What I felt from Holzer’s works, at first were that they were visualising the theory of visual art (mostly visual communication system). It bases on semiotics so that what Norman Bryson clarified by his discourse and what Holzer clarified by her presentations were the same. It is too clear to understand her work from the aspect of sign system. Her rhetoric is perfect because she used them consciously. This is the difference between her works and the works that Bryson interpreted in his essay. All the works he picked up were obeying the sign system unconsciously. On the contrary Holzer consciously controlled discursive meanings and figural meanings. By her intention, she also brought the “weaker side” of the words to the centre, and is playing our conscious and unconscious.

 Michael Auping describes the history that linguistic texts came into art work in his book “Jenny Holzer”……..4;

“As early as 1908, the Cubists incorporated fragments of language into their paintings……”₉.  Then he described Dada collagists. However, we cannot ignore the existence of Marcel Duchamp. He describes, “Duchamp brought about an uneasy awareness that art is a system dominated by language and that its meanings are determined by consensus and usage……..”₁₀.

Duchamp had already noticed the blind spot of our perception at that time. However, we can distinguish Holzer’s works from Duchamp’s. Duchamp’s works were irreplaceable, but Holzer’s are replaceable to other representations.

 She used language as a language, even though they are also visual signs. She started text work from “Truisms series” that had absolutely no image and no decoration. It took many ways of representations. In each time it changed its appearance and she titled her works such as “Untitled (Selection from truisms)”, “Selection from Inflammatory Essays”, “Selection from The Living series”, “Selection from Survival series” and “Selection from Lustmord series”. Her recent work “Lustmord” (1993‒94) had presented by photographs of handwriting texts on the skin and presented with human bones rang by carved silver. Although she used image (object) as a visual communication in her presentation, the text “Lustmord” still exists in itself. In another word, her text itself is her work as a literature. It is independent from its presentations. Her presentation is a context. Remember there were two aspects of context. “Context in art work” and “art work in context”.

 However it is impossible to draw a line between “context in work” and “context out of work”. Now I would like to try to research all the contexts around her work. In case of the exhibition at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum 1989, when I assume her works are linguistic texts, all the presentations including LED signs and the space (museum) become contexts.　However it is obvious that these are parts of her work. How about, the artist = Holzer (who made), the viewers (who perceive), the time (when it happened) and the history of Holzer and viewers and art history, are?

 These are the contexts. It is too hard to judge that what is the context in her work and out of her work. However the important thing is that she knows consciously her work would be involved in these contexts (all are under her control) and I guess she would not mind to represent her work in different context (out of her control) near or far future. Because she must know that contexts are changeable without limit.

 All these contexts are the ones that exist when we see her work. We should not forget the context when she made her work, it means when she made her texts at first, although she might think some ways of presentations. This is absolutely the context in her work (in her text).

 We must recognise her texts as independent works. They can exist in any kind of contexts around them. They are literature. There is no reason that visual artists cannot produce literature. Her “Truism”, “Inflammatory Essays”, “Laments”, “Lustmord” ,etc. are poems. She produced only 9 texts in 17 years. They are very carefully considered and perfectly finished (much controlled).

 Her presentation roles to attract the audience. It emphasizes the message of the texts, and give us more than the message (another meaning out of the texts). This point is the essence of her work. But more important thing is her text itself. It is obvious now that the most important thing of art is not its appearance, but its essence. It is difficult to define what the essence is. And it is true that the appearance brings us the essence. I do not say her essence exists only in her texts, but they are the bases of her works. A presentation adds the meaning or changes the meaning of its text. Because it is a context.

 Next, I would like to get into her texts. But now I have some questions to think: 1. What is her unconscious? Because her work is very much controlled. 2. What is her body? Because I cannot see her body including her vision and desire in her work.

 To think about the body I came to have another question now; What is the body? Is that also a sign?

Notes