{"id":17632,"title":"Michaël Borremans - 2013 - Mystery and Illusion [EN, essay]","dimensions":"12 p.","date_begin":null,"material":"","art_status_id":13,"legal_status_id":47,"category_id":25,"platform_id":1,"deleted":false,"asset_count":1,"stream_count":0,"collection":"Hans Theys Archive / Archief Hans Theys","cached_tag_list":"","publishing_process_id":1,"annotation":"","date_end":null,"reference":"","stream_count_app":9,"permalink":"michael-borremans-mystery-and-illusion-en-essay","description_ca":"","short_description_ca":"","description_it":"","short_description_it":"","cached_primary_asset_url":null,"cached_actor_names":"Hans Theys","hide_from_json":true,"prev_platform_id":null,"description_uk":null,"short_description_uk":null,"description_tr":null,"short_description_tr":null,"mhka_works":false,"category":{"en":"Text","nl":"Tekst","fr":"Texte"},"poster_image":null,"poster_credits":null,"translations":[{"locale":"en","short_description":"","description":"\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n__________\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nHans Theys\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cstrong\u003eMystery and Illusion\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nAbout Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u0026rsquo; paintings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nIntroduction\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eAnyone who desires to learn more about Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work should definitely read the interviews. As a rule, the essays on his work only serve to deepen the confusion he personally evokes in his pieces. However, Borremans is perfectly coherent when he is the one doing the talking. He openly reveals that he originally did not possess any obvious talent for drawing, but was so fascinated by it that frequent practice enabled him to gradually improve his skill. When he started to paint, he stated that he was not a very good painter. Now that his paintings have acquired a certain mastery (he is able to apply the technique to serve the image or the atmosphere he wants to evoke) and he has started producing films and sculptures, he displays the same reserve. He is, in fact, someone who constantly pushes his boundaries and just as it is hard to specify the so-called content of his work, he himself is hard to peg because he does not confine himself to figures of speech or truths. One constant in the interviews is his belief that truth does not exist. This is why he tries to create open works; works that still contain empty space (as many authors describe it), thus leaving them open to a wide range of interpretations.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003ePerhaps he does not believe that identity exists. His images do appear to hint at this. When he does assign himself a character trait, it is a chaotic nature, which makes it possible for him to advance in an intuitive manner, at times driven by apparent inspiration for the design, elaboration or completion of an image, and at others nothing. Just like Luc Tuymans, Borremans is someone that creates images first and paintings second. However, this does not prevent him from repeatedly placing the emphasis on the specificities of each form used, for example when he says that producing drawings is more like writing, that the granularity in his films is extremely important or that the physical manifestation of a painting, spatially as well as essentially, makes a difference compared to drawings. Without being associated with more fundamental painters, who appear to explore the boundaries of the art of painting in their work, he nevertheless emphasises the fact that an image that has assumed the form of a painting is inevitably interpreted according to the history of painting. The same is true for his films of course, which cannot be viewed without them calling other films to mind. In an interview with Peter Dorochenko, Borremans names several film makers: \u0026ldquo;Bu\u0026ntilde;uel, Sirk, Tarkovsky, Hitchcock, Visconti, etc. Too many to mention.\u0026rdquo; I have not found an author that has closely studied why these particular film makers were cited, while one can directly identify links with the famous suggestive techniques employed by Sirk, the attention Hitchcock devoted to clothes, the opening scene depicting the balloon flight in Tarkovsky\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eAndrei Rublev,\u003c/em\u003e etc. The only film maker the authors name is David Lynch, and then it\u0026rsquo;s without referring to any specific image (the man that makes erasers out of a head in \u003cem\u003eEraserhead\u003c/em\u003e or the disarming and at the same time shocking naked Laura Dern in \u003cem\u003eBlue Velvet\u003c/em\u003e: \u0026ldquo;He put his disease in me!\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eWhat struck me most about Borremans is his shyness, which is initially difficult to detect, and which can come across as dull, offensive or arrogant due to his verbal communication skills. However, you soon start to enjoy the game and feel a sense of gratitude for the way in which he is able to overcome or put into context his propensity for suspicion and cynicism. The beauty of it is that I have identified this in his work from the very beginning. His work is a game. And to paraphrase Freud, \u0026ldquo;People believe that play and seriousness are opposites, but it is not true: the reality we are allotted is the opposite of play, while players take nothing more serious than the game.\u0026rdquo;\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nDraughtsman, painter\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans was born in 1963. He is the fourth child out of five; he has three brothers and a sister. His parents were hardworking and Catholic. His father was a pharmacist and a balloonist. His mother ran a flower shop and painted flowers. His grandfather, on his mother\u0026rsquo;s side, was originally a baker, but later became a photographer. He imparted the secrets of photography to his grandson. He was also the one that introduced young Borremans to a local artist. Borremans studied at Sint-Lucas arts secondary school (\u003cem\u003ekunsthumaniora\u003c/em\u003e) and Sint-Lucas School of Arts in Ghent, where he specialised in graphic art. Later on, he worked full-time as a teacher for ten years at the Ghent City Secondary Arts Institute until he reached the age of thirty-six, when he decided to try and survive on his artistic work. He was granted his first solo exhibition in 1996, at the Croxhapox experimental art house in Ghent. In 2000, his big break came in the form of an exhibition at the S.M.A.K. in Ghent. Borremans began his artistic career as a draughtsman. According to Jeffrey Grove, curator of the Dallas Museum of Art, Borremans began to paint with oil paint in 1993; however, his painting remained strongly rooted in his practice as a draughtsman until 1997. In around 1999-2000, a new clarity materialised with paintings such as \u003cem\u003eThe Butter Sculptor\u003c/em\u003e (2000) and \u003cem\u003eThe Assistant\u003c/em\u003e (2000). Grove believes that the year 2000 was decisive, with the creation of forty-six paintings. \u003cem\u003eThe Box (2002) \u003c/em\u003ewas also produced at this time: it was the first painting that had not been based on an image the artist had found, but was produced from a \u003cem\u003emise en sc\u0026egrave;ne\u003c/em\u003e. Since 2002, Borremans had based his paintings on photographed and later filmed models, initially because the photographs he had found and then used made an unintentional nostalgic impression on the public. He has been producing films since 2002, which he started screening in 2007.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nFrom found to staged\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eIn general, if you train as a graphic artist, it means that you learn to draw and work with woodcut, lithography and all forms of etching and screen printing. The first works that earned Borremans public success were drawings he had produced on used, tinted paper with materials such as pencil, ink, watercolour, coffee and opaque white. Borremans gradually started to paint more frequently with oil paint. As already mentioned, he had initially based his work on photographs he had found, whereas he now stages and photographs or films his subjects, which means that the images are stripped as far as possible of any reference to a particular place or time.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nBaroque painting technique\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eBorremans uses the Baroque painting technique, which consists of working with transparent layers of oil paint on a surface that is not white as in the case of the Flemish Primitives, but provided with a light brown or red ground-layer. (The foundation now sometimes consists of untreated canvas or a panel because they can provide a similar colour. This is the case in Kati Heck\u0026rsquo;s work, for example.) The lighter elements are lightened and the darker elements are darkened by adding transparent layers of paint. Where necessary, the ground-layer can be retained. Since it is more difficult to lighten the painting than it is to darken it, the lighter elements are often more paste-like (more raised) than the dark ones. The advantage of this method, if one compares it to that adopted by the Flemish Primitives, is that it saves time and affords the artist the opportunity to allow areas to melt into one another at the edges, which can create a more spatial effect and reduce the painting\u0026rsquo;s tendency to break down into separate sections. It seems as though Borremans\u0026rsquo;s paintings are becoming thinner, which demonstrates that he continues to refine his mastery of the technique. The result is that the technique increasingly serves the image.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nFilm maker\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eSince 2002, Borremans has also produced 35-millimetre films. To him, they represent a type of painting, created with a medium other than paint. Their granularity affords them an artistic quality, even though they constitute a different medium. The films are imbued with their own poetry. (He told me the same thing about the photographs of his models, which he does not exhibit.) They are usually screened on vertical flat screens inside a wooden frame. They may not be shown in any other fashion. In a discussion with the writer David Coggins in 2009, Borremans stated that his films do not consciously refer to other films, but that they openly respond to the viewer\u0026rsquo;s consciousness. He also explained that their rhythm is extremely important, that they are as slow as breathing. He added that he is also interested in the aesthetics of the actual filming, such as focusing or blurring the image.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nCourt jester at the palace\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eA few years ago, Borremans received a request from Queen Paola to create pieces for the royal palace. Borremans told the author Renko Heuer that the Queen showed him several rooms that she wanted to renovate and gave him carte blanche in his approach. She also visited his studio to familiarise herself with his work and to follow the paintings\u0026rsquo; progress. At the last moment, he changed his mind so that the Queen was surprised when she saw the result at the unveiling. Borremans once told me that the work may not have been entirely suitable, was perhaps somewhat anarchist, but that it was still a little too bland in his opinion. He had painted characters wearing uniforms that were worn at the court, but back to front, so that they reminded some people of straitjackets. However, today, he can reconcile himself with the pieces. \u0026ldquo;I tried to create an image of a court jester,\u0026rdquo; he reveals, \u0026ldquo;an artist that amuses as well as troubles the palace.\u0026rdquo;\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nOf mysteries and miniatures, illusionism and solace\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eEssays on Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work drive the reader to despair. The vast majority of these texts are based on speculation. Authorities are often cited that add nothing (such as Foucault and Bentham\u0026rsquo;s Panopticon) and brief ideas frequently set off in their own direction. Jeffrey Grove, curator of the Dallas Museum of Art, states that Borremans once compared his paintings to spirits and that the word \u0026ldquo;spirit\u0026rdquo; can be interpreted as the soul of a deceased person or a bodiless being, but also as a bridge to the spiritual kingdom. Curator and writer Christine Kintisch goes further and writes of spiritualist s\u0026eacute;ances and other nonsense that Borremans probably never meant. Nobody considers the simple explanation that paintings, just like curtains and shadows, can conjure up images that briefly come to life, particularly in the case of artists who sometimes have a less stable image of reality than their contemporaries who, when they \u0026ldquo;look\u0026rdquo;, actually \u0026ldquo;think\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;see\u0026rdquo; forms with which they are familiar. Many artists are less effective at retaining these forms of thinking and do not succeed in freezing the essentially dynamic, shapeless world around us that isn\u0026rsquo;t really divided into forms. Thus the world may appear more threatening or spooky to them.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nWhat is an irrational insight?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eThere are major differences in the emotional approach of Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work. Grove maintains his distance and writes that a further study of the position of his protagonists makes it impossible for one to feel emotionally involved in Borremans\u0026rsquo;s quintessential mimetic scenarios. And one page further, he writes that Borremans\u0026rsquo;s paintings pretend they want to explore complex psychological states while they defy all logic. He laconically summarises the issue of time in Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work as follows, \u0026ldquo;Borremans intentionally uses poorly defined signifiers that collide in ambiguous spaces. This method responds to his desire \u0026lsquo;to create an atmosphere devoid of time, a space in which time no longer exists\u0026rsquo;.\u0026rdquo; This more sober approach contrasts sharply with authors that view the work in a more melodramatic fashion. First and foremost, repeated claims are made that Borremans\u0026rsquo;s works play out in a present that is not the present, in a place that does not exist. Usually something takes place that continues unceasingly. The Swiss art critic Hans Rudolf Reust writes \u0026ldquo;The certainty that the painted gesture will inevitably continue to exist is breathtaking\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;But above all, he creates an unidentified place for his paintings by importing a frozen time, with gaps between certain moments in which the duration of rapid gestures are immeasurably drawn out.\u0026rdquo; The Belgian art historian Micha\u0026euml;l Amy writes of a sadomasochist universe with distinct references to the Nazi era. Christine Kintisch, in turn, talks of \u0026ldquo;the desolation of their everlasting misery\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;a seemingly endless nightmare\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;doomed to forever replay the irreconcilable drama between desire and fear\u0026rdquo;. In general, Kintisch tries to kindle a dark, sinister atmosphere, in which she not only refers to artists such as Edgar Allan Poe, but also to the writer Sebald, in a rather inappropriate manner. It is true that all his books feature strange, almost transparent figures that practice the most unusual habits, but in the novel \u003cem\u003eAusterlitz\u003c/em\u003e, which attempts to describe an uprooted Jewish child\u0026rsquo;s amnesia, Sebald\u0026rsquo;s images serve to evoke a reality that is so gruesome that I would never take them out of context and certainly not purely to conjure up an atmosphere.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nIf I may make a statement on Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work at this point, then I would like to compare it with a remark by Nabokov about what, in his opinion, constitutes the essence of literature: \u0026ldquo;Pushkin the balanced, Tolstoy the sober, and Chekhov the restrained have all had their moments of irrational insight, which meant the senses became simultaneously blurred and revealed a hidden meaning that was worth the sudden blurred vision. However, with Gogol, this shift forms the basis for his art\u0026hellip;.\u0026rdquo; Perhaps one could say the same is true for Borremans. But what is an irrational insight? Why does Borremans portray some characters with a duck\u0026rsquo;s bill? And is there any point in asking him?\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nThe mystery\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eI asked Borremans about the significance of the word \u0026ldquo;mystery\u0026rdquo; because I wanted to talk about Magritte\u0026rsquo;s endless attempts to capture \u0026ldquo;mystery\u0026rdquo; by depicting things combined in an unusual way (a giraffe in a wine glass or a bicycle on a cigar). Magritte was so obsessed by this that Marcel Mari\u0026euml;n mocked him in a pamphlet. In the great number of letters that Magritte wrote on the subject, he finally arrives at the conclusion that the effect is greatest when he uses everyday objects (such as an oversized egg in a cage). Borremans replied that he never used the word mystery and that there is nothing special about plucking an object \u0026ldquo;out of its usual frame of reference\u0026rdquo; and making it reappear elsewhere. \u0026ldquo;Wim Delvoye does that too,\u0026rdquo; he told me, \u0026ldquo;by marrying elements from higher and lower culture.\u0026rdquo; And he concludes, \u0026ldquo;No, if you come across that word then it\u0026rsquo;s because the authors used it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003e\u0026ldquo;Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans,\u0026rdquo; writes Grove, \u0026ldquo;has occasionally called his drawings his \u0026lsquo;secret weapons\u0026rsquo;. If by \u0026lsquo;secret\u0026rsquo; he is alluding to the mysterious then few will contradict him.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans,\u0026rdquo; he writes elsewhere, \u0026ldquo;is meticulous and cautious when it comes to his work: he painstakingly creates insinuating drawings, he cautiously ensures that nobody can read any meaning into the drawings.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eWe encounter one frequently recurring description of Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work in a text by the Belgian art critic, current director of De Appel and soon-to-be director of the Frans Hals Museum, Ann Demeester. Just like Grove, she is convinced that it is impossible \u0026ldquo;to analyse drawing or painting in a logical manner\u0026rdquo;, yet she still wants to try. She goes on to describe his drawings, quite explicitly, as follows: \u0026ldquo;The painter has frozen a certain \u0026lsquo;action\u0026rsquo; and denies us any explanation of the context in which the recorded moment must be placed. There is a silence, a void around the image, which is open to many interpretations. This creates a kind of \u0026lsquo;suspense\u0026rsquo;, as though the canvases are also detective stories. As Borremans seems to work in series, the \u0026lsquo;mystery\u0026rsquo; is partly lifted.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eThe word \u0026ldquo;mystery\u0026rdquo; turns up frequently. In an interview, David Coggins asks the artist: \u0026ldquo;There is a mystery in your paintings that the observer wants to solve, but it is unsolvable. You invite the observer in, but you create an image that is ultimately unreadable. Are you trying to create a kind of tension?\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eChristine Kintisch uses the expression \u0026ldquo;the mysteries of the art of painting\u0026rdquo; and poses the question: \u0026ldquo;What mysteries are embodied in the olive green collar, the paper patterns, the grey, lace veil?\u0026rdquo; To summarise, she talks about \u0026ldquo;a visual and intellectual ambiguity (\u0026hellip;) that has proved to be inexhaustibly provocative.\u0026rdquo; However, we could not imagine any artwork without any visual and intellectual ambiguity. An artwork is something (such as an image) that is something else at the same time (such as a painting, an object). Or vice versa; we see ourselves in front of an object that we believe we can perfectly understand and even describe, but there is always something that will elude us, if only because it lives in us in a hidden, unrecognised and unformulated manner.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eIn an interview with Borremans, Renko Heuer poses a question about \u0026ldquo;that mysterious element, like a puzzle that the observer must solve \u0026ndash; this applies to the observers in and outside the drawing.\u0026rdquo; Borremans\u0026rsquo;s answer is as follows: \u0026ldquo;The paintings always include several elements that refer to other matters outside the painting. I create my paintings in such a way that these references never converge, it remains a puzzle because nothing can ever be defined.\u0026rdquo; A little later, Heuer says: \u0026ldquo;All these mysteries: do you have the answers? Or are they open questions for you too?\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;To me they are just as easily entirely open questions because they relate to suggestive constructions,\u0026rdquo; Borremans replies. \u0026ldquo;There is no story. Everything is implicit. I try and initiate a dialogue because if you become explicit, you always get it wrong \u0026ndash; as if you believe that a kind of truth actually exists.\u0026rdquo; A short time later, Borremans recounts an anecdote about a go-kart that he had hidden under \u0026ldquo;a very old curtain from a castle\u0026rdquo;: \u0026ldquo;You can\u0026rsquo;t really see what it is, but you do see that it is something technical, it is not a thing of beauty that is concealed, and it\u0026rsquo;s an extraordinarily monumental, weird shape that is highly appealing and mysterious.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eNaturally, I wanted to demonstrate that Borremans did use the word \u0026ldquo;mysterious\u0026rdquo;, but in fact that does not further our case if we want to better understand or identify with his work. What matters is why this word pops up time and time again and what we can learn from it. Much of it has to do with Borremans\u0026rsquo;s desire to portray a kind of universal man and not individuals in specific, familiar situations. He previously did so by basing his images on those he found in old books and magazines or on the internet, images that often dated back to the 1940s or 1950s, because he wanted to depict a kind of \u0026ldquo;average\u0026rdquo; 20th-century man. This is why the painting \u003cem\u003eThe German I\u003c/em\u003e (2002) portrays a man that is looking at red balls that are floating around his hands. In the interview with Renko Heuer, Borremans first says that he does not know what the red balls represent, but then he explains that the man in the original photograph was holding a chemistry model.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eFor most writers, the ambiguity or vagueness that Borremans creates by (for example in this case) omitting details, gives rise to an uneasy feeling, even a sense of threat, which Borremans relates to his view of life in the discussion with Heuer: the impression that we are living on a time bomb; on a volcano that can erupt at any moment; in an apocalyptic, terrifying world in which all structures are fragile. He views the world as a cold, strange place and he experiences this in his contacts with other people as well as in the political and economic world. The question of what his work is about (what secret it holds) therefore changes to the question of how he can convert this view of life into drawings, paintings and films without being explicit or unequivocal and how he arrived at selecting this specific form for his paintings that is so closely related to the technique employed by Vel\u0026aacute;zquez.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eIn the text \u003cem\u003eRare, suggestieve constructies. Een gesprek met Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u003c/em\u003e (Curious, suggestive constructions. A conversation with Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans), I state that in his book \u003cem\u003eSculpting Time,\u003c/em\u003e Tarkovsky describes poetry as an unusual constellation that reminds us of the incongruence of reality. \u0026ldquo;If we imagine such a constellation as a meeting between two or three things that are not usually observed together, then we see that this applies to the meeting between the contemporary art world and Borremans\u0026rsquo;s painting method, as well as to the way in which he composes his images. True to his predilection for certain images, paintings or atmospheres, he pushes his paintings to the edge of kitsch and sentiment, using the image as well as his painting method. To the artist, these images appear to come first, whereby the facture of the painting must serve them, but I suspect that the reverse is equally true: that the painter creates these kinds of images because it apparently offers him the opportunity to use old-fashioned painting techniques and images.\u0026rdquo; However, Borremans replies: \u0026ldquo;You have totally misunderstood it. The image comes first and only then the style.\u0026rdquo;\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nShining examples\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eBorremans\u0026rsquo;s greatest historical model is Diego Vel\u0026aacute;zquez (1599-1660), a Baroque painter who is widely praised for his virtuosity: his ability to evoke a world with but a few brushstrokes. Borremans admires him primarily because of the way in which he used his unparalleled, economic technique to serve the psychology of the characters he depicted or the painting\u0026rsquo;s atmosphere. Borremans also loves Goya (1746-1828) and Edouard Manet (1832-1883). However, he refers to Vel\u0026aacute;zquez as the king of painters.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eWhen I recently spoke to him about the style used by Vel\u0026aacute;zquez and Manet, he told me that he was less fond of the later Manet, \u0026ldquo;who began painting in a more impressionist style in his later paintings.\u0026rdquo; I confessed that when it comes to Vel\u0026aacute;zquez, it is mainly the suggestive strokes that I remember, applied from afar, which are only recognisable as an image at a distance and asked him whether he found this Vel\u0026aacute;zquez less fascinating. \u0026ldquo;Of course Vel\u0026aacute;zquez had this jazzy way of painting,\u0026rdquo; he replies, \u0026ldquo;but there is much more than that. I don\u0026rsquo;t mean that a painting must be naturalistic. The work of John Singer Sargent is extremely well painted, but it is purely virtuosic, for the rest it is usually ugly and uninteresting. Vel\u0026aacute;zquez is a virtuoso, but his work possesses a powerful, psychological dimension; his technique serves something else. If you take the example of his portrait of El Primo, the bookkeeper or the king\u0026rsquo;s secretary, you feel tremendous compassion. In his final portrait of Philip IV, which shows how the king had declined, you feel the relationship between the painter and the sitter. It was also the last portrait he was able to paint.