04.05 – 09.06


sýningarstjórar: Bjarni Þór Pétursson

curators:              Gústav Geir Bollason


Helene Garberg

Kah Bee Chow

Bjarni Þór Pétursson

Þorbjörg Jónsdóttir

15.06 – 28.07


How's it Going?

Comment ça va?

eftir/ after  Godard.

sýningarstjórar: Pascale Cassagnau

curators:              Gústav Geir Bollason  


Eric Baudelaire

Louidgi Beltrame

Safia Benhaïm

Wang Bing

Nicolas Boone

Jean- Luc Godard

Paul Grivas

Parfait Kaboré

Lamine Ammar Khodja

Lech Kowalski

Allan Sekula

Marie Voignier


03.08 – 08.09






sýningarstjóri / curator: Erin  Honeycutt


Bryndís Hrönn Ragnarsdóttir

Eygló Harðardóttir

Geirþrúður Finnbogadóttir Hjörvar  Lee Lorenzo Lynch

Ólöf Helga Helgadóttir

Páll Haukur Björnsson,

Pétur Már Gunnarsson

Þorbjörg Jónsdóttir

14.09 – 13.10



Sonia Levy

Karen Kramer

19.10 – 27.10





professor: Bryndís Snæbjörnsdóttir


Nemendur í meistaranám í myndlist í listaháskóla íslands


Students of the master's program in fine art at the Iceland Academy of the Arts

YFIRSTANDANDI sýning  / ONGOING exhibition




Artists:  Eric Baudelaire - Louidgi Beltrame - Safia Benhaïm - Wang Bing - Nicolas Boone - Jean- Luc Godard - Paul Grivas -   Parfait Kaboré - Lamine Ammar Khodja - Lech Kowalski - Allan Sekula - Marie Voignier

Curators: Pascale Cassagnau, Gústav Geir Bollason

Text: Pascale Cassagnau  see below


15.06 / 28.07 _____________________________________________________






Listamenn: Eric Baudelaire - Louidgi Beltrame - Safia Benhaïm - Wang Bing - Nicolas Boone - Jean- Luc Godard - Paul Grivas -   Parfait Kaboré - Lamine Ammar Khodja - Lech Kowalski - Allan Sekula - Marie Voignier

