2020_10_30_Significant-Other_001_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_002_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_003_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_004_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_005_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_006_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_007_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_008_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_009_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_010_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_011_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_012_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_013_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_014_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_015_web
2020_10_30_Significant-Other_016_web

stay where you are until something else happens
Katarina Burin & Farhad Mirza
30.09.2020 – 16.11.2020


We identified an institutional space that gets transplanted from place to place--one that might change shape across time and location while retaining standard qualities or operational tendencies--airport lobbies, parks, plazas, waiting rooms the list goes on.

Showing each other photos of particular fixtures (from these places), we manipulated the flat images to give them back their objectness: each thing underwent the same willfully naive manipulation (extrusion) giving flat images thickness in an attempt to give back some of their depth, making banal objects less recognizable as a result; the volume between the two flat faces, a third new space that didn’t exist before.

In the process of seeing, the act of recognizing is multifarious. Meaning lies in different parts of a situation for different people. What characteristics need to shift to make something unidentifiable? And at what point does this defamiliarization increase the potential readings of what we are looking at?

Excerpts from interview:
 - we wouldn’t have collaborated if we didn’t actually enjoy each other’s company—so that came first.
 - I was also grateful to have a witness to some of the time I would normally spend sketching and thinking alone—having someone to talk to in those moments, and the conversations that happened as a result helped turn stray thoughts or ideas into more substantive things.
 - collaboration was much more about the whole situation and the circuitous conversations that led to a more intimate place, like our respective pasts, which perhaps explains the sometimes personal nature of the work.
 - a mutual love of drawings (as tools or shadows of ideas) that was foundational.
 - If the work seems encoded, this comes from a desire to communicate non-verbally or say things sideways; where particular words, shapes, and colors gain and lose meaning because of proximity to each other, but also because of strangely placed specificity that doesn’t quite make a coherent, or stabilized, narrative whole.
 - we never wanted the work to be about direct representation.
 - It’s difficult to separate out the methods and actions from the learned and inherited art historical and design knowledge. We don’t separate art from design very readily, but of course, there are many working methods referenced and deployed, conversations about specific processes and artists were very much a part of our working time together.
 - a subtle contradiction in the work; an opposition of making quite concrete objects that refer to very elusive thoughts and images.

Photos: kunst-dokumentation.com

stay where you are until something else happens
Katarina Burin & Farhad Mirza
30.09.2020 – 16.11.2020

 

We identified an institutional space that gets transplanted from place to place--one that might change shape across time and location while retaining standard qualities or operational tendencies--airport lobbies, parks, plazas, waiting rooms the list goes on.

Showing each other photos of particular fixtures (from these places), we manipulated the flat images to give them back their objectness: each thing underwent the same willfully naive manipulation (extrusion) giving flat images thickness in an attempt to give back some of their depth, making banal objects less recognizable as a result; the volume between the two flat faces, a third new space that didn’t exist before.

In the process of seeing, the act of recognizing is multifarious. Meaning lies in different parts of a situation for different people. What characteristics need to shift to make something unidentifiable? And at what point does this defamiliarization increase the potential readings of what we are looking at?

Excerpts from interview:
 - we wouldn’t have collaborated if we didn’t actually enjoy each other’s company—so that came first.
 - I was also grateful to have a witness to some of the time I would normally spend sketching and thinking alone—having someone to talk to in those moments, and the conversations that happened as a result helped turn stray thoughts or ideas into more substantive things.
 - collaboration was much more about the whole situation and the circuitous conversations that led to a more intimate place, like our respective pasts, which perhaps explains the sometimes personal nature of the work.
 - a mutual love of drawings (as tools or shadows of ideas) that was foundational.
 - If the work seems encoded, this comes from a desire to communicate non-verbally or say things sideways; where particular words, shapes, and colors gain and lose meaning because of proximity to each other, but also because of strangely placed specificity that doesn’t quite make a coherent, or stabilized, narrative whole.
 - we never wanted the work to be about direct representation.
 - It’s difficult to separate out the methods and actions from the learned and inherited art historical and design knowledge. We don’t separate art from design very readily, but of course, there are many working methods referenced and deployed, conversations about specific processes and artists were very much a part of our working time together.
 - a subtle contradiction in the work; an opposition of making quite concrete objects that refer to very elusive thoughts and images.

Photos: kunst-dokumentation.com

stay where you are until something else happens
Katarina Burin & Farhad Mirza
30.09.2020 – 16.11.2020

 

We identified an institutional space that gets transplanted from place to place--one that might change shape across time and location while retaining standard qualities or operational tendencies--airport lobbies, parks, plazas, waiting rooms the list goes on.

Showing each other photos of particular fixtures (from these places), we manipulated the flat images to give them back their objectness: each thing underwent the same willfully naive manipulation (extrusion) giving flat images thickness in an attempt to give back some of their depth, making banal objects less recognizable as a result; the volume between the two flat faces, a third new space that didn’t exist before.

In the process of seeing, the act of recognizing is multifarious. Meaning lies in different parts of a situation for different people. What characteristics need to shift to make something unidentifiable? And at what point does this defamiliarization increase the potential readings of what we are looking at?