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eParadoxically enough, we turn once more to the subject of Magritte, who tried \u0026ldquo;not to paint\u0026rdquo; in order to make his images as powerful as possible. In Borremans\u0026rsquo;s case, this results in the creation of servitude to an ideal technique attributed to Vel\u0026aacute;zquez, in which the layer of paint becomes increasingly thinner, as if it tries as much as possible not to stand in the way of the image or an atmosphere to be evoked, while of course it derives its ambiguity and power precisely from its waning material presence. Hence, the lead role in the solo show \u003cem\u003eThe people from the future are not to be trusted\u003c/em\u003e in the Zeno X Gallery (2013) appeared to have been reserved for the red filtering through, for example in the large fold of the dress of \u003cem\u003eThe Angel\u003c/em\u003e (2013), and the almost glistening orange between the \u003cem\u003eDead Chicken\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s legs (2013).\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nSeveral drawings examined more closely\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans first entered the spotlight with his drawings. To this very day, his entire universe appears to flow from these drawings. You could say that he thinks in visual terms. He compares drawing to writing, by which he could mean that it is the result of a linear progress, a self-propelling development, in which the content flows forth from a medium that takes the upper hand: that takes you by the hand and leads you to new places.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eA fine example of his drawings is \u003cem\u003eThe German - Dreiten teil\u003c/em\u003e (mixed media on paper, 2003). This drawing is one in a series of drawings with the same theme, such as \u003cem\u003eThe German V\u003c/em\u003e (pencil and gouache on cardboard, 2003) in which we meet a character that appears to be looking at balls floating around his hand. In \u003cem\u003eThe German - Dreiten teil\u003c/em\u003e (2003) a variant of this drawing is placed in a decor, where it appears as a giant projection or a (painted) poster. The space in which this scene plays out is created by darker areas, in which spectators or passers-by are depicted sparingly. Lastly, there is a small figure below that appears to step into the scene, but finds itself \u0026ldquo;outside\u0026rdquo; the drawing up to his waist.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eIn terms of spatial design, this drawing is reminiscent of Borremans\u0026rsquo;s most famous or at least most talked about drawing, \u003cem\u003eThe Swimming Pool\u003c/em\u003e (2001), which not only depicts a large figure (a young man probably pierced with four bullet holes on which a hand is painting the sentence \u0026ldquo;People must be punished\u0026rdquo;), but in which the figure also acts as part of a painting or projection on the high wall of a swimming pool, where tiny spectators that are found in the water and around the swimming pool observe the large scene. The third level is achieved here by the presence, above, of a sketch with an explanation, from which it appears that the event is observed from the swimming pool\u0026rsquo;s cafeteria.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nAnother drawing that depicts a large figure combined with tiny spectators is \u003cem\u003eA Mae West Experience\u003c/em\u003e (pencil, watercolour and white ink on paper, 2002): a drawing barely 16 by 20 centimetres, featuring a colossal sculpture of Mae West. The sculpture appears before a starry night and seems to be fixed atop a gigantic pedestal or truncated mountain. There is also an entrance, which perhaps leads to a large theatre in the form of an astrolabe. At the same time, her corsage features holes or windows from which pencil drawn arrows exit, pointing to the witty actress\u0026rsquo;s written one-liners.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eAnother of Borremans\u0026rsquo;s famous drawings dates from 1998 and is called \u003cem\u003eVarious ways of avoiding visual contact with the Outside World using yellow isolating tape\u003c/em\u003e (pencil and watercolour on cardboard). This drawing depicts the heads of six young men whose eyes have been taped over in different ways with yellow tape. I mention this drawing because it is a clear example of Borremans\u0026rsquo;s ability to produce many drawings on a single sheet, something that is irrefutably a tour de force.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eI would like to emphasise that we must not attempt to interpret these drawings as messages, but as the amazing product of someone that visually creates dream worlds, dreams and worlds, which in the first place appear to stem from the pleasure of drawing and only then serve as possible sources for numerous readings and interpretations, which do not have to be mutually exclusive, but can actually enrich and reinforce each other.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nSome paintings examined more closely\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eSeveral painters I have spoken to were most affected at the solo show, \u003cem\u003eThe people from the future are not to be trusted\u003c/em\u003e (Zeno X Gallery, 2013), by the small painting \u003cem\u003eThe Prop\u003c/em\u003e (2013), which portrays a kind of model of a small tree and comes across as highly sculptural. I saw a much larger version of this painting in Borremans\u0026rsquo;s studio; the artist did not consider this larger version to be very good (even though it had not yet been painted over.) In fact, we should be able to place both versions side by side and try and understand why the small one works and the large version doesn\u0026rsquo;t. This is no easy task, even for someone who has been observing paintings for thirty years, but does not paint himself. The only thing to do, I think, is to listen to painters when they want to speak. Many art writers, however, start with the image and set the painting aside. They do not observe a small, blue patch in the middle of the painting that represents a kind of opening, offering artistic, illogical access to an unnamed world, which appears to double the painting\u0026rsquo;s ambiguous world. So what else can we write about the painting? That we see a dead object that represents a living object? And that we feel the model builder and the painter\u0026rsquo;s desire to create an illusory reality that feels safer than the uncontrollable, changing outside world?\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cem\u003eEating the Beard\u003c/em\u003e (2011) depicts a girl or young woman whose face is detailed but blotted out in a slightly Richterian style, sunk into an olive green background. The body (the shoulders) and part of the hairstyle allow a greyish background to filter through. The artist stopped painting there so that the focus is on the \u0026ldquo;beard\u0026rdquo;, a dark element that the woman seemingly holds in her mouth. (She doesn\u0026rsquo;t have hands to help her eat.) The painting reminded me of \u003cem\u003eLe plaisir\u003c/em\u003e (1927) by Magritte. When I discussed this with Borremans, he told me that he was not familiar with that particular painting by Magritte. Perhaps he had forgotten about its existence? Perhaps he had dreamed about it and painted it subconsciously? Or perhaps the resemblance is purely coincidental and was born from Borremans\u0026rsquo;s habit of isolating and distorting the faces of girls or young women, probably guided by his hand, or an interesting mark.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eThe painting \u003cem\u003eAutomat (I)\u003c/em\u003e (2008) once again depicts the image of a young woman, but this time in the form of a lifelike doll. Only a kind of notch in her right arm appears to allude to the fact that she has a hidden mechanism. Behind her lies a small flesh-coloured object, which could be a covering. The most intriguing aspect of the image is the apparent absence of any legs. The doll/girl hovers above a surface. The shadow beneath her skirt prevents us from seeing how this physically works. Many characters in Borremans\u0026rsquo;s paintings are sliced through their middle by a surface, because they appear in a bath of ink, oil or other dark liquid or because they are leaning against a table, for instance. I suspect that for many people there is nothing more subconsciously appealing than people without legs or people who are unable to leave their place, such as cashiers and bus drivers (who often have stalker-like admirers), just as they are reassured to find the Saviour nailed fast or the ever suffering Virgin always watching over them from the same place, yet I am not inclined to offer such a statement for one of Borremans\u0026rsquo;s paintings. I continue to view them as images that are the result of years of practicing the art of drawing and that may now sometimes take the form of a painting.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutomat (I)\u003c/em\u003e (2008) is reminiscent of \u003cem\u003eThe Skirt\u003c/em\u003e (2005) and \u003cem\u003eThe Skirt (2) \u003c/em\u003e(2005). In the first painting, we see a girl with a pleated skirt who appears to be hovering above a table; in the second painting, the girl has disappeared, leaving only the skirt (and the pair of hands belonging to the seamstress (?) which feature in both works). Borremans told me that he is currently working on a sculpture with an oval skirt that continually rotates. Why? I don\u0026rsquo;t think there is any point to this question. How? Now it gets exciting. We can search for technical solutions with the artist and be surprised at the result.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nSolace\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eIn contrast to most authors\u0026rsquo; writings on Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work that I have read, I observe no anguish or threat in his work, but rather an extraordinary solace that arises from the realisation that someone who has been through a lot has subsequently gone on to create works of art. As a young man, I had the same experience when watching the films made by Fassbinder.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eWhen I saw the drawing \u003cem\u003eThe Spirit of Modelmaking (2001), \u003c/em\u003eI immediately felt that as a young man, Borremans must have had a special, aesthetic experience with an older man. When I asked him if he had ever built a scale model with an older man, he denied it; but when we learn that one of his grandfathers has initiated him in the secrets of photography, special moments shared in the dark room where miniature images come to life, then the biographical foundation of the work becomes irrefutable and we also feel that the aesthetic experiences acquired may also have offered solace during a difficult youth. This solace is palpable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eBorremans told me that he had read all the works by Gerard Reve, but not since the writer had passed away. This appears to be a telling remark. The death of Gerard Reve is too fresh. Vel\u0026aacute;zquez, in contrast, lives on forever. Borremans revealed to me the emotion he felt when he first viewed a certain work by Vel\u0026aacute;zquez in reality. \u0026ldquo;I had already lived with that painting for so long,\u0026rdquo; he said, \u0026ldquo;that it was as though I had met a correspondent to whom I had been writing to for many years, but whom I had never met in person. One of the great things about that painting is that you think that you could reproduce it. You can see extremely well how it was created. A dialogue is created with someone that is long dead, simply because you are involved in the same activities, because you are trying to solve the same problems. This is one aspect of painting I had not expected. The better the paintings are preserved, the more acute the effect, the greater the kick.\u0026rdquo; In the interview \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans: Shades of Doubt\u003c/em\u003e, Renko Heuer asks what question the artist would put to Vel\u0026aacute;zquez if he could meet him. \u0026ldquo;I would ask him if a loved one made him stay in Italy,\u0026rdquo; replied Borremans. \u0026ldquo;I wonder what kept him there. The Spanish king asked him many times to return and he eventually did so against his will. That\u0026rsquo;s why I think he had a beloved in Italy.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eI once asked Lorne Campbell, the ultimate expert on the work of Rogier Van der Weyden, what ten questions he would put to the artist if he had the chance. This was one of the questions he would pose: \u0026ldquo;Show us \u003cem\u003eWashington Portrait of a Lady\u003c/em\u003e. Tell us about her and how you painted her.\u0026rdquo; A few months prior to this, leafing through a book that Campbell had compiled in 1974 or 1976, little by little, I was moved and finally deeply affected by the close-ups of the women that appeared in the book. Not only by the way in which Van der Weyden presented these women to us, but also because I could feel how Campbell observed paintings: not just examining the techniques, but looking at the people as well. A twofold loneliness accompanied by a double solace unfolded and tears rolled down my cheeks.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eBorremans is often compared with David Lynch, in a superficial manner. But what else affects us in Lynch\u0026rsquo;s work besides his compassion? What else apart from his love of all the naive, human aspirations averse to a sinister world that seems to play out close beside us?\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nPlaying\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eWhat if we viewed Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work for a moment as an ode to naivety and to the game? Many authors see a demonic demiurge in a self-created sadistic universe. Could this be blamed on the habit of strictly interpreting artworks? It is true that he presents us with people that appear frozen while they seemingly perform senseless acts? Don\u0026rsquo;t drawings and paintings always depict \u0026ldquo;frozen\u0026rdquo; moments? Can we not simply view the images of these diversions as whirling attempts to create unfathomable images? And with regard to demiurge: can\u0026rsquo;t his drawings have simply grown out of the habit of drawing large and small figures on the same sheet? Thus suddenly creating (apparent) miniatures that always seem to exert a magical effect on us, for example as designs for giant sculptures.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nIn \u003cem\u003eStanze, \u003c/em\u003eGiorgio Agamben describes how Baudelaire, as the result of a childhood memory (in which a certain Mrs Panckoucke led him into a room overflowing with toys), distinguishes between three different ways of handling toys: there are children that transform a chair into a stagecoach, others that carefully arrange their toys as in a museum, without touching them again, and lastly those who \u0026ldquo;obey a basic metaphysical tendency\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;who want to see their soul\u0026rdquo; and manipulate the toy, throw it against the wall and finally tear it open and reduce it to pieces (\u0026ldquo;But \u003cem\u003ewhere is the soul\u003c/em\u003e? Now comes the ignorance and the sorrow.\u0026rdquo;) Baudelaire, according to Agamben, recognises the incomprehensible mix of joy and the frustration, beaten speechless, on which artistic creation is based, as in every relationship between a person and an object. \u0026ldquo;Distant and elusive (\u0026lsquo;only you, doll\u0026rsquo;s soul, we have never been able to ascertain where you actually are\u0026rsquo;), the doll forever finds itself on this side of things as well as permanently on the other side as an inexhaustible object of our desires and our imagination.\u0026rdquo; Agamben also points out that, for adults, the boundary between toys and small weighty objects disappears into the darkest depths of archaeology where small objects are assigned magical meanings and their small size is usually attributed to the material\u0026rsquo;s rarity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eThis reasoning was echoed by Claude L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss who refers in \u003cem\u003eLa pens\u0026eacute;e sauvage (The Savage Mind) \u003c/em\u003eto the power of attraction displayed by miniatures and notes that all artworks are essentially miniatures, even the ceiling paintings in the Sistine Chapel because they represent a scale model of the Last Judgement. (Giacometti expresses a similar reasoning in an interview with David Sylvester, stating that the ideal size for a sculpture is approximately a hand high. He also applies this to the colossal sculptures in Egypt because in order to view them in their entirety, you have to do so from a distance.) According to L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss, miniature objects give rise to a unique joy because they are recognisable at a single glance and because we do not have to analyse their individual parts, as we do in science. \u0026ldquo;The aesthetic sorrow,\u0026rdquo; he writes \u0026ldquo;exists because this entity was created in a work produced by a person, so is also made virtual by the observer that discovers, through the artwork, the possibility of a unification between structure and events.\u0026rdquo; Without explaining the meaning of this last phrase (structures are fixed and events are new things or discoveries that take place despite everything, such as the random effects of peace produced among a tribe by naming various factions according to animal names), I cannot say much more about it here, except that Agamben, Baudelaire and Claude L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss are players who juggle words in the hope of revealing or creating invisible harmonies or laws, just as Borremans \u0026ndash; with his drawings, films and paintings \u0026ndash; evokes feelings, thoughts, images and stories in us that may never have been there or would have remained forever hidden in the dark corners of our barely used imagination. Borremans is a juggler, an illusionist, who reveals to us a reality that would otherwise have eluded us. And this reality does not need to be named; it plays out beyond the capacity of our words, in a kingdom of phantasmagoria that shapes our reality.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nMontagne de Miel, 26 September 2013\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eCited literature\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003e- Giorgio Agamben, \u003cem\u003eStanze\u003c/em\u003e, Christian Bourgois Publishers, Paris, 1981.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Stefan Beys. \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans. Spartelen in het sadomasochistische universum. De geheime charmes van het enigma\u003c/em\u003e. (\u003cem\u003eFloundering in the sadomasochist universe. The secret charms of the enigma.\u003c/em\u003e) http://d-sites.net/nederlands/borremans.htm\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u003c/em\u003e, Municipal Museum for Contemporary Art Association (Vereniging van het S.MA.K.), Ghent, 2002.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans. Zeichnungen / Tekeningen / Drawings\u003c/em\u003e, Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther K\u0026ouml;nig, Cologne, 2004.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe Performance\u003c/em\u003e, Hatje Cantz, Ostfildern, 2005.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans, Whistling a Happy Tune\u003c/em\u003e. Drawings / Tekeningen, Ludion, 2008.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans, Paintings\u003c/em\u003e, Hatje Cantz, Ostfildern, 2009.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans, \u003cem\u003eEating the Beard\u003c/em\u003e, Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern, 2010.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans, \u003cem\u003eMagnetics\u003c/em\u003e, Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern, 2013.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- David Coggins, \u003cem\u003eInterview: Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eArt in America 3, N\u0026deg;1\u003c/em\u003e, March 2009. See http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/magazine/michael-borremans/\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- \u003cem\u003eGiacometti. Sculptures. Paintings. Drawings\u003c/em\u003e, Arts Council, London, 1980.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Renko Heuer, \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans: Shades of Doubt\u003c/em\u003e. In: Mono.Kultur #31- Spring 2012.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Claude L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss, \u003cem\u003eLa pens\u0026eacute;e sauvage (The Savage Mind)\u003c/em\u003e, Plon, Paris, 1962.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Ren\u0026eacute; Magritte, \u003cem\u003eEcrits complets (Complete Writings)\u003c/em\u003e, Flammarion, 2009.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Ren\u0026eacute; Magritte. \u003cem\u003eLettres \u0026agrave; Andr\u0026eacute; Bosmans 1958-1967 (Letters to Andr\u0026eacute; Bosmans\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1958-1967)\u003c/em\u003e Seghers - Isy Bachot, 1990.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- \u003cem\u003eMarcel Mari\u0026euml;n\u003c/em\u003e, Isy Brachot Gallery, Brussels, 1989.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Vladimir Nabokov, \u003cem\u003eNikolai\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eGogol\u003c/em\u003e, New Direction Books, Norfolk, Connecticut, 1944.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Vladimir Nabokov, \u003cem\u003eSpeak, Memory\u003c/em\u003e, Penguin Books, London, 1999.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Hans Theys, \u003cem\u003eDe brioche van Chardin (The Brioche by Chardin). Een gesprek met Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans (A conversation with Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans)\u003c/em\u003e, August 2010, unpublished.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Hans Theys, \u003cem\u003eRare, suggestieve constructies. Een gesprek met Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans (Curious, suggestive constructions. A discussion with Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans)\u003c/em\u003e. In: \u0026lt;H\u0026gt;ART #73, October 2010.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Hilde Van Canneyt, Interview met Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans en Manor Grunewald. (Interview with Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans and Manor Grunewald), Ghent, 26 March 2009, http://hildevancanneyt.blogspot.be/2009/09/beide-kunstenaars-verwittigen-me-op.html\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cem\u003e- \u003c/em\u003eMargot Vanderstraeten, \u003cem\u003eIk geef geen antwoorden omdat er geen antwoorden zijn (I offer no answers because there are no answers)\u003c/em\u003e. Place of publication unknown, 2009.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n"},{"locale":"nl","short_description":"","description":"\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n__________\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nHans Theys\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cb\u003eOver mysteries en miniaturen, dromen, illusionisme en troost\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nHet werk van Michael Borremans\u003c/b\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nInleiding\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eWie meer wil te weten komen over het werk van Borremans kijkt natuurlijk het best naar de werken. Daarna leest hij of zij het best interviews. De essays over zijn werk maken de verwarring die hij zelf al oproept in zijn werk meestal alleen maar groter, terwijl Borremans helder is als hij zelf aan het woord is. Hij vertelt dat hij aanvankelijk geen uitgesproken talent had voor tekenen, maar er zozeer door gefascineerd was dat hij door heel vaak te oefenen steeds beter heeft leren tekenen. Wanneer hij begint te schilderen, verklaart hij zelf niet zo\u0026rsquo;n goed schilder te zijn. Nu hij in zijn schilderijen een meesterschap heeft verworven (de techniek dienstbaar kan laten zijn aan het beeld of aan de atmosfeer die hij wil oproepen) en films en sculpturen is beginnen maken, legt hij dezelfde schroom aan de dag. Eigenlijk is hij iemand die zijn grenzen voortdurend verlegt en net zomin als de zogenaamde inhoud van zijn werk vast te pinnen is, omdat hij zich niet opsluit in stijlfiguren of waarheden. Een constante in de gesprekken is zijn gevoel dat er geen waarheid bestaat. Daarom tracht hij open werken te maken, werken die nog lege ruimte bevatten (zoals veel auteurs het uitdrukken) en zo een brede waaier aan lezingen mogelijk maken.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nEen ernstig spel\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eMisschien gelooft hij niet in het bestaan van een identiteit. Zijn beelden lijken daarop te wijzen. Als hij zichzelf een karaktertrek toekent, dan is het een chaotische aard, die het mogelijk maakt dat hij op een intu\u0026iuml;tieve manier voortschrijdt, gedreven door een soms wel en soms niet opkomende geestdrift voor de opzet, de uitwerking of afwerking van een beeld. Net als Luc Tuymans is Borremans iemand die in de eerste plaats beelden maakt en pas in de tweede plaats schilderijen. Dit belet echter niet dat hij telkens weer de nadruk legt op de specificiteit van elke gebruikte vorm, bijvoorbeeld als hij zegt dat het maken van tekeningen meer lijkt op schrijven, dat de filmkorrel in zijn films erg belangrijk is of dat de fysieke verschijning van een schilderij zowel ruimtelijk als essentieel een verschil maakt ten opzichte van tekeningen. Zonder dat hij zich aansluit bij meer fundamentele schilders, die in hun werk de grenzen van de schilderkunst lijken te verkennen, legt hij er toch de nadruk op dat een beeld dat de vorm van een schilderij heeft aangenomen onvermijdelijk gelezen wordt binnen de geschiedenis van de schilderkunst. Hetzelfde geldt voor zijn films, natuurlijk, die je niet kan bekijken zonder aan andere films te denken. In een interview met Peter Dorochenko noemt Borremans enkele filmers: \u0026lsquo;Bu\u0026ntilde;uel, Sirk, Tarkovski, Hitchcock, Visconti\u0026hellip; Teveel om op te noemen.\u0026rsquo; Ik heb geen auteur gevonden die in detail bestudeert waarom net deze filmers genoemd worden, terwijl je toch meteen verbanden ziet met de beroemde suggestieve methodes van Sirk, de aandacht voor kleren bij Hitchcock, de openingssc\u0026egrave;ne met de ballonvlucht van Tarkovski\u0026rsquo;s \u003ci\u003eAndrei Rublev\u003c/i\u003e enzovoort. De enige cineast die door de auteurs wordt genoemd is David Lynch en dan nog zonder naar enig specifiek beeld te verwijzen (de man die gommetjes maakt uit een hoofd in \u003ci\u003eErraser Head\u003c/i\u003e of de ontwapenend en tegelijk schokkend naakte Laura Dern in \u003ci\u003eBlue Velvet\u003c/i\u003e: \u0026lsquo;He put his disease in me!\u0026rsquo;).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eWat mij het meest heeft getroffen bij Borremans is zijn aanvankelijk moeilijk waarneembare verlegenheid, die door zijn spreekvaardigheid mondain, kwetsend of aanmatigend kan overkomen. Algauw ga je echter genieten van het spel en voel je een soort van dankbaarheid voor de manier waarop hij zijn neiging tot argwaan en cynisme weet te overwinnen of relativeren. Het mooie is dat ik van in het begin ook zijn werk zo heb aangevoeld. Zijn werk is een spel. Freud schrijft hierover dat mensen denken dat spel en ernst tegenpolen zijn, maar dat het anders ligt: de aan ons gegeven werkelijkheid en het spel zijn tegenpolen, terwijl spelers niets zo ernstig nemen als het spel.