These are the three moments I presented at the jury. From City to Countryside.
-Plans don’t work, and white on white also fails to do the job.
-Can’t argue against Figure/Ground and still use them in the representation, need to define the “ground” of the city in other terms/technique. Remove any academic assumption of Figure/Ground.
-No plans—> AXO!
-Define the impossibility of the white drawing it, knowing it will fail.
-The Panneur needs to be much more precise: How does he look? What are his filters (if any)? Be much more accurate when arguing the relevance of the Panneur today.
-Knowing VS to know: define the understanding of knowledge for the Panneur, how can he be detached and yet take knowledge of —> back to Warburg and Didi-Huberman
-Cy Twombly, look for the positioning of the viewer in relation to the white drawing. How does our position changes our perception?
-Don’t forget what Didi said: “To take knowledge of, is to take position on”.
-Why the Factory? Transformation? Need to be able to argue for it.