Sonia Abian Rose

“Original design: Paul Balin (Paris, 1863-98)” [“Diseño original: Paul Balin (París 1863-98)”], stamp on paper, with textile effect, copy of an antique stamp. Version 2008 realized with newspaper (article La Vanguardia 30-04-08 “Fritzl could be given life sentence for leaving a baby die”), and illustration paper (Publicity page, “Ashley, first time delicatessen” Hustler Nº179).
This work is part of an on-going project: “To read the case (provisory title)”, [“Para leer el caso (título provisorio)”], which starts with the selection of gender violence cases mentioned in newspapers. My work consists in re-writing these articles, adding in this way an extra edition process. The general idea is that gender violence is not an effect or a consequence, but a social industry elaborated product through a whole process. It’s a product that circulates as a value, in different contexts and with different names. This controversial chapter – and the diverse supporting materials that compose it – is part of this process of distribution and communication. In the consuming moment, the necessary prime material take shape – people- for this product to be kept on being elaborated.
I place my work in a post-final step of this process, in which I aim to break down the visibility produced, and expose what this visibility is made of. Basic materials are both tracing and carbon paper, a reason, a newspaper article on a case, and two or more texts with similar, but apparently opposite topic, a needle, glue.
Arming and disarming process: Choose an article with the reason as a helper, which would be previously transferred on it, re-write it using the needle. The outcome will be two texts: one positive and one negative. There is no left over. In the past I’ve used other procedures such as copy, fictionalize, appropriation, from pieces of diverse artists. I used individual productions of: Raphael da Urbino, Miguel Ángel, Leonardo Da Vinci, Rubens, Mignard, Poussin, Brueghel, Fra Angélico, Boticelli, Van Eyck, Martin Schaffner, Escher, Wladyslaw Sivek, Jorge de la Vega, Ernesto de la Cárcova; and collective productions: such as the case of Amstetten (Austrian production), the Tejerina case and the supermarket lootings in 2001 (Argentinean production).

This is partly answered in the previous question. Every representation is realized with the systems visibility codes in which it’s produced, a system full of inequalities, misogynist, organized according to hierarchies of gender. In this, the ones being somehow exclude from certain rights, discriminated, are represented in this codes, this means, in the case of women, they are represented as their meaning to this system – code, by the way, learned and internalized (and repeated) by everyone, In this way, though some are media hyper-represented, women have a inexistent representation. Gender violence is the technology by which society produces women to get stock of prostitutes for brothels, actresses, models and vedettes for porn productions and television sets, mothers, servants, nannies, etc.

Feminism introduces a new perspective and suspect as a method. It has show despite marks hidden in texts and images. Talking we reproduce a hierarchy organized world as in the middle age.
For example, national press has drop the Argentinean president her surname, she is called just Cristina now. This seems to be trying to highlight that the place of State Chief is being occupied by a woman, something we all know, but must suspiciously be remarked and differenced from other presidents. Why? No media has ever informed us that Raul traveled to be interviewed by the French president, or that Carlos approved a new law. Never the less, we are told that Cristina travels to be interviewed by Sarkozy, and that Cristina repeals a new decree. In this way the whole society, the role of Father, sets how the president should be (re)named. What other difference does this surname elimination points out?