Sýningarstjórar: Pascale Cassagnau, Gústav Geir Bollason

Texti: Pascale Cassagnau / Þýding: Margrét Elísabet Ólafsdóttir  sjá fyrir neðan

HOW´S IT GOING / Comment ça va? AFTER GODARD The Comment ça va? D’après Godard project and programme draws on the eponymous 1978 film by Jean-Luc Godard ("How's It Going?") to showcase documentaries and informational films that demonstrate an ability to transcend time and capture the essence of truth and reality, not as a means to an end, but rather as tools and resources that forge a path, undertake a journey through a complex political landscape. All the works here are elaborated as virtual meta-essay on the communication process. In Comment ça va ? (1978, 70’), a wide-ranging cultural implications movie, Jean-Luc Godard filmed an exchange between the editor of a communist and trade unionist newspaper and his colleague, a left-wing activist, as they put together a piece designed to show the processes involved in producing their daily paper. The film is about politics and the media, in which two workers in a newspaper plant attempt to make a film. Combining video and film, Comment ça va? is a dialectic on the dissemination and the processing of information, a movie about the transmission of ideas by the major media.. The pair disagree on how information ought to be handled, and in particular on how two specific images should best be used and captioned. The first shows civilians and soldiers in conflict during Portugal's Carnation Revolution, and the second a clash between strikers and French anti-riot forces during a protest. While the film succeeds in 'exposing' all the complexities of the ideological tensions and dissent that divide France's left wing, through the editing and sense of movement it also dissects the rhetorical dimension at play when news is written. Comment ça va? (How it is going?) asks Comment ça va le cinema? ( How is the cinema going?) as well. With Comment ça va ?How it is going?, Jean-Luc Godard was reaffirming an aesthetic programme, a thought by the media and the cinema. The works that feature in the Comment ça va? D’après Godard line-up put forth a certain number of hypotheses that simultaneously touch upon a cross-section of the various motifs inherent to contemporary art, the artistic process itself, and the scope for narrative in doing justice to "stories that cry out to be told", to use a turn of phrase coined by the philosopher Paul Ricoeur in Temps et Récit I. This is a collection of films anchored in conscious thought. Films/Screenings: About a nomadic form of cinema. Among all the parallel histories which have been woven between contemporary art and the expanded field of creation, the mutual relationships between cinema and art have played an essential role throughout the aesthetic history of the twentieth century, producing an analysis of images and of the mass media as well as a critique of representation. A certain number of contemporary works in the field of video or motion pictures make explicit references to cinema in various ways which designate a set of common hypotheses concerning representation and which Serge Toubiana primarily defines as motion. He says: “cinema is motion, it is a way of going with reality, of perceiving part of it, of following its course and of marking it with signs.” Even though dialogues between art and cinema go from contemporary art towards cinema, they also designate a move from cinema towards contemporary art with the invention of Unidentified Filmed Objects (another kind of UFOs). For a few years interactions between contemporary art and documentaries have proved particularly fecund because documents and archives considered as an issue and a method have constituted a true mental horizon of empirical data and marks of historicity. This applies to art and cinema alike. The territory of documentaries reveals a working process common to artists and film-makers – the fact that they set up film elements in a non-linear way and outside purely narrative structures. In that regard, the relationships between documentaries and reality or narration are always critical and ambiguous. The horizon of contemporary works of art or cinema – be they close to the audience or more remote – constitutes a specific meta-aesthetic frame due to the fact that entities of universality and wholeness have been irrelevant for a long time. A long time ago they gave way to entities of intersubjectivity and personal re-appropriation of History and individual stories. The own nature of documents could be defined as a value for claiming back forms of subjectivity and historicity. Cinema is now part of the definition of the new conditions of subjectivity, when everyone can write their own biography and claim back their own identity in tight relationship with other people. Programme The programme of video films conceived in the framework of Comment ça va? How it is going? aims to present works that look at the question of information, of which Jean-Luc Godard ‘s film speaks. The works chosen belong to the realm of the new documentary practices that are representative of contemporary french creation in its wider context. These works also show a specific architecture, the architecture of the media, overturning the form of the information in order to criticise the ideological and rhetorical dimension, as well as its effects of violence. The works show a political approach to filmic narrative that sketches a politics of the subject. The work of the image, the way of making editing , the fragmentation, the reference to the filmic space are their most decisive concerns. With*: -Eric Baudelaire, L'Anabase de May et Fusako Shigenobu, Masao Adachi et 27 ans sans images, 2011, 66' -Louidgi Beltrame, Energodar, 2010,36' -Safia Benhaïm, La Fièvre , 2014, 40’. -Wang Bing, 15 Hours, 2017,15h ( 2x7h50) -Nicolas Boone, Hillbrow, 2014, 32’; Psaume,2015, 41'; Las Cruces, 2018,29' -Jean- Luc Godard, Reportage amateur ( maquette –expo) , 2006, 47' -Parfait Kaboré, Place à la révolution, 2017,84' -Lamine Ammar Khodja, Demande à ton ombre, 2012, 82' -Lech Kowalski, I Pay for Your Story, 2015, 86’ -Allan Sekula, The Lottery of The sea, 2006, 27'44'' -Marie Voignier, Hearing, The Shape of the Drum, 2010, 17' +Special screenings: Paul Grivas, Un film catastrophe, 2018, 55´ et Jean Luc Godard, un Film Socialisme , 2010, 102´ * All films are supported by the Center for contemporary art- Image Mouvement committee or purchased. - Pascale Cassagnau. _________________________________________________________________________________ HVERNIG HEFUR ÞÚ ÞAÐ? / Comment ça va? EFTIR GODARD Sýningarverkefnið Comment ça va? D’après Godard dregur nafn sitt af samnefndri kvikmynd eftir Jean-Luc Godard frá 1976 („Hvernig hefurðu það?