑家，Angela Glajcar 於 1997 年至 2006 年開始使用鋼材和木材 等材料創作。而後主要以紙張為媒材，也於近年(2010-083、2011-009)開 始使用玻璃纖維布創作。使用紙作為媒介，仍然是她裝置的首選材料，對她來 說具有特殊的意義，因為紙能夠吸收環境光並突出各種色調。這就是為什麼 Angela Glajcar 主要使用「白色」紙的原因:她「不需要有色材料」。1 藝術家 非常著迷於:長條形紙排列或大量層層堆疊的紙張主宰環境空間時的存在，這 就是為什麼現地製作是她創作中最重要的部分。她對建築體積的空間、比例和 照明條件的直觀反應，以及對作品定位位置的任何破壞性因素之反應和克服， 是她創作裝置過程中的決定性要素。有時，藝術家面對的不是如博物館的白色 立方體，而是一個多功能的空間，而且這些空間通常用於展示藝術品以外的其 他目的，例如教堂(2009-072、2010-022、 2011-072) 或銀行等空間。儘管 Angela Glajcar 會為她精細不朽的雕塑裝置製作小型模型，並也在她的工作室 裡模擬如何裝置它們的各種可能性，但當雕塑在現場進入最後階段放置時- 這才是作品最終會形成的展現。在創作裝置時，藝術家對紙張所經歷的變化特別著 迷，例如對環境濕度的不同反應:紙張捲曲和彎曲，都會改變其表面的感覺， 因此揭示了紙張這個媒材的「無常性」。正是紙張的有限性讓 Angela Glajcar 持 續回到使用紙質材料中創作。因為她對藝術「永恆」的要求不感興趣。

最初，紙張是圖像藝術家使用的材料。自從紙張取代了昂貴的羊皮紙以來，它已經在全球廣泛普及。早在 1620 年，英國哲學家 Francis Bacon 弗朗西斯·培 根在他的《關於解釋自然的真實方向》(True Directions Concerning The Interpretation Of Nature)中熱情洋溢地說道:「紙是藝術的獨特實例，一種極其常見的東西。 […] 紙 [是] 一種可能被切割或撕裂的物質;因此他幾乎可以與動物的皮膚或膜、植物的葉子以及類比大自然的工藝相媲美。因為它既不 像玻璃那樣脆，也不像布一樣織成;而是在纖維中，不是像線組成般，就如同天然材料一樣;所以在人造材料中你幾乎找不到類似的東西;紙是珍貴罕見 的。」2

從早期現代主義開始，紙開始用於繪畫—無論是拼貼畫還是實際繪畫。紙張的 雕塑早期實例出現在 20 世紀初，例如巴勃羅畢加索 Pablo Picasso 從 1910 年代開始由紙和紙板製成的雕塑。他甚至將一些紙雕塑用錫、罐頭重新切割， 提高它們的耐用性。對於 Angela Glajcar 來說，紙藝的迷人之處之一是，大 多數人僅視之於媒材的一部分，但 Glajcar 著迷於紙的可能性。雖然輕盈且脆弱，但亦可沈重且堅固。因此，藝術家經常使用重達 800 g/m2 的重紙(如 2010-026)，幾乎是普通打印紙重量的十倍。

Angela Glajcar 使用長條狀的紙張創作大型裝置中，其靈感來自傳統繪畫。因 此，她的作品涵蓋了二維和三維，繪畫與雕塑，更廣泛的定義與繪畫相關的幻 覺領域，以及物質和實質上現實領域材料與概念的融合。

關於這一點，請允許我從藝術史角度切入:在 20 世紀初，藝術經歷了根本性的範式轉變。然而，視覺美學的真正革命並不僅僅包括從具體繪畫到抽象繪畫 的轉變——因為藝術家仍然非常傳統地使用顏料和畫布——而是從，錯覺藝術到再現藝術的轉變。

例如，幾世紀前繪畫中的光即被視為白色或黃色顏料呈現，1920 年代則看到了 藝術家將「光本身」用作藝術中的具體材料的變化。在視覺藝術使用實際光之 前，繪畫中使用的材料範圍早已有所增加。

