All My Heroes Kill Themselves, 2023-2025 – Daniel Gianfranceschi

In the Essay All My Heroes Kill Themselves – the title loosely referencing the album title All my Heroes are Cornballs by JPEGMafia – Gianfranceschi attempts to trace the history and legacy of artists and creative that have, unfortunately, died by their own hand. With examples based on the work of the likes of David Foster Wallace, Mike Kelley, Kurt Cobain, Mark Rothko, Gilles Deleuze and many more, the essay tries to get a sense of how mental illness in the arts is treated as both the fuel of the fire and the fire itself. Why is it that these highly creative people succumb to a thing that, for all intents and purposes, is ephemeral and, unlike the work itself, not graspable? Why is it that they could not fight it? The essay does not emphasise chronology or historical accuracy, but rather attempts to subjectively assess the extent to which a theme such as depression was present in these individuals‘ works. Furthermore, the question arises: is the work the only thing that is left, as a trace of a life lived, or should the discourse on depression and mental illness in their work be as equally important as what they leave behind? 

It goes without saying, but: the following contains mentions of suicide.
If you, or anyone you know, is suffering, please consider reaching out to the designated suicide prevention hotline of your given country. 

Pain leaves a rotten odor; you may smell it for weeks.

Vincent Van Gogh, supposedly, shot himself in a (lovely) field, as to avoid the pain of existence. Mark Rothko slit his wrists in his New York studio in 1970 having, probably and most likely, been subjected to manic-depression. David Foster Wallace hung himself in his apartment while his then wife Karen Green was out for groceries (this may sound, to some, as if I were blaming Green for going to the supermarket but I want to clarify that I am surely not). The beloved chef and TV-Show host Anthony Bourdain hung himself in a hotel room in 2018. David Berman of Silver Jews-fame and the newly grouped Purple Mountains chose to end his life in 2019. The Chinese novelist and film-director Hu Bo was found dead in 2017 after conflicts with his producer-team. Apparent suicide. Chester Bennington and Chris Cornell both decided to end their life in 2017, after a long and well-documented struggle with depression and addiction. Ian Curtis had been suffering from the after-effects of a declining mental health and repeated seizures that he decided, in 1980, to commit suicide. The popular rapper 6 Dogs killed himself in 2021, at 21 years of age. Mr. Always Smiling aka. Robin Williams decided, in 2014, to not continue on living. Elliott Smith, apparently and supposedly, killed himself in 2003. Nick Drake committed suicide in 1974, long before his actual career could ever take off. Keith FlintThe Firestarter, killed himself in 2019. Alexander McQueen, fashions Enfant Terrible, killed himself in 2010. 

Before starting this rather dubious inquisition, it should be noted that the author does not pretend to know what on God’s green earth is/was truly going on in the minds of anybody else and everything here is pure speculation, except for what ends up being facts. This supposition of a thought-experiment is merely based on a particular shared-sensibility between those names mentioned that, on the surface, might have nothing in common except the unfortunate fact that they all, eventually, killed themselves at some point. This is also not a glorification of suicide, for that would certainly be in poor taste and not how real suicide looks like. Real suicide, speaking from someone who is currently not dead, seems to be exasperatingly lonely and profoundly decisive; romanticism has absolutely nothing on the actuality of the events, of a life that suddenly stops. In fact, suicide – often a result of a poor mental health – is the sharp end of a blade that trick you into thinking it is your only real friend, when, in reality, it suddenly becomes your biggest enemy. The question at hand is thus: how are such creative individuals, ranging from the likes of Mike Kelley, David Foster Wallace, Mark Rothko, Sylvia Plath etc. doomed by, presumably, the same cavity in the same brain that produces some of their best ideas? How are they not capable of talking themselves out of it and what does the deep end of depression truly look like?

If we start in chronological order, it could be arguable that Mike Kelley’s suicide shocked the art world because of how much it contrasts the nature of his work: often very colorful, bright, bordering on the scrummy but never without depth and meaning. Kelley was always outspoken about topics like abuse and mental anguish, often centering on topics like the repression of memories, childlike wonder etc. Kelley often talked about himself as having to have been abused, never shying away from an uncomfortable conversation, whichever form it might’ve taken. Rob Storr argues that Kelley became very disillusioned by the artworld and began loathing its mechanisms which, for someone who always felt more belonging in a punk-rock show than a white-cube, should come as no surprise. It is also rumored that Kelley was in debt when he chose to end his life, but this essay would like to not indulge in such frivolous activities. It seems that, by end of his life, there must’ve been a metaphorical voice in Kelley’s head going “to kill yourself is easier than having to deal with the artworld”, which really is never the case. So why succumb to such thinking? From a fellow (assumed) self-killer, Kurt Cobain, comes the saying “I miss the comfort in being sad” (in Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge On Seattle), which is a really dumbed-down way of actually saying a very profound thing: sometimes, a familiar sadness is a much higher high than an unfamiliar embrace of unknown circumstances (which might also be positive in nature). This is certainly viable, but the lyric seems to allude to the romanticizing of sadness as an aphrodisiac for the mind, which really is not the case. In most cases of acute, clinical depression, the sufferee is in the chokehold of the depression, but never under its spell, as if it was a thing one can opt out of at any given time. Thus, if we choose to believe that depression is, indeed, a sickness, how is it that powerful? How is it that being sad is, at times, easier than being happy, whatever happiness even means. 

