CSMC
CSMCCentre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures
In Mirko Reisser’s case, the dominance of the visual manifests itself in the four letters of his pseudonym, DAIM. These letters are only of secondary importance at best as a means of visualising sounds; one can pronounce the sequence of letters, of course, but they don’t have any meaning. If we accept the artist’s own explanation, we can say that the choice of these four letters is based on their visual properties, namely on the pictorial potential the shapes of the letters offer. The slim vertical line of the ‘I’ and the voluminous ‘D’ are rather unstable, being capable of tilting to the right or to either side, whereas ‘A’ and ‘M’ give us the idea of stability thanks to their sturdy feet touching the ground in two or even three places. ‘DAIM’ is thus an example of how letters can be positioned in pictorial space in different ways.
‘DAIMmonomania III’ touches on the category of ‘space’ in another sense as well. The fact that graffiti counts as a written artefact and therefore belongs to the subject matter on which our Cluster focuses was a given right at the application stage, just as it was perfectly clear that research on inscriptions should pay particular attention to their spatial conditions and contexts, which is why Research Field B is called Inscribing Spaces. Our picture is an example of illustrative material that demonstrates the interdependencies invoked in this pair of terms. In particular, we can see what the consequences are of changing parameters that are relevant for inscribing spaces.
The new context overrides the ephemeral nature of graffiti. In fact, it perpetuates the work of art.
The term street art indicates this point: the genre is actually associated with public spaces and includes pictures and writing often sprayed illegally on the walls of buildings, bridges and suburban trains. In the case of our own picture, however, it’s the semi-public interior of an office building that’s of interest; the area could equally well be inside a gallery or museum, or in a private art collection. The writing surface or image medium changes along with this shift from the outside to the inside, or rather, from a public space to a semi-public or completely private one – so from the wall itself to the panel painting hanging on it. As a thought experiment, just imagine what it would be like if it wasn’t the rectangular frame of a panel image hanging on the wall, but a piece of graffiti sprayed directly on the hallway near the stairs, the shape of which varies. How would that change our perception of the foyer in comparison to the panel image? And conversely, how would the varying nature of the writing surface or image medium influence the writing or image on it?
In addition to this, changes in context, the kind of medium used and the format also mean that a change in status occurs. Spraying an image, which is an action that used to be illegal, has now been ennobled, creating a work of art instead, especially in the form we can recognise here as a panel painting or triptych, a format familiar from altarpieces. This shift away from a public outdoor space also means that the picture indoors is protected as a work of art in a collection – which calls another research field of ours to mind. The new context overrides the ephemeral nature of graffiti, which is always in danger of being removed or painted or sprayed over. In fact, it perpetuates the work of art.
It’s not my intention here to narrow our picture down to correspondences with the Cluster’s research fields or to disparage your enjoyment of art or the foyer’s aesthetic enhancement. But this work can and, indeed, should serve as a permanent impetus, making us ask questions that have not been the focus of attention yet or seek answers that have not even been considered yet in our projects.