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nEnkele wetenswaardigheden\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans werd geboren in 1963. Hij is het voorlaatste kind van vijf, hij heeft drie broers en een zus. Zijn ouders waren hardwerkend en katholiek. Zijn vader was wegenwerker. Zijn moeder dreef een bloemenzaak en schilderde bloemen. Zijn grootvader van moederskant was oorspronkelijk bakker, maar werd nadien fotograaf. Hij bracht de jongen de geheimen van de fotografie bij. Hij was ook diegene die Borremans op jonge leeftijd voorstelde aan een kunstschilder uit de streek. Borremans studeerde aan de kunsthumaniora en de hogeschool Sint-Lucas in Gent. Aan de hogeschool studeerde hij grafiek. Later werkte hij tien jaar lang voltijds als leraar aan het Gentse Stedelijk Secundair Kunstinstituut tot hij rond zijn zesendertigste besloot te trachten van zijn artistiek werk te leven. In 1996 had hij een eerste solotentoonstelling in het Gentse Croxhapox. In 2000 vond zijn doorbraak plaats, met een tentoonstelling in de Vereniging van het Stedelijk Museum voor Actuele Kunst in Gent. Borremans begon zijn artistieke loopbaan als tekenaar. Volgens Jeffrey Grove, curator in het Museum voor Hedendaagse Kunst in Dallas, begon Borremans in 1993 met olieverf te schilderen, maar tot 1997 bleef zijn schilderwerk stevig verankerd in zijn praktijk als tekenaar. Rond 1999-2000 ontstond een nieuwe helderheid met schilderijen als \u003ci\u003eThe Butter Sculptor\u003c/i\u003e (2000) en \u003ci\u003eThe Assistant\u003c/i\u003e (2000). Het jaar 2000 was van doorslaggevend belang, aldus Grove, met een productie van 46 schilderijen. Toen ontstond ook \u003ci\u003eThe Box (2002)\u003c/i\u003e: het eerste schilderij dat niet meer gebaseerd was op een gevonden beeld, maar op een enscenering. Sinds 2002 baseert Borremans zijn schilderijen op gefotografeerde en later gefilmde modellen, aanvankelijk vooral omdat de gevonden beelden die hij gebruikte op de toeschouwers een ongewild nostalgische indruk maakten. Sinds 2002 maakt hij films, die hij vanaf 2007 begint te tonen.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eEen vorming als graficus betekent in het algemeen dat je leert tekenen en werken met houtsneden, steendruk, allerlei vormen van etsen en zeefdruk. De eerste werken waarmee Borremans publiek succes had, waren tekeningen die gemaakt werden op gebruikt, getint papier met materialen als potlood, inkt, aquarel, koffie en dekwit. Gaandeweg is Borremans meer en meer gaan schilderen met olieverf. Zoals gezegd baseerde hij zich daarvoor aanvankelijk op gevonden foto\u0026rsquo;s, terwijl hij nu al zijn onderwerpen zelf ensceneert en fotografeert of filmt, waarbij de beelden zoveel mogelijk ontdaan zijn van verwijzingen naar een bepaalde plaats of tijd.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eBorremans\u0026rsquo; werk neemt een unieke plaats in binnen de Vlaamse hedendaagse kunst. Natuurlijk kan je hetzelfde zeggen over het werk van alle vooraanstaande kunstenaars. Of het nu gaat om Luc Tuymans, Wim Delvoye, Berlinde De Bruyckere, Ann Veronica Janssens, Raoul De Keyser, Walter Swennen, Bernd Lohaus of Panamarenko, om maar enkele namen te noemen, telkens heeft hun werk iets unieks, iets specifieks, dat hen van de werken van de (meeste) andere kunstenaars onderscheidt. In het geval van Borremans is dit vooral de evocatieve kracht en het plastisch vermogen van zijn tekeningen en zijn doorgedreven hantering van de barokke techniek in zijn schilderijen. Daarbij komt een meteen herkenbare sfeer die hijzelf in het interview \u003ci\u003eDe brioche van Chardin\u003c/i\u003e (op pagina 24 van dit boek) in verband brengt met dromen, maar anderen dreigend of onlogisch noemen. Vooral in zijn tekeningen heeft deze sfeer ook iets speels. In zijn schilderijen schuilt deze speelsheid in kleine schilderkunstige ingrepen en is ze daardoor minder zichtbaar.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eBorremans gebruikt de barokke schilderstechniek, die erin bestaat te werken met transparante lagen olieverf op basis van een ondergrond (imprimatura) die niet wit is zoals bij de Vlaamse primitieven, maar lichtbruin of rood. (Vandaag bestaat de ondergrond soms uit onbehandeld doek of paneel, omdat dit een gelijksoortige kleur kan hebben. Dit is bijvoorbeeld het geval bij Kati Heck.) De lichtere partijen worden lichter gemaakt en de donkere partijen donkerder. Waar nodig kan de imprimatura behouden blijven. Omdat het moeilijker is het schilderij lichter te maken dan donkerder, zijn de lichtere partijen vaak iets pasteuzer (meer opgehoogd) dan de donkere. Het voordeel van zo te werken, als je het vergelijkt met de techniek van de Vlaamse Primitieven, is tijdswinst en de mogelijkheid vlakken aan de randen in elkaar te laten overvloeien, waardoor je een meer ruimtelijk effect kan oproepen en het schilderij minder uiteenvalt in afzonderlijke vlakken.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eSinds 2002 maakt Borremans ook 35 millimeter-films. Voor hem zijn ze een soort van schilderijen, gemaakt met een ander medium dan verf. Hun korrel verleent hen een schilderkunstige kwaliteit, ook al gaat het om een ander medium. De films hebben een eigen po\u0026euml;zie. (Hetzelfde vertelde hij mij ook over de foto\u0026rsquo;s van zijn modellen, die hij echter niet tentoonstelt.) Meestal worden ze vertoond op verticale flatscreens met een houten lijst. Ze mogen niet op een andere manier getoond worden. In een gesprek met de schrijver David Coggins uit 2009 vertelt Borremans dat zijn films niet bewust naar andere films verwijzen, maar dat ze op een open manier inspelen op het bewustzijn van de kijker. Verder zegt hij dat hun ritme erg belangrijk is, dat ze zo traag zijn als de ademhaling. Hij vertelt ook dat hij ge\u0026iuml;nteresseerd is in de esthetica van het eigenlijke filmen, zoals het scherp of onscherp maken van het beeld.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eEnkele jaren geleden ontving Borremans van koningin Paola het verzoek werk voor het koninklijk paleis te maken. Borremans vertelt aan de auteur Renko Heuer dat de koningin hem enkele zalen toonde die ze wilde renoveren en hem carte blanche gaf op een of andere manier in te grijpen. Ze kwam ook naar zijn atelier om kennis te maken met zijn werk en de ontwikkeling van de schilderijen op te volgen. Op het allerlaatste moment veranderde hij echter van idee, zodat de koningin bij de inhuldiging verrast was door het resultaat. Borremans vertelde mij ooit dat het werk misschien niet echt geschikt was, een beetje anarchistisch misschien, maar dat het naar zijn gevoel nog iets te zacht was. Hij had personages afgebeeld in achterstevoren gekeerde uniformen die werden gedragen aan het hof, zodat ze sommigen deden denken aan dwangbuizen. Vandaag kan hij zich echter met de werken verzoenen. \u0026lsquo;Ik heb getracht een beeld van een hofnar te maken,\u0026rsquo; vertelt hij, \u0026lsquo;een kunstenaar die het paleis zowel opvrolijkt als onrustig maakt.\u0026rsquo;\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nEssays over zijn werk\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eDe essays over het werk van Borremans doen denken aan een nest waarin een eend haar eieren niet kan vinden. De lezer wordt er moedeloos van. Een groot deel van deze teksten berust op speculatie. Vaak worden autoriteiten op een niets toevoegende manier aangehaald (bijvoorbeeld Foucault en het panopticum van Bentham) en vaak gaan korte bedenkingen een eigen leven leiden. Zo vertelt Grove dat Borremans zijn schilderijen eens met geesten heeft vergeleken en dat het woord \u0026lsquo;geest\u0026rsquo; kan ge\u0026iuml;nterpreteerd worden als de ziel van een overledene of een lichaamloos wezen, maar ook als een brug naar het spirituele rijk. De curatrice en schrijfster Christine Kintisch gaat onverstoord verder en heeft het over spiritistische seances en andere onzin die Borremans allicht nooit heeft bedoeld. Niemand denkt aan de eenvoudige verklaring dat schilderijen, net als gordijnen en schaduwen, beelden kunnen oproepen die heel even tot leven kunnen komen, vooral in het geval van kunstenaars, die soms over een minder stabiele werkelijkheidservaring beschikken dan hun tijdgenoten. Als wij \u0026lsquo;kijken\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;denken\u0026rsquo; we eigenlijk, en \u0026lsquo;zien\u0026rsquo; we vormen waaraan we gewend zijn. Bij tal van kunstenaars houden die denkvormen echter minder goed stand en slagen ze er niet zo goed in de wezenlijk beweeglijke, vormeloze, niet echt in gestalten opgedeelde wereld rondom ons op een verstarde en daardoor minder bedreigende manier waar te nemen.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eEr zijn grote verschillen in de emotionele benadering van Borremans\u0026rsquo; werk. Grove houdt zich op afstand en schrijft: \u0026lsquo;Een nadere studie van de positie van zijn protagonisten (\u0026hellip;) maakt het onmogelijk je gevoelsmatig betrokken te voelen bij Borremans\u0026rsquo; wezenlijk mimetische scenario\u0026rsquo;s.\u0026rsquo; En een pagina verder schrijft hij: \u0026lsquo;Borremans\u0026rsquo; schilderijen doen alsof ze complexe psychologische toestanden willen onderzoeken terwijl ze elke logica tarten.\u0026rsquo; De problematiek van de tijd in Borremans\u0026rsquo; werk vat hij laconiek samen op de volgende manier: \u0026lsquo;Borremans gebruikt opzettelijk slecht gedefinieerde betekenaars die botsen in dubbelzinnige ruimtes. Deze methode beantwoordt aan zijn wens \u0026ldquo;een sfeer te cre\u0026euml;ren buiten de tijd, een ruimte waar de tijd niet langer bestaat.\u0026rdquo;\u0026rsquo; Deze nuchtere benadering staat in contrast met auteurs die het werk op een meer pathetische manier benaderen. Allereerst wordt daarin steeds beweerd dat de werken van Borremans zich afspelen in een heden dat geen heden is op een plek die geen plek is. Meestal gebeurt daar iets dat eindeloos doorgaat. Zo schrijft de Zwitserse kunstcriticus Hans Rudolf Reust: \u0026lsquo;Adembenemend is de zekerheid dat het geschilderde gebaar onherroepelijk zal blijven bestaan\u0026rsquo; of \u0026lsquo;Maar bovenal cre\u0026euml;ert hij een onge\u0026iuml;dentificeerde plek voor zijn schilderijen door het invoeren van een bevroren tijd, door gapingen tussen bepaalde momenten waarbij de duur van snelle gebaren onmeetbaar uitrekt.\u0026rsquo; De Belgische kunsthistoricus Micha\u0026euml;l Amy heeft het over een sadomasochistisch universum met duidelijke verwijzingen naar het nazi-tijdperk. Christine Kintisch, op haar beurt, heeft het over \u0026lsquo;de troosteloosheid van hun eeuwigdurende ellende\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;een schijnbaar eindeloze nachtmerrie\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;gedoemd om het onverzoenlijke drama tussen verlangen en angst voor eeuwig te herhalen\u0026rsquo;. In het algemeen tracht Kintisch een duistere, spookachtige sfeer op te roepen, waarbij ze niet alleen verwijst naar kunstenaars als Edgar Allan Poe, maar ook naar de schrijver Sebald, op een manier die ongepast lijkt. Het is waar dat in al diens boeken vreemde, bijna transparante figuren voorkomen die er de meest ongebruikelijke gewoonten op nahouden, maar in de roman \u003ci\u003eAusterlitz\u003c/i\u003e, die tracht vorm te geven aan de amnesie van een ontworteld, Joods kind, dienen Sebalds beelden de evocatie van een werkelijkheid die zo gruwelijk is dat ik ze nooit aan hun context zou ontrukken en zeker niet louter om een sfeertje op te roepen.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eAls ik hier al een uitspraak mag doen over het werk van Borremans, dan zou ik het willen vergelijken met een opmerking van Nabokov over wat voor hem het wezen van de literatuur is: \u0026lsquo;Poesjkin de evenwichtige, Tolstoj de nuchtere en de beheerste Tsjechov hebben allemaal hun ogenblikken gehad van irrationeel inzicht waardoor de zin tegelijkertijd wazig werd en een geheime betekenis onthulde die deze plotselinge onscherpte van de blik waard was. Maar bij Gogol is die verschuiving de basis van zijn kunst\u0026hellip;\u0026rsquo; Allicht kan je over Borremans hetzelfde zeggen. Maar wat is een irrationeel inzicht? Waarom voorziet Borremans sommige personages van een eendenbek? En heeft het zin hem dat te vragen?\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nHet mysterie\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eIk vraag Borremans naar het belang van het woord \u0026lsquo;mysterie\u0026rsquo; voor hem, omdat ik zou willen spreken over Magrittes eindeloze pogingen \u0026lsquo;het mysterie\u0026rsquo; op te roepen door dingen op een ongebruikelijke manier samen af te beelden (een giraf in een wijnglas of een fiets op een sigaar). Magritte was zo geobsedeerd door dit gegeven, dat Marcel Mari\u0026euml;n er de spot mee dreef in een pamflet. In het grote aantal brieven dat Magritte over dit onderwerp heeft geschreven, komt hij uiteindelijk tot de conclusie dat het effect het sterkst is als hij alledaagse voorwerpen gebruikt (bijvoorbeeld een te groot ei in een kooi). Borremans antwoordt dat hij het woord mysterie nooit gebruikt en dat er niets bijzonders is aan het plukken van een voorwerp \u0026lsquo;uit zijn gangbaar referenti\u0026euml;el kader\u0026rsquo; en het dan elders te laten opduiken. \u0026lsquo;Wim Delvoye doet dat ook,\u0026rsquo; vertelt hij, \u0026lsquo;door elementen uit de hogere en de lagere cultuur te laten samenkomen.\u0026rsquo; En hij besluit: \u0026lsquo;Neen, als je dat woord tegenkomt, dat is dat omdat de auteurs het gebruiken.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003e\u0026lsquo;Michael Borremans\u0026rsquo;, schrijft Grove, \u0026lsquo;heeft tekenen weleens zijn \u0026ldquo;geheime wapen\u0026rdquo; genoemd. Als hij met \u0026ldquo;geheim\u0026rdquo; doelt op het mysterieuze, zullen weinigen hem tegenspreken.\u0026rsquo; \u0026lsquo;Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans,\u0026rsquo; schrijft hij elders, \u0026lsquo;is nauwgezet en behoedzaam als het gaat over zijn werk: nauwgezet schept hij insinuerende tekeningen, behoedzaam zorgt hij ervoor dat niemand een bedoeling in die tekeningen kan lezen.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eEen vaak terugkerende manier om het werk van Borremans te beschrijven treffen we aan in een tekst van de Belgische kunstcritica, huidige directeur van De Appel en binnenkort directeur van het Frans Hals Museum Ann Demeester. Net als Grove is ze ervan overtuigd dat het onmogelijk is \u0026lsquo;op een logische manier tekening of schilderij te analyseren\u0026rsquo;, maar ze wil het toch proberen. Dan beschrijft ze zijn tekeningen, heel treffend, als volgt: \u0026lsquo;De schilder heeft een bepaalde \u0026ldquo;actie\u0026rdquo; bevroren en weigert ons een verklaring te geven over het kader waarin die momentopname gesitueerd moet worden. Rond het beeld hangt een stilte, een leegte, die voor veel invullingen vatbaar is. Op die manier wordt een soort \u0026ldquo;suspense\u0026rdquo; gecre\u0026euml;erd, als waren deze doeken even vele detectiveverhalen. Doordat Borremans in reeksen lijkt te werken, wordt dit \u0026ldquo;mysterie\u0026rdquo; ten dele opgeheven.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eHet woord \u0026lsquo;mysterie\u0026rsquo; keert vaak terug. In een interview met David Coggins, vraagt die aan de kunstenaar: \u0026lsquo;Er is een mysterie in je schilderijen dat de toeschouwer wil oplossen, maar het is onoplosbaar. Je nodigt de toeschouwer uit, maar je maakt een beeld dat uiteindelijk onleesbaar is. Zoek je naar een soort spanning?\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eChristine Kintisch gebruikt de uitdrukking \u0026lsquo;de mysteries van de schilderkunst\u0026rsquo; en stelt de vraag: \u0026lsquo;welk mysterie bevatten de olijfgroene kraag, de papieren patronen, de grauwe kanten sluier?\u0026rsquo; Samenvattend heeft ze het over \u0026lsquo;een visuele en intellectuele meerduidigheid (\u0026hellip;) die onuitputtelijk provocatief is gebleken.\u0026rsquo; Zonder visuele en intellectuele meerduidigheid kunnen wij ons echter geen kunstwerk voorstellen. Een kunstwerk is iets (bijvoorbeeld een beeld) dat tegelijk iets anders is (bijvoorbeeld een schilderij, een voorwerp). Of omgekeerd: we zien ons geplaatst voor een voorwerp dat we menen volledig te kunnen vatten en zelfs beschrijven, maar er is iets dat ons altijd zal ontsnappen, al was het maar omdat het op een verborgen, niet herkende, niet geformuleerde manier in onszelf woont.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eIn een interview met Borremans stelt Renko Heuer een vraag over \u0026lsquo;dat mysterieuze element, als een raadsel dat de toeschouwer moet oplossen \u0026ndash; zowel de toeschouwers binnen als buiten de tekening\u0026rsquo;. Borremans antwoordt als volgt: \u0026lsquo;De schilderijen bevatten altijd een aantal elementen die refereren aan andere zaken buiten het schilderij. Ik maak mijn schilderijen zodanig dat die referenties nooit samenkomen, het blijft een raadsel omdat niets ooit gedefinieerd kan worden.\u0026rsquo; Even later zegt Heuer: \u0026lsquo;Al die mysteries: Heb jij er antwoorden voor? Of blijven het voor jou ook open vragen?\u0026rsquo; \u0026lsquo;Voor mij zijn het net zogoed volkomen open vragen, omdat het gaat om suggestieve constructies,\u0026rsquo; antwoordt Borremans. \u0026lsquo;Er is geen verhaal. Alles is impliciet. Zo tracht ik een dialoog op te zetten, want als je expliciet wordt, heb je het altijd bij het verkeerde eind \u0026ndash; alsof je gelooft dat er echt een soort waarheid bestaat.\u0026rsquo; Een beetje verder vertelt Borremans een anekdote over een go-cart die hij had verborgen onder \u0026lsquo;een heel oud gordijn uit een kasteel\u0026rsquo;: \u0026lsquo;Je ziet niet echt wat het is, maar je ziet dat het iets technisch is, er zit geen ding van schoonheid onder, en het is een erg monumentale, vreemde vorm die heel erg aantrekkelijk en mysterieus is.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eNatuurlijk wilde ik graag aantonen dat Borremans het woord \u0026lsquo;mysterieus\u0026rsquo; w\u0026egrave;l eens heeft gebruikt, maar eigenlijk brengt ons dat niets verder als we zijn werk beter willen begrijpen of aanvoelen. Waar het om gaat is de vraag waarom dit woord telkens weer zou opduiken en wat we hieruit kunnen leren. Veel heeft te maken met Borremans\u0026rsquo; wens een soort van universele mens te portretteren en geen individuen in concrete, herkenbare situaties. Vroeger deed hij dat door zich te baseren op beelden die hij vond in oude boeken en tijdschriften of op het internet, vaak beelden die dateerden uit de jaren veertig of vijftig, omdat hij een soort van \u0026lsquo;gemiddelde\u0026rsquo; mens uit de twintigste eeuw wenste af te beelden. Zo toont het schilderij \u003ci\u003eThe German I\u003c/i\u003e (2002) ons een man die kijkt naar een soort van rode bolletjes die rond zijn handen zweven. In het gesprek met Renko Heuer zegt Borremans eerst dat hij niet weet wat de rode bolletjes voorstellen, maar nadien vertelt hij dat de man op de oorspronkelijke foto een scheikundig model vasthield.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eVoor de meeste schrijvers roept de dubbelzinnigheid of vaagheid die Borremans oproept door (bijvoorbeeld in dit geval) details weg te laten een onbehaaglijk gevoel op, een gevoel van dreiging zelfs, dat Borremans in het gesprek met Heuer verbindt met zijn levensgevoel: de indruk dat we op een tijdbom wonen, op een vulkaan die elk moment kan uitbarsten, in een apocalyptische, beangstigende wereld waarin alle structuren broos lijken. Hij ziet de wereld als een koude, vreemde plek en hij ervaart dit zowel in zijn contacten met andere mensen als in de politieke en economische wereld. De vraag waarover zijn werk gaat (welk geheim het verbergt), verandert daardoor in de vraag hoe hij dit levensgevoel kan omzetten in tekeningen, schilderijen en films zonder expliciet of eenduidig te worden en hoe hij ertoe gekomen is voor zijn schilderijen die specifieke vorm te kiezen die zo nauw aansluit bij de techniek van Vel\u0026aacute;zquez.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eHet grootste historische voorbeeld van Borremans is Diego Vel\u0026aacute;zquez (1599-1660), een barok schilder die algemeen geroemd wordt omwille van zijn virtuositeit: zijn vermogen om met suggestieve penseelstreken een beeld op te roepen. Borremans bewondert hem echter vooral omwille van de manier waarop hij zijn techniek ten dienste stelt van de psychologie van de afgebeelde personen of van de sfeer van het schilderij. Borremans houdt ook van Goya (1746-1828), Edouard Manet (1832-1883) en Jean Sim\u0026eacute;on Chardin (1699-1779. Vel\u0026aacute;zquez noemt hij echter de koning van de schilders.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eToen ik onlangs met hem sprak over de stijl van Vel\u0026aacute;zquez en Manet, vertelde hij minder te houden van de latere Manet \u0026lsquo;die in veel schilderijen meer impressionistisch is gaan schilderen\u0026rsquo;. Ik bekende dat ik mij van Vel\u0026aacute;zquez vooral de suggestieve toets herinnerde, van ver aangebracht, die slechts op een afstand herkenbaar wordt als beeld en vroeg hem of die Vel\u0026aacute;zquez voor hem minder boeiend was. \u0026lsquo;Natuurlijk is er bij Vel\u0026aacute;zquez die jazzy manier van schilderen,\u0026rsquo; antwoordde hij, \u0026lsquo; maar er is veel meer dan dat. Ik bedoel daarmee niet dat een schilderij naturalistisch moet zijn. Het werk van John Singer Sargent is heel goed geschilderd, maar het is alleen maar virtuoos, verder is het meestal lelijk en oninteressant. Vel\u0026aacute;zquez is ook virtuoos, maar zijn werk heeft een zeer sterke psychologische dimensie, zijn techniek staat ten dienste van iets anders. Als je bijvoorbeeld kijkt naar zijn portret van El Primo, de boekhouder of de secretaris van de koning, dan voel je een zeer groot mededogen. In zijn laatste portret van Filips IV, waarin je ziet hoe de koning is afgetakeld, voel je de relatie tussen de schilder en de geportretteerde. Het is dan ook het laatste portret dat hij heeft mogen schilderen.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eParadoxaal genoeg belanden we zo opnieuw bij Magritte, die immers trachtte \u0026lsquo;niet te schilderen\u0026rsquo; om zijn beelden zo krachtig mogelijk te maken. In het geval van Borremans leidt dit tot de creatie van een dienende, aan een ideale Vel\u0026aacute;zquez toegeschreven techniek, waarbij de verflaag steeds dunner wordt, alsof ze tracht zo weinig mogelijk in de weg te staan van het beeld of een op te roepen sfeer, terwijl die natuurlijk juist hun dubbelzinnigheid en kracht ontlenen aan de tanende materi\u0026euml;le aanwezigheid van de verf. Zo leek de hoofdrol in de soloshow \u003ci\u003eThe people from the future are not to be trusted\u003c/i\u003e in de Zeno X Gallery (2013) weggelegd te zijn voor doorschemerend rood (bijvoorbeeld in de schaduw en in de grote vouw van de jurk van \u003ci\u003eThe Angel\u003c/i\u003e (2013) en het bijna glinsterende oranje tussen de poten van \u003ci\u003eDead Chicken\u003c/i\u003e (2013).\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nEnkele tekeningen van dichterbij bekeken\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans is voor het eerst in de schijnwerpers getreden met tekeningen. Tot op de dag van vandaag lijkt zijn hele universum uit deze tekeningen voort te vloeien. We zouden kunnen zeggen dat hij tekenend denkt. Zelf vergelijkt hij tekenen met schrijven, waarmee hij wellicht bedoelt dat ze het gevolg zijn van een lineaire voortgang, een zichzelf voortdrijvende ontwikkeling, waarbij de zogenaamde inhoud voortvloeit uit een medium dat de bovenhand neemt: dat je bij de hand neemt en naar nieuwe plaatsen brengt.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eEen mooi voorbeeld van zijn tekeningen is \u003ci\u003eThe German \u0026ndash; Dreiten teil\u003c/i\u003e (Gemengde media op papier, 2003). Deze tekening maakt deel uit van een reeks tekeningen met hetzelfde onderwerp zoals, bijvoorbeeld, \u003ci\u003eThe German V\u003c/i\u003e (Potlood en gouache op karton, 2003) waarin we een personage ontmoeten dat lijkt te kijken naar bolletjes die rond zijn hand zweven. In \u003ci\u003eThe German \u0026ndash; Dreiten teil\u003c/i\u003e (2003) wordt een variant van deze tekening geplaatst in een decor, waar ze verschijnt als een reusachtige projectie of een (geschilderde) affiche. De ruimte waarbinnen dit tafereel zich afspeelt wordt opgeroepen door donkere vlakken, waarbinnen toeschouwers of passanten op een uitgespaarde manier worden weergegeven. Tot slot is er onderaan een figuurtje dat het tafereel lijkt binnen te stappen, maar zich tot op heuphoogte \u0026lsquo;buiten\u0026rsquo; de tekening bevindt.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eQua ruimtelijke opzet doet deze tekening denken aan Borremans\u0026rsquo; beroemdste of in elk geval meest besproken tekening \u003ci\u003eThe Swimming Pool\u003c/i\u003e (2001) waarin niet alleen een grote figuur voorkomt (een vermoedelijk met vier kogelgaten doorboorde jongeman die door een hand beschilderd wordt met de zin \u0026lsquo;People must be punished\u0026rsquo;, maar waarin die figuur ook optreedt als onderdeel van een schildering of projectie op de hoge muur van een zwembad, waar toeschouwertjes die zich in het water en rond het zwembad bevinden het grote tafereel gadeslaan. Het derde niveau wordt hier verkregen door de aanwezigheid, bovenaan, van een schets met uitleg, waaruit blijkt dat het gebeuren geobserveerd wordt vanuit de cafetaria van het zwembad.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eEen andere tekening waarin een grote figuur gecombineerd wordt met kleine toeschouwers is \u003ci\u003eA Mae West Experience\u003c/i\u003e (potlood, waterverf en witte inkt op papier, 2002): een tekening van amper 16 bij 20 centimeter, waarin een kolossale sculptuur van Mae West wordt opgeroepen. De sculptuur verschijnt voor een sterrennacht en lijkt zich bovenop een gigantisch sokkel of een afgeknotte berg te bevinden. Er is ook een ingang voorzien, voor wat misschien een groot theater in de vorm van een astrolabium is. Tegelijk bevinden er zich in haar corsage gaten of vensters waaruit met potlood getekende pijlen komen die wijzen naar neergeschreven oneliners van de gevatte actrice.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eEen andere bekende tekening van Borremans dateert uit 1998 en heet \u003ci\u003eVarious ways of avoiding visual contact with the Outside World using yellow isolating tape\u003c/i\u003e (potlood en waterverf op karton). Op deze tekening zien we zes getekende hoofden van jongemannen wier ogen telkens op een andere manier overplakt zijn met gele tape. Ik vermeld deze tekening, omdat ze een duidelijk voorbeeld is van Borremans\u0026rsquo; vermogen tal van tekeningen op \u0026eacute;\u0026eacute;n blad te maken, iets wat ongetwijfeld telkens weer een tour de force is.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eGraag zou ik er de nadruk op willen leggen dat we deze tekeningen niet moeten trachten te lezen als boodschappen, maar als de wonderlijke voortbrengselen van iemand die tekenend droomwerelden oproept, dromen en werelden, die in de eerste plaats lijken voort te komen uit het plezier van het tekenen en zich pas nadien aandienen als mogelijke bronnen voor talloze lezingen en interpretaties, die elkaar niet hoeven uit te sluiten maar juist kunnen verrijken en versterken.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nEnkele schilderijen van dichterbij bekeken\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eVerschillende schilders met wie ik heb gesproken, waren bij de soloshow \u003ci\u003eThe people from the future are not to be trusted\u003c/i\u003e in de Zeno X Gallery (2013) het meest getroffen door het schilderijtje \u003ci\u003eThe Prop\u003c/i\u003e (2013), dat een soort maquette van een boompje voorstelt en heel sculpturaal overkomt. In het atelier van Borremans zag ik een veel grotere versie van dit schilderij, dat door de kunstenaar niet goed bevonden werd. (Al was het nog niet overschilderd.) Eigenlijk zouden we beide versies naast elkaar moeten kunnen plaatsen en trachten te begrijpen waarom het kleintje wel werkt en de grote versie niet. Zelfs voor iemand die al dertig jaar naar schilderijen kijkt, maar zelf niet schildert, is dat geen makkelijke opdracht. Het enige wat je kan doen, denk ik, is luisteren naar schilders wanneer ze willen spreken. Veel auteurs over kunst gaan echter aan de slag met het beeld en schuiven het schilderij terzijde. Ze zien niet dat er zich in het midden van het schilderij een blauw vlakje bevindt dat een soort van opening biedt, een schilderkunstig onlogische toegang tot een onbenoemde wereld, die de al dubbelzinnige wereld van het schilderij lijkt te verdubbelen. Wat kunnen we dan nog over het schilderij schrijven? Dat we een dood voorwerp zien dat een levend voorwerp voorstelt? En dat we zo de wens voelen van de modelbouwer \u0026eacute;n de schilder een illusoire werkelijkheid op te roepen die veiliger aanvoelt dan de onbeheersbaar bewegende buitenwereld?