A similar fate was bestowed upon fellow abstract expressionist Mark Rothko. Many would like to associate his later work, characterized by many blacks and greys, as being a reflection of his state of mind, but one ought also to remember the mane deep reds and pastel pinks he used towards the end of his life, clearly showing that depression does not have a color, contrary to what many might think. For both Rothko and Kelley, each respective career was flourishing, and opportunities were at an all-time high (which surely also take a toll on someone whose mental state is already frail enough as it is, no doubt). Naturally, the social discussion about depression in 1970 (when Rothko killed himself) and 2012 (when Kelley did) are two drastically different ones, so it must’ve felt even more alienating in Rothko’s time to have to battle one’s own brain, but we must not make distinctions purely based on time, because the disease is still the same. The thing is that, apparently, depression made it seem, to Rothko (serving as a stand-in for all) that death might be a better option than to continue to, in this case, painting, and that just cannot make sense. Incidentally, this is precisely the point that seems to evade the general public about suicide: that it has no clear purpose, no real long-run plan and no direction at all. It also does not make exceptions based on wealth, gender or social status, even if it should be noted that there are differences in how it masks itself (unfortunately, people who identify as transgender commit suicide far more often than average white cisgender men, for example.). 

The case of someone like David Foster Wallace is a more nuanced one, just because of how much he actually circumscribed talking about depression in his work (canonically becoming known as the depression author). Wallace underwent multiple attempts at electro-magnetic therapy and was dependent on anti-depressants for most of his life. His suicide could, technically speaking, be tossed up to him going off anti-depressants and, essentially, not handling it well, but that should not really be a surprise to anyone. His condition is also vastly different than that of someone like Gilles Deleuze, who, overwhelmed by his life-long respiratory problems, chose to throw himself out of his apartment’s window. This comparison is only made because both were, essentially, writers, their fate was the same and yet they got there in two very different ways (Wallace having died by hanging himself). Yet, Deleuze’s suicide was a reaction to his physical ailment, while Wallace’s was the conclusion of losing the battle with one’s own mind. Wallace also survived at least two more suicide attempts throughout his lifetime. So, how is it that the same brain that produced indelible literature classics also had the power to take the same life it birthed? It is very well known that the relationship between creativity and depression is a rather strong one, but it is also true that during intense periods of prolonged depression, the artist – in the general sense – is not capable of producing their best work because the sickness does not compel creativity but denies it. Actually, one could make the argument that the world at large is simply full of people that, today, chose to not kill themselves and continue on living because other things compelled them to and were more enticing than the prospect of a quick death. Yet, it always seems strange that there is no instance whatsoever that was able to talk Wallace (or any other unfortunate suicidee) out of ending their life, especially given that people like WallaceDeleuzeKelley etc. surely were very much fond of discussing things at large to reach a certain conclusion. It is almost as if the depression becomes the only interlocutor speaking any sense, when, in reality, the depression itself is the biggest trickster of all. Yet, it masks itself so well that it seems to, even if only for a moment, make more sense than any actual sense. In fact, all these instances are not, as Mark Fisher – another unfortunate prodigal lost to their own brain fallacy – would certainly agree with, insulated, individual problems, but only causalities in a looming haze of international mental anguish that just does not seem to go away. On a theological level, the more inquisitive ones would, eventually, be quick to question a God that lets us roam free in our own despair, because that is exactly the point: just as we are, essentially, free-willed in that we, differing from animals, are able to articulate our choices, we are almost completely free in our own suffering. Someone like Wallace, hanging himself while his unfortunate wife was out of the house, was only able to actually go through with his suicide because he was, like any other suicidee, supposedly and completely free in doing so. Now, to instigate a detention center that would physically prevent any suicide, would not only be moronic but bordering on the dictatorial, but, if we really think about it, suicide itself becomes dictatorial in the moment that life exits the limbs of the person preoccupied with dying. 