“). Lögð er áhersla á að sýna tímalausar heimilda- og upplýsingamyndir; myndir sem nálgast kjarna sannleikans og raunveruleikann eins og verkfæri og efniðvið til að ryðja með braut og takast á hendur ferðalag um flókið pólitískt landslag. Allar kvikmyndirnar á sýningunni setja efnið fram sem einskonar meta-ritgerð um samskiptaferli. Comment ça va? (1976, 70‘) er kvikmynd með yfirgripsmikilum menningarlegum vísunum. Í myndinni fylgist Jean-Luc Godard með samskiptum ritstjóra dagblaðs kommúnista og verklýðssamtaka og starfssystur hans, vinstri sinnaðs aðgerðarsinna, á meðan þau eru að klippa myndskeið fyrir stuttmynd um útgáfuferli dagblaðs. Kvikmyndin gerir stjórnmál og fjölmiðla að viðfangsefni með því að sýna starfsmennina búa til myndina. Comment ça va? er tekin upp á bæði filmu og myndband og fjallar á díalektískan hátt um vinnslu og dreifingu upplýsinga. Þetta er kvikmynd um það hvernig stórir fjölmiðlar breiða út hugmyndir. Tvíeykið er ósammála um hvernig eigi að fara með upplýsingarnar. Ekki síst eru þau ósammála um hvernig eigi að nota tvær tilteknar ljósmyndir og skrifa við þær myndatexta. Fyrri ljósmyndin sýnir borgara og hermenn í átökum í Nellikubyltingunni í Portúgal, en hin síðari átök á milli verkfallsmanna og frönsku óeirðarlögreglunnar í mótmælum. Kvikmyndinni tekst að ‚afhjúpa‘ flókna hugmyndafræðilega spennu og ágreining sem aðskilur franskar vinstrihreyfingar. Henni tekst einnig, með klippingu myndarinnar og tilfinningu fyrir hreyfingu, að kryfja hinar ýmsu víddir mælskulistarinnar sem eru að verki þegar skrifaðar eru fréttir. Comment ça va? (Hvernig hefurðu það?) spyr einnig Comment ça va le cinema? (Hvernig hefur kvikmyndalistin það?). Með Comment ça va? Hvernig hefurðu það? vildi Godard ítreka fagurfræðilega stefnuskrá sína og hugsun um fjölmiðla og kvikmyndir. Verkin á sýningunni Comment ça va? D’après Godard setja fram ákveðnar kenningar og sýna þversnið af ólíkum grunnhugmyndum sem eru innbyggðar í samtímalistina, hið listræna ferli og svigrúmið sem kvikmyndirnar hafa til að gera skil „sögum sem kalla á að vera sagðar“, svo vísað sé í setningu eftir heimspekinginn Paul Ricoeur úr Temps et Récit I (Tími og frásögn I). Þetta er samansafn af kvikmyndum sem byggja á meðvitaðri hugsun. Kvikmyndasýning: um rótlaust ástand kvikmyndalistarinnar Á meðal allra þeirra samhliða sagna sem hafa verið fléttaðar saman úr samtímalist og öðru útvíkkuðu sviði sköpunar, hefur gagnkvæmt samband kvikmynda og listar, sem setur fram greiningu á myndum og fjölmiðlum og gagnrýnir framsetningarmáta þeirra, leikið lykilhlutverk í mótun fagurfræði 20. aldar. Ákveðinn fjöldi samtímaverka á sviði vídeólistar, eða hreyfimynda, vísar meðvitað en á ólíkan hátt í kvikmyndir. Í þessum verkum eru settar fram tilgátur um framsetningarmáta sem Serge Toubiana hefur skilgreint sem hreyfingu. Hann segir: „kvikmyndin er hreyfing, hún er leið til að ganga við hlið raunveruleikans, skynja hann, fylgja eftir hreyfingum hans og merkja hann táknum.“ Jafnvel þótt samtímalistin hafi byrjað samtalið á milli listar og kvikmynda, bendir sköpun ‚Óþekktra kvikmyndahluta‘ (Unidentified Filmed Objects eða annarskonar UFOs) til þess að kvikmyndirnar séu farnar að færast nær samtímlistinni. Á allra síðustu árum hafa gagnkvæm áhrif samtímalistar og heimildamynda reynst sérstaklega frjó. Þegar litið er á heimildir og skjöl sem viðfangsefni og aðferð mynda þau sjóndeildarhring byggðan á áþreifanlegum gögnum og ummerkjum um söguleg sannindi. Þetta á við um bæði listina og kvikmyndirnar. Svið heimildamyndanna sýnir vinnuaðferðir sem listamenn og kvikmyndagerðarmenn eiga sameiginlegar – þeir klippa hluti úr filmunni saman á ólínulegan hátt, óháð hefðbundnum frásagnaraðferðum. Að þessu leyti er sambandið á milli heimildarmyndar og raunveruleika eða frásagnar alltaf gagnrýnið og margrætt. Sjóndeildarhringur samtímalistaverka eða kvikmynda – hvort sem hann er nálægur áhorfendum eða fjarlægur þeim – skapar sérstakan yfir-fagurfræðilegan ramma vegna þess að tilvist hins almenna eða heildarinnar hefur í langan tíma ekki verið talin skipta máli. Í staðinn hefur verið lögð áhersla á sjálfstæða tilvist gagnkvæmrar huglægni og persónulegt eignarnám á stórsögunni og sögum einstaklinga. Hægt er að skilgreina eiginleika skjala sem gildi sem gerir á ný kröfu til huglægra viðhorfa og sögulegra sanninda. Kvikmyndin tekur þátt í að skilgreina ný skilyrði fyrir huglæg viðhorf, þegar hver sem er getur skrifað eigin ævisögu og krafist þess að endurheimta eigin samsemd í nánum tengslum við aðra. Dagskrá Dagskrá vídeómynda sem hefur verið sett saman fyrir Comment ca va? Hvernig hefurðu það? hefur það markmið að sýna verk sem velta fyrir sér spurningum um upplýsingar líkt og fjallað er um í kvikmynd Jean-Lucs Godards. Verkin sem hafa verið valin til sýningar tilheyra öll nýju sviði heimildarmyndagerðar og eru fulltrúar fyrir franska samtímalist og listsköpun í víðara samhengi. Verkin sýna einnig ákveðna formgerð, formgerð fjölmiðla. Með því að kollvarpa forminu setja þau fram gagnrýni á hugmyndafræðilega og mælskufræðilega víddir fjölmiðla og ofbeldisfull áhrif þeirra. Verkin sýna pólítíska nálgun á kvikmyndalega frásögn sem dregur fram pólitískar hliðar umræðuefnisins. Þau láta sig afdráttarlaust varða vinnuna með myndefnið, klippinguna, sundrunina og skírskotunina í rými kvikmyndarinnar. Með*: -Eric Baudelaire: Uppreisn May og Fusako Shigenobu, Masao Adachi og 27 ár án mynda, 2011, 66‘ -Loudigi Beltrame: Energodar, 2010, 36‘ -Safia Benhaïm: Hitinn, 2014, 40’ -Wang Bing: 15 tímar, 2017, 15 H (2x7h50) -Nicolas Boone, Hillbrow, 2014, 32‘; Sálmur, 2015, 41‘; Las Cruces, 2018, 29‘ -Jean-Luc Godard, Fréttaflutningur áhugamanns (frumdrög – sýning), 2006, 47‘ -Parfait Kaboré, Rúm fyrir byltingu, 2017, 84‘ -Lamine Ammar Khodja, Spurðu skuggann þinn, 2012, 82‘ -Lech Kowlski, Ég borga fyrir söguna þína, 2015, 86‘ -Allan Sekula, Hlutavelta hafsins, 2006, 27‘44‘‘ -Marie Voignier, Hlustað eftir lögun trommunnar, 2010, 17‘ +Sérstök sýning: Paul Grivas, Stórslysamynd (2018) og Jean-Luc Godard, Kvikmynd um sósíalisma, 2010. * Allar myndirnar hafa hlotið stuðning frá eða verið keyptar af Center for Contemporary Art – Image Mouvement. Texti: Pascale Cassagnau / Þýðing: Margrét Elísabet Ólafsdóttir

