Performng Lfe, LVNG Art

14/04/2019 Katarzyna Michalak “Performing Life, Living Art: Abramovic/Ulay and KwieKulik”, 1999 — Zofia Kulik / KwieKulik / Kulik-KwieKulik …
Katarzyna Michalak “Performing Life, Living Art:

Abramovic/Ulay and KwieKulik”, 1999
Afterimage, 16 November/December 1999
Katarzyna Michalak
Performing Life, Living Art: Abramovic/Ulay and KwieKulik

Artistic couples are not a common phenomenon when artistic activity fuses with private life.
There has been, however, growing interest in this kind of collaboration since the 1970s and it is
not accidental that it coincided with the development of performance and body art. The physical
action and bodily interaction emphasized links between life and art. Two couples that embodied
the paradigm of close collaboration were Marina Abramovic and Ulay (Uwe Laysiepen), known as
Abramovic/Ulay, and Zo a Kulik and Przemyslaw Kwiek, known as KwieKulik. Both couples were
active during the same period (KwieKulik 1971-87, Abramovic/Ulay 1976-89) and both engaged
in performance and body art. Differences in their work can be understood against the social,
political and cultural contexts of the time, as well as their particular situations.
Although of different nationalities and different political systems, Abramovic/Ulay did not stress
this polarization in a political context (an exception is Communist Body/Capitalist Body,
Amsterdam, 1979) but rather in a universal context as opposition between east and west, male
and female. They acted between unity and separation. Ulay explained their relationship: “We
begin in a sort of synchronized similitude … and then we arrive at the level in which each of us
functions alone. The two bodies doing the same, but within, there is a separation.” 1 There was
no such tension with Kulik and Kwiek who were both from Poland and graduated from the same
art school in Warsaw. Their activity was less concerned with personal issues than with Poland’s
national politics of the 1970s and ’80s. Comparing the constructs of their names further
illustrates the basic differences between the duos. Abramovic/Ulay, written with a slash,
emphasizes the poetics of polarization present in their art, while KwieKulik, with a shared “K,”
stresses the close collaboration and even mutual dependence of the couple.
The body as a place of exploration was seen as female domain in the early ’70s. For male-female
artistic couples the decision to be involved in body art challenged the code of masculinity and,
as Michael Fried recognized, the ‘speci cally feminizing debasement of virility of “pure”
modernism.’ 2 This critical approach is even stronger in the case of homosexual couples like
Gilbert & George, where the codi cation of masculinity is shaken, or Eva & Adele, where biblical
Adam is supplanted by cross-dresser Adele and traditional masculinity is denied.
Gender issues are central for Abramovic/Ulay who question such perceived masculine traits as
domination and strength. Their performance Incision (Graz, 1978) was based on male-female
kulikzofia.pl/en/archiwum/katarzyna-michalak-performing-life-living-art-abramovic-ulay-and-kwiekulik/ 1/17
opposition. Abramovic stood motionless during the performance while Ulay, naked, tried to run