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003e\u003ci\u003eEating the Beard\u003c/i\u003e (2011) stelt een meisje of jonge vrouw voor waarvan het gezicht gedetailleerd, maar lichtjes Richteriaans uitgeveegd, verzonken ligt in een olijfgroene achtergrond. Het lichaam (de schouders) en een gedeelte van het kapsel laten een grijsachtige achtergrond doorschemeren. De kunstenaar is daar gestopt met schilderen, zodat alle aandacht gaat naar de \u0026lsquo;baard\u0026rsquo;, een donkere partij die schijnbaar door de vrouw in de mond wordt gehouden. (Ze heeft geen handen om haar te helpen eten.) Mij deed het schilderij meteen denken aan \u003ci\u003eYoung Girl Eating a Bird\u003c/i\u003e (1927) van Magritte. Toen ik hier met Borremans over sprak, zei hij het schilderij van Magritte niet te kennen. Misschien was hij het bestaan ervan vergeten? Misschien had hij erover gedroomd en het onbewust opnieuw geschilderd? Of misschien is de overeenkomst volstrekt toevallig en is ze voortgevloeid uit Borremans\u0026rsquo; gewoonte gezichten van meisjes of jongedames te isoleren en te vervormen, vermoedelijk gewoon zijn hand volgend, of een interessante vlek.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eHet schilderij \u003ci\u003eAutomat (I)\u003c/i\u003e (2008) toont opnieuw het beeld van een jonge vrouw, maar deze keer in de gedaante van een levensechte pop. Alleen een soort van uitsparing in haar rechterarm lijkt erop te wijzen dat ze een verborgen mechanisme heeft. Achter haar ligt een vleeskleurig voorwerpje, dat misschien het dekseltje is. Het meest intrigerende aan het beeld, echter, is de schijnbare afwezigheid van de benen. De pop / het meisje zweeft boven een oppervlak. De schaduw onder haar rok belet ons te zien hoe dit fysiek in zijn werk gaat. Veel personages in de schilderijen van Borremans worden ter hoogte van hun middel doorsneden met een vlak, bijvoorbeeld omdat ze in een bad met inkt, olie of een andere donkere vloeistof staan of omdat ze tegen een tafel aanleunen. Ik vermoed dat voor veel mensen onbewust niets zo aantrekkelijk is als mensen zonder benen of mensen die hun plek niet kunnen verlaten, bijvoorbeeld caissi\u0026egrave;res en buschauffeurs (die vaak stalker-achtige bewonderaars hebben), net zoals ze het geruststellend vinden dat de vastgenagelde Verlosser of de eeuwig verduldige Maagd steeds vanop dezelfde plek op hun toezien. Toch ben ik niet geneigd een schilderij van Borremans van zo\u0026rsquo;n verklaring te voorzien. Ik blijf ernaar kijken als beelden die zijn voortgekomen uit een jarenlange tekenpraktijk en die vandaag soms de vorm van een schilderij mogen aannemen.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003e\u003ci\u003eAutomat (I)\u003c/i\u003e (2008) doet denken aan \u003ci\u003eThe Skirt\u003c/i\u003e (2005) en \u003ci\u003eThe Skirt\u003c/i\u003e (2) (2005). In het eerste schilderij zien we een meisje met een plooirok dat boven een tafel lijkt te zweven, in het tweede schilderij is het meisje verdwenen en rest alleen de rok (en het paar handen van de naaister (?) dat op beide werken voorkomt). Borremans vertelde mij dat hij momenteel werkt aan een sculptuur waarin een ovalen rok voortdurend ronddraait. Waarom? Ik denk dat deze vraag geen zin heeft. Hoe? Hier wordt het boeiend. We kunnen samen met de kunstenaar zoeken naar technische oplossingen en ons laten verrassen door het resultaat.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nTroost\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eIn tegenstelling met de meeste auteurs die ik over Borremans\u0026rsquo; werk heb gelezen, zie ik geen angst en bedreiging in zijn werk, maar de bijzondere troost die wordt opgewekt door het besef dat iemand die veel heeft meegemaakt nadien nog kunstwerken heeft gemaakt. Als jongeling had ik dezelfde ervaring bij het zien van films van Fassbinder.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eBij het zien van de tekening \u003ci\u003eThe Spirit of Modelmaking (2001)\u003c/i\u003e had ik meteen het gevoel dat Borremans als jongeman een bijzondere esthetische ervaring moet hebben gehad met een oudere man. Toen ik hem vroeg of hij ooit met een oudere man een schaalmodel had gebouwd, antwoordde hij ontkennend, maar als we vernemen dat een van zijn grootvaders hem heeft ingewijd in de geheimen van de fotografie, bijzondere momenten delend in de donkere kamer, waar miniatuurbeelden tot leven komen, dan wordt de biografische ondergrond van het werk onloochenbaar en voelen we ook dat de opgedane esthetische ervaringen vermoedelijk uitzonderlijke momenten waren tijdens een moeilijke jeugd en troost moeten hebben geboden. Die troost voel je.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eBorremans vertelde mij dat hij al het werk van Gerard Reve heeft gelezen, maar niet meer sinds de schrijver is overleden. Dit lijkt een veelzeggende opmerking. De dood van Gerard Reve is te vers. Vel\u0026aacute;zquez, daarentegen, leeft eeuwig voort. Borremans vertelde mij over zijn ontroering toen hij een bepaald werk van Vel\u0026aacute;zquez voor het eerst in levende lijve zag. \u0026lsquo;Ik leefde al zolang met dat schilderij,\u0026rsquo; zei hij, \u0026lsquo;dat het was alsof ik een correspondent ontmoette met wie ik al heel lang correspondeerde, maar die ik nog nooit had ontmoet. Een van de mooie dingen aan dat schilderij is dat je denkt dat je het ook zou kunnen. Je ziet heel goed hoe het gemaakt is. Er ontstaat een dialoog met iemand die allang dood is, gewoon omdat je met dezelfde dingen bezig bent, omdat je dezelfde problemen tracht op te lossen. Dat is een aspect van het schilderen dat ik niet had verwacht. Hoe beter geconserveerd de schilderijen zijn, hoe meer prangend het effect, hoe groter de kick.\u0026rsquo; In het interview \u003ci\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans: Shades of Doubt\u003c/i\u003e, vraagt Renco Heuer welke vraag de kunstenaar zou stellen aan Vel\u0026aacute;zquez als hij hem kon ontmoeten. \u0026lsquo;Ik zou hem vragen of hij er in Itali\u0026euml; een geliefde op nahield,\u0026rsquo; antwoordt Borremans. \u0026lsquo;Ik vraag mij af wat hem daar hield. De Spaanse koning vroeg hem heel vaak om terug te komen, en uiteindelijk keerde hij tegen zijn zin terug. Daarom denk ik dat hij in Itali\u0026euml; een geliefde had.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eOoit vroeg ik Lorne Campbell, d\u0026eacute; kenner van het werk van Rogier Van der Weyden, welke tien vragen hij deze schilder zou stellen als hij de kans had. Dit was \u0026eacute;\u0026eacute;n vraag die hij zou stellen: \u0026lsquo;Toon \u003ci\u003eWashington Portrait of a Lady\u003c/i\u003e. Vertel ons over haar en hoe je haar hebt geschilderd.\u0026rsquo; Enkele maanden eerder, bladerend door een boek dat Campbel in \u0026rsquo;74 of \u0026rsquo;76 heeft samengesteld, werd ik gaandeweg geraakt en uiteindelijk hevig ontroerd door de close ups van de vrouwen die in dit boek voorkwamen. Niet alleen door de manier waarop Van der Weyden deze vrouwen voor ons aanwezig heeft gemaakt, maar ook omdat ik voelde hoe Campbell naar schilderijen keek: niet alleen zoekend naar technieken, maar ook naar mensen. Een dubbele eenzaamheid, gepaard aan een dubbele troost, ontvouwde zich en de tranen rolden over mijn wangen.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eBorremans wordt vaak, op een oppervlakkige manier, vergeleken met David Lynch. Maar wat anders treft ons bij Lynch dan zijn mededogen? Wat anders dan zijn liefde voor alle na\u0026iuml;eve, menselijke strevingen, wars van een onheilspellende wereld die zich vlak naast ons lijkt af te spelen?\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nHet spel (nog eens)\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eWat als we Borremans\u0026rsquo; werk heel even zouden beschouwen als een ode aan de na\u0026iuml;viteit en aan het spel? Veel auteurs zien in Borremans een demonisch demiurg in een zelfgeschapen sadistisch universum. Zou dit te wijten zijn aan een gewoonte kunstwerken zwaar op te vatten? Het is zo dat hij ons mensen toont die bevroren lijken terwijl ze schijnbaar zinloze handelingen aan het voltrekken zijn, maar tonen tekeningen en schilderijen niet altijd \u0026lsquo;bevroren\u0026rsquo; momenten? Kunnen we het afbeelden van deze schijnbewegingen niet gewoon zien als dansante pogingen ongrijpbare droombeelden te maken? En wat de demiurg betreft: kunnen zijn tekeningen niet gewoon gegroeid zijn uit de gewoonte zowel grote als kleine figuurtjes op eenzelfde blad te tekenen? Daardoor zijn ineens (schijnbare) miniaturen ontstaan, die altijd een magisch effect op ons lijken te hebben, bijvoorbeeld als ontwerpen voor reusachtige sculpturen.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eGiorgio Agamben beschrijft in \u003ci\u003eStanze\u003c/i\u003e hoe Baudelaire, naar aanleiding van een jeugdherinnering (waarin hij als kind door ene mevrouw Panckoucke een kamer werd binnengeleid die volhing en volstond met speelgoed), een onderscheid maakte tussen drie vormen van omgang met speelgoed: er zijn kinderen die een stoel ombouwen tot postkoets, anderen die hun speelgoed nauwgezet rangschikken als in een museum, zonder het verder aan te raken, en tot slot diegenen die \u0026lsquo;gehoorzamend aan een eerste metafysische neiging\u0026rsquo; \u0026lsquo;de ziel ervan willen zien\u0026rsquo; en het speelgoed manipuleren, tegen de muur gooien en uiteindelijk openrijten en herleiden tot brokstukken (\u0026lsquo;Maar \u003ci\u003ewaar is de ziel\u003c/i\u003e? Hier begint de stompzinnigheid en de droefheid.\u0026rsquo;) Baudelaire, aldus Agamben, herkent de mengeling van onbevattelijke vreugde en de met verstomming geslagen frustratie waarop de artistieke schepping gebaseerd is, zoals elke relatie van een mens met een voorwerp. \u0026lsquo;Veraf en ongrijpbaar (\u0026ldquo;alleen van jou, ziel van de pop, hebben we nooit kunnen vaststellen waar je je echt bevond\u0026rdquo;) bevindt de pop zich voor altijd aan deze zijde van de dingen; maar ze is ook altijd aan de andere zijde als onuitputtelijk voorwerp van ons verlangen en onze verbeelding\u0026hellip;\u0026rsquo; Agamben wijst er ook op dat de grens tussen speelgoed en zwaarwichtige kleine voorwerpen voor volwassenen verdwijnt in de duistere diepten van de archeologie, waar kleine voorwerpen magische bedoelingen worden toegeschreven en hun kleine omvang meestal wordt toegeschreven aan de schaarste van het materiaal.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eDeze redenering vinden we terug bij Claude L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss die in \u003ci\u003eLa pens\u0026eacute;e sauvage\u003c/i\u003e wijst op de aantrekkingskracht van miniaturen en opmerkt dat in wezen alle kunstwerken miniaturen zijn, zelfs de plafondschildering in de Sixtijnse kapel, omdat die immers een schaalmodel voorstelt van het Laatste Oordeel. Volgens L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss roepen miniatuurvoorwerpen een bijzonder genot op omdat ze in \u0026eacute;\u0026eacute;n oogopslag herkenbaar zijn en we hun afzonderlijke delen niet moeten analyseren zoals in de wetenschap. \u0026lsquo;De esthetische ontroering,\u0026rsquo; schrijft hij, \u0026lsquo;ontstaat doordat deze eenheid tot stand komt binnen een werk dat door een mens gemaakt is, dus virtueel ook gemaakt is door de toeschouwer die door middel van het kunstwerk de mogelijkheid ontdekt van een eenheid tussen structuur en gebeuren.\u0026rsquo; Voor L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss zijn structuren het onveranderlijke en gebeurtenissen zijn nieuwe dingen of ontdekkingen die ondanks alles plaatsvinden, bijvoorbeeld het toevallige bewerkstellingen van vrede binnen een stam door verschillende facties ervan te benoemen met dierennamen. Soms kan een spel de werkelijkheid (de structuur) veranderen\u0026hellip; Agamben, Baudelaire en Claude L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss zijn spelers die goochelen met woorden in de hoop onzichtbare harmonie\u0026euml;n of wetmatigheden te onthullen of te scheppen, net zoals Borremans met zijn tekeningen, films en schilderijen gevoelens, gedachten, beelden en verhalen bij ons oproept die er misschien net zo goed niet hadden kunnen zijn of voor altijd verborgen zouden zijn gebleven in de donkere kasten van onze nauwelijks benutte verbeelding. De man is een goochelaar, een illusionist, die ons een werkelijkheid toont die ons anders zou zijn ontgaan. En die werkelijkheid hoeft niet benoemd te worden, ze speelt zich af buiten onze woorden, in een rijk van fantasmagorie\u0026euml;n die onze werkelijkheid gestalte geven.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nMontagne de Miel, 26 september 2013\u003c/p\u003e\r\n"},{"locale":"fr","short_description":"","description":"\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n__________\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nHans Theys\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cstrong\u003eMyst\u0026egrave;re et illusion\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nSur les tableaux de Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nIntroduction\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003ePour en savoir plus sur l\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre de Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans, le mieux est de se lire ses interviews, car les essais consacr\u0026eacute;s \u0026agrave; son \u0026oelig;uvre ont souvent tendance \u0026agrave; renforcer la confusion que l\u0026#39;artiste suscite d\u0026eacute;j\u0026agrave; lui-m\u0026ecirc;me. Borremans est plus clair quand il prend la parole. Avec beaucoup de sinc\u0026eacute;rit\u0026eacute;, il explique qu\u0026#39;\u0026agrave; la base, son talent pour le dessin \u0026eacute;tait tout relatif mais qu\u0026#39;il \u0026eacute;tait tellement fascin\u0026eacute; par cet art qu\u0026#39;il s\u0026#39;est am\u0026eacute;lior\u0026eacute; gr\u0026acirc;ce \u0026agrave; une pratique intensive. Quand il commence \u0026agrave; peindre, il dit qu\u0026#39;il n\u0026#39;est pas si bon que cela. Et maintenant qu\u0026#39;il a acquis une certaine ma\u0026icirc;trise dans sa peinture (il peut mettre la technique au service de l\u0026#39;image ou de l\u0026#39;atmosph\u0026egrave;re qu\u0026#39;il veut cr\u0026eacute;er) et qu\u0026#39;il r\u0026eacute;alise des films et des sculptures, il fait preuve de la m\u0026ecirc;me h\u0026eacute;sitation. En r\u0026eacute;alit\u0026eacute;, c\u0026#39;est quelqu\u0026#39;un qui repousse constamment ses limites et qui ne peut \u0026ecirc;tre cantonn\u0026eacute; au contenu de son \u0026oelig;uvre, dans la mesure o\u0026ugrave; il ne s\u0026#39;enferme pas dans des figures de style ou des v\u0026eacute;rit\u0026eacute;s. D\u0026#39;ailleurs, ce qui revient constamment dans ses interviews, c\u0026#39;est ce sentiment qu\u0026#39;il n\u0026#39;existe pas de v\u0026eacute;rit\u0026eacute;. Il s\u0026#39;attelle donc \u0026agrave; cr\u0026eacute;er des \u0026oelig;uvres ouvertes, qui (comme l\u0026#39;expriment de nombreux auteurs) contiennent encore des espaces vides et permettent de nombreux niveaux de lecture.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003ePeut-\u0026ecirc;tre ne croit-il pas en l\u0026#39;existence d\u0026#39;une identit\u0026eacute;. Ses \u0026oelig;uvres semblent mettre cet \u0026eacute;l\u0026eacute;ment en lumi\u0026egrave;re. Quand il s\u0026#39;attribue un trait de caract\u0026egrave;re, il parle de nature chaotique, qui lui permet de progresser de fa\u0026ccedil;on intuitive, mu par un \u0026eacute;lan \u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;naissant ou non\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; pour l\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;laboration, l\u0026#39;ex\u0026eacute;cution ou l\u0026#39;ach\u0026egrave;vement d\u0026#39;une \u0026oelig;uvre. \u0026Agrave; l\u0026#39;instar de Luc Tuymans, Borremans est quelqu\u0026#39;un qui r\u0026eacute;alise en premier lieu des images et seulement en second lieu des peintures, ce qui ne l\u0026#39;emp\u0026ecirc;che nullement de souligner syst\u0026eacute;matiquement la sp\u0026eacute;cificit\u0026eacute; de chaque forme utilis\u0026eacute;e, par exemple lorsqu\u0026#39;il affirme que la r\u0026eacute;alisation de dessins s\u0026rsquo;apparente davantage \u0026agrave; de l\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;criture, que le grain est capital dans ses films ou que l\u0026#39;apparence physique d\u0026#39;une peinture se distingue d\u0026#39;un dessin dans l\u0026#39;espace et par son essence m\u0026ecirc;me. Sans s\u0026#39;associer aux repr\u0026eacute;sentants de la peinture fondamentale, qui tentent dans leur \u0026oelig;uvre de pousser les limites de la peinture, il n\u0026#39;en souligne pas moins le fait qu\u0026#39;une image ayant pris la forme d\u0026#39;une peinture sera in\u0026eacute;vitablement analys\u0026eacute;e dans le cadre de l\u0026#39;histoire de la peinture. Le m\u0026ecirc;me principe s\u0026#39;applique \u0026agrave; ses films, bien s\u0026ucirc;r, que l\u0026#39;on ne peut regarder sans penser \u0026agrave; d\u0026#39;autres films. Dans une interview r\u0026eacute;alis\u0026eacute;e avec Peter Dorochenko, Borremans cite quelques cin\u0026eacute;astes\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Bu\u0026ntilde;uel, Sirk, Tarkovski, Hitchcock, Visconti\u0026hellip; Il y en a trop pour pouvoir tous les nommer\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;. Je n\u0026#39;ai trouv\u0026eacute; aucun auteur qui \u0026eacute;tudie en d\u0026eacute;tail la raison pour laquelle l\u0026#39;artiste \u0026eacute;voque ces cin\u0026eacute;astes-l\u0026agrave;, alors qu\u0026#39;on per\u0026ccedil;oit d\u0026#39;embl\u0026eacute;e le lien avec les c\u0026eacute;l\u0026egrave;bres m\u0026eacute;thodes suggestives de Sirk, le souci des tenues vestimentaires d\u0026rsquo;Hitchcock, la sc\u0026egrave;ne d\u0026#39;ouverture du vol en ballon dans \u003cem\u003eAndrei Rublev\u003c/em\u003e de Tarkovski, etc. Le seul cin\u0026eacute;aste \u0026agrave; \u0026ecirc;tre cit\u0026eacute; par les auteurs est David Lynch. Et encore, sans se r\u0026eacute;f\u0026eacute;rer \u0026agrave; aucune repr\u0026eacute;sentation sp\u0026eacute;cifique (l\u0026#39;homme qui fabrique des gommes \u0026agrave; partir d\u0026#39;une t\u0026ecirc;te dans \u003cem\u003eEraserhead\u003c/em\u003e ou l\u0026#39;actrice Laura Dern, nue dans \u003cem\u003eBlue Velvet\u003c/em\u003e, d\u0026eacute;sarmante et choquante \u0026agrave; la fois\u0026nbsp;: \u003cem\u003e\u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;He put his disease in me\u003c/em\u003e!\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eCe qui m\u0026#39;a le plus frapp\u0026eacute; chez Borremans, c\u0026#39;est cette timidit\u0026eacute; difficile \u0026agrave; d\u0026eacute;celer au d\u0026eacute;part qui, en raison de la grande facilit\u0026eacute; d\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;locution de l\u0026#39;artiste, peut ressembler \u0026agrave; de la mondanit\u0026eacute;, de la d\u0026eacute;sobligeance ou de la pr\u0026eacute;tention. Pourtant, on se prend tr\u0026egrave;s vite au jeu et on ressent une sorte de gratitude pour sa capacit\u0026eacute; \u0026agrave; vaincre ou relativiser sa tendance \u0026agrave; la m\u0026eacute;fiance et au cynisme. Le plus beau, c\u0026#39;est que mon premier ressenti a \u0026eacute;galement \u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; celui-l\u0026agrave; quand j\u0026#39;ai d\u0026eacute;couvert son travail. Son \u0026oelig;uvre est un jeu. Et comme le dit Freud\u0026nbsp;: l\u0026#39;oppos\u0026eacute; du jeu n\u0026#39;est pas le s\u0026eacute;rieux mais la r\u0026eacute;alit\u0026eacute;\u0026nbsp;; les joueurs ne prennent rien plus au s\u0026eacute;rieux que le jeu.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nDessinateur, peintre\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans voit le jour en 1963. Il est l\u0026#39;avant-dernier d\u0026#39;une fratrie de cinq enfants\u0026nbsp;: il a trois fr\u0026egrave;res et une s\u0026oelig;ur. Catholiques, ses parents travaillaient sans rel\u0026acirc;che. Son p\u0026egrave;re \u0026eacute;tait pharmacien et pilote de ballon. Sa m\u0026egrave;re \u0026eacute;tait fleuriste et peignait des fleurs. Son grand-p\u0026egrave;re maternel a d\u0026#39;abord \u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; boulanger avant de devenir photographe. C\u0026#39;est lui qui d\u0026eacute;voilera les secrets de la photographie au jeune gar\u0026ccedil;on. C\u0026#39;est \u0026eacute;galement lui qui le pr\u0026eacute;sentera \u0026agrave; un artiste peintre de la r\u0026eacute;gion. Borremans fait des \u0026eacute;tudes secondaires artistiques et \u0026eacute;tudie le graphisme \u0026agrave; la haute \u0026eacute;cole Saint-Luc de Gand. Il travaille ensuite pendant dix ans comme enseignant \u0026agrave; temps plein au Stedelijk Secundair Kunstinstituut de Gand, jusqu\u0026#39;\u0026agrave; ce qu\u0026#39;il d\u0026eacute;cide \u0026agrave; 36\u0026nbsp;ans de vivre de son activit\u0026eacute; artistique. Une premi\u0026egrave;re exposition lui est exclusivement consacr\u0026eacute;e en 1996 au centre exp\u0026eacute;rimental Croxhapox \u0026agrave; Gand. Il perce dans le m\u0026eacute;tier en 2000 gr\u0026acirc;ce \u0026agrave; une exposition au S.M.A.K. Borremans entame sa carri\u0026egrave;re artistique en tant que dessinateur. Selon Jeffrey Grove, conservateur du Mus\u0026eacute;e d\u0026#39;art contemporain de Dallas, Borremans commence \u0026agrave; r\u0026eacute;aliser des peintures \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;huile en\u0026nbsp;1993, mais son travail pictural reste solidement ancr\u0026eacute; dans sa pratique de dessinateur jusqu\u0026#39;en\u0026nbsp;1997. C\u0026#39;est vers 1999-2000 qu\u0026#39;appara\u0026icirc;t une nouvelle lucidit\u0026eacute; avec des peintures comme \u003cem\u003eThe Butter Sculptor\u003c/em\u003e (2000) et \u003cem\u003eThe Assistant\u003c/em\u003e (2000). D\u0026#39;apr\u0026egrave;s Grove, l\u0026#39;an\u0026nbsp;2000 est d\u0026#39;une importance capitale\u0026nbsp;: cette ann\u0026eacute;e-l\u0026agrave;, Borremans cr\u0026eacute;e 46 peintures. C\u0026#39;est aussi \u0026agrave; cette \u0026eacute;poque qu\u0026#39;il r\u0026eacute;alise \u003cem\u003eThe Box (2002),\u003c/em\u003e la premi\u0026egrave;re peinture ne s\u0026#39;appuyant plus sur une image trouv\u0026eacute;e mais sur une mise en sc\u0026egrave;ne. Mais comme les images qu\u0026#39;il d\u0026eacute;niche et qu\u0026#39;il utilise suscitent involontairement la nostalgie chez les spectateurs, Borremans commence \u0026agrave; peindre en\u0026nbsp;2002 \u0026agrave; partir de mod\u0026egrave;les photographi\u0026eacute;s puis film\u0026eacute;s. La m\u0026ecirc;me ann\u0026eacute;e, il commence \u0026agrave; r\u0026eacute;aliser des films qu\u0026#39;il montre \u0026agrave; partir de\u0026nbsp;2007.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nDes trouvailles aux mises en sc\u0026egrave;ne\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eG\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;ralement, les \u0026eacute;tudiants en graphisme apprennent \u0026agrave; dessiner et \u0026agrave; r\u0026eacute;aliser des gravures\u0026nbsp;: xylographie, lithographie, s\u0026eacute;rigraphie et autres formes de gravure. Les premi\u0026egrave;res \u0026oelig;uvres de Borremans qui remportent les faveurs du public sont des dessins r\u0026eacute;alis\u0026eacute;s sur du papier teint\u0026eacute;, usag\u0026eacute; \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;aide divers mat\u0026eacute;riaux\u0026nbsp;: crayon, encre, aquarelle, caf\u0026eacute; et blanc opaque. Borremans va peindre de plus en plus \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;huile. Comme expliqu\u0026eacute; pr\u0026eacute;c\u0026eacute;demment, il s\u0026#39;appuie au d\u0026eacute;part sur des photos trouv\u0026eacute;es, alors qu\u0026#39;aujourd\u0026#39;hui tous ses sujets sont sc\u0026eacute;naris\u0026eacute;s et photographi\u0026eacute;s ou film\u0026eacute;s, le but \u0026eacute;tant de vider le plus possible les images de toute r\u0026eacute;f\u0026eacute;rence \u0026agrave; un lieu ou un moment d\u0026eacute;termin\u0026eacute;.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nLa technique baroque\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eBorremans applique la technique picturale dite baroque\u0026nbsp;: il s\u0026#39;agit de travailler par couches transparentes de peinture \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;huile sur un fond brun clair ou rouge, et non blanc comme chez les primitifs flamands (de nos jours, le fond consiste parfois en une toile ou un panneau non trait\u0026eacute;, car ces supports peuvent avoir une couleur similaire\u0026nbsp;; c\u0026#39;est par exemple le cas chez Kati Heck). Les parties plus claires sont \u0026eacute;claircies et les parties plus fonc\u0026eacute;es sont assombries en y ajoutant de fines couches de peinture transparentes. Le fond peut \u0026ecirc;tre conserv\u0026eacute; l\u0026agrave; o\u0026ugrave; c\u0026#39;est n\u0026eacute;cessaire. Comme il est plus difficile d\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;claircir la peinture que de l\u0026#39;obscurcir, les parties plus claires sont souvent plus rehauss\u0026eacute;es que les parties fonc\u0026eacute;es. Cette m\u0026eacute;thode, si on la compare \u0026agrave; la technique des primitifs flamands, pr\u0026eacute;sente un double avantage\u0026nbsp;: elle permet de gagner du temps et de fondre les surfaces sur les bords, ce qui unifie la peinture et cr\u0026eacute;e un effet spatial plus prononc\u0026eacute;. Les peintures de Borremans semblent devenir de plus en plus minces, ce qui indique qu\u0026#39;il ma\u0026icirc;trise de mieux en mieux la technique. R\u0026eacute;sultat\u0026nbsp;: une technique qui se met toujours plus au service de l\u0026#39;image.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nCin\u0026eacute;aste\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eDepuis 2002, Borremans r\u0026eacute;alise par ailleurs des films 35 millim\u0026egrave;tres. Chacun d\u0026#39;eux est pour lui une sorte de tableau r\u0026eacute;alis\u0026eacute; \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;aide d\u0026#39;un autre support que la peinture. M\u0026ecirc;me s\u0026#39;il s\u0026#39;agit d\u0026#39;un autre m\u0026eacute;dium, leur grain leur conf\u0026egrave;re une certaine qualit\u0026eacute; picturale. Les films ont leur propre po\u0026eacute;sie (il m\u0026#39;a expliqu\u0026eacute; la m\u0026ecirc;me chose pour les photos de ses mod\u0026egrave;les, qu\u0026#39;il n\u0026#39;expose cependant pas). Le plus souvent, ces films sont visionn\u0026eacute;s sur un \u0026eacute;cran plat vertical \u0026eacute;quip\u0026eacute; d\u0026#39;un cadre en bois. Ils ne peuvent \u0026ecirc;tre pr\u0026eacute;sent\u0026eacute;s autrement. Dans une interview r\u0026eacute;alis\u0026eacute;e avec l\u0026#39;auteur David Coggins en\u0026nbsp;2009, Borremans raconte que ses films ne se r\u0026eacute;f\u0026egrave;rent pas consciemment \u0026agrave; d\u0026#39;autres films, mais qu\u0026#39;ils titillent ouvertement la conscience du spectateur. Il y explique aussi combien leur rythme est important\u0026nbsp;: aussi lent que la respiration. Et d\u0026#39;ajouter que ce qui l\u0026#39;int\u0026eacute;resse, c\u0026#39;est l\u0026#39;esth\u0026eacute;tique du processus, comme par exemple la d\u0026eacute;cision de rendre flou l\u0026#39;image.