Excerpts from interview:
 - we wouldn’t have collaborated if we didn’t actually enjoy each other’s company—so that came first.
 - I was also grateful to have a witness to some of the time I would normally spend sketching and thinking alone—having someone to talk to in those moments, and the conversations that happened as a result helped turn stray thoughts or ideas into more substantive things.
 - collaboration was much more about the whole situation and the circuitous conversations that led to a more intimate place, like our respective pasts, which perhaps explains the sometimes personal nature of the work.
 - a mutual love of drawings (as tools or shadows of ideas) that was foundational.
 - If the work seems encoded, this comes from a desire to communicate non-verbally or say things sideways; where particular words, shapes, and colors gain and lose meaning because of proximity to each other, but also because of strangely placed specificity that doesn’t quite make a coherent, or stabilized, narrative whole.
 - we never wanted the work to be about direct representation.
 - It’s difficult to separate out the methods and actions from the learned and inherited art historical and design knowledge. We don’t separate art from design very readily, but of course, there are many working methods referenced and deployed, conversations about specific processes and artists were very much a part of our working time together.
 - a subtle contradiction in the work; an opposition of making quite concrete objects that refer to very elusive thoughts and images.

Photos: kunst-dokumentation.com

stay where you are until something else happens
Katarina Burin & Farhad Mirza
30.09.2020 – 16.11.2020

 

We identified an institutional space that gets transplanted from place to place--one that might change shape across time and location while retaining standard qualities or operational tendencies--airport lobbies, parks, plazas, waiting rooms the list goes on.

Showing each other photos of particular fixtures (from these places), we manipulated the flat images to give them back their objectness: each thing underwent the same willfully naive manipulation (extrusion) giving flat images thickness in an attempt to give back some of their depth, making banal objects less recognizable as a result; the volume between the two flat faces, a third new space that didn’t exist before.

In the process of seeing, the act of recognizing is multifarious. Meaning lies in different parts of a situation for different people. What characteristics need to shift to make something unidentifiable? And at what point does this defamiliarization increase the potential readings of what we are looking at?

Excerpts from interview:
 - we wouldn’t have collaborated if we didn’t actually enjoy each other’s company—so that came first.
 - I was also grateful to have a witness to some of the time I would normally spend sketching and thinking alone—having someone to talk to in those moments, and the conversations that happened as a result helped turn stray thoughts or ideas into more substantive things.
 - collaboration was much more about the whole situation and the circuitous conversations that led to a more intimate place, like our respective pasts, which perhaps explains the sometimes personal nature of the work.
 - a mutual love of drawings (as tools or shadows of ideas) that was foundational.
 - If the work seems encoded, this comes from a desire to communicate non-verbally or say things sideways; where particular words, shapes, and colors gain and lose meaning because of proximity to each other, but also because of strangely placed specificity that doesn’t quite make a coherent, or stabilized, narrative whole.
 - we never wanted the work to be about direct representation.
 - It’s difficult to separate out the methods and actions from the learned and inherited art historical and design knowledge. We don’t separate art from design very readily, but of course, there are many working methods referenced and deployed, conversations about specific processes and artists were very much a part of our working time together.
 - a subtle contradiction in the work; an opposition of making quite concrete objects that refer to very elusive thoughts and images.

Photos: kunst-dokumentation.com

stay where you are until something else happens
Katarina Burin & Farhad Mirza
30.09.2020 – 16.11.2020

 

We identified an institutional space that gets transplanted from place to place--one that might change shape across time and location while retaining standard qualities or operational tendencies--airport lobbies, parks, plazas, waiting rooms the list goes on.

Showing each other photos of particular fixtures (from these places), we manipulated the flat images to give them back their objectness: each thing underwent the same willfully naive manipulation (extrusion) giving flat images thickness in an attempt to give back some of their depth, making banal objects less recognizable as a result; the volume between the two flat faces, a third new space that didn’t exist before.

In the process of seeing, the act of recognizing is multifarious. Meaning lies in different parts of a situation for different people. What characteristics need to shift to make something unidentifiable? And at what point does this defamiliarization increase the potential readings of what we are looking at?

Excerpts from interview:
 - we wouldn’t have collaborated if we didn’t actually enjoy each other’s company—so that came first.
 - I was also grateful to have a witness to some of the time I would normally spend sketching and thinking alone—having someone to talk to in those moments, and the conversations that happened as a result helped turn stray thoughts or ideas into more substantive things.
 - collaboration was much more about the whole situation and the circuitous conversations that led to a more intimate place, like our respective pasts, which perhaps explains the sometimes personal nature of the work.
 - a mutual love of drawings (as tools or shadows of ideas) that was foundational.
 - If the work seems encoded, this comes from a desire to communicate non-verbally or say things sideways; where particular words, shapes, and colors gain and lose meaning because of proximity to each other, but also because of strangely placed specificity that doesn’t quite make a coherent, or stabilized, narrative whole.
 - we never wanted the work to be about direct representation.
 - It’s difficult to separate out the methods and actions from the learned and inherited art historical and design knowledge. We don’t separate art from design very readily, but of course, there are many working methods referenced and deployed, conversations about specific processes and artists were very much a part of our working time together.
 - a subtle contradiction in the work; an opposition of making quite concrete objects that refer to very elusive thoughts and images.

Photos: kunst-dokumentation.com

this exhibition is generously supported by