It remains a mystery how Chester Bennington, known for singing about his pains for more than a decade, was able to die by suicide and everyone be surprised and stunned by it, but he was able to because there is no entity that understands depression as a collective hurt and not as a purely individual one that is so encoded, it cannot be understood by anybody (which is always, always a lie). It continues to be baffling how depression quickly becomes illogical, if we take logic to belong to the living, especially because the correlation between creativity, certainly illogical in that it has no intrinsic value other than, firstly, for the maker, and depression occupying the same brain. The equations between retaining said creativity, especially for highly creative people, versus losing it to suicide should be a very quick draw, but it seldomly really is. So how can something that determines many lives be so senseless, is we deem the real world to make sense (even if only in a very chaotic and entropic way)?

Jim Carrey – the first mention that, thankfully, is still alive and hopefully well – once described depression as a “deep rest”, something the body (of the depressed person) needs to continue on living. It is arguable whether this makes any kind of sense or not, because the spirit is certainly not rested when in a depressive state. But what it certainly is a rest from is the shackles of modernity, the constant need for productivity, progress, products and payment, even if an involuntary one. 

The real challenge should be to stay sane, and not in the Artaud “What does sanity even mean” way but in the I’m-not-going-to-jump-off-the-roof kind of way, to be perfectly clear. In fact, depression, even if prolonged, is never permanent, but suicide itself is a permanent solution to temporary problems. Anyone with a brain can agree to this very statement, but that doesn’t inherently mean that those engaging in any kind of suicidal ideation will be able to see it for themselves; to not believe the lie that is dragging them under. Perhaps so, depression itself is the most illogical of catastrophes known to human being’s minds, for, as we have colorfully illustrated above, it can most certainly be without rhyme or reason to do so, which is exactly why it so often wins over the presumption of logic of the real world: the so called comfort in being sad – whatever that might mean – is often mistaken for the comfort in the feeling itself, but it should be noted that this presumed comfort is actually just the certainty of an emotion that through physicality becomes tangible, whereas normally, in modern life, our feelings and emotions don’t really dictate much of anything except our moods. It is completely logical that one would engage with such illogical thinking in a world that denies any kind of thinking, for that very thinking suddenly becomes real, not through the things we do for it but for the things it commands us not to do – to not go out, to recluse oneself, to minimize any kind of stimuli and so forth – in order to blossom. In this sense, what Carrey might be referring to certainly has some validity, in the sense that the depressed state becomes one that is the case, finite and valid because, for those suffering from it, it simply is and needs to be addressed. The rest – or reclusion, depending on who you ask, thus becomes more vital than any kind of activity. 

There are a trillion reasons why anyone, in today’s day and age, might be depressed (it is important to differentiate between the colloquial using of the term and the clinical condition, thus the italics), and presumably good ones as well. A mountain, in contrast to depression, is still a massive, arduous feat, but it is a visible one. Depression is the silent killer, one that is still treated with great amounts of shame and distrust, but one that is equally as deadly as other diseases. The term Club 27 is a globally recognized phenomenon that we have, all, somehow agreed upon being more of an interesting lure than something to be concerned about. So how is it, almost always, too late? How the fuck does someone who, like Foster Wallace, wrote manuscripts by hand – which for a book of over one thousand pages is almost psychotic – just go ahead and off themselves or, more accurately: how does the same brain that makes those wonderfully creative decisions make the choice of not wishing there to be more of them? Tom Sachs’s saying of “Creativity is the enemy” surely has some validity here, but creativity ought to be the one place that might reign over depression. In fact, in the most depressed of states, the artist (at large) will never be able to work, which means that when work is in bloom, depression cannot coexist. These are the moments which must be remembered, no matter how powerful the grip of psychic pain is. Moreover, the artist mentioned must not be remembered for their eventual suicide, but for the work, that outlived them, for the ideas they filled the world with – ideas that were surely intertwined with their own experiences with depression, but  never capitalized on any kind of romanticized notion of that very dread – which must stand as a testament for their fight against depression and not as fragments of it whispering into their ears. In the work of those mentioned – and everybody else that chose to not continue on living – we find traces of these very people; it’s not necessarily their bodies that live on, but rather their ideas. At least ever since conceptual art we have, collectively, agreed upon that the idea itself can be the art, so, perhaps, ideas themselves are equally as valuable, equally as descriptive of a life? 

In memory of: Vincent Van Gogh, Mark Rothko, David Foster Wallace, Anthony Bourdain, David Berman, Hu Bo, Ian Curtis, 6 Dogs, Robin Williams, Elliott Smith, Nick Drake, Keith Flint, Alexander McQueen, Sylvia Plath, Sarah Kane, Mike Kelley, Édouard Levé, Gherasim Luca, Paul Celan, Sadaharu Horio, Chester Bennington, Chris Cornell, Kurt Cobain, Gilles Deleuze, Ernest Hemingway, Mark Fisher, Diane Arbus, Nicolas De Staël, Chantal Akerman, Günther Fruhtrunk, Arshile Gorky, Walter Benjamin, Virginia Woolf, and all other people, famous and non, that died by their own hands. 


