Barbara Ellmerer

Read the rest of this entry »

After all, it is possible I may be mistaken; and it is but a little copper and glass, perhaps, that I take for gold and diamonds. I know how very liable we are to delusion in what relates to ourselves, and also how much the judgments of our friends are to be suspected when given in our favour.  Descartes: Discourse on Method.

Read the rest of this entry »

Karmkars paintings show a tongue, a huge tongue which licks and caresses, sucks parts of a body. It is a self affecting tongue, a tongue which explores and worships and nearly eats parts of the body to which it belongs.

The title “I love therefore I am” invites to relate this tongue to loving and being. But Karmakar is not writing about his tongue and the body belonging to this tongue. Karmakar paints something which stands not in a direct logical chain of reasoning with this words.

Therefore the title serves as an uncanny invitation. It invites not to reason according to linguistic paths, but to follow the gaze towards strange moments, towards somebody `s affection of or for himself.

Nils Röller New Delhi/Sanskriti Kendra

Read the rest of this entry »

Read the rest of this entry »

Descartes writes: “I am thinking, therefore I am being”. Thereby Descartes takes a certain logic for granted: The logic of coming from one premise to a conclusion.

Abir Karmakar appropriates for his purposes this logic. Karmakar writes: I love therefore I am. Therefore we may use this logic in approaching his tenting images. But there is a difference: The major difference between image and text. Kamarkar adopts the logic of speech. This is the logic of reasoning with linguistic concepts. This logic he sets in a relation with images, which seem to challenge linguistic concepts in a special, disturbing, twofold manner.

Nils Röller New Delhi/Sanskriti Kendra