against the restriction of an elastic band fastened around his waist and attached to the wall.
Abramovic represented passive femininity; Ulay represented male activity. With this performance
they raised the question of mental and bodily freedom. Ulay worked from an active position
although he was physically limited. His mind was free and forced his body to challenge the
restrictions placed upon it. His body moving forward and backward created an incision in space.
Abramovic’s passivity represented the traditional societal position of women as non-active
entities.
Other pieces proposed a model of balanced gender, especially visible in their symmetrically
arranged performances. In Imponderabilia (Bologna, 1977) the couple stood naked against the
walls of the narrow entrance to the gallery facing each other. In order to enter, the public had
to decide whether to turn to face him or her and thus choose their own gender subjectivity. In
Relation in Space (Venice, 1976) their naked bodies crashed into each other at higher and higher
speeds. Both took active positions in this performance and presented themselves as equal
by exerting the same physical strength. Like Imponderabilia, these symmetrical performances
fused their two bodies into one symbolic whole. In Breathing In/Breathing Out (Belgrade, 1977)
they inhaled and exhaled carbon dioxide from each other’s mouths with microphones a xed
to their necks in order to broadcast the inner pulse of their bodies. ‘In the beginning of their
collaborative work they often spoke of themselves as an androgyne, as an alchemical image of
a two-headed body, “says art critic Bojana Pejic 3 . It seems Abramovic/Ulay did not undermine
the privileged position of man but, rather, as Amelia Jones states,” veil[ed] it in what is in effect
experienced as a bipolar model of gender.’ 4
This gender perspective was also present in another performance piece entitled Talking About
Similarity (Amsterdam, 1976) which was based on exchanging roles. At the beginning of the
performance Ulay sewed his mouth shut, giving up his freedom of speech. Abramovic sat next
to him and answered questions put to Ulay by viewers. She took over his subjectivity
by appropriating the pronoun ‘I’ as if she were Ulay, but in doing so, she lost her own identity. This
shift in subjectivity was intended to challenge male-female roles, showing woman as having
control of the words and man without a voice. Instead, it reinforced gender stereotypes showing
woman as the passive partner who speaks, but only from the position of an assumed male
identity. The male-female relationship was less signi cant for KwieKulik because they did not
base their performances on gender distinction. In some cases they even hid their gender identity
—in ‘The Banana and the Pomegranate [the Hand-Grenade]: Reistic Theater’ (Warsaw, 1986), for
instance, their heads were covered with pails. As a result they were recognized only as human
beings, not as a man and a woman.
KwieKulik, Banana and Pome-grenade, scenes from the performance, reconstruction made without an audience in the house in
Dąbrowa after the public show in Pracownia Dziekanka, 1986
The only performance that opened itself to analysis from a gender perspective was Activity for
 Head (Lublin, 1978), a three-piece performance. In the rst scene, the artists sat on the oor
the
with their heads sticking out of holes in two seats of a row of chairs.
KwieKulik, sketches and notes concerning the performance, Activities for the Head, 21.09.1978

In the next scene, Kulik sat on the oor with her head sticking out of a hole in a wash basin.
Kwiek poured water into the basin until Kulik could barely breath through her nose and then
washed the upper part of his body and legs with the water while shouting, ‘Say anything, wretch!’
The performance ended with both artists sitting on chairs with their heads covered by garbage
pails. Although the rst scene could be considered in a gender context because it emphasized
male power, the whole performance diluted this perspective by stressing the political context.
The term “activity on the head” is an allusion to political indoctrination in Poland.
KwieKulik, Activities for the Head: Tree Acts, ‘Performance and Body’, Galeria Labirynt, Lublin, 13.10.1978; photographs by Andrzej
Polakowski
Because both couples experienced cultural and political limitations in their lives, the concept of
freedom was critically examined in their work. In 1986 KwieKulik performed a piece called
Arcady (Warsaw), in which they used a chain as a metaphor for mental repression. Kwiek and
Kulik hung two para n lamps on a gallery wall. A chain was placed on a hook hung just below,
which was covered with a paper hand to appear as if the hand held the chain. The artists then
put two collars around their necks that were a xed to both ends of the chain. Kwiek and Kulik
went forward: he shouting ‘dick’, she shouting ‘ass’, but the length of the chain limited the
movement of their bodies and the tight collars caused their words to become clogged in their
throats. Freedom of movement and freedom of speech were controlled and limited by the paper
hand, a symbol for invisible power. With this performance, KwieKulik expressed the idea of
power as the invisible control of human activity. Arcady, the land of eternal happiness, is
ironically a place where invisible power limits movement and speech. Although this work referred

to power strategies in general, the primary system being commented on was communism, which
KwieKulik experienced in their everyday lives.
KwieKulik, Arcadia; scenes from the performance, reconstruction made without an audience just after the public show in
Pracownia Dziekanka, 1986
The communist system, as all totalitarian systems, appealed to the metaphor of the body. ‘This
language contained many “biologistic” metaphors such as “the body of the institution,” “state
organs,” or “the hand of justice”, said Pejic. 5 It is signi cant that both totalitarian discourse and
performance artists use the metaphor of the body. For the former, the body is a universal but
abstract model of society, while the latter insist on their own individual and concrete bodies.
Abramovic/Ulay adopted a similar perspective in their performance Communist Body/Capitalist