早在 1910 年代，金屬光反射就被用於繪畫上，儘管這些金屬仍然是作為媒介 「間接地」，即被動地描繪光。 塞韋里尼 Gino Severini 1913 年的一幅畫作可被 視為這一發展時期的關鍵作品之一。這幅名為《舞者 + 海 = 花束》(Dancer + Sea = Bouquet) 的抽像畫主要是用顏料繪製的，但在作品下方Severini 塞韋里尼使用了「鋁」做了一個「光反射」的效果。20 世紀初亞克力玻璃等現代材料，也廣泛地運用在光的藝術中。例如，建構主義和混凝土藝術家將其與最多樣化的材料結合在一起。這樣的偏好不僅在使用最新的科技材 料，還在日常材料使用，如紙張，最初在 1910 年代零星地出現，然後在 1920 年代頻繁地出現，使創作媒材從帆布畫到物質媒介而鋪路。二次世界大戰後， 義大利成為了對材料多樣性創作與討論的核心舞台。例如，藝術家和理論學家 恩里科·普蘭波利尼 Enrico Prampolini 在 1944 年提出「多媒體藝術」概念， 試圖以「媒材的真實性完全取代繪畫的真實性」，為了「將藝術推向最為極端的 境界，使人聯想起媒材律動性的空間表現，藉以喚起情感價值。」」3 物質化的表 面振動近幾被描述為暴力衝擊或破壞，例如可見於自 1950 年以來一直主導著 義大利藝術話語權的藝術家們 阿爾貝托·布里 Alberto Burri 、盧齊歐·封塔納 Lucio Fontana 、 博納盧米 Agostino Bonalumi、吉安尼·科隆博 Gianni Colombo 和 阿吉諾雷·法布里 Agenore Fabbri 。這樣的歷史脈絡可以部分解 釋為什麼 Angela Glajcar 的作品在義大利特別受歡迎。

Angela Glajcar 也通過撕開紙張產生間隙來破壞材料。對原始平面、未損壞過 的紙張破壞，表現了對「圖像破壞」的歷史參照實踐。在這種情況下，「紙張」 就是原始完整的、未損壞的圖像媒材。Angela Glajcar 單色紙圖像被解釋為部 分地、不曾完全地撕裂，且總是會被打散、攪亂和破壞。關於這一個藝術過 程，文化哲學家鮑里斯·格羅伊斯 Boris Groys 評論:「大多數現代主義繪畫都是 通過破壞圖像的方式創作的，」因為它們「都是被鋸開、切割、破碎、撕裂、 穿刺——不論是像徵性抑或實際性」4 這些代表 Glajcar 作品基礎中的藝術史背 景。這也讓「紙張的無常性」與藝術家對某些藝術作品「主張永恆」的批判立 場巧妙地吻合。

盧齊歐·封塔納 Lucio Fontana 是我們在上面已經提到的將反傳統做法應用於作 品的主要藝術家之一。儘管他從 1940 年代後期開始於畫布進行穿孔和打洞， 以克服二維性來實現無限的空間，但在 Angela Glajcar 的作品中，二維和三維、 物質和非物質並不相互排斥，而是同時存在——事實上，它們其實是相互組成 的一部份。雖然撕裂出的孔洞讓撕裂邊緣凸顯了剩餘紙張的重要性，但缺失的 紙張同時被記錄，而不是被間隙隱藏著。

最終它歸結為幻覺的哲學辯證法——在什麼不是(這裡:在洞裡)和什麼是 (這裡:在紙上)的意義上。從哲學上而言，在整個西方世界的文化歷史中， 對非現實或幻覺的感知總是隨著時間的推移而變化。柏拉圖 Plato——他腦海中浮現的洞穴寓言之精髓——譴責一切虛幻的事物，因為它阻礙了真理，或者 更準確地說:阻礙了對真理的認識。相比之下，年輕的弗里德里希·尼采 Friedrich Nietzsche 則頌揚一切虛幻，因為在非現實裡、在幻覺中，他看到了 人類生存的基本必備要素。5 最後，20 世紀中葉的狄奧多·阿多諾 Theodor W. Adorno 並沒有將幻想與真理視為相互排斥的對立面，而是強調了它們的相互 依賴，因為只有透過與幻覺的區分才能定義真理。6 沿著這些思路，Angela Glajcar 的作品恰是透過「紙的間隙」強調了紙的物質性。此外，Glajcar 通過 穿孔與撕裂，剝離了紙張工業化批量生產的概念，將它們變成獨一的藝術品。