Biography
DANIEL GIANFRANCESCHI (*1999) is a multidisciplinary artist and writer working within the realms of painting, text and sound. Gianfranceschi previously studied fashion management under Prof. Sabine Resch & Prof. Markus Mattes and is now continuing his studies in painting and sound at the Academy of Fine Arts in Munich under Prof. Florian Pumhösl & Prof. Florian Hecker. His work has been shown at Kunstpavillon München, Goethe-Institut Athens, Künstlerhaus Stuttgart, Württembergischer Kunstverein Stuttgart and, most recently, Museum Brandhorst, among others. Writing contributions have been featured in Erratum Press, Cutt Press, Virgo Venus Press, Sleeve Magazine, Positionen Magazin, Frameless Magazin and more. His musical output has been performed at various institutions and featured in compilations by the likes of Industrial Coast, Les Horribles Travailleurs and more.

Georges Bataille’s Transgression in Michael Haneke’s „The Piano Teacher“, 2024-2025 – Daniel Gianfranceschi

In the essay Geroges Bataille’s Trangression in Michael Haneke’s “The Piano Teacher”, Gianfranceschi examines the relationship between lust, desire and acts of transgressive sexual behaviour exhibited by the protagonist, Erika Kohut, in an effort to to decipher how the three might interlink or be heterogenous to each other.

Lust, in comparison to love, does not need to rely on respect, neither personal nor altruistic. It can, but it is not bound to it. In fact, the experience of lust can be built upon the active disregard for respect, giving in or submitting to an eventual urge that overtakes the notion of respect, morals, boundaries collectively understood as the edge between amorality, perversion and displays of sexuality societally understood as acceptable, within the confines of the infrastructure of a society or in the comfort of your own home, which, in this case, becomes the denial of formalities in favor for the submission to carnal delights. Naturally, as Georges Bataille suggests, carnal pleasures do not come about without the omission of a particular transgression, but what if, considering the portrait of Erika Kohut in Michael Haneke’s The Piano Teacher–a voyeuristic, semi sadomasochistic, you guessed it, piano teacher that enjoy sexual acts from a far rather than indulging in her own fantasies, the transgression does not even need to take place for the pleasure to be reached? 

Something that Bataille perhaps forgot to mention in his freakishly indulgent monologues about eroticism as a whole is the potential of said eroticism in the clear delineation of its own limitations, in as much as that pleasure might actually come from knowing about those very transgressions but not indulging in overstepping them. Kohut, in the movie as with in the book, is not seen as someone with no desires, who is not interested at all in any sexual activity, but she is neither seen in a position where the vicarious experience of sexual actions provides her with something akin to any satisfaction at all, upon which one could question the nature of the statement at hand, seeing as there is nothing reached and so, in true Bataille fashion, there also cannot be any “little death”, as in orgasm. This might be true to some extent, especially considering that when her fantasies are, finally, not shared and she is actually violated (something that, to some extent, she seemed to loosely allude to previously as actually enjoying, as in “physical pain” but not necessarily the actual abuse), she obviously does not enjoy it all, which begs the question if the fantasies portrayed beforehand are any less valid now. Furthermore, it should also be noted that visiting pornographic movie theatres, which Kohut also does in secret, could already be considered a transgression of a particular taboo, even if those institutions exist precisely so that the taboo might be, even if momentarily, broken and indulged in. What remains fascinating about the character-study Haneke/ Jelinek presented is the fact that, and this is speculation about something fictional so there might actually not even be a word describing this bumbo-jumbo but, if Kohut had not met Klemmer (her, well, person of erotic interest, let’s put it that way)–who, as we now know, does not share Kohut’s fantasizes of violence and bondage-related causalities–it might actually be possible that Kohut would be just as contempt in never living out her fantasies, for she might not have had the guts to tell somebody else her wishes. Haneke/ Jelinek make it pretty clear that, to some extent, Kohut does strive for a realization of her desires, but they also make it abundantly clear that the reality of said desire does not match Kohut’s fantasies, which in turn has to be put into question considering that high level of intellect the character of Kohut is inscribed with, making the audience wonder if it might’ve not been possible that Kohut was already aware of the fact that a fantasy is not to be matched with reality. 

Towards the end of the film, when Kohut express her wishes–which are not met with empathy–we see her distraught by this contrast in desire, with a facial expression that almost scream “I would’ve been better off in not having said anything”, almost regretting opening up about her deepest wishes. Klemmer even goes so far as to describe Kohut’s predilections for a mutilation and sadism a “sickness”, which not only makes Kohut visibly ashamed–something she should, under the right circumstances, not be–but also seems to impose a hierarchy of desire, where there is a normal desire and an abnormal one. This is not entirely false, considering that those interested in the sexual practices Kohut seems to be interested in are few and far between (in the general scope of things, of course), but it is only deemed as abnormal when somebody else does not reciprocate it. This revelation is not portrayed as a learning-moment for Kohut. Instead, in true Haneke-fashion, we are left in a haze of unanswered threads, with the only thing remaining a terribly tragic gut feeling, screaming that not everything happens for a reason. 