Body. This work was a celebration of their shared birthday (November 30). They invited friends
to a private home in Amsterdam and prepared two tables: one with food from a communist
country, the other with food from a capitalist country. During the length of the performance both
artists slept in beds in the same room where guests celebrated the birthday. Their birth
 cates hung on the wall, illustrating that Abramovic was born in communist Yugoslavia and
certi
Ulay in fascist Germany. The terms ‘communist body’ and ‘capitalist body’ appealed directly
to the artists’ bodies as products of concrete political systems that tended to control not only
mental identity but bodily functions as well. Both artists were born under totalitarian systems
that tried to use the body as a living sculpture. In this context Robert R. Taylor writes about
‘human architecture’ which was a domain of Nazi propaganda masters for whom ‘the people are
neither more nor less than what stone is for the sculptor’. 6 By the term “human architecture”
Taylor means using the mass of people for propaganda purposes when human beings disappear
as individuals. However, the interest in shaping human architecture cannot only be attributed
to totalitarian systems. Eric Hobsbawm states that after 1914 in France, Germany, England and
the United States “the emphasis shifted from statuary to great empty urban spaces in which
massed crowds were to provide the aesthetic impact”. 7 Communist Body/Capitalist Body is the
only work in which Abramovic/Ulay made such a polarized political statement. Abramovic/Ulay
came to the conclusion that private bodies exposed to manipulation by a system become public
bodies and, in consequence, political bodies. Manipulated bodies change from subjects into
objects of power.
Abramovic/Ulay presented themselves as products of a political system while KwieKulik

debunked the objectifying strategy of power when they appeared as objects in their performance
‘The Banana and the Pomegranate [the Hand-Grenade]: Reistk Theater’. 8 It consisted of 11 static
scenes. The artists sat on chairs next to each other, their heads covered with pails. Different
objects were used in each scene, either in the artists’ hands or resting on the pails on their
heads. A curtain decorated with silver stars and moons hung behind the couple which, combined
with the title, suggested comic action that dramatically contrasted with the gloomy scenes.
The objects in the piece were like scraps of reality that appeared as signs or symbols of the
different activities of everyday life. In one scene bread and glasses sat on the pails while the
artists each held a hat and a bottle of vodka. In another scene, the artists’ passport photographs
were placed on the pails while mirrors re ected the artists’ hands. The mirrors were an allusion
to surveillance and the passports addressed the personal experiences of the couple, who were
deprived of their passports for four years after an exhibition in Sweden 9 . In some scenes they
used national symbols in a derogatory context, such as the Polish emblematic eagle made of
soap situated next to a sugar lamb, a lowbrow symbol of Catholicism. The fact that they were
made from non-durable materials shows the impermanence of the ideas they represent.
By visually concealing the artists’ heads, the pails denied subjectivity; in this “theater of things”
the main roles were instead enacted by objects. The sequence of static scenes functioned
almost as photographs. This non-active performance presented an inertia of society symbolized
by the artists’ inaction.
Layout of two pages in printed catalogue: photograph with the eagle called A Bird of Plaster fot Bronze in the Barracks of Fine Arts
was placed by the Swedish designer next to the Man-Dick, both works from the Commentary Art series
In Polish Duet (Warsaw, 1984) KwieKulik criticized the political system and authorities by using
irony to ridicule national symbols. They created absurd situations relating to the Polish ag. In
the rst scene, the artists simulated airplanes attempting to take off to realize their dreams of
crossing borders. Polish ags were xed to their heads as propellers. In another scene the
artists faced each other holding a red and white ag.
Zo a Kulik, sketches and notes for the performance Polish Duo 1
The ag had a staff on each side, and Kulik and Kwiek each held one. Both artists began to move
backward in opposite directions until two white and gray ags emerged from under the red and
white one, which fell to the ground. The gray ags disclosed a drab truth hidden behind a colorful

symbol.
KwieKulik rolling with ags on a long table or spinning around on their own axis, performance Polish Duo 1, Pracownia
Dziekanka,1984
The Polish couple criticized state authorities by discrediting national symbols and ridiculing the
absurdity of reality. In the 1980s the most basic foodstuffs (butter, meat, sugar) were available
only with ration cards. This situation was addressed in the performance ‘Festival of Intelligentsia’
(Lublin, 1985), in which KwieKulik tied loin chops (a product in short supply) around their waists
and heads. They laid down on a large box facing each other. Their heads were covered by a cage
with a cat inside. Eventually the cage was shrouded in black fabric with the phrase “Festival of
Intelligentsia” printed on it. It looked like the funeral of the intelligentsia. KwieKulik disclosed the
mental impoverishment of the Polish society where higher intellectual purposes were dominated
by down-to-earth needs, like obtaining food.
KwieKulik, scenes from the performance Festival of the Intelligentsia, Pracownia Dziekanka, 1986
KwieKulik performed multi-piece performances with complicated symbolic meaning. They