「空無」是一個關鍵詞彙，例如，適用於藝術家的大型裝置 Ad lucem (2009- 072) 和 Arsis (2009-001, 2009-073, 2009-085)，以及她的 Blocs (例如 2009-055) , 2009-056, 2009-087):「空無」同時增長媒材的發展性。再次使 用柏拉圖的話，因為它同時是「視覺的空間」以及「可思考的空間」。

7 它是虛無的、留白的空間，在理性認知中物理性、生物性、哲學性和藝術層 面上有著悠久而多樣的傳統。幾乎就像一個典型範例，構築虛無抑或空虛。留 白，是 20 世紀藝術反復出現的主題，從卡齊米爾·馬列維奇 Kazimir Malevich 的黑色廣場(1915 )、阿德萊因哈特 Ad Reinhardt 的單色黑色繪畫、伊夫·克萊 因 Yves Klein 的躍入虛空(1960 )，到今天，建構的空隙被概念上的空隙所取 代。在 Glajcar 的案例中，我們面對的是雕塑般的空隙與留白，不是留白恐懼， 而是類似於雕塑家如何從木塊或大理石塊中去除不必要的、不需要的元 素，Glajcar 撕下紙張以產生一個空白空間——通過減法來產生。

矛盾的是，這是一個人為創作出的空白。在當今世界，經常被大量圖像所淹 沒，這代表了一個近乎挑釁的立場，使觀眾陷入雙重否定、雙重空白。一方 面，Angela Glajcar 的大型紙質裝置大多由空白紙張或多層紙張組成，它們也 同時被穿孔和撕裂，因此呈現為毗鄰空白空間的碎片。然而，「虛空」可以是一 種有用的校準工具，可以平息觀看者的目光，將其引導至「關注焦點」，從而喚 起一種專注的觀看方式。在這種情況下， 2004 年至 2005 年的幾件紙裝置 特別引人興趣，其中 Glajcar 使用了一側為白色、背面塗為黑色的紙張(例如 2004-001、2004-015、2005-005、2005 -046)。在這裡，物質性和非物質性 的原則受到了新的藝術審視，因為物質媒介吸光產生的顏色，從而變成了一個 空虛，一種非物質。這是現實與非現實的另一種變化，代表了對具象繪畫的另一種參照。實際的物質條件(表面上)是顛倒的，對於你期望不存在的洞會進入空間，但你同時發現了物質實際的存在。而這種物質的存在恰反過來地又被 它的輪廓、它的邊緣、它與實際虛空的邊界所強化。

儘管有撕裂痕跡，Angela Glajcar 所使用各式不同尺寸的紙張，無論是大型懸 掛裝置中(例如 2010-002)或是在單件 Blocs 系列(例如 2008-153)皆在很 大程度上保留了工業用紙的外形。 作品的外圍維持直線和直角形，而作品中心 大小不一的裂口和撕裂痕跡旁則有藝術家的簽名。因此，她的作品是現代主義 或後現代主義兩者的交界點:一方面是否定任何擁有個人風格與抹除藝術家個 人的” 真跡” 而由他人創作的極簡主義;另一方面則是表現主義者的主觀視角， 結合藝術史學家拉斯洛·格洛策爾 Lazlo Glozer 描述的 1950 年代和 1960 年代 西方繪畫「從圖像中退出」趨勢，8 抑或 1980 年代的新意象繪畫。這裡也揭 示了與繪畫的進一步相似之處:紙的幾何四邊形類似於畫布，圖像區塊則是實際表達的領域。

Angela Glajcar 位於科隆聖彼得大教堂:Ad Lucem 作品是他首次在教堂創 作。9 透過每張間隔 7 厘米懸掛的紙張，可以不同角度窺見作品內部由藝術家手撕之不同尺寸的孔洞，。在作品懸掛最低處的部分，則有著更大開口被撕裂 的孔洞，邀請群眾進入懸掛的雕塑觀賞有如隧道般的裝置搭配周遭反射光的呈 現。隧道般的效果則使得觀者無法看穿作品深處，這留給觀者無窮無盡的想 像。令人著迷的是，沒有任何額外的照明純白的紙只是吸收了環境光的顏色， 而讓它在這座後哥特式教堂的砂岩塊中發出暖黃的光。

