A few of the hottest, weirdest, relentlessly provocative, and a lot of accomplished paintings such as the vivid, shimmering, and that is seemingly gelatinous” (1997) and also the brute “Untitled” (circa 2003), in which a farcical girl bird dominatrix appears to be as much as one thing ominous seem to allow us out of the device like repetitions observed in the 1989 drawing “Untitled” (1989). These works provide the impression of being impacted by the ancient, many breasted Ephesian Artemis fertility goddess.
Whether or not the types recommend straightforwardly constrained solitary intercourse kinds or androgynous, blended areas of the body, every thing in Paradox of Pleasure talks in my opinion for the radical human anatomy politics of cyberpunk energy, intercourse, and physical violence.
That churning anima of desire places it together with H.R. Giger’s famous 1973 artwork “Penis Landscape” (aka “Work 219: Landscape XX”). But unlike Giger’s alien visual, Fernandez’s accomplishment is just a reinvention of romanticism, in which the performative plus the seem that is ingenious connected. Much more to the stage, Fernandez’s foreboding paintings share within the sliced body looks popular with Robert Gober and Paul Thek, specially Thek’s technical Reliquaries show, including Piece that is“Meat with Brillo Box” (1965). Such as these performers, Fernandez appears to take pleasure in an inventiveness that may be morally negligent, gnarly, brooding, unfortunate, eccentric, and emotionally going in a manner that is maddeningly difficult to explain without mentioning cool brutality. It is really not for nothing this 1 of their paintings, “Développement d’un délire” (“Development of the delusion,” 1961) that will be perhaps not in this show had been showcased into the 1980 Brian de Palma film Dressed to destroy (a film beloved by particular musicians for its Metropolitan Museum of Art scene, lushly scored by Pino Donaggio).
Agustin Fernandez, “Untitled” (1997), oil on canvas, 103 x 132 cm (courtesy and Agustin Fernandez Foundation; picture by Daniel Pype) Agustin Fernandez, “Le Roi et la Reine” (“The King as well as the Queen,” 1960), drawing written down, 175 x 122 cm (courtesy and Agustin Fernandez Foundation; picture by Farzad Owrang)
Aesthetically, Fernandez’s paintings of armored, pansexual closeness produce a vivid psycho geography which can be a bit lumbering in quite similar method as Wifredo Lam’s, Roberto Matta’s, and André Masson’s mystical paintings. But, this can be something which Fernandez’s drawings, like “Le Roi et la Reine” (“The King and also the Queen,”1960) which calls in your thoughts Marcel Duchamp’s painting that is famous Roi et la Reine entourés de Nus vites” (“The King and Queen in the middle of Swift Nudes,” 1912) are able to avoid. However in both mediums, along with their collages (like the“Malcom that is startling X 1982), you can find complicated identifications going on that blur organic with inorganic kinds.
Duchamp first made mention of the device célibataire (bachelor machine) device in a 1913 note printed in planning for his piece “La mariée mise à nu par ses célibataires, même” (“The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, also,” 1915–23), which accentuates psychological devices that really work away in the imaginary, deconstructing the Hegelian tradition of intimate distinction founded as a dialectical and natural opposition of masculine and feminine. Fernandez’s enigmatic intercourse device bondage, which probes the shameless vagaries of individual desire with Duchampian panache, can be an indirect outgrowth associated with arrière garde, male dominant French Surrealist preferences demonstrated into the 1959 Eros event arranged by André Breton and Duchamp in Paris. But inaddition it implies a far more modern, tautly eroticized and virtualized flesh that banking institutions for a hyper sexed, electronic corporeality that is synthetic, bionic, and prosthetic fundamentally an updated expansion regarding the re territorialization of body, identification, and appearance depicted early into the feverish cyborg looks of Oskar Schlemmer and Fernand Léger.
As perversely droll and symptomatic I could not help but also view the nasty permissiveness of Paradox of Pleasure in the bright light of artistic misogyny that shines from Kate Millett’s seminal 1970 study Sexual Politics through to today’s TimesUp movement as it is to experience the rhapsody of Fernandez’s loveless and lopsided sadomasochistic cybernetic pleasures playing within the male mystique. In the most alluring compositions, Fernandez imagines the effective castration of this privileged male musician in relationship into the manipulated feminine human anatomy. Therein lies the enjoyable paradox. Agustin Fernandez, “Untitled” (1976), drawing written down, 74 x 56 cm (courtesy and runetki token gratis Agustin Fernandez Foundation; picture by Farzad Owrang) Agustin Fernandez, “Malcom X” (1982), collage, 91.7 cm x 64.5 cm (courtesy and Agustin Fernandez Foundation; picture by Daniel Pype)