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nLe fou du roi\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eVoici quelques ann\u0026eacute;es, la Reine Paola a demand\u0026eacute; \u0026agrave; Borremans de cr\u0026eacute;er des \u0026oelig;uvres pour le Palais royal. L\u0026#39;artiste racontera \u0026agrave; Renko Heuer, que la souveraine lui avait montr\u0026eacute; plusieurs salles qu\u0026#39;elle souhaitait r\u0026eacute;nover et qu\u0026#39;elle lui avait donn\u0026eacute; carte blanche pour son intervention. Elle s\u0026#39;est \u0026eacute;galement rendue dans son atelier afin de d\u0026eacute;couvrir son travail et suivre l\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;volution des peintures. Au tout dernier moment, il changea d\u0026#39;avis, si bien que la reine fut surprise du r\u0026eacute;sultat lors de l\u0026#39;inauguration. Borremans m\u0026#39;a un jour racont\u0026eacute; que l\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre n\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;tait peut-\u0026ecirc;tre pas tout \u0026agrave; fait ad\u0026eacute;quate, un peu anarchiste peut-\u0026ecirc;tre, mais que c\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;tait d\u0026#39;apr\u0026egrave;s lui encore trop l\u0026eacute;ger. Il avait repr\u0026eacute;sent\u0026eacute; des personnages affubl\u0026eacute;s d\u0026#39;uniformes de la Cour pass\u0026eacute;s \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;envers, si bien que d\u0026#39;aucuns y virent des camisoles. Aujourd\u0026#39;hui, il parvient n\u0026eacute;anmoins \u0026agrave; se r\u0026eacute;concilier avec ses \u0026oelig;uvres. \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;J\u0026#39;ai essay\u0026eacute; de repr\u0026eacute;senter un fou du roi\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;, explique-t-il, \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;un artiste qui \u0026eacute;gaie le Palais tout autant qu\u0026#39;il le trouble\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nEntre myst\u0026egrave;res et miniatures, illusion et r\u0026eacute;confort\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eEssais consacr\u0026eacute;s \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre de Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eLes essais consacr\u0026eacute;s \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre de Borremans font penser \u0026agrave; un nid dans lequel une cane ne retrouve plus ses \u0026oelig;ufs. Le lecteur s\u0026#39;en lasse. Une grande partie de ces textes repose sur la sp\u0026eacute;culation. Souvent, des figures d\u0026#39;autorit\u0026eacute; sont cit\u0026eacute;es de fa\u0026ccedil;on non constructive (Foucault et le panoptique de Bentham, par exemple), et, souvent, de petites r\u0026eacute;flexions vont surgir et vivre leur vie. Jeffrey Grove, conservateur du Mus\u0026eacute;e d\u0026#39;art contemporain de Dallas, raconte que Borremans a un jour compar\u0026eacute; ses peintures \u0026agrave; des esprits et que le mot \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;esprit\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; peut \u0026ecirc;tre interpr\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; comme l\u0026#39;\u0026acirc;me d\u0026#39;un d\u0026eacute;funt ou un \u0026ecirc;tre d\u0026eacute;sincarn\u0026eacute;, ou encore comme un pont menant au royaume spirituel. Christine Kintisch, commissaire et auteur, ne s\u0026#39;arr\u0026ecirc;te pas l\u0026agrave;\u0026nbsp;: elle parle de s\u0026eacute;ances de spiritisme et autres absurdit\u0026eacute;s auxquelles Borremans n\u0026#39;a peut-\u0026ecirc;tre jamais pens\u0026eacute;. Personne ne songe \u0026agrave; une autre explication toute simple\u0026nbsp;: les peintures, \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;instar des rideaux et des ombres, peuvent \u0026eacute;voquer des images pouvant prendre vie l\u0026#39;espace d\u0026#39;un instant, surtout quand il s\u0026#39;agit d\u0026#39;artistes qui ont parfois une exp\u0026eacute;rience de la r\u0026eacute;alit\u0026eacute; moins stable que leurs contemporains. Quand ceux-l\u0026agrave; \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;regardent\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;, ils \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;pensent\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; en v\u0026eacute;rit\u0026eacute;, et ils \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;voient\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; des formes auxquelles ils sont habitu\u0026eacute;s. De nombreux artistes \u0026eacute;prouvent cependant des difficult\u0026eacute;s \u0026agrave; maintenir ces formes mentales et \u0026agrave; percevoir notre monde intrins\u0026egrave;quement mouvant et informe d\u0026rsquo;une fa\u0026ccedil;on fig\u0026eacute;e et donc moins mena\u0026ccedil;ante.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nL\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;claircissement irrationnel\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eL\u0026#39;approche \u0026eacute;motionnelle de l\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre de Borremans est tr\u0026egrave;s vari\u0026eacute;e. Grove garde ses distances et \u0026eacute;crit\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Une \u0026eacute;tude plus d\u0026eacute;taill\u0026eacute;e de la position de ses protagonistes [\u0026hellip;] fait qu\u0026#39;il devient impossible de se sentir intuitivement impliqu\u0026eacute; dans les sc\u0026eacute;narios fonci\u0026egrave;rement mim\u0026eacute;tiques de Borremans.\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; Et celui-ci d\u0026#39;ajouter une page plus loin\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Les peintures de Borremans nous apparaissent comme si elles voulaient examiner des \u0026eacute;tats psychologiques complexes alors qu\u0026#39;elles d\u0026eacute;fient toute logique.\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; Quant \u0026agrave; la probl\u0026eacute;matique du temps, il la r\u0026eacute;sume en quelques mots de la fa\u0026ccedil;on suivante\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Borremans utilise volontairement des signifiants mal d\u0026eacute;finis qui se heurtent \u0026agrave; des espaces \u0026eacute;quivoques. Cette m\u0026eacute;thode correspond \u0026agrave; son d\u0026eacute;sir \u0026lsquo;de cr\u0026eacute;er une atmosph\u0026egrave;re intemporelle, un espace d\u0026#39;o\u0026ugrave; le temps a \u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; effac\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;. Cette approche pragmatique contraste vivement avec des auteurs qui envisagent l\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre de fa\u0026ccedil;on plus path\u0026eacute;tique. Pour commencer, ceux-ci pr\u0026eacute;tendent toujours que les \u0026oelig;uvres de Borremans se produisent dans un pr\u0026eacute;sent qui n\u0026#39;est pas le pr\u0026eacute;sent et dans un lieu qui n\u0026#39;est pas un lieu. Il se passe g\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;ralement l\u0026agrave;-bas quelque chose qui se poursuit \u0026agrave; l\u0026rsquo;infini. Hans Rudolf Reust, critique d\u0026#39;art suisse, \u0026eacute;crit\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Ce qui est fascinant, c\u0026#39;est la certitude que les gestes peints continueront irr\u0026eacute;vocablement d\u0026#39;exister.\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; Ou encore\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Mais avant tout, Borremans cr\u0026eacute;e pour ses peintures un lieu non identifi\u0026eacute; en adoptant un temps fig\u0026eacute;, en introduisant entre des moments sp\u0026eacute;cifiques des br\u0026egrave;ches qui allongent incommensurablement la dur\u0026eacute;e des gestes rapides.\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; Micha\u0026euml;l Amy, historien d\u0026#39;art belge, parle d\u0026#39;un univers sadomasochiste se r\u0026eacute;f\u0026eacute;rant clairement \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;poque nazie. Christine Kintisch \u0026eacute;voque, quant \u0026agrave; elle, \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;la d\u0026eacute;solation de leur mis\u0026egrave;re \u0026eacute;ternelle\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;, \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;un cauchemar apparemment infini\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;, \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;une condamnation \u0026agrave; r\u0026eacute;p\u0026eacute;ter \u0026eacute;ternellement le drame inconciliable entre peurs et d\u0026eacute;sirs\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;. De fa\u0026ccedil;on g\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;rale, Kintisch s\u0026#39;attelle \u0026agrave; \u0026eacute;voquer une atmosph\u0026egrave;re obscure, fantomatique, o\u0026ugrave; elle se r\u0026eacute;f\u0026egrave;re de fa\u0026ccedil;on apparemment incongrue non seulement \u0026agrave; des artistes comme Edgar Allan Poe, mais aussi \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;crivain W. G. Sebald. S\u0026#39;il est vrai que des personnages \u0026eacute;tranges, presque transparents ayant les habitudes les plus inhabituelles se pr\u0026eacute;sentent dans tous ses ouvrages, dans le roman \u003cem\u003eAusterlitz\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;qui relate l\u0026#39;amn\u0026eacute;sie d\u0026#39;un enfant juif d\u0026eacute;racin\u0026eacute;\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; les images de Sebald \u0026eacute;voquent une r\u0026eacute;alit\u0026eacute; tellement atroce que je ne les arracherais jamais de leur contexte, et surtout pas seulement pour cr\u0026eacute;er une atmosph\u0026egrave;re.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eSi je puis m\u0026#39;exprimer ici sur l\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre de Borremans, je la comparerais \u0026agrave; une observation faite par Nabokov sur ce qu\u0026#39;est, selon lui, la litt\u0026eacute;rature\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Pouchkine le s\u0026eacute;rieux, Tolsto\u0026iuml; le prosa\u0026iuml;que et Tchekhov le mesur\u0026eacute; ont tous eu leurs instants d\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;claircissement irrationnel, ce qui simultan\u0026eacute;ment voilait la phrase et d\u0026eacute;voilait une signification secr\u0026egrave;te qui donnait \u0026agrave; ce manque soudain de nettet\u0026eacute; visuelle toute sa valeur. Mais chez Gogol, c\u0026#39;est ce glissement qui est la base m\u0026ecirc;me de son art\u0026hellip;\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; Peut-\u0026ecirc;tre peut-on dresser un parall\u0026egrave;le avec Borremans. Mais qu\u0026#39;est-ce qu\u0026#39;un \u0026eacute;claircissement irrationnel ? Pourquoi Borremans affuble-t-il certains de ses personnages d\u0026#39;un bec de canard\u0026nbsp;? Cela a-t-il un sens de lui demander\u0026nbsp;?\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nLe myst\u0026egrave;re\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eJe m\u0026#39;enquiers aupr\u0026egrave;s de Borremans de l\u0026#39;importance du mot \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;myst\u0026egrave;re\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; \u0026agrave; ses yeux, car je voudrais parler des interminables tentatives de Magritte d\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;veiller le myst\u0026egrave;re en r\u0026eacute;unissant des objets de fa\u0026ccedil;on insolite (une girafe dans un verre \u0026agrave; vin ou une bicyclette sur un cigare). Magritte \u0026eacute;tait tellement obs\u0026eacute;d\u0026eacute; par le myst\u0026egrave;re que Marcel Mari\u0026euml;n s\u0026#39;en moqua dans un pamphlet. Dans un grand nombre de lettres r\u0026eacute;dig\u0026eacute;es par Magritte sur ce th\u0026egrave;me, celui-ci en vient finalement \u0026agrave; la conclusion que l\u0026#39;effet le plus puissant est obtenu en utilisant des objets courants (un \u0026oelig;uf trop grand dans une cage, par exemple). Borremans r\u0026eacute;pond qu\u0026#39;il n\u0026#39;utilise jamais le mot myst\u0026egrave;re et ne voit rien de particulier au fait de sortir un objet \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;de son cadre r\u0026eacute;f\u0026eacute;rentiel courant\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; pour le faire surgir ailleurs. \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Wim Delvoye le fait \u0026eacute;galement\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;, explique-t-il, \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;en assemblant des \u0026eacute;l\u0026eacute;ments tir\u0026eacute;s de la culture \u0026eacute;litiste et de la culture populaire\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;. Et celui-ci de conclure\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Non, si vous rencontrez ce mot, c\u0026#39;est parce qu\u0026#39;il est utilis\u0026eacute; par les auteurs.\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003e\u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;, \u0026eacute;crit Grove, \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;a jadis qualifi\u0026eacute; dessiner son \u0026lsquo;arme secr\u0026egrave;te\u0026rsquo;. Peu de gens le contrediront si par \u0026lsquo;secr\u0026egrave;te\u0026rsquo;, il entend \u0026lsquo;myst\u0026eacute;rieuse\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;\u0026nbsp;. \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;, \u0026eacute;crit-il ailleurs, \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;est scrupuleux et prudent quand il s\u0026#39;agit de son \u0026oelig;uvre\u0026nbsp;: scrupuleux dans la cr\u0026eacute;ation de dessins pleins d\u0026#39;insinuations, prudent dans son souci que personne ne soit capable de d\u0026eacute;coder un quelconque sens dans ces dessins\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eL\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre de Borremans est souvent d\u0026eacute;crite \u0026agrave; la mani\u0026egrave;re de ce texte d\u0026#39;Ann Demeester, critique d\u0026#39;art belge, directrice actuelle du centre d\u0026#39;art contemporain De Appel et d\u0026#39;ici peu directrice du Frans Hals Museum. Tout comme Grove, celle-ci est convaincue qu\u0026#39;il est impossible \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;d\u0026#39;analyser un dessin ou une peinture de fa\u0026ccedil;on logique\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;, mais elle veut quand m\u0026ecirc;me bien essayer. Voici donc comment elle d\u0026eacute;crit les dessins de Borremans\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Le peintre a fig\u0026eacute; une \u0026quot;action\u0026quot; sp\u0026eacute;cifique et refuse de nous donner une explication sur le cadre dans lequel il convient de situer cet instant. Autour de cette repr\u0026eacute;sentation, il y a un silence, un vide qui peut \u0026ecirc;tre combl\u0026eacute; de nombreuses fa\u0026ccedil;ons. Cela cr\u0026eacute;e une sorte de \u0026quot;suspense\u0026quot;, comme si toutes ces toiles \u0026eacute;taient autant de romans policiers. Un \u0026quot;myst\u0026egrave;re\u0026quot; qui est en partie lev\u0026eacute; par le fait que Borremans semble travailler en s\u0026eacute;ries.\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eLe terme \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;myst\u0026egrave;re\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; revient souvent. Dans une interview r\u0026eacute;alis\u0026eacute;e avec David Coggins, celui-ci demande \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;artiste\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Il y a un myst\u0026egrave;re dans vos peintures que le spectateur veut r\u0026eacute;soudre, mais il est insoluble. Vous invitez le spectateur, mais vous cr\u0026eacute;ez une repr\u0026eacute;sentation qui, au final, est ind\u0026eacute;chiffrable. Recherchez-vous une sorte de tension\u0026nbsp;?\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eChristine Kintisch utilise l\u0026#39;expression \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;les myst\u0026egrave;res de la peinture\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; et pose la question suivante\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Quel myst\u0026egrave;re renferment le col vert olive, les mod\u0026egrave;les en papier, le voile de dentelle gris\u0026nbsp;?\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; En r\u0026eacute;sum\u0026eacute;, l\u0026#39;auteure \u0026eacute;voque \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;une ambigu\u0026iuml;t\u0026eacute; visuelle et intellectuelle [\u0026hellip;] qui s\u0026#39;est av\u0026eacute;r\u0026eacute;e intarissablement provocatrice\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;. Sans ambigu\u0026iuml;t\u0026eacute; visuelle et intellectuelle, il est cependant impossible de se repr\u0026eacute;senter une \u0026oelig;uvre d\u0026#39;art. Une \u0026oelig;uvre d\u0026#39;art est quelque chose (une image, par exemple) qui est en m\u0026ecirc;me temps autre chose (un objet, une peinture). Ou inversement\u0026nbsp;: nous sommes plac\u0026eacute;s devant un objet que nous pensons totalement saisir, voire d\u0026eacute;crire, mais il y a quelque chose qui nous \u0026eacute;chappera toujours, ne f\u0026ucirc;t-ce que parce que cette chose habite en nous de fa\u0026ccedil;on cach\u0026eacute;e, non identifi\u0026eacute;e, non formul\u0026eacute;e.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eDans une interview r\u0026eacute;alis\u0026eacute;e avec Borremans, Renko Heuer pose une question sur \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;ce myst\u0026eacute;rieux \u0026eacute;l\u0026eacute;ment, tel une \u0026eacute;nigme que doit r\u0026eacute;soudre le spectateur\u0026hellip;\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;. Borremans r\u0026eacute;pond ceci\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Les peintures renferment toujours un certain nombre d\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;l\u0026eacute;ments qui se r\u0026eacute;f\u0026egrave;rent \u0026agrave; d\u0026#39;autres choses situ\u0026eacute;es en dehors de la peinture. Je r\u0026eacute;alise mes peintures de fa\u0026ccedil;on \u0026agrave; ne jamais rassembler ces r\u0026eacute;f\u0026eacute;rences\u0026nbsp;; cela reste une \u0026eacute;nigme parce que rien ne peut jamais \u0026ecirc;tre d\u0026eacute;fini\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;. Plus tard dans l\u0026rsquo;interview, Heuer demande\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Tous ces myst\u0026egrave;res\u0026nbsp;: avez-vous des r\u0026eacute;ponses \u0026agrave; leur sujet\u0026nbsp;? Ou restent-ils des questions ouvertes pour vous aussi\u0026nbsp;?\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;. Et l\u0026#39;artiste de r\u0026eacute;pondre\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Pour moi, ils repr\u0026eacute;sentent aussi des questions totalement ouvertes, car il s\u0026#39;agit de constructions suggestives. Il n\u0026#39;y a pas de r\u0026eacute;cit. Tout est implicite. C\u0026#39;est ainsi que je tente d\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;tablir un dialogue\u0026nbsp;; quand vous devenez explicite, vous avez toujours tort \u0026ndash; c\u0026#39;est comme si vous croyiez qu\u0026#39;il y a vraiment une sorte de v\u0026eacute;rit\u0026eacute;.\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; Quelques instants apr\u0026egrave;s, Borremans d\u0026eacute;voile une anecdote concernant un go-cart qu\u0026#39;il avait dissimul\u0026eacute; sous \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;un tr\u0026egrave;s vieux rideau de ch\u0026acirc;teau\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Vous ne voyez pas vraiment ce que c\u0026#39;est, mais vous percevez qu\u0026#39;il s\u0026#39;agit d\u0026#39;un objet technologique\u0026nbsp;; ce n\u0026#39;est pas un bel objet, mais une forme \u0026eacute;trange, monumentale qui est tr\u0026egrave;s attirante et myst\u0026eacute;rieuse.\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eBien s\u0026ucirc;r, j\u0026#39;avais envie de montrer que Borremans a bien utilis\u0026eacute; le mot \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;myst\u0026eacute;rieux\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; \u0026agrave; une occasion, mais en r\u0026eacute;alit\u0026eacute;, ceci ne nous aidera pas vraiment \u0026agrave; mieux comprendre ou ressentir son \u0026oelig;uvre. L\u0026#39;important, c\u0026#39;est de savoir pourquoi ce mot revient syst\u0026eacute;matiquement et ce que nous pouvons en apprendre. La r\u0026eacute;ponse se trouve en grande partie dans le d\u0026eacute;sir de l\u0026#39;artiste de dresser le portrait d\u0026#39;un homme universel et non d\u0026#39;individus camp\u0026eacute;s dans des situations concr\u0026egrave;tes, reconnaissables. Par le pass\u0026eacute;, il s\u0026#39;attelait \u0026agrave; cette t\u0026acirc;che en s\u0026#39;appuyant sur des images qu\u0026#39;il d\u0026eacute;nichait dans de vieux livres et magazines ou sur Internet, souvent des images qui dataient des ann\u0026eacute;es 1940-1950, car il souhaitait repr\u0026eacute;senter une sorte d\u0026#39;homme \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;moyen\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; du XX\u003csup\u003ee\u003c/sup\u003e si\u0026egrave;cle. La peinture \u003cem\u003eThe German I\u003c/em\u003e (2002) nous montre ainsi un homme regardant de petites boules rouges entrelac\u0026eacute;es autour de ses mains. Dans son entretien avec Renko Heuer, Borremans dit d\u0026#39;abord ne pas savoir ce que repr\u0026eacute;sentent ces petites boules, mais ult\u0026eacute;rieurement, il explique que l\u0026#39;homme sur la photo originale tenait dans les mains un mod\u0026egrave;le chimique.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eL\u0026#39;ambigu\u0026iuml;t\u0026eacute; ou la confusion suscit\u0026eacute;e (en l\u0026#39;occurrence) par l\u0026#39;omission de certains d\u0026eacute;tails cr\u0026eacute;ent un sentiment de malaise, voire de menace, chez la plupart des auteurs, sentiment que l\u0026#39;artiste, dans son entretien avec Heuer, met en lien avec sa conception de la vie\u0026nbsp;: l\u0026#39;impression que nous habitons sur une bombe \u0026agrave; retardement, sur un volcan qui peut exploser \u0026agrave; tout moment dans un monde apocalyptique, inqui\u0026eacute;tant, dont toutes les structures paraissent bien fragiles. Il voit le monde comme un endroit froid, \u0026eacute;trange, une sensation qu\u0026#39;il ressent aussi dans ses contacts avec les autres ainsi que dans le domaine politique et \u0026eacute;conomique. D\u0026egrave;s lors, la question de savoir \u0026agrave; quoi son \u0026oelig;uvre correspond (quel myst\u0026egrave;re elle dissimule) se transforme en deux questions\u0026nbsp;: comment peut-il traduire cette perception de la vie dans ses dessins, ses peintures et ses films sans devenir explicite ou univoque\u0026nbsp;? Et comment en est-il arriv\u0026eacute; \u0026agrave; choisir pour son \u0026oelig;uvre picturale cette forme sp\u0026eacute;cifique qui rejoint tellement la technique utilis\u0026eacute;e par Vel\u0026aacute;zquez\u0026nbsp;?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eDans l\u0026#39;entretien \u003cem\u003eRare, suggestieve constructies. Een gesprek met Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u003c/em\u003e, j\u0026#39;affirme que dans son livre \u003cem\u003eSculpting Time, \u003c/em\u003eTarkovski d\u0026eacute;crit la po\u0026eacute;sie comme une constellation insolite qui nous rappelle la discordance de la r\u0026eacute;alit\u0026eacute;. \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Si on se repr\u0026eacute;sente cette constellation comme une rencontre entre deux ou trois \u0026eacute;l\u0026eacute;ments qui ne sont g\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;ralement pas r\u0026eacute;unis, on remarque que ceci vaut aussi bien pour la rencontre entre le monde de l\u0026#39;art contemporain et la technique picturale de Borremans que pour la mani\u0026egrave;re dont celui-ci associe ses repr\u0026eacute;sentations. Fid\u0026egrave;le \u0026agrave; sa pr\u0026eacute;dilection pour certaines images, peintures ou atmosph\u0026egrave;res, il pousse ses peintures \u0026agrave; la fronti\u0026egrave;re entre le kitsch et le sentiment, et ce, aussi bien \u0026agrave; travers l\u0026#39;image qu\u0026#39;\u0026agrave; travers la technique picturale. Pour l\u0026#39;artiste, ces images semblent pr\u0026eacute;valoir et la peinture se met donc \u0026agrave; leur service\u0026nbsp;; mais j\u0026#39;imagine que le contraire est tout aussi vrai\u0026nbsp;: l\u0026#39;artiste peint probablement aussi ce genre d\u0026#39;images parce que cela lui donne l\u0026rsquo;occasion d\u0026#39;utiliser des repr\u0026eacute;sentations et des techniques picturales en apparence archa\u0026iuml;ques.\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; Borremans r\u0026eacute;pond cependant ceci\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;C\u0026#39;est tout \u0026agrave; fait faux. D\u0026#39;abord, il y a l\u0026#39;image\u0026nbsp;; puis vient seulement le style.\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nSes mod\u0026egrave;les\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eLe plus grand mod\u0026egrave;le historique de Borremans est Diego Vel\u0026aacute;zquez (1599-1660), un peintre baroque universellement c\u0026eacute;l\u0026egrave;bre pour sa virtuosit\u0026eacute;, sa capacit\u0026eacute; \u0026agrave; cr\u0026eacute;er un monde en quelques coups de pinceau. Borremans l\u0026#39;admire cependant surtout pour la mani\u0026egrave;re dont il met son in\u0026eacute;galable technique parcimonieuse au service de la psychologie des personnages repr\u0026eacute;sent\u0026eacute;s ou de l\u0026#39;atmosph\u0026egrave;re de la peinture. Borremans aime \u0026eacute;galement Goya (1746-1828) et Edouard Manet (1832-1883). Mais pour lui, le roi des peintres, c\u0026#39;est Vel\u0026aacute;zquez.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eQuand nous avons r\u0026eacute;cemment discut\u0026eacute; du style de Vel\u0026aacute;zquez et Manet, Borremans m\u0026#39;a dit moins appr\u0026eacute;cier le Manet tardif \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;qui a commenc\u0026eacute; \u0026agrave; peindre de nombreuses \u0026oelig;uvres dans un style plus impressionniste\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;. J\u0026#39;ai avou\u0026eacute; que ce dont je me souvenais surtout \u0026agrave; propos Vel\u0026aacute;zquez, c\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;tait sa touche suggestive, appliqu\u0026eacute;e de loin, qui cr\u0026eacute;e des images qui ne sont reconnaissables qu\u0026#39;\u0026agrave; distance, et je lui ai demand\u0026eacute; si ce Vel\u0026aacute;zquez-l\u0026agrave; le passionnait moins aussi. \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Bien entendu, Vel\u0026aacute;zquez a cette fa\u0026ccedil;on de peindre un peu jazzy\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;, me r\u0026eacute;pondit-il, \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;mais c\u0026#39;est loin de s\u0026#39;arr\u0026ecirc;ter l\u0026agrave;. Je ne veux pas dire qu\u0026#39;une peinture doit \u0026ecirc;tre naturaliste. L\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre picturale de John Singer Sargent est de tr\u0026egrave;s bonne qualit\u0026eacute;, mais elle est juste virtuose\u0026nbsp;; pour le reste, elle est g\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;ralement laide et inint\u0026eacute;ressante. Vel\u0026aacute;zquez est aussi un virtuose, mais son \u0026oelig;uvre a une dimension psychologique tr\u0026egrave;s forte\u0026nbsp;; sa technique est au service d\u0026#39;autre chose. Si, par exemple, vous regardez son portrait d\u0026#39;El Primo, le comptable ou secr\u0026eacute;taire du roi, vous pouvez y sentir une tr\u0026egrave;s grande compassion. Et dans son dernier portrait de Philippe\u0026nbsp;IV, o\u0026ugrave; le roi est peint d\u0026eacute;clinant, vous sentez la relation entre le peintre et le personnage portraitur\u0026eacute;. C\u0026#39;est d\u0026#39;ailleurs le dernier portrait qu\u0026#39;il a \u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; autoris\u0026eacute; \u0026agrave; r\u0026eacute;aliser.