藝術家以波形起伏的立方體裝置映襯了科隆教堂哥特式的拱門，而她在德國赫 爾 KunstRaum Hüll 展出的作品 Arsis(上升之意)則更接近現代主義白色立 方體的概念是。數張八米長的紙張，以拋物線的形狀懸掛著，形成像扇子一樣 交叉，如同巨大的白色筆觸自由地懸浮在空間中。作品中紙張橫向的撕裂處則強調了材料的脆弱性。紙張同樣吸收了周圍環境光，但展廳的大窗更凸顯著這 種自然天光更多是取決於天氣而不是建築人造光本身，更為這件裝置提供了幾乎無限量的色調。

20 世紀的重要藝術家之一馬塞爾·杜象 Marcel Duchamp 於 1911 年以他的畫 作 Nu descendant un escalier 創造了現代性的搖籃本。一個女性人物走下樓 梯，樓梯被分割成幾個單獨的人物。在此之前的三十幾年，英國攝影師 埃德沃德·邁布里奇 Edward Muybridge 和法國科學家艾蒂安-朱爾·馬雷 Étienne- Jules Marey 也成功地用他們的計時照片永久記錄了這個轉變。這滿足了繪畫的一個 渴求:透過空間運動來描繪動態和時間。回看 Angela Glajcar 的裝置， 例如在科隆聖彼得的作品 (2009-072)、卡斯特爾巴索的作品 (2009-084) 或安特衛普 的 Sint-Anna-ten-Drieënkerk 教堂 (2010-022) 中的裝置，令人深刻難忘的是 如此巨大的立方體輪廓，卻仍具有動態效果:因為映入眼簾的印象是成倍疊加 的紙，每張紙都因為疊加而改變其外觀，在空間中起伏移動，就像在拍照中按 下快門的瞬間。

再看到在聖彼得的裝置，就會發現 Glajcar 在處理每個不同特徵空間時表現出 的敏銳度。因為不僅是時間代表位移，還有聲音——特別是「聲學運動」空間 中的聲波。 Angela Glajcar 將她的裝置恰如其分地直接放置在管風琴閣樓 前:就像一個可視化的音符，物化的聲波在空間中振盪，一齊如合唱團般的震 盪。非物質的聲音，經由紙，被轉化成物質，透過紙質它的間隙和它的特性， 吸收光，再次消失在向光的窗邊。用一個適合神聖空間的神學禮儀術語來說， 這裡顯現了雙重的虛擬變形:聲音 – 紙 – 光。因此，Glajcar 的現地製作作品，特別以其在空間中的實體互動給觀眾留下了深刻的印象，並幾乎是表演性 的特徵，因為它們促使觀眾在作品周為移動。儘管在 Angela Glajcar 的作品 中建立眾多藝術史參考點是極有可能的，但她的創作方式和作品遠非折衷主 義。雕塑家 Glajcar 走出了自己的道路，正如她的現地創作之作品所清楚地展 示般，不僅揭示了藝術多樣性的變化與選擇，並且以最深思熟慮與能凸顯空間 本身的方式。使用多樣可能性的紙張是 Glajcar 藝術創作的核心，但她更多地 擴大了我們的視野，包含了環境、非物質與「可想像的空間」。

很容易找到 Angela Glajcar 作品的參照點、聯想和詮釋。儘管以下成對的相對 面可能並不完全真正的對立，有時可能亦在含義上重疊，但 Glajcar 於上述帑 論例子的作品可以用以下對立面來恰當地描述，有時甚至悖論:安靜/動態， 美麗/破壞，輕盈/沉重，繪畫/雕塑，律動/沉思和脆弱/力量。僅此多種不同的 術語、描述和屬性就說明了藝術家作品的細膩複雜性。並非不明確，而是體現 了 Angela Glajcar 對於她的材料選擇和過程的藝術精準度。這些對立面也可以 在人類存在中找到，如同一枚硬幣的兩個面，反映了生命的複雜性。除了非凡 的藝術地位，這也是 Angela Glajcar 作品中最令人信服的特點之一。