It is entirely possible that, in general, the desire is already the final act of the game we like to call eroticism. Unfortunately, the human brain has the tendency to want to indulge in the reality of something, so the transgression of action is always on the table, but it seems that Kohut (or someone with a predisposition like hers) is acutely aware of her desires, making its manifestation almost unnecessary because the desire is, presumably, so specific that the actual personification of its ramifications would be a tedious and difficult act. Additionally, we know how much we humans like to rely on commodities, so there might be a point in which the transgression does not need to actually happen because the transgression already happened in the ether of the mind. This, of course, is a rather solitary existence (and both the book and the film never shy away from presenting Kohut’s existence, even if in a revered position, as such). It seems that Kohut’s story works best when thought about in-between the dichotomy of action and non-action; Kohut as someone that does crave a very specific kind of intimacy, but also as someone that is highly self-indulgent, probably thinks very highly of herself and also presents herself as such, clearly indicating a certain higher/upper-class. Kohut is also constantly seen as wanting to be in control of a particular situation, whether that is in the way her relationship with her live-in mother is portrayed or the way in which she purposefully traumatizes her students, in order to get the “best results” out of them. Thus, it could be arguable that when someone like Kohut, who seems to thrive in control, is met with a predilection for giving up control in favor of sexual pleasure, the result is a conflicted one, and that is putting it lightly. In fact, even Kohut’s transgressions are completely controlled, solitary and, mostly, carefully planned (or at least presented as such). In the case of the underlying paraphilia of Kohut mixed with sado-masochistic tendencies, the one transgression one has to actually commit to if the desire is to be lived out within the confines of one’s own body and not with others is the verification of the flesh in the form of corporal punishment, which one would need to commit fully to in order to manifest the actual desire. Beyond this, one has to transgress not only the body but also the impulse to abuse the body, so a double transgression of sorts. This might be where the dichotomy between action and reaction persists, because to fulfill a desire for self-harm, one has to actually act on it, relinquishing control just enough to be satisfied with the final “result”. The desire itself might be enough for a while, perhaps for more than expected, but eventually the desire is bound to swallow up the person’s body entirely, commanding death of the ego in the form of consensual (or not, actually) violence against the self, perhaps even in the comfort of your own living room. You see, this might sound contradictory to what is stated above, in that in this case the desire is actually lived out, but it is only lived out with oneself, perhaps even actively choosing to restrain oneself from indulging in it with another being. In this case, the transgression is calculated, meaning that it can never fully be a transgression but rather an attempt to circumvent actuality. It could also be seen as a practice run, for the usual tendency in sexual practices is the togetherness of oneself and that of another person, indulging in respective desires. In this case, the desire is lived out alone, which begs the question if we can actually speak of “lived out” fully: we encounter Kohut as clearly, or, at least tangentially, sociopathic, no friends, no real intrapersonal relationships with her colleagues and even her repour with her mother is flawed at best and toxic at worst. Kohut never really makes a big deal about her obvious solitude, which might mean to imply a certain satisfaction with it. Her para-social behavior also begs the question as to whether or not her sociopathic tendencies dictate her sexual desire or vice versa. Naturally, her solitude only exasperates her desire which, in true De-Sadeian fashion, if never acted upon can only, some would say, bring about great pain and present a clear disconnect between idealism and reality. Kohut is, in this sense, presented as a complete hypocrite, enjoying sexual acts only from a far but, without acting upon this desire; desperately wishing to be corporally punished. Still, we as the audience do feel pity for her when Klemmer, well, basically kink-shames her, because this scene–in which Kohut presents Klemmer with a plethora of gadget and sex-toys hidden in her room–is the first time Kohut is presented as being vulnerable. She also lays out her desires in a relatively, for a sociopath, empathetic way, so that the audience almost wants her to finally get what she craves. Haneke (and Jelinek) derails this proposition in a way only he knows how. Equally as interesting is the question of why Kohut doesn’t just pay for the service she desires and, instead, seems to, dare one say, almost fall in a sort of proto-love with Klemmer. It then would appear that the sociopathic shell is merely a defense mechanism and that she does, indeed, crave not only hurt but also affection and as much as eventual “love”? Haneke shows us that, for Kohut, to love would equal to inflict or receive corporal pain, whereas for Klemmer, love and pain are not mutually exclusive. It would then appear that, the Batailleian transgression suddenly becomes a subjective one, where desire suddenly becomes categorized between a “sickness” and a wish for something to occur. 