liðnar sýningar / past exhibitions

04-05 / 09.06






Fixed Points present moving image works delving into local mythologies, the dreamworld and our relationship to the natural environment. Filmed in diverse locations such Yucatán in Mexico and the Colombian Amazon, the artists study and examine the specificities, histories and mood of site and place..


Artists:  Helene Garberg, Kah Bee Chow, Bjarni Þór Pétursson, Þorbjörg Jónsdóttir.

Curators: Bjarni Þór Pétursson, Gústav Geir Bollason

Text: Shauna Laurel Jones  see below




Fastir Punktar sýnir hreyfimyndir sem sökkva sér í goðafræði og draumaveröld náttúrulegra svæða. Myndað er á mörgum stöðum svo sem eins og Yucatán í Mexíkó og Amasón héraðið í Kólumbíu, þar sem listamennirnir skoða og rannsaka sérkenni, sögu og andrúmsloft viðfangsefnis og staða.



Listamenn: Helene Garberg, Kah Bee Chow, Bjarni Þór Pétursson, Þorbjörg Jónsdóttir.

Sýningarstjórar: Bjarni Þór Pétursson, Gústav Geir Bollason

Texti: Shauna Laurel Jones  sjá fyrir neðan

“Beyond seven mountains, beyond seven forests…” Thus begins a typical fairytale in Poland. In Korea, the tone is set with “Once, in the old days, when tigers smoked…”i And in the far north of Iceland, here in Hjalteyri, the tale might start with the invocation, “Far away and yet closer than ever, when you open your eyes by closing them tight…”


The Four Artists and the Veil


Far away and yet closer than ever, four artists sought to weave, collectively, a translucent veil separating one realm from another. On one side of this thin gauze was our world as we live it, and on the other side, the world they knew: a place in which matter is secondary to myth, where transformation and rematerialization happen regularly as a matter of course.

                 It was a place where Don William—the indigenous shaman Þorbjörg Jónsdóttir met in the Colombian Amazon—might have explained why “a man is like a tree,” but he could equally have said, “A man is a tree.” For a person can become a tree, in the four artists’ world, simply by feeling the sap coursing through her veins and allowing her branches to stretch ever so slowly heavenwards.