1 Angela Glajcar in a conversation with the author on July 7, 2009, in Cologne.
2 Francis Bacon, Neues Organon, lateinisch – deutsch, Wolfgang Krohn (Hrsg.),Meiner, Hamburg 1990, S. 419.
3 Enrico Prampolini, „Polymaterielle Kunst (Auf dem Weg zu einer kollektiven Kunst?)“, in:Materialbild. Italia 1950–1965, hrsg. v. Peter Weibel, Mailand 2009, S. 186 [erstmalig publiziert unter dem Titel „Arte polimaterica (Verso un’arte collectiva?)“ in: Antizipazioni, n. 7, serie Arti, O.E.T., Rom 1944].
4 Boris Groys, „Der Kurator als Ikonoklast”, in: Peter Weibel (Hrsg.), Boris Groys. Die Kunst des Denkens, Hamburg 2008, S. 96.
5 Friedrich Nietzsche, „Sämtliche Werke“, in: Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Bänden, Giorgio Colli und Mazzino Montinari, München u.a., 1988,
Band 7: Nachgelassene Fragmente 1869–1874, S. 199 [1870/1871].
6 Theodor W. Adorno, Gesammelte Schriften, Rolf Tiedemann (Hrsg.), Frankfurt am Main 1997, Band 7: Ästhetische Theorie, S. 154ff.
7 Platon zitiert in: Karl-Heinz Barck u.a. (Hrsg.), Ästhetisches Grundbegriffe. Historisches Wörterbuch in sieben Bänden, Band 1: Absenz – Darstellung, Stuttgart, Weimar 2000, S. 2.
8 Laszlo Glozer, „Ausstieg aus dem Bild. Wiederkehr der Außenwelt“, in: Westkunst. Zeitgenössische Kunst seit 1939, Ausstellungskatalog Köln 1981, Köln 1981, S. 234.
9 A wave-like construction of two parallel metal rods was suspended along the nave of the almost 500-year-old church, from which 150 paper sheets 250 cm high and 130 cm wide were hung at regular intervals.

Angela Glajcar’s Paper Installations – a Synthesis of Opposites
Dr. Andreas Beitin

The paper installations by the sculptor Angela Glajcar represent an extraordinary position due to her innovative use of paper as a material, the works’ expansive scope and the resulting aesthetics. In her distinct way, Glajcar demonstrates that paper is not only light and fragile, but can also be very heavy and robust. With her works, she provides viewers with an immediate perception of these diametrically opposed characteristics of the material.

As a sculptor, Angela Glajcar began by working with materials such as steel and wood (1997-001 intermittently until 2006-028). However, she has mainly used paper as her raw material for many years now, and has recently also begun to use glass fabric (2010-083, 2011-009). Paper as a material, which remains the material of choice for her installations, has a special meaning for her due to its ability to absorb the ambient light and accentuate its various hues. This is why Angela Glajcar predominantly uses white paper; she “has no need of coloured material.”1 The artist is fascinated by the presence a seemingly light material such as paper can have, when long sheets or great stacks of it dominate its environment. This is why working on-site is the most important part in the creation of her works. Her intuitive reaction to the space, its proportions and lighting conditions whilst negotiating the architectural volumes, and also the reaction to and the surmounting of any disruptive factors that may be present at the given location are decisive aspects during the creation of her installations. Occasionally, the artist is not confronted with a white cube, but with spaces that are not museums, but multi-functional, and which often serve other purposes than that of presenting art, such as churches (e.g. 2009-072, 2010-022, 2011-072) or banks. Although Angela Glajcar prepares for her monumental sculptures and installations by making a small-scale model and by going through various possibilities of how to set them up in her studio, it is ultimately the phase of the site-specific installation when the sculpture takes its final shape. When working on an installation, the artist is particularly fascinated by the changes the paper undergoes, for example when reacting to the ambient humidity: the paper curls and buckles, changes its surface feel and thus reveals its transience. It is precisely the finite nature of paper that keeps Angela Glajcar returning to the material. She is not interested in art’s claim to eternity.

Originally, paper was the material used by graphic artists. Ever since it replaced the far more expensive parchment at the beginning of the modern age it has made a unique, triumphant advance across the globe. As early as 1620, the British philosopher Francis Bacon in his True Directions Concerning The Interpretation Of Nature enthused: “A singular instance of art is paper, a thing exceedingly common. […] Paper [is] a substance that may be cut or torn; so that it imitates and almost rivals the skin or membrane of an animal, the leaf of a vegetable, and the like pieces of nature’s workmanship. For it is neither brittle like glass, nor woven as cloth; but is in fibers, not distinct threads, just like natural materials; so that among artificial materials you will hardly find anything similar; but it is altogether singular.”2