What The Piano Teacher masterfully tries to hint at is the possibility of absolution through desire and the required dedication to it, even if it leads to a rather miserable and solitary life. Perhaps, and just perhaps, there is no desire without suffering and just as Buddhism teaches that all earthly hurt is caused by a desire to want, maybe, just maybe the inverse can also be the truest deliverance of all; a desire that is so all consuming, it does not need to be acted upon, growing evermore in every loin full of splendor, a desire that is self-aware enough to realize its own fallacy but be resolute in as much as it is satiated through its own sheer manifestation. Perhaps the only real transgression that is still possible is the neglection of one’s own being in favor for the apparition of desire to be able to take shape. In fact, don’t we talk about “losing ourselves to love” and doing anything and everything for it? Perhaps the latent pseudo-sado-masochistic element of love–that, in turn, seems to stem at least partly from desire–is all that we are allowed to be, lost in the proclamation of a union that never completely satisfies desire, for otherwise that very intrapersonal relationship would stop being desired at all. This desire, perhaps, needs to annihilate us in order so that we keep on losing ourselves to the love we claim to feel; it needs to smother us from the inside out because without it, there’d be nothing to strive towards, even if we fully know that the pinnacle of ultimate pleasure, resulting from the congruence between our wished upon desire and that that is actually manifested, cannot coexist and need to disparate to each other. The body needs to become accustomed to a certain tolerance for a lack of manifested desire in order keep striving towards it. Those that do not uphold this tolerance and go beyond it–like murderers, dictators and so on–are shunned by society; a society that knows that, in action, there have to be boundaries. In the mind, desire is allowed to grow into itself evermore, so why not indulge in just that? Those that often do certainly know the difference between desire and fantasy: the ladder sort of manifests itself through the former, but those under the spell of desire are completely aware of the fantasy that is being created, thus even in an illogical realm of dreams and desires, the idiosyncrasy of the lived out and the desired is completely apparent and not in need of hiding. Kohut’s existence, is caught between the two extremes, wishing to be equally as much as to not, so that by the end, after her wishes and desires are not meant, one might wonder what this means for her, as the kids say, “character development”. Perhaps nothing at all, as Haneke finishes the story before a resolution for the character can ever take place. 

Quellen

Haneke, Michael (Director): The Piano Teacher (after Elfriede Jelinek eponymous book), 131 min., 2001.

Bataille, Georges: Eroticism, Penguin Modern Classics, UK, 2012.


Biografie

DANIEL GIANFRANCESCHI (*1999) is a multidisciplinary artist working within the realms of painting, writing and sound. Gianfranceschi is currently studying at the Academy of Fine Arts in Munich under Prof. Florian Pumhösl. In 2023, he founded the online-blog „Subject Change“, hosting interviews with the likes of Boris Bidjan Saberi, Meo Fusciuni, Stephanie Stein, Zimoun, Stephanie Stein any many more.

You Want It Darker, 2024 – Daniel Gianfranceschi

Daniel Gianfranceschi untersucht in seinem Text You Want it Darker die Bedeutung der Verwendung von schwarzer Farbe in künstlerischen Werken und bei Designobjekten. Entgegen der weitverbreiteten Annahme, dass dunkle Farbtöne allein symbolisch für Gefühle des Düsteren stehen, plädiert er dafür, diese ebenfalls als Ausdruck von Eleganz, Klarheit und Ruhe zu betrachten. Seine feinfühlige Werkbetrachtung einzelner Arbeiten führt die Bedeutungsvielfalt einer dunklen Farbpalette vor Augen und zeigt, welche Schaffenskraft aus ihr erwachsen kann. 

Reading time: 9 minutes

In a recent conversation with fashion designer Boris Bidjan Saberi, he briefly mentioned the societal dichotomy between the color black as something dark and tenebrous and the fact that, for him and many alike (one needs only to think of fashion designers such as Rick Owens or Ann Demeulemeester), a darker color palette can mean elegance, clarity, and tranquility. In western society especially, black is often equated to the counterpart to all other colors, standing alone, like a monolithic presence. In turn, one cannot help but to view the color black (and with it, a darker color palette) as the negation of all other shades and tones. Instead, one should perhaps be more akin to recognize black and the darker pigments as integral to the whole. 

