Window #2 (2023) brings us to what looks like a modern setting – a laptop, a bottle of wine and a half-full glass on the windowsill. These are items of possibly indicating or symbolistic of remote work or solitude. Possibly referencing the long hours of being indoors during the lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the outside of the window showcases a very different world of figures in historical clothing going through a sandy yet modernist landscape.
The reference to Pieter Bruegel’s The Blind Leading the Blind (1568) in the work is critical as it uses parts of the famous painting and reinterprets it in a modern gaze to unite the artwork. The window brings this past to the present and merges them together compressing time into one single moment. The figures on the outside are of motion and moving- while on the inside we are absent- it’s just a laptop. The absence here could be a critique to how crisis’, wars, disasters and other societal worries are seen through the screen rather than experienced in reality. Thus creating a detachment to real world events.
Seeing the tragedies, historical events and disasters through a screen desensitizes the viewer. Thus making the present-day viewer colder and much more separated from the reality of these events- whether in the past or the present. We thus witness suffering through a window- yet rather than resolving the question of what it means; it is suspended between the past and present. It thus allows for the possibility of seeing more clearly through the glass and for the reduction of that detachment.
Carpet #3 (2023) shows two contemporary figures casually dressed and expressionless while raising a tapestry (or wall carpet) towards a window in order to hang it up. The carpet is a copy of Viktor Vasnetsov’s painting Bogatyrs (1898). The reference is carefully selected as it is a cultural work which is selected due to its nationalist sentiment. Bogatyrs were patriotic warriors who had immense strength and courage defending the country against their enemies. This, therefore, puts ideological fervour into the tapestry however the way that it is being hanged is quite ritualistic.
The ritual of this creates absurdity suggesting that these mythical symbols are not inherited passively but actively held up. The historical pride is propped up literally by ordinary people. Yet the two that are hanging the carpet are not smiling- they are expressionless. It gives them a form of detachment. It asks the question: who decides the value? who holds up the image? Furthermore, the carpet is being raised to cover a window as they attempt to shield themselves from the outside world.
The carpet that is supposed to decorate a space is now something that hides the outside and takes the viewer’s attention. It is a relic of history and the continuation of historical narratives that are preserved through domesticity. It hence challenges the viewer to consider their role in supporting this cultural imagery- whether they should choose to elevate, question or maintain it.
Overall, both of the works create a challenge towards perception of events, culutral inheritance and how it ties into everyday life. The history is not just seen or remembered but performed by the hanging of a carpet or through the viewing from a window/laptop. Each object within the paintings are acting as something that separates and connects the personal life with the historical.