                 It was also a place where Nature had strong feelings, too, about her form. The land’s idea of its own shape was important, so important it could overpower the other ideas and (market) forces trying to reshape it. Seen from above, the contours of Malaysia’s Penang Island resemble a turtle, and the turtle is auspicious, Kah Bee Chow remembers a teacher once telling her. And so Kah Bee watched with skeptical interest as high-rise condominiums were erected on Penang, recontouring the auspicious coastline with buildings found later to be architecturally unsound. The luxury glass-ensconced buildings would remain uninhabited. Was it the spirit of the turtle, perhaps, who tilted the high-rise off the vertical, a punishment for retracing her shape? Still, “maybe it is a good thing,” writes Gaston Bachelard, “for us to keep a few dreams of a house that we shall live in later, always later, so much later, in fact, that we shall not have time to achieve it…It is better to live in a state of impermanence than in one of finality.”ii And so Kah Bee’s looped video kept that dream alive, the dream of the almost-done glass house.

                Bachelard, the great phenomenologist who sought to understand the relational properties of space, would have felt at home in the four artists’ malleable world. Describing the symbiotic relationship between internal and external, he invokes the poet Rilke, who wrote of a profound experience in a forest: “These trees are magnificent, but even more magnificent is the sublime and moving space between them, as though with their growth it too increased.”iii Þorbjörg and her shaman in the Amazon felt that space, too. And when Þorbjörg searched for the otherworld through the landscape of the jungle, she did not search there because the jungle was foreign, other; she searched there in the same way she did in her native Iceland, interrogating where the rifts in the material land might give way to some greater essence. “Together,” says Þorgbjörg, “the dense jungle and the barren glacier desert form the same circle,” different options on the same continuum that is landscape. The moving space between Þorbjörg’s and Rilke’s trees is alive with potential, a means of translocation.

              Those Amazonian trees are lush and green, while Helene Garberg’s trees in Mexico’s Yucatán start out so overexposed that they hardly register as such. And so it was that the artist Helene journeyed through a blizzard of lush and white to reach the entrance to the cenote—one of the underground caverns that was said to be the portal into the Mayan underworld—and allowed it to draw her in. The filmic poetry she conjured up out of that cenote sang of alchemy, of liquid rock, of the futility of trying to define one’s sense of scale in regard to the earth. Did Helene draw herself back out again? “If a landscape, as we say, ‘draws us in’ with its seductive beauty,” writes the art historian W. J. T. Mitchell on the nature of landscape in Western art, “this movement is inseparable from a retreat to a broader, safer perspective, an aestheticizing distance, a kind of resistance to whatever practical or moral claim the scene might make on us.”iv But no, Helene did not retreat; her aestheticizing was not an act of distancing; she did not withdraw, and those who would watch her poem would be hard pressed to resist the claims the cenote made on them.

                And what of the fourth artist; what distant land did he travel to? The fourth artist, Bjarni Þór Pétursson, went to the farthest place of all: the Land of Real Vulnerability, the most demanding region to access because it is, in fact, far too close. His sets were sparse, his camera slow-panning, if it panned at all; what walked onto the stage, a human dressed as animal, could not have been read as absurd because it was so hard to read at all. It was as if something strange and familiar emerged from the Jungian abyss to claim a new archetype, that of the Watcher Watched, or perhaps the Seer Seen. And when, against all odds, Bjarni captured the abyss and brought it to the other side of the stage, where the audience was supposed to be, the plush theater seats vanished into thin air.

              So it was that it turned out nothing was fixed in Fixed Points. The four artists would part and go their separate ways, but they would be remembered for their confidence in the face of the uncanny, their light touch on subjects sometimes belabored by others. If you should find yourself in Hjalteyri, you might still find remnants of the artists’ veil, for they wove its diaphanous fibers into the frame of the ether itself, ready to be peered through by the curious and the brave.


There, that is a story.


—Shauna Laurel Jones


Kate Lyons, “ ‘Here is a story! Story it is’: How fairytales are told in other tongues,” The Guardian, April 19, 2019 (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/19/here-is-a-story-story-it-is-how-fairytales-are-told-in-other-tongues).

ii   Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space, translated by Maria Jolas (Boston: Beacon Press, 1994), p. 61.

iii  Rainer Maria Rilke, cited in The Poetics of Space, p. 201.

iv  W. J. T. Mitchell, Preface to the Second Edition of Landscape and Power, edited by W. J. T. Mitchell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), p. viii.