Even more so, one should refrain from attributing a peculiar sense of dread, sadness or, colloquially speaking, darkness to the darker pigments, for more often than not they are less of a representation of a personal state of being and more an aesthetic/ philosophical choice, in favor against many others. As you can see, in terms of clothing, a darker palette in one’s wardrobe might be, first and for most, the result of one of either two things: a particular kind of boredom, nurtured through many years of senseless consumption against the backdrop of multicolored clothing articles that do not match each other or, going hand in hand with boredom, a laziness that is not to be misunderstood as negative. Relying on multiple shades of black will always be a saver option than, for the sake of argument, on differing shades of green. By choosing to forego color and embrace something that absorbs light rather than reflecting it, one is actively trying to get out of the way, spiritually, and focus on the day to day, just as a carpenter might rely on functional clothing.1 Of course, as sociologist Georg Simmel would say, everything that was once a trend will be one again, even things and objects that indirectly go against the very act of being trendy.2 In recent years, we have seen an upstream of monochrome colorists, spectacularly ruining the color black by making its very inception a pseudo-intellectual act of rebellion, against whom or what is yet to be seen. Wearing black is not an economical choice anymore, it has become an aesthetic. 

That being said, there are times where the darkness of the black pigment – whether it be charcoal, sumi-ink made out of sooth or oil painting – is actually required for a specific artistic purpose. One would be very quick to think of Kasimir Malevich, requesting that nothing might be more important than the essence of color itself.3 Beyond this, one could mention Richard Serra’s paper-based oeuvre, clearly defined by a special kind of oil stick (made exclusively for him) which is then applied to paper in, often, geometrical patterns coincidentally resembling the artists monumental sculptures. In Serra’s case, the darkness of the pigment is reinforced by the molecular and sculptural quality of the oil stick, acting as something between painting and sculpture, creating densely layered landscapes of color. Here, the work is as much about what it is actually made of as it is about what is being depicted on the paper. Color eventually becomes material and mass simultaneously.4 Even Pierre Soulages, someone who gave his life to the color black, did not do so for a spiritual reasoning, relating black pigment to darkness of the mind but rather because the interplay between light and shadows, edges and curves, matt and gloss that he was working on could truly only be achieved with a pigment as dark as black.5 For a more contemporary approach, one could look at the way Helmut Lang employs black as a homogenizing entity within each sculptural work, highlighting not only each material singularly but also the result of the combination of multiple discordant parts, ultimately making up the whole.6 We thus slowly begin to see that, contrary to societal depiction, an increasingly darker color palette, often inevitably leading to the monochrome, does not necessarily recall an upsetting, gloomy state of being but that darkness of color-pigments is, very often, a formal decision, drawing on questions of space, line, composition and the possible finality of abstract painting. To better demonstrate this phenomenon, we shall look at the ever so popular Yves Klein blue-pigment, a pigment popularized so well by the artist, it received its own designated name.7 One could argue that Klein’s blue monochromes are, in fact, so effective and popular precisely because of the chosen color, lending specificity to the work. If we apply this logic to the many artists that have worked with a, by chance or choice, darker color palette, we will soon come to find that most black monochrome works that have stood the test of time and have been deemed, critically, important ask questions of a visual and formal nature, which in turn must be executed in precisely this way in order to work. Ellsworth Kelly’s many monochrome warped canvases, often including the color black in their compositions, work exactly because of what they are: abstract depictions of a particular moment in time, irreplicable by anything else that is not what it ends up being.8

The assumption that a darker color palette equals a withering state of mind is, perhaps, to give benefit to doubt, sometimes partially true, yet the final result is not mutually exclusive. Mark Rothko choose to pursue a drastically darker kind of color-field painting, consisting primarily of blacks, whites and grays towards the untimely end of his life.9 Francisco de Goya and his rather infamous black paintings, originally drawn directly onto the walls of his then abode, are the clear result of a man losing his sense of sanity. What is remarkable is that, while deaf as can be and, presumably suffering greatly, the painterly quality of the works remains immaculate.10 In Rothko’s case, we ought to remember that the artist, while sticking to trying to portray the whole universe in his blacks and grays, also endeavored into acrylic drawings which, in contrast, featured bright yellows, light-blues and pastel pinks.11 The correlation between color and state of mind might be as evident as one being the reflection of the other but we cannot rely on this rule, as we see highlighted by the many examples, indefinitely. The clearest example that underlines this might be that of the grand-Dutch, Van Gogh himself.12 Plagued by what we now could (and should) consider a severe case of a poor mental health, Van Gogh was notorious for always finding joy and resistance against the ills that indulge the mind in the vast landscapes of nature, flowers, and greenery. Naturally, Van Gogh, consuming great quantities of absinth regularly, did not combat his suffering in the slightest, nor was he equipped to do so, and we shall refrain from any judgement or false diagnosis. What is interesting is that nobody would suspect that somebody harboring great discomfort would be drawn to paint the same sunflowers in a multitude of variations, just to name one example of the radiosity of Van Gogh’s process. Instead of bright field of blossoming flowers and night skies of infinite splendor, one would, knowing of Van Gogh’s various conditions, imply a more subdued, gloomy, and perhaps somber undertone to his oeuvre. 13

