The films were digitalised, and from each film around two hundred and fifty sequences or video stills, were created, constituting a temporal and visual frieze. Actually, the material was conceived on the basis of building sequences, and in this way – the continuo achieved through repetition is decomposed anew and brought back to the beginning – into the sequence.

To the left inside the gallery, there are six constellations made up of six composite sequences forming a frieze, to which a counterpoint is provided in the form of eight photographs, or let us call them “big ones with small supportive pieces”.

REPETITIVE DIFFERENCES THAT BACK ON THEMSELVES

Naturally, the right of choice is retained here, which, as a matter of principle, need not disturb the normal sequence, but most often a new one is built – “they are connected by silence”, as Jean Laverdure would say. And since, as S. Kierkegaard reminds us (in his “Wiederholungen”), for the ancient Greeks repeating is also remembering – one frozen moment here would open both the possibility and the impossibility of remembering (is any sentimentality to be avoided or not?), that is, repetition that, in principle, as a “text” without frontiers, gets caught in the net of intentional monotony.

Then: the film does not show but is shown, as if in a cinema – presents. What follows from this is that the “content” of the photographs does not deviate from the content of the film – it does not divide it into preparatory acts for the big finale – it does not tell a story but is a “story”. And what is seen in the film is an action almost obsessively repeated ad infinitum, an action, as one would say, from everyday life – washing hair, for example… This action could perhaps be replaced by any other action, or what, in the jargon of the late 1970’s, would be interpreted as – moving in the domain of formal exercises, of course, if there were no possibility of sentimentality, and then “freaks of narration” would say: a very early anticipation of future events that one would gladly renounce.

And it could also be like this: how can one get rid of excess narrativity and pseudo-sociologising? It is as if the work does not have its own field within the notional grid of art and speaks through a materialised form, but must, in its state of being “barely autonomous”, bear the influence of the fringes of globalisation and the consequences of oil price increase…