\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eParadoxalement, ceci nous ram\u0026egrave;ne \u0026agrave; Magritte, qui essayait \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;de ne pas peindre\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; pour donner \u0026agrave; ses images le plus de force possible. Borremans cr\u0026eacute;e \u0026agrave; partir de toutes ces influences une technique attribu\u0026eacute;e \u0026agrave; un Vel\u0026aacute;zquez id\u0026eacute;al, o\u0026ugrave; la couche de peinture devient de plus en plus mince, comme si elle essayait d\u0026#39;entraver le moins possible l\u0026#39;image ou une atmosph\u0026egrave;re \u0026agrave; installer, tout en empruntant justement sa force et son ambigu\u0026iuml;t\u0026eacute; \u0026agrave; sa pr\u0026eacute;sence mat\u0026eacute;rielle faiblissante. Ainsi, dans l\u0026#39;exposition solo \u003cem\u003eThe people from the future are not to be trusted\u003c/em\u003e organis\u0026eacute;e \u0026agrave; la Zeno X Gallery (2013), le r\u0026ocirc;le principal semble-t-il avoir \u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; r\u0026eacute;serv\u0026eacute; \u0026agrave; un rouge diffus (dans l\u0026#39;ombre et dans le grand pli de la robe de \u003cem\u003eThe Angel\u003c/em\u003e (2013), par exemple) et \u0026agrave; un orange presque \u0026eacute;tincelant, comme celui d\u0026eacute;voil\u0026eacute; entre les pattes de \u003cem\u003eDead Chicken\u003c/em\u003e (2013).\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nAnalyse de quelques dessins\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans a d\u0026#39;abord commenc\u0026eacute; \u0026agrave; se faire conna\u0026icirc;tre avec ses dessins. Jusqu\u0026#39;\u0026agrave; ce jour, tout son univers semble d\u0026#39;ailleurs en d\u0026eacute;couler. On pourrait dire qu\u0026#39;il pense en dessinant. Il compare lui-m\u0026ecirc;me le dessin \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;criture, voulant peut-\u0026ecirc;tre dire par l\u0026agrave; que l\u0026#39;un et l\u0026#39;autre sont la cons\u0026eacute;quence d\u0026#39;un cheminement lin\u0026eacute;aire, d\u0026#39;une \u0026eacute;volution autopropuls\u0026eacute;e o\u0026ugrave; le contenu d\u0026eacute;coule d\u0026#39;un m\u0026eacute;dium qui prend le dessus, qu\u0026#39;on prend par la main et qu\u0026#39;on emm\u0026egrave;ne dans de nouveaux endroits.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eUn bel exemple de dessin est \u003cem\u003eThe German \u0026ndash; Dreiten teil\u003c/em\u003e (m\u0026eacute;dium mixte sur papier, 2003). Ce dessin fait partie d\u0026#39;une s\u0026eacute;rie sur le m\u0026ecirc;me th\u0026egrave;me comme, par exemple, \u003cem\u003eThe German\u0026nbsp;V\u003c/em\u003e (crayon et gouache sur carton, 2003) o\u0026ugrave; nous d\u0026eacute;couvrons un personnage qui semble regarder de petites boules entrelac\u0026eacute;es autour de sa main. Dans \u003cem\u003eThe German \u0026ndash; Dreiten teil\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2003), une variante du dessin pr\u0026eacute;cit\u0026eacute; est plac\u0026eacute;e dans un d\u0026eacute;cor o\u0026ugrave; elle appara\u0026icirc;t comme une immense projection ou une affiche. L\u0026#39;espace dans lequel se joue cette sc\u0026egrave;ne est cr\u0026eacute;\u0026eacute; par des surfaces sombres, o\u0026ugrave; les spectateurs ou les passants sont repr\u0026eacute;sent\u0026eacute;s avec parcimonie. Enfin, dans le bas du dessin appara\u0026icirc;t un personnage qui semble entrer dans la sc\u0026egrave;ne mais qui se trouve \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;en dehors\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; du dessin jusqu\u0026#39;\u0026agrave; la taille.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eEn mati\u0026egrave;re de structure spatiale, cette \u0026oelig;uvre fait penser \u0026agrave; son dessin le plus c\u0026eacute;l\u0026egrave;bre, ou en tout cas celui dont on a le plus parl\u0026eacute;, intitul\u0026eacute; \u003cem\u003eThe Swimming Pool\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2001), qui d\u0026eacute;voile un personnage colossal (un jeune homme dont le torse est vraisemblablement cribl\u0026eacute; de quatre balles et sur lequel une main peint la phrase \u003cem\u003ePeople must be punished\u003c/em\u003e), ce personnage faisant partie d\u0026#39;une peinture ou d\u0026#39;une image projet\u0026eacute;e sur le haut mur d\u0026#39;une piscine et observ\u0026eacute;e par de minuscules spectateurs plant\u0026eacute;s dans l\u0026#39;eau ou autour du bassin. Le troisi\u0026egrave;me niveau est obtenu par la pr\u0026eacute;sence, en haut du dessin, d\u0026#39;un sch\u0026eacute;ma explicatif, ce qui laisse supposer que l\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;v\u0026eacute;nement est contempl\u0026eacute; depuis la caf\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute;ria de la piscine.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eAutre dessin associant un personnage monumental et des spectateurs miniatures\u0026nbsp;: \u003cem\u003eA Mae West Experience\u003c/em\u003e (crayon, aquarelle et encre blanche sur papier, 2002). Il s\u0026#39;agit d\u0026#39;un dessin d\u0026#39;\u0026agrave; peine 16\u0026nbsp;centim\u0026egrave;tres sur\u0026nbsp;20 dans lequel est \u0026eacute;voqu\u0026eacute;e une sculpture colossale de Mae West. La sculpture, qui appara\u0026icirc;t devant un ciel \u0026eacute;toil\u0026eacute;, semble \u0026ecirc;tre pos\u0026eacute;e sur un socle gigantesque ou une montagne tronqu\u0026eacute;e. Une entr\u0026eacute;e est \u0026eacute;galement dessin\u0026eacute;e, peut-\u0026ecirc;tre pour \u0026eacute;voquer un grand th\u0026eacute;\u0026acirc;tre ayant la forme d\u0026#39;un astrolabe. Le corsage du personnage d\u0026eacute;voile en m\u0026ecirc;me temps des orifices ou des fen\u0026ecirc;tres d\u0026#39;o\u0026ugrave; sortent des fl\u0026egrave;ches dessin\u0026eacute;es au crayon renvoyant \u0026agrave; de petites citations de cette actrice \u0026agrave; la r\u0026eacute;plique facile.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eUn autre dessin connu de Borremans date de\u0026nbsp;1998. Il s\u0026#39;agit de \u003cem\u003eVarious ways of avoiding visual contact with the Outside World using yellow isolating tape\u003c/em\u003e (crayon et aquarelle sur carton). Ce dessin repr\u0026eacute;sente six t\u0026ecirc;tes de jeunes hommes dont les yeux sont recouverts de ruban adh\u0026eacute;sif jaune d\u0026#39;une mani\u0026egrave;re chaque fois diff\u0026eacute;rente. Je mentionne ce dessin, car il montre clairement la capacit\u0026eacute; de Borremans \u0026agrave; r\u0026eacute;aliser un grand nombre de dessins sur une seule feuille, ce qui constitue un v\u0026eacute;ritable tour de force.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nJe souhaite ici souligner le fait qu\u0026#39;il ne faut pas tenter de voir ces \u0026oelig;uvres comme des messages, mais comme les productions singuli\u0026egrave;res d\u0026#39;un artiste qui cr\u0026eacute;e des mondes oniriques en dessinant, des r\u0026ecirc;ves et des mondes qui semblent d\u0026#39;abord \u0026ecirc;tre issus du plaisir de dessiner avant de se pr\u0026eacute;senter comme les sources possibles d\u0026#39;innombrables lectures et interpr\u0026eacute;tations, qui ne doivent pas n\u0026eacute;cessairement s\u0026#39;exclure mais qui peuvent, justement, s\u0026#39;enrichir et se renforcer.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nAnalyse de quelques peintures\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eLors de l\u0026#39;exposition solo \u003cem\u003eThe people from the future are not to be trusted\u003c/em\u003e organis\u0026eacute;e \u0026agrave; la Zeno X Gallery (2013), ce qui a le plus touch\u0026eacute; divers peintres avec lesquels j\u0026#39;ai eu la chance de m\u0026rsquo;entretenir, c\u0026#39;est le petit tableau \u003cem\u003eThe Prop\u003c/em\u003e (2013), qui repr\u0026eacute;sente une sorte de maquette d\u0026#39;arbre d\u0026#39;apparence tr\u0026egrave;s sculpturale. J\u0026#39;ai vu dans l\u0026#39;atelier de Borremans une version beaucoup plus grande de cette peinture, version que l\u0026#39;artiste trouvait inint\u0026eacute;ressante (m\u0026ecirc;me si elle n\u0026#39;avait pas encore \u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; repeinte). En r\u0026eacute;alit\u0026eacute;, nous devrions pouvoir placer ces deux versions c\u0026ocirc;te \u0026agrave; c\u0026ocirc;te et essayer de comprendre pourquoi la version petite convient et pas la grande. Ce qui n\u0026#39;est pas une mince affaire, m\u0026ecirc;me pour un \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;non-peintre\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; qui a l\u0026#39;habitude d\u0026#39;observer les peintures depuis une trentaine d\u0026#39;ann\u0026eacute;es. La seule chose \u0026agrave; faire, je pense, est donc d\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;couter les artistes quand ils ont envie de parler. De nombreux auteurs d\u0026#39;ouvrages sur l\u0026#39;art se lancent cependant dans des analyses de l\u0026#39;image et font passer la peinture \u0026agrave; la trappe. Ils ne remarquent pas qu\u0026#39;il y a au centre de la peinture une petite surface bleue qui offre une sorte d\u0026#39;ouverture, un acc\u0026egrave;s pictural illogique menant \u0026agrave; un monde innomm\u0026eacute; qui semble dupliquer le monde d\u0026eacute;j\u0026agrave; \u0026agrave; double sens de la peinture. Alors, que peut-on encore \u0026eacute;crire de plus sur la peinture\u0026nbsp;? Que l\u0026#39;on voit un objet mort qui repr\u0026eacute;sente un objet vivant\u0026nbsp;? Et que ce faisant, on ressent le d\u0026eacute;sir du maquettiste et du peintre de cr\u0026eacute;er une r\u0026eacute;alit\u0026eacute; illusoire qui semble plus s\u0026ucirc;re qu\u0026#39;un monde ext\u0026eacute;rieur qui \u0026eacute;volue de fa\u0026ccedil;on incontr\u0026ocirc;lable\u0026nbsp;?\u0026lt;0}\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eEating the Beard\u003c/em\u003e (2011) repr\u0026eacute;sente une jeune fille ou une jeune femme dont le visage d\u0026eacute;taill\u0026eacute; mais d\u0026eacute;voilant un l\u0026eacute;ger balayage richterien est plong\u0026eacute; dans un fond vert olive. Le corps (les \u0026eacute;paules) et une partie de la coiffure laissent filtrer un fond gris\u0026acirc;tre. L\u0026#39;artiste a arr\u0026ecirc;t\u0026eacute; de peindre \u0026agrave; ces endroits-l\u0026agrave; pour que toute l\u0026#39;attention se fixe sur la \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;barbe\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;, partie plus sombre vraisemblablement tenue par la femme dans sa bouche (elle n\u0026#39;a pas de mains pour l\u0026#39;aider \u0026agrave; la manger). Cette peinture m\u0026#39;a d\u0026#39;embl\u0026eacute;e fait penser \u0026agrave; \u003cem\u003eLe plaisir\u003c/em\u003e (1927) de Magritte. Quand j\u0026#39;en ai parl\u0026eacute; \u0026agrave; Borremans, il m\u0026#39;a dit ne pas conna\u0026icirc;tre l\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre. Peut-\u0026ecirc;tre avait-il oubli\u0026eacute; son existence\u0026nbsp;? Peut-\u0026ecirc;tre en avait-il r\u0026ecirc;v\u0026eacute; et l\u0026#39;avait-il reproduite inconsciemment\u0026nbsp;? Ou peut-\u0026ecirc;tre cette ressemblance est-elle le plus pur fruit du hasard et r\u0026eacute;sulte-t-elle de l\u0026#39;habitude de Borremans \u0026agrave; isoler et transformer les visages des jeunes filles ou des jeunes dames en suivant probablement simplement sa main ou une tache int\u0026eacute;ressante\u0026nbsp;?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eL\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre \u003cem\u003eAutomat (I)\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2008) d\u0026eacute;voile \u0026agrave; nouveau une jeune femme, mais cette fois sous les traits d\u0026#39;une poup\u0026eacute;e tr\u0026egrave;s r\u0026eacute;aliste. Seule une sorte d\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;conomie dans la peinture de son bras droit semble indiquer qu\u0026#39;elle cache un m\u0026eacute;canisme. Derri\u0026egrave;re elle se trouve un petit objet de couleur chair qui, peut-\u0026ecirc;tre, repr\u0026eacute;sente le couvercle du m\u0026eacute;canisme. Pourtant, le plus intrigant dans cette peinture, c\u0026#39;est l\u0026#39;apparente absence de jambes. La poup\u0026eacute;e ou la jeune fille flotte au-dessus d\u0026#39;une surface. L\u0026#39;ombre en dessous sa jupe nous emp\u0026ecirc;che de voir comment ce flottement se produit physiquement. Bon nombre de personnages repr\u0026eacute;sent\u0026eacute;s dans les \u0026oelig;uvres de Borremans sont coup\u0026eacute;s \u0026agrave; hauteur de taille, parce qu\u0026#39;ils se trouvent par exemple dans un bain d\u0026#39;encre, d\u0026#39;huile ou d\u0026rsquo;un autre liquide fonc\u0026eacute; ou parce qu\u0026#39;ils s\u0026#39;appuient contre une table. J\u0026#39;imagine que pour de nombreuses personnes, il n\u0026#39;y a inconsciemment rien de plus s\u0026eacute;duisant que des gens dont on ne voit pas les jambes ou qui ne peuvent pas quitter leur place, par exemple des caissi\u0026egrave;res et des chauffeurs de bus (qui ont souvent des admirateurs harcelants), tout comme ils doivent trouver rassurant que le Sauveur clou\u0026eacute; sur sa croix ou la Vierge \u0026eacute;ternellement patiente les regardent toujours sous le m\u0026ecirc;me angle\u0026hellip; Pourtant, je ne suis pas tent\u0026eacute; de donner ce genre d\u0026#39;explication aux peintures de Borremans. Je continue \u0026agrave; les regarder comme des repr\u0026eacute;sentations issues d\u0026#39;une longue pratique du dessin qui peuvent parfois prendre, aujourd\u0026#39;hui, la forme d\u0026#39;une peinture.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutomat\u0026nbsp;(I)\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2008) fait penser \u0026agrave; \u003cem\u003eThe Skirt\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2005) et \u003cem\u003eThe Skirt\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2)\u0026nbsp;(2005). La premi\u0026egrave;re de ces peintures d\u0026eacute;voile une petite fille habill\u0026eacute;e d\u0026#39;une jupe pliss\u0026eacute;e qui semble flotter au-dessus d\u0026#39;une table\u0026nbsp;; dans la seconde, la petite fille a disparu et il ne reste que la jupe (les mains de la couturi\u0026egrave;re (?) apparaissent dans les deux \u0026oelig;uvres). Borremans m\u0026#39;a expliqu\u0026eacute; qu\u0026#39;il r\u0026eacute;alisait actuellement une sculpture dans laquelle une jupe ovale tourne sans rel\u0026acirc;che. Pourquoi\u0026nbsp;? Je pense que cette question n\u0026#39;a aucun sens. Comment\u0026nbsp;? C\u0026#39;est ici que cela devient int\u0026eacute;ressant. Nous pouvons chercher des solutions techniques avec l\u0026#39;artiste et nous laisser surprendre par le r\u0026eacute;sultat.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nR\u0026eacute;confort\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eContrairement \u0026agrave; la majorit\u0026eacute; des auteurs dont j\u0026#39;ai lu les analyses et critiques, je ne vois aucune angoisse ni menace dans l\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre de Borremans, mais bien ce r\u0026eacute;confort si particulier suscit\u0026eacute; par le fait de savoir que quelqu\u0026#39;un ayant beaucoup v\u0026eacute;cu puisse encore r\u0026eacute;aliser des \u0026oelig;uvres d\u0026#39;art par la suite. Plus jeune, j\u0026#39;ai ressenti la m\u0026ecirc;me chose en regardant les films de Fassbinder.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003e\u0026Agrave; la vue du dessin \u003cem\u003eThe Spirit of Modelmaking\u0026nbsp;(2001)\u003c/em\u003e, j\u0026#39;ai eu d\u0026#39;embl\u0026eacute;e le sentiment que le jeune Borremans devait avoir v\u0026eacute;cu une exp\u0026eacute;rience esth\u0026eacute;tique particuli\u0026egrave;re avec un homme plus \u0026acirc;g\u0026eacute;. Lorsque je lui ai demand\u0026eacute; s\u0026#39;il avait un jour construit une maquette avec un homme d\u0026#39;\u0026acirc;ge m\u0026ucirc;r, il m\u0026#39;a r\u0026eacute;pondu par la n\u0026eacute;gative\u0026nbsp;; mais quand on sait qu\u0026#39;un de ses grands-p\u0026egrave;res l\u0026#39;a initi\u0026eacute; aux secrets de la photographie en partageant avec lui des moments particuliers dans la chambre noire, o\u0026ugrave; les images miniatures prennent vie, alors le contexte biographique de l\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre devient ind\u0026eacute;niable et on sent que les exp\u0026eacute;riences esth\u0026eacute;tiques v\u0026eacute;cues \u0026eacute;taient peut-\u0026ecirc;tre autant de moments exceptionnels dans une jeunesse difficile, des moments qui doivent tout de m\u0026ecirc;me lui avoir offert un certain r\u0026eacute;confort. Ce r\u0026eacute;confort, on le sent.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eBorremans m\u0026#39;a expliqu\u0026eacute; qu\u0026#39;il avait lu l\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre de Gerard Reve, mais qu\u0026#39;il ne s\u0026#39;y plongeait plus depuis le d\u0026eacute;c\u0026egrave;s de l\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;crivain. Cette remarque semble en dire long. La mort de Gerard Reve est trop fra\u0026icirc;che. Vel\u0026aacute;zquez, en revanche, se perp\u0026eacute;tue \u0026eacute;ternellement. Borremans m\u0026#39;a relat\u0026eacute; son \u0026eacute;moi quand il a vu pour la premi\u0026egrave;re fois une certaine \u0026oelig;uvre de Vel\u0026aacute;zquez en vrai\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Cela faisait d\u0026eacute;j\u0026agrave; si longtemps que je vivais avec cette peinture\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;, expliqua-t-il, \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;que c\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;tait comme si je rencontrais une personne avec laquelle je correspondais depuis tr\u0026egrave;s longtemps mais que je n\u0026#39;avais encore jamais rencontr\u0026eacute;e. Ce qui est magnifique avec cette peinture, c\u0026#39;est quand vous pensez que vous pourriez aussi la r\u0026eacute;aliser. Vous voyez tr\u0026egrave;s bien comment elle a \u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; faite. Il na\u0026icirc;t un dialogue avec quelqu\u0026#39;un qui est mort depuis tr\u0026egrave;s longtemps, simplement parce que les m\u0026ecirc;mes choses vous occupent, parce que vous essayez de r\u0026eacute;soudre les m\u0026ecirc;mes probl\u0026egrave;mes. Voil\u0026agrave; un aspect de la peinture auquel je ne m\u0026#39;attendais pas. Plus les peintures sont bien conserv\u0026eacute;es, plus l\u0026#39;effet est oppressant, plus la stimulation est grande.\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; Dans l\u0026#39;interview \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans: Shades of Doubt\u003c/em\u003e, Renko Heuer demande \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;artiste quelle question il poserait \u0026agrave; Vel\u0026aacute;zquez s\u0026#39;il pouvait le rencontrer. \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Je lui demanderais s\u0026#39;il entretenait une relation amoureuse en Italie\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;, r\u0026eacute;pond Borremans, \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Je me demande ce qui le retenait l\u0026agrave;-bas. Le roi d\u0026#39;Espagne le priait tr\u0026egrave;s souvent de revenir, ce qu\u0026#39;il a finalement fait contre son gr\u0026eacute;. C\u0026#39;est pourquoi je pense qu\u0026#39;il avait une relation amoureuse en Italie\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eUn jour, j\u0026#39;ai demand\u0026eacute; \u0026agrave; Lorne Campbell, \u003cem\u003ele\u003c/em\u003e sp\u0026eacute;cialiste de l\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre de Rogier Van der Weyden, quelles seraient les dix questions qu\u0026#39;il poserait \u0026agrave; ce peintre s\u0026#39;il en avait l\u0026rsquo;occasion. Voici une des questions qu\u0026#39;il soumettrait \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;artiste\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Pr\u0026eacute;sentez-nous le \u003cem\u003eWashington Portrait of a Lady\u003c/em\u003e. Parlez-nous de cette femme et dites-nous comment vous l\u0026#39;avez peinte.\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; Quelques mois plus t\u0026ocirc;t, en feuilletant un livre r\u0026eacute;dig\u0026eacute; par Campbell en 1974 ou 1976, j\u0026#39;ai \u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; peu \u0026agrave; peu touch\u0026eacute; puis finalement boulevers\u0026eacute; par les gros plans des femmes pr\u0026eacute;sent\u0026eacute;s dans cet ouvrage. Boulevers\u0026eacute; par la mani\u0026egrave;re dont Van der Weyden a r\u0026eacute;ussi \u0026agrave; rendre la pr\u0026eacute;sence de ces femmes dans la peinture, mais aussi parce que je sentais \u003cem\u003ecomment\u003c/em\u003e Campbell regardait les \u0026oelig;uvres\u0026nbsp;: il ne cherchait pas seulement les techniques, il cherchait aussi les gens. Une double solitude associ\u0026eacute;e \u0026agrave; un double r\u0026eacute;confort s\u0026#39;est alors d\u0026eacute;ploy\u0026eacute;e devant moi, et les larmes ont coul\u0026eacute; sur mes joues.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eBorremans est souvent compar\u0026eacute;, de fa\u0026ccedil;on superficielle, \u0026agrave; David Lynch. Mais chez Lynch, quoi d\u0026#39;autre nous touche que sa compassion\u0026nbsp;? Quoi d\u0026#39;autre que son amour pour les tentatives humaines, na\u0026iuml;ves, \u0026agrave; l\u0026#39;encontre d\u0026#39;un monde sinistre qui semble \u0026eacute;voluer juste \u0026agrave; c\u0026ocirc;t\u0026eacute; de nous\u0026nbsp;?\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nLe jeu\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eEt si l\u0026#39;espace d\u0026#39;un instant, nous consid\u0026eacute;rions l\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;uvre de Borremans comme une ode \u0026agrave; la na\u0026iuml;vet\u0026eacute; et au jeu\u0026nbsp;? De nombreux auteurs voient en lui un d\u0026eacute;miurge d\u0026eacute;moniaque \u0026eacute;voluant dans un univers sadique autocr\u0026eacute;\u0026eacute;. Serait-ce d\u0026ucirc; \u0026agrave; une coutume voulant que les \u0026oelig;uvres d\u0026#39;art soient comprises de fa\u0026ccedil;on grave et pesante\u0026nbsp;? Il est vrai que l\u0026#39;artiste nous montre des personnages qui semblent fig\u0026eacute;s alors qu\u0026#39;ils sont en train de poser des actes en apparence insens\u0026eacute;s, mais\u0026hellip; Les peintures et les dessins ne montrent-ils pas toujours des moments \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;fig\u0026eacute;s\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;\u0026nbsp;? Ne pouvons-nous pas simplement voir la repr\u0026eacute;sentation de ces mouvements apparents comme autant de tentatives dansantes de cr\u0026eacute;er des images insaisissables\u0026nbsp;? Et en ce qui concerne le d\u0026eacute;miurge\u0026nbsp;: ses dessins ne peuvent-ils simplement pas \u0026ecirc;tre issus de son habitude \u0026agrave; repr\u0026eacute;senter plusieurs personnages, petits et grands, sur une m\u0026ecirc;me feuille\u0026nbsp;? Une d\u0026eacute;marche qui, soudain, fait surgir des miniatures (apparentes), qui semblent toujours avoir un effet magique sur nous, par exemple en tant que projets \u0026agrave; la base de sculptures monumentales.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eDans \u003cem\u003eStanze, \u003c/em\u003eGiorgio Agamben d\u0026eacute;crit comment Baudelaire, en se souvenant d\u0026rsquo;un moment de sa jeunesse (quand il \u0026eacute;tait enfant, une certaine dame Panckoucke l\u0026#39;avait conduit dans une pi\u0026egrave;ce remplie de jouets), avait distingu\u0026eacute; trois formes d\u0026#39;appr\u0026eacute;hension des jouets\u0026nbsp;: il y a des enfants qui transforment une chaise en diligence, d\u0026#39;autres qui rangent m\u0026eacute;ticuleusement leurs jouets comme dans un mus\u0026eacute;e et ne les touchent plus par la suite, et enfin ceux qui, ob\u0026eacute;issant \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;\u0026agrave; une premi\u0026egrave;re tendance m\u0026eacute;taphysique\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;, veulent \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;voir l\u0026#39;\u0026acirc;me\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; et secouent le jouet, le jettent contre le mur et finissent par l\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;ventrer et le r\u0026eacute;duire en miettes (\u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Mais \u003cem\u003eo\u0026ugrave; est l\u0026#39;\u0026acirc;me\u0026nbsp;?\u003c/em\u003e C\u0026#39;est ici que commencent l\u0026#39;h\u0026eacute;b\u0026eacute;tement et la tristesse\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo;). D\u0026#39;apr\u0026egrave;s Agamben, Baudelaire reconna\u0026icirc;t le m\u0026eacute;lange de joie incompr\u0026eacute;hensible et de frustration n\u0026eacute;e de la stup\u0026eacute;faction sur lequel s\u0026#39;appuie la cr\u0026eacute;ation artistique, comme toute relation d\u0026#39;un homme avec un objet\u0026nbsp;: \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;Lointaine et insaisissable (\u0026quot;de toi seule, \u0026acirc;me de la poup\u0026eacute;e, l\u0026rsquo;on a jamais pu dire o\u0026ugrave; tu te trouvais vraiment\u0026quot;), la poup\u0026eacute;e est infiniment en de\u0026ccedil;\u0026agrave; des choses\u0026nbsp;; mais elle est aussi infiniment au-del\u0026agrave;, pour cette raison m\u0026ecirc;me peut-\u0026ecirc;tre, en tant qu\u0026#39;objet in\u0026eacute;puisable de notre d\u0026eacute;sir et de notre imagination\u0026hellip;\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; Agamben indique par ailleurs que la fronti\u0026egrave;re entre les jouets et les petits objets pontifiants pour les adultes dispara\u0026icirc;t dans les profondeurs obscures de l\u0026#39;arch\u0026eacute;ologie, o\u0026ugrave; des objets de petite taille se voient attribuer des intentions magiques et o\u0026ugrave; leurs faibles dimensions sont g\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;ralement attribu\u0026eacute;es \u0026agrave; la raret\u0026eacute; du mat\u0026eacute;riau.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eClaude L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss tient le m\u0026ecirc;me raisonnement dans \u003cem\u003eLa pens\u0026eacute;e sauvage\u003c/em\u003e, o\u0026ugrave; il \u0026eacute;voque le charme des miniatures et fait remarquer qu\u0026#39;au fond, toutes les \u0026oelig;uvres d\u0026#39;art sont des miniatures, m\u0026ecirc;me le plafond de la Chapelle Sixtine, car celle-ci propose un mod\u0026egrave;le r\u0026eacute;duit du Jugement dernier (on rencontre un raisonnement similaire chez Giacometti, qui, dans une interview avec David Sylvester, affirme que la hauteur id\u0026eacute;ale d\u0026#39;une sculpture est plus ou moins celle d\u0026#39;une main. M\u0026ecirc;me pour les sculptures colossales d\u0026#39;\u0026Eacute;gypte, dit-il, car il faut les regarder de loin pour pouvoir les percevoir dans leur globalit\u0026eacute;). Selon L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss, les objets miniatures suscitent un plaisir particulier, parce qu\u0026#39;ils peuvent \u0026ecirc;tre reconnus en un clin d\u0026#39;\u0026oelig;il et que nous ne devons pas analyser s\u0026eacute;par\u0026eacute;ment leurs diff\u0026eacute;rentes parties comme en science. Ici, je ne peux dire grand-chose de plus sans expliquer la signification de cette derni\u0026egrave;re phrase (les structures sont l\u0026#39;\u0026eacute;l\u0026eacute;ment invariable et les \u0026eacute;v\u0026eacute;nements sont les nouvelles choses ou d\u0026eacute;couvertes qui se produisent malgr\u0026eacute; tout, par exemple une r\u0026eacute;conciliation fortuite au sein d\u0026#39;un clan en donnant aux diff\u0026eacute;rentes factions des noms d\u0026#39;animaux)\u0026nbsp;; mais je pourrais n\u0026eacute;anmoins ajouter qu\u0026#39;Agamben, Baudelaire et L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss sont des joueurs qui jonglent avec les mots dans l\u0026#39;espoir de d\u0026eacute;voiler ou de cr\u0026eacute;er des harmonies ou des ph\u0026eacute;nom\u0026egrave;nes invisibles\u0026hellip; tout comme Borremans suscite chez nous, par ses dessins, ses films et ses peintures, des \u0026eacute;motions, des pens\u0026eacute;es, des images et des histoires qui, sinon, n\u0026#39;auraient peut-\u0026ecirc;tre jamais exist\u0026eacute; ou seraient peut-\u0026ecirc;tre rest\u0026eacute;es \u0026agrave; jamais dissimul\u0026eacute;es dans les tiroirs sombres de notre imagination sous-exploit\u0026eacute;e. L\u0026#39;homme est un jongleur, un illusionniste qui nous montre une r\u0026eacute;alit\u0026eacute; que nous n\u0026#39;aurions autrement pas per\u0026ccedil;ue. Et cette r\u0026eacute;alit\u0026eacute;, nul besoin de la nommer\u0026nbsp;: elle se d\u0026eacute;ploie au-del\u0026agrave; des mots, dans un empire de fantasmagories qui donnent vie \u0026agrave; notre r\u0026eacute;alit\u0026eacute;.