deliberately exploited aspects of theater, manipulating elements of tragicomedy or farce. They
built metaphorical meaning and psychological distance into the roles they enacted, manifesting
themselves not as active subjects but rather representing their presence within the political
restrictions of communist Poland. Abramovic/Ulay used simple repeated actions like the inner
pulse of the body; the actions were a manifestation of the bodily presence. Abramovic described
it as, “Being-in-the-body, here and now.” 10
The opposition between presence and representation is visible in both couples’ approach
to photography in the context of performance. For performance artists, photography is one of
the few possibilities available to substantiate performed action. Some artists treat it as
a necessary evil because although it provides permanent documentation of the action, it denies
the eeting quality of performance. Abramovic/Ulay used photography as a document, not as an
independent artistic medium. All pictures taken during their performances show the whole event
from the audience to the often insu cient lighting to the performance space. The photographs
deliberately emphasized the inability of photography to accurately convey the intimacy of the
performance. (They also made videos of their pieces which were more appropriate for
documenting some of the violent movement that created a special tension in the performance,
impossible to capture in a static scene.)
KwieKulik, however, treated photography and performance as equally important artistic creations
that are accomplished together: one action included many creations. They used photography not
merely to document a transient event but also to create “aesthetic time results” that were
photographs made after the original performance. Multi-piece performances were organized on
the model of slide projection, in which one scene follows another. Curtains replaced the opening
and closing of the shutter. Large Cibachrome photographs of these performances were shown at

KwieKulik exhibitions. Sometimes, by mixing photographs from different performance pieces,
the artists created a new object. In 1984 at Warsaw’s Dziekanka Gallery, they used photographs
and Polish ags to create a kind of altar, similar in decoration to communist propaganda
banners. Photography also had additional importance for KwieKulik, living in isolation in
communist Poland, because it could represent them abroad. Photographs from the non-public
performance ‘Activity with the Frame’ (1977), showing the artists in various sexual situations
involving a picture frame, were printed in the German publication Reaktion 5 11 .
KwieKulik, Activites with a Frame, 1980
Abramovic/Ulay stressed direct bodily contact with each other. Each performance was a kind of

personal trial to rede ne their relationship, which was not completely de ned or stabilized
to begin with. To emphasize the real action they never used a script and moreover they never
repeated a piece. In fact, I would say Abramovic/Ulay never performed for the public, since the
relationship between the couple and the viewer was always of secondary importance when
compared to the relationship between the artists themselves. They resolved to perform
regardless of audience presence at their performances.
It is signi cant that in the beginning Abramovic/Ulay used violence and aggression as
performative tools for testing and establishing the boundaries of their bodies and of their
relationship. All actions were dynamic and performed at high speeds such as in ‘Relation in
Space’, where they crashed their naked bodies into one another. However, their later actions were
completely opposite. ‘Nightsea Crossing’ (1981-86) was realized in different places all over the
world. In each performance, for 90 (nonconsecutive) days the artists sat motionless for several
hours each day. They minimized any physical movement and refrained from eating in order
to decrease biological functions. The aggression used in early performances was not parallel
to their personal relationship. On the contrary, the evolution from dynamic performance to the
near abandonment of action is indicative of the crisis in their personal relationship, which
escalated during the peaceful period of their artmaking.
Unlike Abramovic/Ulay, KwieKulik did not address their relationship in the context of their
performances, instead choosing to confront the viewers with a representation of scripted ideas.
KwieKulik always established a relationship between one another when they entered a scene,
whereas Abramovic/Ulay were always trying to establish this relationship while the viewers
watched.
“There was no space for private life. Everything was public life,” said Abramovic in 1998 about
her collaboration with Ulay 12 . Presenting this tension between art and life was the most
important issue for the couple. They blurred the distinctions between real life and art, erasing
cultural codes that determine the border between the real and the arti cial. They tried to keep
aesthetic qualities to a minimum. In their early pieces they performed naked in order to publicly
reject the cultural context responsible for separating art from life. They believed that the naked
body could be neutral and they used it to manifest the presence of subject instead of the
representation of subject that dominated earlier art and theater.
They stressed biological, instead of mental, activity. They performed simple, bodily actions:
shouting, breathing, slapping. By pushing their bodies to biological limits they de ned
themselves as physical and not purely intellectual beings. There was limited use of spoken
language—a cultural product—with mostly simple, innate sounds instead. This stage “before
language means that the artists never de ned their identi cation but, as suggested earlier, each
performance was an attempt to reach it.
The interrelation between art and life was realized by Abramovic/Ulay strictly in the eld of body
art. KwieKulik were interested in multi-media activity. Besides performances, they made
photographs, installations, drawings, sculpture and mail art—always stressing the process of
creation. For KwieKulik intimacy between art and life meant that reality became the direct
material as well as the context for their art. They often used gray paper to signify the grayness of
everyday life in Poland. The aim of their art was not to embellish reality.
Art was a tautology of reality and grayness that captured different elds of life: ideology—