Of course, there are times where the darkness of the pigment is inherently a cultural and historical phenomenon. If we think of Asian calligraphy art, dating back to the Shang dynasty (circa 1600 – 1100 B.C.), we are quick to find that the overarching color is black sumi ink. In this case, form follows function: the ink needs to be black to assure the highest possible contrast between ink and paper, making for a more readable final result.14 It also needs to be acknowledged that artists like Soulages, Kline, Ücker, Fontana and many others where deeply aware of Asian traditions and all had a deep fondness for Asian calligraphy.15 In hindsight, it is abundantly clear of how Asian traditions partially lead to modernism and the rise of the monochrome. Yet the incongruence between a western way of viewing the dark(ness) and an eastern does not end there. In western housing and street planning, the common tendency is to neglect shadows or darker, perhaps worse lit parts of any building. This is done by adding lighting systems, cutting down precious nature such as foliage and trees, preferring the sunrise/ sunset view over the worse lit one, and so on. In eastern philosophy, the shadow is not something to neglect but a part of the whole, something to integrate and with which one can cause an interplay between light and darkness, sunshine, and shadows.16

We must not fear the darkness but embrace it. In this case, one needs to assume that there are indeed times wherein the artist has suffered and gone through dark times for their art, yet the two are not mutually exclusive to one another. One could think of figures such as Käthe Kollwitz, Alberto Burri or Zoran Music – people that endured horribly dark times filled with tremendous atrocities like war, concentration camps and deep poverty – and directly connect their life experiences to what they chose to explore in their art. Kollwitz gave a voice to the voiceless by immortalizing them on paper, for us to never forget.17 Music would process his time in the hellscape of German concentration camps by painting the horror he witnessed firsthand and would eventually find some kind of solace (if one can call it that) in this relentless act of self-documentation of a life stolen and then, partially, regained.18 Burri, employed in the second World War, serving as a medic and being captured by third parties, would go on to a reshaped notion of painting in the twentieth century with the use of his signature materials such as burlap, metal, wood, plastic, and using combustion as a literal painting tool. One could argue that Burri’s experiences in the war and the indelible scars those horrid memories must have left in his psyche would go to inform his painting and perhaps even be the incipit of it. The artist, in his lifetime, always denied this but the connection is evident as day.19 Logically, painting will reflect, in its composition and color-choices, the spiritual state of the maker, just like the densely dark color palette of some of the last works by Francisco de Goya are, in fact, indicative of a decline in mental and physical health.20 The proclivity to want to see parts of oneself in the work one is doing is in all of us, yet we must try to understand darkness as a part of the deal without dwelling on it. This, of course, is easier said than done if one happens to be afflicted by any kind of mental or physical illness, yet it is imperative that one tries to understand that worthwhile art does not foresee suffering as a requirement for its existence. In fact, in periods where darkness would be quick to swallows us whole, creation is never at the forefront and if it is its results are sub-par to say the least. Instead, centering oneself to a journey of betterment should be taken seriously. To create is a joy, one that surely can be led on by troublesome times, yet the creative act itself is a blossoming flower, rejoicing in the fact that there is a common ground to be had. To quote the late Leonard Cohen, whose final album marked the impetus for this discourse about darkness: “There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in”.21


Biografie

DANIEL GIANFRANCESCHI ist multidisziplinärer Künstler, Autor und Interviewer. Im Anschluss an sein Studium des Mode-Managements studiert er aktuell an der AdbK in München bei Prof. Florian Pumhösl und Prof. Florian Hecker. In seiner künstlerischen Praxis konzentriert sich Gianfranceschi auf Begriffe der Malerei und des Klangs und versucht zu erfassen, was Stille und Nichts bedeuten können. Seine intuitive Herangehensweise spürt dabei der Unwiederholbarkeit von Momenten nach und durch die Minimierung der visuellen Sprache geht er symbiotische Beziehung mit den Kräften außerhalb seiner selbst ein. In seiner schriftbasierten Praxis versucht Gianfranceschi, Themen wie Kunstkritik, Kunstgeschichte und popkulturelle Phänomene auf essayistische Weise zu behandeln. Das Schreiben dient ihm dabei als düsterer und direkter Ausdruck seines Gesamtwerks und setzt sich kritisch mit der conditio humana auseinander. Gianfranceschi ist außerdem Gründer des Online-Blogs „Subject Change“, auf dem sich seine eigenen Texte aber auch immer wieder Interviews mit bekannten und aufstrebenden Stimmen aus der Kreativszene, wie Modedesigner Boris Bidjan Saberi, Keith Boadwee, Kristof Hahn (Swans), Stephanie Stein, Meo Fusciuni u.v.m, finden.