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nMontagne de Miel, 26 septembre 2013\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr /\u003e\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003eOuvrages cit\u0026eacute;s\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: justify;\"\u003e-Giorgio Agamben, \u003cem\u003eStanze\u003c/em\u003e, Christian Bourgeois Editeur, Paris, 1981.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-Stefan Beys. \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans. Spartelen in het sadomasochistische universum. De geheime charmes van het enigma\u003c/em\u003e. http://d-sites.net/nederlands/borremans.htm\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-\u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u003c/em\u003e, Vereniging van het S.MA.K., Gand, 2002.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-\u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans. Zeichnungen / Tekeningen / Drawings\u003c/em\u003e, Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther K\u0026ouml;nig, Cologne, 2004.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-\u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe Performance\u003c/em\u003e, Hatje Cantz, Ostfildern, 2005.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-\u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans, Whistling a Happy Tune\u003c/em\u003e. Drawings / Tekeningen, Ludion, 2008.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-\u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans, Paintings\u003c/em\u003e, Hatje Cantz, Ostfildern, 2009.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans, \u003cem\u003eEating the Beard\u003c/em\u003e, Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern, 2010.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans, \u003cem\u003eMagnetics\u003c/em\u003e, Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern, 2013.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-David Coggins, \u003cem\u003eInterview: Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eArt in America 3, N\u0026deg;1\u003c/em\u003e, mars 2009. Cf. http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/magazine/michael-borremans/\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-\u003cem\u003eGiacometti. Sculptures. Paintings. Drawings\u003c/em\u003e, Arts Council, Londres, 1980.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-Renko Heuer, \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans: Shades of Doubt\u003c/em\u003e, in\u0026nbsp;: Mono.Kultur #31\u0026ndash; Spring 2012.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-Claude L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss, \u003cem\u003eLa pens\u0026eacute;e sauvage\u003c/em\u003e, Plon, Paris, 1962.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-Ren\u0026eacute; Magritte, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ugrave;Ecrits complets\u003c/em\u003e, Flammarion, 2009.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-Ren\u0026eacute; Magritte. \u003cem\u003eLettres \u0026agrave; Andr\u0026eacute; Bosmans 1958-1967\u003c/em\u003e, Seghers \u0026ndash; Isy Bachot, 1990.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-\u003cem\u003eMarcel Mari\u0026euml;n\u003c/em\u003e, Galery Isy Brachot, Bruxelles, 1989.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-Vladimir Nabokov, \u003cem\u003eGogol\u003c/em\u003e, Uitgeverij De Arbeiderspers, Amsterdam, 1983, p. 134.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-Vladimir Nabokov, \u003cem\u003eGeheugen, spreek\u003c/em\u003e, Uitgeverij De Bezige Bij, Amsterdam, p. 120.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-Hans Theys, \u003cem\u003eDe brioche van Chardin. Een gesprek met Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u003c/em\u003e, ao\u0026ucirc;t 2010, non publi\u0026eacute;.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-Hans Theys, \u003cem\u003eRare, suggestieve constructies. Een gesprek met Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u003c/em\u003e, in\u0026nbsp;: \u0026lt;H\u0026gt;ART #73, octobre 2010.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n-Hilde Van Canneyt, Interview avec Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans et Manor Grunewald. Gand, 26 mars 2009. http://hildevancanneyt.blogspot.be/2009/09/beide-kunstenaars-verwittigen-me-op.html\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cem\u003e-\u003c/em\u003eMargot Vanderstraeten, \u003cem\u003eIk geef geen antwoorden omdat er geen antwoorden zijn\u003c/em\u003e, lieu de publication inconnu, 2009.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n"},{"locale":"ru","short_description":"","description":""},{"locale":"de","short_description":"","description":"\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n__________\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nHans Theys\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cstrong\u003eMystery and Illusion\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nAbout Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u0026rsquo; paintings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nIntroduction\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eAnyone who desires to learn more about Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work should definitely read the interviews. As a rule, the essays on his work only serve to deepen the confusion he personally evokes in his pieces. However, Borremans is perfectly coherent when he is the one doing the talking. He openly reveals that he originally did not possess any obvious talent for drawing, but was so fascinated by it that frequent practice enabled him to gradually improve his skill. When he started to paint, he stated that he was not a very good painter. Now that his paintings have acquired a certain mastery (he is able to apply the technique to serve the image or the atmosphere he wants to evoke) and he has started producing films and sculptures, he displays the same reserve. He is, in fact, someone who constantly pushes his boundaries and just as it is hard to specify the so-called content of his work, he himself is hard to peg because he does not confine himself to figures of speech or truths. One constant in the interviews is his belief that truth does not exist. This is why he tries to create open works; works that still contain empty space (as many authors describe it), thus leaving them open to a wide range of interpretations.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003ePerhaps he does not believe that identity exists. His images do appear to hint at this. When he does assign himself a character trait, it is a chaotic nature, which makes it possible for him to advance in an intuitive manner, at times driven by apparent inspiration for the design, elaboration or completion of an image, and at others nothing. Just like Luc Tuymans, Borremans is someone that creates images first and paintings second. However, this does not prevent him from repeatedly placing the emphasis on the specificities of each form used, for example when he says that producing drawings is more like writing, that the granularity in his films is extremely important or that the physical manifestation of a painting, spatially as well as essentially, makes a difference compared to drawings. Without being associated with more fundamental painters, who appear to explore the boundaries of the art of painting in their work, he nevertheless emphasises the fact that an image that has assumed the form of a painting is inevitably interpreted according to the history of painting. The same is true for his films of course, which cannot be viewed without them calling other films to mind. In an interview with Peter Dorochenko, Borremans names several film makers: \u0026ldquo;Bu\u0026ntilde;uel, Sirk, Tarkovsky, Hitchcock, Visconti, etc. Too many to mention.\u0026rdquo; I have not found an author that has closely studied why these particular film makers were cited, while one can directly identify links with the famous suggestive techniques employed by Sirk, the attention Hitchcock devoted to clothes, the opening scene depicting the balloon flight in Tarkovsky\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eAndrei Rublev,\u003c/em\u003e etc. The only film maker the authors name is David Lynch, and then it\u0026rsquo;s without referring to any specific image (the man that makes erasers out of a head in \u003cem\u003eEraserhead\u003c/em\u003e or the disarming and at the same time shocking naked Laura Dern in \u003cem\u003eBlue Velvet\u003c/em\u003e: \u0026ldquo;He put his disease in me!\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eWhat struck me most about Borremans is his shyness, which is initially difficult to detect, and which can come across as dull, offensive or arrogant due to his verbal communication skills. However, you soon start to enjoy the game and feel a sense of gratitude for the way in which he is able to overcome or put into context his propensity for suspicion and cynicism. The beauty of it is that I have identified this in his work from the very beginning. His work is a game. And to paraphrase Freud, \u0026ldquo;People believe that play and seriousness are opposites, but it is not true: the reality we are allotted is the opposite of play, while players take nothing more serious than the game.\u0026rdquo;\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nDraughtsman, painter\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans was born in 1963. He is the fourth child out of five; he has three brothers and a sister. His parents were hardworking and Catholic. His father was a pharmacist and a balloonist. His mother ran a flower shop and painted flowers. His grandfather, on his mother\u0026rsquo;s side, was originally a baker, but later became a photographer. He imparted the secrets of photography to his grandson. He was also the one that introduced young Borremans to a local artist. Borremans studied at Sint-Lucas arts secondary school (\u003cem\u003ekunsthumaniora\u003c/em\u003e) and Sint-Lucas School of Arts in Ghent, where he specialised in graphic art. Later on, he worked full-time as a teacher for ten years at the Ghent City Secondary Arts Institute until he reached the age of thirty-six, when he decided to try and survive on his artistic work. He was granted his first solo exhibition in 1996, at the Croxhapox experimental art house in Ghent. In 2000, his big break came in the form of an exhibition at the S.M.A.K. in Ghent. Borremans began his artistic career as a draughtsman. According to Jeffrey Grove, curator of the Dallas Museum of Art, Borremans began to paint with oil paint in 1993; however, his painting remained strongly rooted in his practice as a draughtsman until 1997. In around 1999-2000, a new clarity materialised with paintings such as \u003cem\u003eThe Butter Sculptor\u003c/em\u003e (2000) and \u003cem\u003eThe Assistant\u003c/em\u003e (2000). Grove believes that the year 2000 was decisive, with the creation of forty-six paintings. \u003cem\u003eThe Box (2002) \u003c/em\u003ewas also produced at this time: it was the first painting that had not been based on an image the artist had found, but was produced from a \u003cem\u003emise en sc\u0026egrave;ne\u003c/em\u003e. Since 2002, Borremans had based his paintings on photographed and later filmed models, initially because the photographs he had found and then used made an unintentional nostalgic impression on the public. He has been producing films since 2002, which he started screening in 2007.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nFrom found to staged\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eIn general, if you train as a graphic artist, it means that you learn to draw and work with woodcut, lithography and all forms of etching and screen printing. The first works that earned Borremans public success were drawings he had produced on used, tinted paper with materials such as pencil, ink, watercolour, coffee and opaque white. Borremans gradually started to paint more frequently with oil paint. As already mentioned, he had initially based his work on photographs he had found, whereas he now stages and photographs or films his subjects, which means that the images are stripped as far as possible of any reference to a particular place or time.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nBaroque painting technique\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eBorremans uses the Baroque painting technique, which consists of working with transparent layers of oil paint on a surface that is not white as in the case of the Flemish Primitives, but provided with a light brown or red ground-layer. (The foundation now sometimes consists of untreated canvas or a panel because they can provide a similar colour. This is the case in Kati Heck\u0026rsquo;s work, for example.) The lighter elements are lightened and the darker elements are darkened by adding transparent layers of paint. Where necessary, the ground-layer can be retained. Since it is more difficult to lighten the painting than it is to darken it, the lighter elements are often more paste-like (more raised) than the dark ones. The advantage of this method, if one compares it to that adopted by the Flemish Primitives, is that it saves time and affords the artist the opportunity to allow areas to melt into one another at the edges, which can create a more spatial effect and reduce the painting\u0026rsquo;s tendency to break down into separate sections. It seems as though Borremans\u0026rsquo;s paintings are becoming thinner, which demonstrates that he continues to refine his mastery of the technique. The result is that the technique increasingly serves the image.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nFilm maker\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eSince 2002, Borremans has also produced 35-millimetre films. To him, they represent a type of painting, created with a medium other than paint. Their granularity affords them an artistic quality, even though they constitute a different medium. The films are imbued with their own poetry. (He told me the same thing about the photographs of his models, which he does not exhibit.) They are usually screened on vertical flat screens inside a wooden frame. They may not be shown in any other fashion. In a discussion with the writer David Coggins in 2009, Borremans stated that his films do not consciously refer to other films, but that they openly respond to the viewer\u0026rsquo;s consciousness. He also explained that their rhythm is extremely important, that they are as slow as breathing. He added that he is also interested in the aesthetics of the actual filming, such as focusing or blurring the image.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nCourt jester at the palace\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eA few years ago, Borremans received a request from Queen Paola to create pieces for the royal palace. Borremans told the author Renko Heuer that the Queen showed him several rooms that she wanted to renovate and gave him carte blanche in his approach. She also visited his studio to familiarise herself with his work and to follow the paintings\u0026rsquo; progress. At the last moment, he changed his mind so that the Queen was surprised when she saw the result at the unveiling. Borremans once told me that the work may not have been entirely suitable, was perhaps somewhat anarchist, but that it was still a little too bland in his opinion. He had painted characters wearing uniforms that were worn at the court, but back to front, so that they reminded some people of straitjackets. However, today, he can reconcile himself with the pieces. \u0026ldquo;I tried to create an image of a court jester,\u0026rdquo; he reveals, \u0026ldquo;an artist that amuses as well as troubles the palace.\u0026rdquo;\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nOf mysteries and miniatures, illusionism and solace\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eEssays on Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work drive the reader to despair. The vast majority of these texts are based on speculation. Authorities are often cited that add nothing (such as Foucault and Bentham\u0026rsquo;s Panopticon) and brief ideas frequently set off in their own direction. Jeffrey Grove, curator of the Dallas Museum of Art, states that Borremans once compared his paintings to spirits and that the word \u0026ldquo;spirit\u0026rdquo; can be interpreted as the soul of a deceased person or a bodiless being, but also as a bridge to the spiritual kingdom. Curator and writer Christine Kintisch goes further and writes of spiritualist s\u0026eacute;ances and other nonsense that Borremans probably never meant. Nobody considers the simple explanation that paintings, just like curtains and shadows, can conjure up images that briefly come to life, particularly in the case of artists who sometimes have a less stable image of reality than their contemporaries who, when they \u0026ldquo;look\u0026rdquo;, actually \u0026ldquo;think\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;see\u0026rdquo; forms with which they are familiar. Many artists are less effective at retaining these forms of thinking and do not succeed in freezing the essentially dynamic, shapeless world around us that isn\u0026rsquo;t really divided into forms. Thus the world may appear more threatening or spooky to them.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nWhat is an irrational insight?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eThere are major differences in the emotional approach of Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work. Grove maintains his distance and writes that a further study of the position of his protagonists makes it impossible for one to feel emotionally involved in Borremans\u0026rsquo;s quintessential mimetic scenarios. And one page further, he writes that Borremans\u0026rsquo;s paintings pretend they want to explore complex psychological states while they defy all logic. He laconically summarises the issue of time in Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work as follows, \u0026ldquo;Borremans intentionally uses poorly defined signifiers that collide in ambiguous spaces. This method responds to his desire \u0026lsquo;to create an atmosphere devoid of time, a space in which time no longer exists\u0026rsquo;.\u0026rdquo; This more sober approach contrasts sharply with authors that view the work in a more melodramatic fashion. First and foremost, repeated claims are made that Borremans\u0026rsquo;s works play out in a present that is not the present, in a place that does not exist. Usually something takes place that continues unceasingly. The Swiss art critic Hans Rudolf Reust writes \u0026ldquo;The certainty that the painted gesture will inevitably continue to exist is breathtaking\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;But above all, he creates an unidentified place for his paintings by importing a frozen time, with gaps between certain moments in which the duration of rapid gestures are immeasurably drawn out.\u0026rdquo; The Belgian art historian Micha\u0026euml;l Amy writes of a sadomasochist universe with distinct references to the Nazi era. Christine Kintisch, in turn, talks of \u0026ldquo;the desolation of their everlasting misery\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;a seemingly endless nightmare\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;doomed to forever replay the irreconcilable drama between desire and fear\u0026rdquo;. In general, Kintisch tries to kindle a dark, sinister atmosphere, in which she not only refers to artists such as Edgar Allan Poe, but also to the writer Sebald, in a rather inappropriate manner. It is true that all his books feature strange, almost transparent figures that practice the most unusual habits, but in the novel \u003cem\u003eAusterlitz\u003c/em\u003e, which attempts to describe an uprooted Jewish child\u0026rsquo;s amnesia, Sebald\u0026rsquo;s images serve to evoke a reality that is so gruesome that I would never take them out of context and certainly not purely to conjure up an atmosphere.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nIf I may make a statement on Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work at this point, then I would like to compare it with a remark by Nabokov about what, in his opinion, constitutes the essence of literature: \u0026ldquo;Pushkin the balanced, Tolstoy the sober, and Chekhov the restrained have all had their moments of irrational insight, which meant the senses became simultaneously blurred and revealed a hidden meaning that was worth the sudden blurred vision. However, with Gogol, this shift forms the basis for his art\u0026hellip;.\u0026rdquo; Perhaps one could say the same is true for Borremans. But what is an irrational insight? Why does Borremans portray some characters with a duck\u0026rsquo;s bill? And is there any point in asking him?\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nThe mystery\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eI asked Borremans about the significance of the word \u0026ldquo;mystery\u0026rdquo; because I wanted to talk about Magritte\u0026rsquo;s endless attempts to capture \u0026ldquo;mystery\u0026rdquo; by depicting things combined in an unusual way (a giraffe in a wine glass or a bicycle on a cigar). Magritte was so obsessed by this that Marcel Mari\u0026euml;n mocked him in a pamphlet. In the great number of letters that Magritte wrote on the subject, he finally arrives at the conclusion that the effect is greatest when he uses everyday objects (such as an oversized egg in a cage). Borremans replied that he never used the word mystery and that there is nothing special about plucking an object \u0026ldquo;out of its usual frame of reference\u0026rdquo; and making it reappear elsewhere. \u0026ldquo;Wim Delvoye does that too,\u0026rdquo; he told me, \u0026ldquo;by marrying elements from higher and lower culture.\u0026rdquo; And he concludes, \u0026ldquo;No, if you come across that word then it\u0026rsquo;s because the authors used it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003e\u0026ldquo;Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans,\u0026rdquo; writes Grove, \u0026ldquo;has occasionally called his drawings his \u0026lsquo;secret weapons\u0026rsquo;. If by \u0026lsquo;secret\u0026rsquo; he is alluding to the mysterious then few will contradict him.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans,\u0026rdquo; he writes elsewhere, \u0026ldquo;is meticulous and cautious when it comes to his work: he painstakingly creates insinuating drawings, he cautiously ensures that nobody can read any meaning into the drawings.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eWe encounter one frequently recurring description of Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work in a text by the Belgian art critic, current director of De Appel and soon-to-be director of the Frans Hals Museum, Ann Demeester. Just like Grove, she is convinced that it is impossible \u0026ldquo;to analyse drawing or painting in a logical manner\u0026rdquo;, yet she still wants to try. She goes on to describe his drawings, quite explicitly, as follows: \u0026ldquo;The painter has frozen a certain \u0026lsquo;action\u0026rsquo; and denies us any explanation of the context in which the recorded moment must be placed. There is a silence, a void around the image, which is open to many interpretations. This creates a kind of \u0026lsquo;suspense\u0026rsquo;, as though the canvases are also detective stories. As Borremans seems to work in series, the \u0026lsquo;mystery\u0026rsquo; is partly lifted.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eThe word \u0026ldquo;mystery\u0026rdquo; turns up frequently. In an interview, David Coggins asks the artist: \u0026ldquo;There is a mystery in your paintings that the observer wants to solve, but it is unsolvable. You invite the observer in, but you create an image that is ultimately unreadable. Are you trying to create a kind of tension?\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eChristine Kintisch uses the expression \u0026ldquo;the mysteries of the art of painting\u0026rdquo; and poses the question: \u0026ldquo;What mysteries are embodied in the olive green collar, the paper patterns, the grey, lace veil?\u0026rdquo; To summarise, she talks about \u0026ldquo;a visual and intellectual ambiguity (\u0026hellip;) that has proved to be inexhaustibly provocative.\u0026rdquo; However, we could not imagine any artwork without any visual and intellectual ambiguity. An artwork is something (such as an image) that is something else at the same time (such as a painting, an object). Or vice versa; we see ourselves in front of an object that we believe we can perfectly understand and even describe, but there is always something that will elude us, if only because it lives in us in a hidden, unrecognised and unformulated manner.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eIn an interview with Borremans, Renko Heuer poses a question about \u0026ldquo;that mysterious element, like a puzzle that the observer must solve \u0026ndash; this applies to the observers in and outside the drawing.\u0026rdquo; Borremans\u0026rsquo;s answer is as follows: \u0026ldquo;The paintings always include several elements that refer to other matters outside the painting. I create my paintings in such a way that these references never converge, it remains a puzzle because nothing can ever be defined.\u0026rdquo; A little later, Heuer says: \u0026ldquo;All these mysteries: do you have the answers? Or are they open questions for you too?\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;To me they are just as easily entirely open questions because they relate to suggestive constructions,\u0026rdquo; Borremans replies. \u0026ldquo;There is no story. Everything is implicit. I try and initiate a dialogue because if you become explicit, you always get it wrong \u0026ndash; as if you believe that a kind of truth actually exists.\u0026rdquo; A short time later, Borremans recounts an anecdote about a go-kart that he had hidden under \u0026ldquo;a very old curtain from a castle\u0026rdquo;: \u0026ldquo;You can\u0026rsquo;t really see what it is, but you do see that it is something technical, it is not a thing of beauty that is concealed, and it\u0026rsquo;s an extraordinarily monumental, weird shape that is highly appealing and mysterious.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eNaturally, I wanted to demonstrate that Borremans did use the word \u0026ldquo;mysterious\u0026rdquo;, but in fact that does not further our case if we want to better understand or identify with his work. What matters is why this word pops up time and time again and what we can learn from it. Much of it has to do with Borremans\u0026rsquo;s desire to portray a kind of universal man and not individuals in specific, familiar situations. He previously did so by basing his images on those he found in old books and magazines or on the internet, images that often dated back to the 1940s or 1950s, because he wanted to depict a kind of \u0026ldquo;average\u0026rdquo; 20th-century man. This is why the painting \u003cem\u003eThe German I\u003c/em\u003e (2002) portrays a man that is looking at red balls that are floating around his hands. In the interview with Renko Heuer, Borremans first says that he does not know what the red balls represent, but then he explains that the man in the original photograph was holding a chemistry model.