Starting with the early days of Modernism, paper began to be used in painting, too – be it in the form of collages or for actual paintings. Early instances of paper used for sculpture occur at the beginning of the 20th century, for example with Pablo Picasso’s sculptures from the 1910s onwards, made of paper and cardboard. He even had some of his paper sculptures re-cut in tin to give them greater durability. One of the fascinating aspects of paper for Angela Glajcar is the fact that most people attribute properties to it that are only part of the story, as it were. It is not only light and fragile, for example, but it can also be heavy and robust. Consequently, the artist frequently uses heavy paper weighing up to 800 g/m2 (e.g. 2010-026), which is almost ten times the weight of regular printer paper.

Angela Glajcar’s use of long sheets of paper for installations clearly references painting, despite its enormous scale. Thus, her oeuvre encompasses a constant material and conceptual synthesis of the realms of two-dimensionality and three-dimensionality, of painting and sculpture, and in a wider sense, of the sphere of illusion associated with painting and the realm of facts and reality inherent in material and substance.

On this note, permit me to indulge in a brief detour via art history: At the beginning of the 20th century, art experienced a fundamental paradigm shift. The actual revolution in visual aesthetics did not, however, merely consist of the transition from concrete to abstract painting – for artists still worked quite traditionally with paint and canvas – but of the change from illusionist art to representative art.

Whilst for example light in painting had been rendered for centuries by means of white or yellow paint, the 1920s saw a change towards artists using light itself as a concrete material in art. The use of actual light in the visual arts was preceded by an increase in the range of materials used in painting.

As early as the 1910s, light-reflecting metals were used in painting, although these still depicted light indirectly, that is, passively. A painting by Gino Severini from 1913 can be considered as one of the key works of this development. The abstract painting entitled Dancer + Sea = Bouquet was largely painted with paint, but at its lower section Severini used light-reflecting aluminium. The development of modern materials such as acrylic glass at the beginning of the 20th century has also promoted the actual use of light in art. For example, constructivist and concrete artists have combined it with the most diverse materials. This interest not only in the use of the latest technical materials but also in the use of everyday materials such as paper, emerging at first sporadically in the 1910s, and then more frequently in the 1920s, paved the way from canvas paintings to material paintings. After the Second World War, Italy in particular became the scene of intensive and varied approaches to the material discourse. The artist and theoretician Enrico Prampolini, for example, in 1944 demanded a “polymaterial art,” intended to “replace painted reality in its entirety by the reality of the material,” in order to “drive art to its most extreme consequences, and to invoke the emotional and evocative value of the materials for its rhythmic-spatial play.”3 The vibration of the materialised surface up to what can almost be described as its violent breach or destruction, as seen, for example, in the works of Alberto Burri, Lucio Fontana, and also Agostino Bonalumi, Gianni Colombo and Agenore Fabbri, has dominated the artistic discourse in Italy since 1950. This historical facticity may serve in part to explain why Angela Glajcar’s works are particularly appreciated in Italy.

Angela Glajcar, too, engages in a destruction of the material by producing holes by means of ripping the paper sheets. The destruction of the form of the originally plane, undamaged paper represents a historical reference to the practice of iconoclasm, that is, the destruction of the image. In this case, the “image” of the originally whole, undamaged material is paper. The monochrome image of paper to be interpreted is partly, never wholly torn by Angela Glajcar, and always disturbed and destroyed. On this artistic process the cultural philosopher Boris Groys comments quite generally that “most Modernist paintings have been produced by means of iconoclasm,” for they were “be it symbolically or in reality – sawn apart, cut, fragmented, pierced, stabbed.”4 This is the art historical background that represents the substrate for Glajcar’s works.

It is also a position which dovetails neatly with the transience of paper and the artist’s critical stance with regard to the claim for eternity of some works of art.

One of the major artists applying iconoclastic practices to his work was Lucio Fontana, whom we already mentioned above. Whereas he pierced and perforated his canvases from the late 1940s onwards in order to overcome the materiality of two-dimensionality and achieve infinite space, in Angela Glajcar’s works two-dimensionality and three-dimensionality, materiality and immateriality are not mutually exclusive but exist simultaneously – indeed, are their reciprocal constituents. While the torn edges that result from tearing the holes emphasise the materiality of the remaining paper, the missing paper is at the same time documented, not concealed, by the gaps.