symbolized by the gray ag in ‘Polish Duet’, art—embodied by gray canvas on which the artists
placed underwear for ‘Art in Panties’ (1978); and reality—illustrated in ‘Moods: Gray Paper’ (1984),
in which the gallery space was wallpapered in gray.
From the series Activities with Dobromierz (I) (1972-74) by KwieKulik
Reality as a source of artistic inspiration also included its effect on their personal states of mind.
“Art From Nerves” and “Art On The Run” are watchwords the artists used to describe the
conditions in which they created their work. KwieKulik, similar to Abramovic/Ulay, did not treat
their private life as a safe enclave separated from art. KwieKulik included their son, Dobromierz,
in their art projects from his birth. ‘Activities with Dobromierz’ (1972-74) was the general title of
several performances in which Dobromierz was a main element. The artists took pictures of
their son in different situations, partly created by everyday reality, partly arranged by the artists;
Dobromierz in a toilet bowl, with a pail on his head or lying on the oor amid a circle of knives
and forks. In 1973 slides documenting these activities were exhibited in a frame fashioned from
a window brought to the gallery from the artists’ house. The window was a symbolic frame for
actions that occurred on the border between reality and art.
In the late 1980s both couples decided to split on both personal and artistic levels. If we look at
each relationship in a historical perspective we can see that their dissolutions coincided with the
crisis of performance art in the 1980s, when body art was considered as fetishized object of the
male gaze and increasing commercial tendencies of the art market caused a return to large-
 oil paintings. At that time both couples experienced di culty in nding methods of
scale
expression.
Collaboration in artistic couples, where art and life fuse into one, questions the possibility of
maintaining the creative relationship when the emotional one has collapsed, as shown in the
examples of KwieKulik and Abramovic/Ulay. In the case of Abramovic/Ulay the relationship
began to spoil “on a strictly personal, emotional and psychological level”, as Ulay claims, “It was
never because one of us didn’t agree with the work. But in the end the work started sufferinig
from the change, of course.” 13 Their last collaborative project was ‘Great Wall Walk’ (1988),
three months of walking on the Great Wall of China. Abramovic began from the east, Ulay from
the west. Their meeting point in the middle of the wall was also the point where they ended their
common private and artistic life. Said Abramovic, “We didn’t talk anymore, we even had two
[separate] press conferences after it. It was a very painful experience and it took me a lot of time
to really get over that feeling of complete failure.” 14 This project most dramatically blurs the
distinction between art and life. Ulay noted, “I wanted to break the image of being an institution
and break the ideology of being a special couple. I couldn’t agree with it anymore.” 15
The parting of Kwiek and Kulik occurred in 1987 after they felt that they had exhausted all ideas
and needed a new language of artistic expression. Kulik said, “Finally, the dialogue in the duo
became a thing in itself. A realization of a work, i.e., communicating to others your own idea, lost
importance. I felt bad. I felt the need for a silent consideration more and more strongly, indeed
self-surprises with my own non-verbal decisions, an immediate dialogue with a work so that the
work gave me a hint what to do next by its own response.” 16 Their moment of separation
coincided with the collapse of communism in Poland and was in part an effect of the changing
political situation. For Kwiek and Kulik regaining political freedom meant regaining personal
freedom as artists as well.
The artistic activity of the couples, as well as the reception of their art, should be considered
from the perspective of their respective geography. Political division in Europe situated them in
different contexts. Abramovic/Ulay’s use of universal language to describe both gender and
political problems could be understood in Austria, Holland, Italy, Germany, Yugoslavia or
Australia, where they performed. However, KwieKulik’s art seemed to be doubly isolated, rst due
to the political isolation of Poland in the 1970s and ’80s, and secondly due to the speci c,
sociopolitical and cultural contexts of their art. Today, although the political isolation has been
abolished, reception of KwieKulik’s art is still at best marginal. As a result, the comparison
between the two couples raises the question of the location of the center and the margins in the
current discourse of artistic geography. Artistic centers, situated mostly in the western world,
favor art that makes use of universal idioms, while art de ned by regional or local contexts is still
considered marginal.
Katarzyna Michalak is an art critic especially interested in the problem of the interrelation of
gallery space, art object and audience.
1Bojana Pejic, ‘Being-in-the-Body: On the Spiritual in Marina Abramovic’s Art.,’ in Marina Abramovic and Friedrich
Meschede, ‘Marina Abramovic’ (Stuttgart: Edition Cantz, 1993), p. 33.
2 Amelia Jones, ed., ‘Body Art: Performing the Subject’ (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998), p. 112.
3 Pejic, p. 34