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eFor most writers, the ambiguity or vagueness that Borremans creates by (for example in this case) omitting details, gives rise to an uneasy feeling, even a sense of threat, which Borremans relates to his view of life in the discussion with Heuer: the impression that we are living on a time bomb; on a volcano that can erupt at any moment; in an apocalyptic, terrifying world in which all structures are fragile. He views the world as a cold, strange place and he experiences this in his contacts with other people as well as in the political and economic world. The question of what his work is about (what secret it holds) therefore changes to the question of how he can convert this view of life into drawings, paintings and films without being explicit or unequivocal and how he arrived at selecting this specific form for his paintings that is so closely related to the technique employed by Vel\u0026aacute;zquez.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eIn the text \u003cem\u003eRare, suggestieve constructies. Een gesprek met Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u003c/em\u003e (Curious, suggestive constructions. A conversation with Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans), I state that in his book \u003cem\u003eSculpting Time,\u003c/em\u003e Tarkovsky describes poetry as an unusual constellation that reminds us of the incongruence of reality. \u0026ldquo;If we imagine such a constellation as a meeting between two or three things that are not usually observed together, then we see that this applies to the meeting between the contemporary art world and Borremans\u0026rsquo;s painting method, as well as to the way in which he composes his images. True to his predilection for certain images, paintings or atmospheres, he pushes his paintings to the edge of kitsch and sentiment, using the image as well as his painting method. To the artist, these images appear to come first, whereby the facture of the painting must serve them, but I suspect that the reverse is equally true: that the painter creates these kinds of images because it apparently offers him the opportunity to use old-fashioned painting techniques and images.\u0026rdquo; However, Borremans replies: \u0026ldquo;You have totally misunderstood it. The image comes first and only then the style.\u0026rdquo;\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nShining examples\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eBorremans\u0026rsquo;s greatest historical model is Diego Vel\u0026aacute;zquez (1599-1660), a Baroque painter who is widely praised for his virtuosity: his ability to evoke a world with but a few brushstrokes. Borremans admires him primarily because of the way in which he used his unparalleled, economic technique to serve the psychology of the characters he depicted or the painting\u0026rsquo;s atmosphere. Borremans also loves Goya (1746-1828) and Edouard Manet (1832-1883). However, he refers to Vel\u0026aacute;zquez as the king of painters.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eWhen I recently spoke to him about the style used by Vel\u0026aacute;zquez and Manet, he told me that he was less fond of the later Manet, \u0026ldquo;who began painting in a more impressionist style in his later paintings.\u0026rdquo; I confessed that when it comes to Vel\u0026aacute;zquez, it is mainly the suggestive strokes that I remember, applied from afar, which are only recognisable as an image at a distance and asked him whether he found this Vel\u0026aacute;zquez less fascinating. \u0026ldquo;Of course Vel\u0026aacute;zquez had this jazzy way of painting,\u0026rdquo; he replies, \u0026ldquo;but there is much more than that. I don\u0026rsquo;t mean that a painting must be naturalistic. The work of John Singer Sargent is extremely well painted, but it is purely virtuosic, for the rest it is usually ugly and uninteresting. Vel\u0026aacute;zquez is a virtuoso, but his work possesses a powerful, psychological dimension; his technique serves something else. If you take the example of his portrait of El Primo, the bookkeeper or the king\u0026rsquo;s secretary, you feel tremendous compassion. In his final portrait of Philip IV, which shows how the king had declined, you feel the relationship between the painter and the sitter. It was also the last portrait he was able to paint.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eParadoxically enough, we turn once more to the subject of Magritte, who tried \u0026ldquo;not to paint\u0026rdquo; in order to make his images as powerful as possible. In Borremans\u0026rsquo;s case, this results in the creation of servitude to an ideal technique attributed to Vel\u0026aacute;zquez, in which the layer of paint becomes increasingly thinner, as if it tries as much as possible not to stand in the way of the image or an atmosphere to be evoked, while of course it derives its ambiguity and power precisely from its waning material presence. Hence, the lead role in the solo show \u003cem\u003eThe people from the future are not to be trusted\u003c/em\u003e in the Zeno X Gallery (2013) appeared to have been reserved for the red filtering through, for example in the large fold of the dress of \u003cem\u003eThe Angel\u003c/em\u003e (2013), and the almost glistening orange between the \u003cem\u003eDead Chicken\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s legs (2013).\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nSeveral drawings examined more closely\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans first entered the spotlight with his drawings. To this very day, his entire universe appears to flow from these drawings. You could say that he thinks in visual terms. He compares drawing to writing, by which he could mean that it is the result of a linear progress, a self-propelling development, in which the content flows forth from a medium that takes the upper hand: that takes you by the hand and leads you to new places.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eA fine example of his drawings is \u003cem\u003eThe German - Dreiten teil\u003c/em\u003e (mixed media on paper, 2003). This drawing is one in a series of drawings with the same theme, such as \u003cem\u003eThe German V\u003c/em\u003e (pencil and gouache on cardboard, 2003) in which we meet a character that appears to be looking at balls floating around his hand. In \u003cem\u003eThe German - Dreiten teil\u003c/em\u003e (2003) a variant of this drawing is placed in a decor, where it appears as a giant projection or a (painted) poster. The space in which this scene plays out is created by darker areas, in which spectators or passers-by are depicted sparingly. Lastly, there is a small figure below that appears to step into the scene, but finds itself \u0026ldquo;outside\u0026rdquo; the drawing up to his waist.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eIn terms of spatial design, this drawing is reminiscent of Borremans\u0026rsquo;s most famous or at least most talked about drawing, \u003cem\u003eThe Swimming Pool\u003c/em\u003e (2001), which not only depicts a large figure (a young man probably pierced with four bullet holes on which a hand is painting the sentence \u0026ldquo;People must be punished\u0026rdquo;), but in which the figure also acts as part of a painting or projection on the high wall of a swimming pool, where tiny spectators that are found in the water and around the swimming pool observe the large scene. The third level is achieved here by the presence, above, of a sketch with an explanation, from which it appears that the event is observed from the swimming pool\u0026rsquo;s cafeteria.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nAnother drawing that depicts a large figure combined with tiny spectators is \u003cem\u003eA Mae West Experience\u003c/em\u003e (pencil, watercolour and white ink on paper, 2002): a drawing barely 16 by 20 centimetres, featuring a colossal sculpture of Mae West. The sculpture appears before a starry night and seems to be fixed atop a gigantic pedestal or truncated mountain. There is also an entrance, which perhaps leads to a large theatre in the form of an astrolabe. At the same time, her corsage features holes or windows from which pencil drawn arrows exit, pointing to the witty actress\u0026rsquo;s written one-liners.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eAnother of Borremans\u0026rsquo;s famous drawings dates from 1998 and is called \u003cem\u003eVarious ways of avoiding visual contact with the Outside World using yellow isolating tape\u003c/em\u003e (pencil and watercolour on cardboard). This drawing depicts the heads of six young men whose eyes have been taped over in different ways with yellow tape. I mention this drawing because it is a clear example of Borremans\u0026rsquo;s ability to produce many drawings on a single sheet, something that is irrefutably a tour de force.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eI would like to emphasise that we must not attempt to interpret these drawings as messages, but as the amazing product of someone that visually creates dream worlds, dreams and worlds, which in the first place appear to stem from the pleasure of drawing and only then serve as possible sources for numerous readings and interpretations, which do not have to be mutually exclusive, but can actually enrich and reinforce each other.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nSome paintings examined more closely\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eSeveral painters I have spoken to were most affected at the solo show, \u003cem\u003eThe people from the future are not to be trusted\u003c/em\u003e (Zeno X Gallery, 2013), by the small painting \u003cem\u003eThe Prop\u003c/em\u003e (2013), which portrays a kind of model of a small tree and comes across as highly sculptural. I saw a much larger version of this painting in Borremans\u0026rsquo;s studio; the artist did not consider this larger version to be very good (even though it had not yet been painted over.) In fact, we should be able to place both versions side by side and try and understand why the small one works and the large version doesn\u0026rsquo;t. This is no easy task, even for someone who has been observing paintings for thirty years, but does not paint himself. The only thing to do, I think, is to listen to painters when they want to speak. Many art writers, however, start with the image and set the painting aside. They do not observe a small, blue patch in the middle of the painting that represents a kind of opening, offering artistic, illogical access to an unnamed world, which appears to double the painting\u0026rsquo;s ambiguous world. So what else can we write about the painting? That we see a dead object that represents a living object? And that we feel the model builder and the painter\u0026rsquo;s desire to create an illusory reality that feels safer than the uncontrollable, changing outside world?\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cem\u003eEating the Beard\u003c/em\u003e (2011) depicts a girl or young woman whose face is detailed but blotted out in a slightly Richterian style, sunk into an olive green background. The body (the shoulders) and part of the hairstyle allow a greyish background to filter through. The artist stopped painting there so that the focus is on the \u0026ldquo;beard\u0026rdquo;, a dark element that the woman seemingly holds in her mouth. (She doesn\u0026rsquo;t have hands to help her eat.) The painting reminded me of \u003cem\u003eLe plaisir\u003c/em\u003e (1927) by Magritte. When I discussed this with Borremans, he told me that he was not familiar with that particular painting by Magritte. Perhaps he had forgotten about its existence? Perhaps he had dreamed about it and painted it subconsciously? Or perhaps the resemblance is purely coincidental and was born from Borremans\u0026rsquo;s habit of isolating and distorting the faces of girls or young women, probably guided by his hand, or an interesting mark.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eThe painting \u003cem\u003eAutomat (I)\u003c/em\u003e (2008) once again depicts the image of a young woman, but this time in the form of a lifelike doll. Only a kind of notch in her right arm appears to allude to the fact that she has a hidden mechanism. Behind her lies a small flesh-coloured object, which could be a covering. The most intriguing aspect of the image is the apparent absence of any legs. The doll/girl hovers above a surface. The shadow beneath her skirt prevents us from seeing how this physically works. Many characters in Borremans\u0026rsquo;s paintings are sliced through their middle by a surface, because they appear in a bath of ink, oil or other dark liquid or because they are leaning against a table, for instance. I suspect that for many people there is nothing more subconsciously appealing than people without legs or people who are unable to leave their place, such as cashiers and bus drivers (who often have stalker-like admirers), just as they are reassured to find the Saviour nailed fast or the ever suffering Virgin always watching over them from the same place, yet I am not inclined to offer such a statement for one of Borremans\u0026rsquo;s paintings. I continue to view them as images that are the result of years of practicing the art of drawing and that may now sometimes take the form of a painting.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutomat (I)\u003c/em\u003e (2008) is reminiscent of \u003cem\u003eThe Skirt\u003c/em\u003e (2005) and \u003cem\u003eThe Skirt (2) \u003c/em\u003e(2005). In the first painting, we see a girl with a pleated skirt who appears to be hovering above a table; in the second painting, the girl has disappeared, leaving only the skirt (and the pair of hands belonging to the seamstress (?) which feature in both works). Borremans told me that he is currently working on a sculpture with an oval skirt that continually rotates. Why? I don\u0026rsquo;t think there is any point to this question. How? Now it gets exciting. We can search for technical solutions with the artist and be surprised at the result.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nSolace\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eIn contrast to most authors\u0026rsquo; writings on Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work that I have read, I observe no anguish or threat in his work, but rather an extraordinary solace that arises from the realisation that someone who has been through a lot has subsequently gone on to create works of art. As a young man, I had the same experience when watching the films made by Fassbinder.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eWhen I saw the drawing \u003cem\u003eThe Spirit of Modelmaking (2001), \u003c/em\u003eI immediately felt that as a young man, Borremans must have had a special, aesthetic experience with an older man. When I asked him if he had ever built a scale model with an older man, he denied it; but when we learn that one of his grandfathers has initiated him in the secrets of photography, special moments shared in the dark room where miniature images come to life, then the biographical foundation of the work becomes irrefutable and we also feel that the aesthetic experiences acquired may also have offered solace during a difficult youth. This solace is palpable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eBorremans told me that he had read all the works by Gerard Reve, but not since the writer had passed away. This appears to be a telling remark. The death of Gerard Reve is too fresh. Vel\u0026aacute;zquez, in contrast, lives on forever. Borremans revealed to me the emotion he felt when he first viewed a certain work by Vel\u0026aacute;zquez in reality. \u0026ldquo;I had already lived with that painting for so long,\u0026rdquo; he said, \u0026ldquo;that it was as though I had met a correspondent to whom I had been writing to for many years, but whom I had never met in person. One of the great things about that painting is that you think that you could reproduce it. You can see extremely well how it was created. A dialogue is created with someone that is long dead, simply because you are involved in the same activities, because you are trying to solve the same problems. This is one aspect of painting I had not expected. The better the paintings are preserved, the more acute the effect, the greater the kick.\u0026rdquo; In the interview \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans: Shades of Doubt\u003c/em\u003e, Renko Heuer asks what question the artist would put to Vel\u0026aacute;zquez if he could meet him. \u0026ldquo;I would ask him if a loved one made him stay in Italy,\u0026rdquo; replied Borremans. \u0026ldquo;I wonder what kept him there. The Spanish king asked him many times to return and he eventually did so against his will. That\u0026rsquo;s why I think he had a beloved in Italy.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eI once asked Lorne Campbell, the ultimate expert on the work of Rogier Van der Weyden, what ten questions he would put to the artist if he had the chance. This was one of the questions he would pose: \u0026ldquo;Show us \u003cem\u003eWashington Portrait of a Lady\u003c/em\u003e. Tell us about her and how you painted her.\u0026rdquo; A few months prior to this, leafing through a book that Campbell had compiled in 1974 or 1976, little by little, I was moved and finally deeply affected by the close-ups of the women that appeared in the book. Not only by the way in which Van der Weyden presented these women to us, but also because I could feel how Campbell observed paintings: not just examining the techniques, but looking at the people as well. A twofold loneliness accompanied by a double solace unfolded and tears rolled down my cheeks.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eBorremans is often compared with David Lynch, in a superficial manner. But what else affects us in Lynch\u0026rsquo;s work besides his compassion? What else apart from his love of all the naive, human aspirations averse to a sinister world that seems to play out close beside us?\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nPlaying\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eWhat if we viewed Borremans\u0026rsquo;s work for a moment as an ode to naivety and to the game? Many authors see a demonic demiurge in a self-created sadistic universe. Could this be blamed on the habit of strictly interpreting artworks? It is true that he presents us with people that appear frozen while they seemingly perform senseless acts? Don\u0026rsquo;t drawings and paintings always depict \u0026ldquo;frozen\u0026rdquo; moments? Can we not simply view the images of these diversions as whirling attempts to create unfathomable images? And with regard to demiurge: can\u0026rsquo;t his drawings have simply grown out of the habit of drawing large and small figures on the same sheet? Thus suddenly creating (apparent) miniatures that always seem to exert a magical effect on us, for example as designs for giant sculptures.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nIn \u003cem\u003eStanze, \u003c/em\u003eGiorgio Agamben describes how Baudelaire, as the result of a childhood memory (in which a certain Mrs Panckoucke led him into a room overflowing with toys), distinguishes between three different ways of handling toys: there are children that transform a chair into a stagecoach, others that carefully arrange their toys as in a museum, without touching them again, and lastly those who \u0026ldquo;obey a basic metaphysical tendency\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;who want to see their soul\u0026rdquo; and manipulate the toy, throw it against the wall and finally tear it open and reduce it to pieces (\u0026ldquo;But \u003cem\u003ewhere is the soul\u003c/em\u003e? Now comes the ignorance and the sorrow.\u0026rdquo;) Baudelaire, according to Agamben, recognises the incomprehensible mix of joy and the frustration, beaten speechless, on which artistic creation is based, as in every relationship between a person and an object. \u0026ldquo;Distant and elusive (\u0026lsquo;only you, doll\u0026rsquo;s soul, we have never been able to ascertain where you actually are\u0026rsquo;), the doll forever finds itself on this side of things as well as permanently on the other side as an inexhaustible object of our desires and our imagination.\u0026rdquo; Agamben also points out that, for adults, the boundary between toys and small weighty objects disappears into the darkest depths of archaeology where small objects are assigned magical meanings and their small size is usually attributed to the material\u0026rsquo;s rarity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eThis reasoning was echoed by Claude L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss who refers in \u003cem\u003eLa pens\u0026eacute;e sauvage (The Savage Mind) \u003c/em\u003eto the power of attraction displayed by miniatures and notes that all artworks are essentially miniatures, even the ceiling paintings in the Sistine Chapel because they represent a scale model of the Last Judgement. (Giacometti expresses a similar reasoning in an interview with David Sylvester, stating that the ideal size for a sculpture is approximately a hand high. He also applies this to the colossal sculptures in Egypt because in order to view them in their entirety, you have to do so from a distance.) According to L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss, miniature objects give rise to a unique joy because they are recognisable at a single glance and because we do not have to analyse their individual parts, as we do in science. \u0026ldquo;The aesthetic sorrow,\u0026rdquo; he writes \u0026ldquo;exists because this entity was created in a work produced by a person, so is also made virtual by the observer that discovers, through the artwork, the possibility of a unification between structure and events.\u0026rdquo; Without explaining the meaning of this last phrase (structures are fixed and events are new things or discoveries that take place despite everything, such as the random effects of peace produced among a tribe by naming various factions according to animal names), I cannot say much more about it here, except that Agamben, Baudelaire and Claude L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss are players who juggle words in the hope of revealing or creating invisible harmonies or laws, just as Borremans \u0026ndash; with his drawings, films and paintings \u0026ndash; evokes feelings, thoughts, images and stories in us that may never have been there or would have remained forever hidden in the dark corners of our barely used imagination. Borremans is a juggler, an illusionist, who reveals to us a reality that would otherwise have eluded us. And this reality does not need to be named; it plays out beyond the capacity of our words, in a kingdom of phantasmagoria that shapes our reality.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nMontagne de Miel, 26 September 2013\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chr style=\"border-bottom-color: currentColor; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-image-outset: 0; border-image-repeat: stretch; border-image-slice: 100%; border-image-source: none; border-image-width: 1; border-left-color: currentColor; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-color: currentColor; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 1px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\" /\u003e\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003eCited literature\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,\u0026amp;quot;trebuchet ms\u0026amp;quot;; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;\"\u003e- Giorgio Agamben, \u003cem\u003eStanze\u003c/em\u003e, Christian Bourgois Publishers, Paris, 1981.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Stefan Beys. \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans. Spartelen in het sadomasochistische universum. De geheime charmes van het enigma\u003c/em\u003e. (\u003cem\u003eFloundering in the sadomasochist universe. The secret charms of the enigma.\u003c/em\u003e) http://d-sites.net/nederlands/borremans.htm\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u003c/em\u003e, Municipal Museum for Contemporary Art Association (Vereniging van het S.MA.K.), Ghent, 2002.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans. Zeichnungen / Tekeningen / Drawings\u003c/em\u003e, Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther K\u0026ouml;nig, Cologne, 2004.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe Performance\u003c/em\u003e, Hatje Cantz, Ostfildern, 2005.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans, Whistling a Happy Tune\u003c/em\u003e. Drawings / Tekeningen, Ludion, 2008.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans, Paintings\u003c/em\u003e, Hatje Cantz, Ostfildern, 2009.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans, \u003cem\u003eEating the Beard\u003c/em\u003e, Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern, 2010.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans, \u003cem\u003eMagnetics\u003c/em\u003e, Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern, 2013.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- David Coggins, \u003cem\u003eInterview: Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eArt in America 3, N\u0026deg;1\u003c/em\u003e, March 2009. See http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/magazine/michael-borremans/\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- \u003cem\u003eGiacometti. Sculptures. Paintings. Drawings\u003c/em\u003e, Arts Council, London, 1980.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Renko Heuer, \u003cem\u003eMicha\u0026euml;l Borremans: Shades of Doubt\u003c/em\u003e. In: Mono.Kultur #31- Spring 2012.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Claude L\u0026eacute;vi-Strauss, \u003cem\u003eLa pens\u0026eacute;e sauvage (The Savage Mind)\u003c/em\u003e, Plon, Paris, 1962.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Ren\u0026eacute; Magritte, \u003cem\u003eEcrits complets (Complete Writings)\u003c/em\u003e, Flammarion, 2009.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Ren\u0026eacute; Magritte. \u003cem\u003eLettres \u0026agrave; Andr\u0026eacute; Bosmans 1958-1967 (Letters to Andr\u0026eacute; Bosmans\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1958-1967)\u003c/em\u003e Seghers - Isy Bachot, 1990.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- \u003cem\u003eMarcel Mari\u0026euml;n\u003c/em\u003e, Isy Brachot Gallery, Brussels, 1989.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Vladimir Nabokov, \u003cem\u003eNikolai\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eGogol\u003c/em\u003e, New Direction Books, Norfolk, Connecticut, 1944.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Vladimir Nabokov, \u003cem\u003eSpeak, Memory\u003c/em\u003e, Penguin Books, London, 1999.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Hans Theys, \u003cem\u003eDe brioche van Chardin (The Brioche by Chardin). Een gesprek met Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans (A conversation with Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans)\u003c/em\u003e, August 2010, unpublished.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Hans Theys, \u003cem\u003eRare, suggestieve constructies. Een gesprek met Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans (Curious, suggestive constructions. A discussion with Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans)\u003c/em\u003e. In: \u0026lt;H\u0026gt;ART #73, October 2010.\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n- Hilde Van Canneyt, Interview met Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans en Manor Grunewald. (Interview with Micha\u0026euml;l Borremans and Manor Grunewald), Ghent, 26 March 2009, http://hildevancanneyt.blogspot.be/2009/09/beide-kunstenaars-verwittigen-me-op.html\u003cbr /\u003e\r\n\u003cem\u003e- \u003c/em\u003eMargot Vanderstraeten, \u003cem\u003eIk geef geen antwoorden omdat er geen antwoorden zijn (I offer no answers because there are no answers)\u003c/em\u003e. Place of publication unknown, 2009.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n"},{"locale":"es","short_description":"","description":""},{"locale":"el","short_description":"","description":""}],"actors":[]}