Eventually it comes down to the philosophical dialectics of illusion – in the sense of what is not (here: the holes) – and what is (here: the paper). Philosophically speaking, the perception of non- reality or illusion has always varied throughout the cultural history of the Western world, depending on the time period. Plato – the quintessence of his allegory of the cave springs to mind – condemned all that is illusory, because it stands in the way of truth, or, more precisely: the knowledge of truth. The young Friedrich Nietzsche, in contrast, glorified all that is illusionary, for in non-reality, in illusion, he saw a basic prerequisite for human existence.5 Finally, Theodor W. Adorno in the middle of the 20th century did not conceive illusion and truth as mutually exclusive opposites, but emphasised their mutual dependence, for truth could only be defined through being differentiated from illusion.6 Along these lines, the works of Angela Glajcar stress the materiality of paper precisely through the absence of some of it. In addition, Glajcar strips the sheets of paper of their property as industrially mass-produced objects and, by ripping and tearing, turns them into individual works of art.

Absence is a key term that applies, for example, to the artist’s large installations Ad lucem (2009- 072) and Arsis (2009-001, 2009-073, 2009-085), as well as to her Blocs (e.g. 2009-055, 2009-056, 2009-087): the absence of material that simul-taneously serves to increase knowledge, for it is a “space of the visual” as well as a “space of the thinkable” – to use Plato’s words once again.7 It is the void, the empty space, whose intellectual comprehension at a physical, biological, philosophical and also at an artistic level has a long and varied tradition. Almost like a paradigm, the constructed void or emptiness, the blank, is a recurring theme of 20th century art, from Kazimir Malevich’sBlack Square (1915), Ad Reinhardt’s monochrome black paintings, Yves Klein’s Leap into the void(1960) up to today. The constructed void is replaced by the conceptual void. In Glajcar’s case, we are confronted by a sculptural void. Not for her the horror vacui. Similar to how a sculptor removes unnecessary, unrequired material from a wooden or marble block, Glajcar rips off paper to produce an empty space – production by means of reduction.

Paradoxically, this is a produced void. In today’s world, overwhelmed by the oft-quoted torrents of images, this represents an almost provocative position, subjecting the viewers to a double-negative, a two-fold void. For on the one hand, the large paper installations of Angela Glajcar mostly consist of blank paper or sheets, which are then also torn and ripped and thus presented as fragments adjoining the empty spaces. However, the void can be a useful calibration instrument, calming the viewer’s gaze, directing it to what is essential and thus evoking a focused way of seeing.Of particular interest in this context are several paper installations from 2004 to 2005, where Glajcar made use of sheets of paper that are white on one side and painted black on the reverse (e.g. 2004-001, 2004-015, 2005-005, 2005-046). Here, the principle of materiality and immateriality is subjected to a fresh artistic scrutiny, for the material is negated by the light-absorbing colour, thus being turned into a void, a non-material. This is another variation on the theme of reality and non- reality and represents another reference to the illusionism of figurative painting. The actual material conditions are (seemingly) inverted, for where you would expect the hole of non-existence to yawn into space you now find material existence. And this material presence in turn has its existence reinforced by its outline, its edge, that is, its border to the actual void.

Despite the rips, the differently sized paper sheets used by Angela Glajcar largely retain their outer shape of an industrially mass-produced product, both in the airy, suspended installations (e.g. 2010- 002) or with the monolithic Blocs (e.g. 2008-153). Straight lines and right angles are the external principle of these works. The artistic signature is revealed in the tears and rips of various sizes. Thus, her works are the culmination of two other principles of Modernism or Post-Modernism: on the one hand, the minimalism negating any individual style, whose proponents have their works produced by others, and on the other hand the expressive subjective perspective of Expressionism, combined with some tendencies of Western painting of the 1950s and 1960s, described by art historian Lazlo Glozer as “exit from the picture,”8 or with the New Image Painting of the 1980s. Here too, further parallels with painting are revealed: the geometric quadrangle of the sheet of paper is analogous to the canvas, and the image area is the actual field of expression.