4 Jones, p. 141.
5 Pejic, p. 31.
6 Michael North, “The Public as Sculpture: From Heavenly City to Mass Ornament,” in W. J. Mitchell, ed., ‘Art and the
Public Sphere’ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), p. 16.
7 Ibid, p. 17.
8 In Polish the same word is used for pomegranate and hand grenade. It was impossible to keep this double meaning in
the English translation, so the other meaning is given in parentheses. Reistic Theater is a derivative from Latin: “res”
meaning “thing” in the meaning “theater of things,” a theater where things enact all roles.
9 In 1975 KwieKulik participated in the exhibition “7 Young Poles: Environments and Activities” at the Konsthall in
Malmo, Sweden. In the exhibition catalog they included two pictures from the series “Commentary Art”. One depicted
a large plaster eagle—a Polish emblem—with the comment, “A Bird of Plaster for Bronze in the Slums of the Fine Arts” The
other showed a sculpture entitled ‘Man-dick’ which the Polish authorities understood as a criticism of the Polish political
realities. They subsequently prohibited KwieKulik from representing Poland in any foreign exhibitions, which meant that
they were deprived of their passports.
10 Pejic, p. 26.
11 Reaktion 5 (Alsbach, Germany: Verlaggalerie Leaman, 1980).
12 Katarzyna Michalak, “Marina Abramovic: Transitory Objects” in ‘Magazyn Sztuki/Art Magazine’, no. 19 (March 1998),
p. 46.
13 Paul Kokke, “An Interview with Ulay and Marina Abramovic”, in ‘Ulay/Abramovic: Performances 1976-1988’ (Eindhoven:
Stedelijk Van abbemuseum, 1997), p. 118.
14 Michalak, p. 46.
15 Kokke, p. 117.
16 Zo a Kulik, “Commentary”, in ‘Magazyn Sztuki/Art Magazine’, nos. 15-16 [3-4/97], p.223.

Performng Lfe, LVNG Art

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Performng Lfe, LVNG Art

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

14/04/2019 Katarzyna Michalak “Performing Life, Living Art: Abramovic/Ulay and KwieKulik”, 1999 — Zofia Kulik / KwieKulik / Kulik-KwieKulik …

Katarzyna Michalak “Performing Life, Living Art:

Afterimage, 16 November/December 1999

Performing Life, Living Art: Abramovic/Ulay and KwieKulik

Abramovic/Ulay adopted a similar perspective in their performance Communist Body/Capitalist

Abramovic/Ulay presented themselves as products of a political system while KwieKulik

Zo a Kulik, sketches and notes for the performance Polish Duo 1

KwieKulik performed multi-piece performances with complicated symbolic meaning. They

KwieKulik, Activites with a Frame, 1980

From the series Activities with Dobromierz (I) (1972-74) by KwieKulik

11 Reaktion 5 (Alsbach, Germany: Verlaggalerie Leaman, 1980).

16 Zo a Kulik, “Commentary”, in ‘Magazyn Sztuki/Art Magazine’, nos. 15-16 [3-4/97], p.223.

Você também pode gostar