The first time Angela Glajcar realised an installation in a church was for the Kunst-Station Sankt Peter: Ad Lucem – to the light.9 Into sheets hanging at intervals of 7 cm, the artist tore out lateral openings of various sizes, revealing glimpses into and through the work. In the section hanging the lowest, the holes had been torn such that visitors (to mass) were able to enter the hanging sculpture and look into the tunnel of paper and reflected light. The curvature made it impossible, however, to look out of the installation, leaving the visitor to sense and imagine what might be beyond. It is fascinating to see how the pure white paper – without any additional lighting – actually absorbs the colour of its environment, for it glows in the warm yellow of the sandstone blocks of this late Gothic church.

While the artist responded to the Gothic arches of the church in Cologne with an undulating and yet strictly cubic installation, her reaction to the KunstRaum Hüll, more of a modernist white cube, wasArsis (engl. rising), a large installation more aptly described as painterly. Numerous paper sheets eight metres long were hung in the shape of parabolas. Crossing fan-like, they appeared like great brush-strokes of white paint, freely suspended in space. Some of the sheets had lateral tears, stressing the material’s fragility. The sheets also absorbed the light of their environment, but the large windows of the exhibition room meant that this light was more dependent on the weather than on architecture. This provided the installation with an almost infinite amount of hues.

Marcel Duchamp, one of the major artists of the 20th century, created one of modernity’s incunabula in 1911 with his painting Nu descendant un escalier. A female figure descends a staircase fragmented into several individual figures. Three dec-ades before that, the English photographer Edward Muybridge and the French scientist Étienne-Jules Marey also succeeded, with their chronophotographs, in permanently documenting movement. This fulfilled one of painting’s desiderata: depicting dynamics and time through movement in space. Looking at Angela Glajcar’s installation, such as the one in St. Peter in Cologne (2009-072), in Castelbasso (2009-084) or in the Sint-Anna-ten-Drieënkerk in Antwerp (2010-022), one is struck by the dynamic effect they have, despite the severity of their cubic outline: for the impression is that of a multiplied sheet of paper that changes its appearance with every sheet, moves through space in an undulation and has been captured as if in a snapshot.

Another look at the installation in St. Peter reveals the sensitivity shown by Glajcar when dealing with the different characteristics of each room. For it is not only movement that represents time, but also sound – in this case, an acoustic movement, a sound wave in space. It is very fitting that Angela Glajcar has placed her installation directly in front of the organ loft: like a visualized note, the materialised sound wave oscillates through space into the direction of the choir. Immaterial sound is transformed into material, into paper which, through its gaps and its properties, absorbs light, and dematerialises once again towards the choir window. To use a theological-liturgical term befitting the sacred space, a two-fold, virtual transsubstantiation occurs: sound – paper – light. Thus, Glajcar’s site-specific works in particular impress the viewer with their physical presence in space, and exhibit an almost performative character, since they prompt the viewer to move. Although it is eminently possible to establish numerous art-historical reference points in Angela Glajcar’s works, her way of working and her works are far from eclectic. The sculptor has embarked on her own path, which, as her site-specific works demonstrate clearly, not only reveals a great variety of artistic options, but also deals with various spaces in a most reflective and careful way. The versatile material paper may be at the centre of her artistic endeavour, but it also expands our perspective to include the environment, the immaterial, the “spaces of the thinkable.”

It is easy to find points of reference, associations and interpretations for Angela Glajcar’s oeuvre. Although the following pairs of opposites may not always be true opposites and although they may sometimes overlap in their meanings, the works of Glajcar, some of which were discussed above as examples of a whole, can be described fittingly with the following opposites and sometimes even paradoxes: quiet/dynamics, beauty/destruction, lightness/heaviness, painterly appeal/sculptural expansion, movement/contemplation and fragility/strength. This variety of different terms, descriptions and properties alone illustrates the complexity of the artist’s work. It has nothing to do with indecision, but instead embodies the artistic precision with which Angela Glajcar selects her materials and her procedures. These pairs of opposites can also be found in human existence, and are two sides of the same coin, reflecting life in all its complexity. In addition to the extraordinary artistic position, this is one of the most convincing characteristics of Angela Glajcar’s oeuvre.

空間撕裂Torn Space
— 安格拉·格萊札 Angela Glajcar 中國首個展
◼ Open to public 大眾開放：
7.16 Sat. 5pm – 7pm
◼ 展期：
2022.7.16-9.4
◼ 開放時間 /地址：
Bluerider ART 上海·外灘
周二~周日 10am-7pm
上海⻩浦區四川中路 133 號
◼ 免費參觀

當期展覽