{"id":14170,"title":"Principe d' equivalence","dimensions":"200 x 1000 cm","date_begin":"1968-01-01","material":"wood, iron, felted wool","art_status_id":13,"legal_status_id":47,"category_id":79,"platform_id":1,"deleted":false,"asset_count":3,"stream_count":0,"collection":"Collection Centre  Pompidou, Paris","cached_tag_list":"","publishing_process_id":1,"annotation":"","date_end":null,"reference":"","stream_count_app":17,"permalink":"principe-d-equivalence","description_ca":null,"short_description_ca":null,"description_it":null,"short_description_it":null,"cached_primary_asset_url":null,"cached_actor_names":null,"hide_from_json":false,"prev_platform_id":null,"description_uk":null,"short_description_uk":null,"category":{"en":"Mixed Media","nl":"Mixed Media","fr":"Mixed Media"},"poster_image":"https://s3.amazonaws.com/mhka_ensembles_production/assets/public/000/033/323/large/2016_Filliou_2__.jpg?1476358077","poster_credits":"(c)image: M HKA, Courtesy Collection Centre Pompidou, Paris","translations":[{"locale":"en","short_description":"","description":"\u003cp\u003eThe Principle of Equivalence, Filliou\u0026rsquo;s very own trinity, is a full frontal attack on the fundaments of Western culture: value and judgment. From an artistic and philosophical point of view, \u0026lsquo;well made\u0026rsquo; may be seen as the canonical ideal of imitating nature and \u0026lsquo;badly made\u0026rsquo; as a space for research and experimentation, while \u0026lsquo;not made\u0026rsquo; is concept, axiom or principle.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExcerpt of the conversation between Robert Filliou (RF) and Irmeline Lebeer (IL), Flayosc, France, August 1976.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRF\u003c/strong\u003e: In December 1968, I started to apply the Principle of Equivalence to an object measuring 10 \u0026times; 12 cm: a red sock in a yellow box. Already, the Principle of Equivalence was to be illustrated by the stamp. I made a first version that I called \u0026lsquo;well made\u0026rsquo;, because the dimensions of the red sock matched the dimensions of the box, which was painted yellow with much care. Then there was a version that I called \u0026lsquo;badly made\u0026rsquo;. I no longer worried if the proportions matched or if the paint was well applied. And a third version, \u0026lsquo;not made\u0026rsquo;, was simply a written concept: \u0026lsquo;Red Socks in a Yellow Box\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; Later, I took these three elements and stuck them together on a panel: well made, badly made, not made. I repeated these three elements on a panel that became well made. I repeated this once more, badly made. And a third time, not made. The dimensions were tree times larger than the first time. This grouping of three panels I consider well made, for the previous reasons. I repeated it again badly made. The dimensions were again three times larger. This grouping of three panels I considered well made, for the previous reasons. I repeated it again, badly made. I repeated it again, not made. The fifth object I arrived at measured 2 \u0026times; 6 metres. Because of lack of space I stopped there. But I imagined that if I had produced a series of a hundred objects instead of five, the dimension of the one hundredth object would have been five times longer than the circumference of the earth, or a hundred blablablabla... kilometres high, remembering that the speed of light is 80 kilometres per second...\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; It means that he final dimensions would have been 1021 light years, I think. Then I said to myself: isn\u0026rsquo;t it conceivable that the Creator\u0026rsquo;s initial gesture consisted simply in \u0026lsquo;putting a red sock in a yellow box\u0026rsquo;? The Principle of Equivalence has, since then, been responsible for creating the permanence of the universe. That\u0026rsquo;s also why I also titled this exhibition \u0026lsquo;Exhibition for the Third Eye\u0026rsquo;, because I illustrate my procedure, because of my Principle of Equivalence, because the largest part of the exhibition was not made. Between the dimensions of 2 \u0026times; 6 m and 1021 light years, there\u0026rsquo;s a lot of space for the \u0026lsquo;not made\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; So I called this \u0026lsquo;Exhibition for the Third Eye\u0026rsquo;, and I even suggested back then \u0026ndash; I wrote this on the wall of the room they gave me for Documenta in 1972, where the work was shown again \u0026ndash; that this work illustrated the Permanent Creation of the Universe. That\u0026rsquo;s why later, when I was in Berlin in 1974, I applied the Principle of Equivalence to the Permanent Creation of the Universe and titled that work \u003ca href=\"http://ensembles.org/items/recherche-sur-l-origine?locale=en\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eResearch on the Origin\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRF\u003c/strong\u003e: It\u0026rsquo;s very good. I just want your opinion about this. People don\u0026rsquo;t understand how I started to apply this thing. What I mean is that I do something once, which is said to be well done, for instance a sock that corresponds well with the box, which itself has been well painted. And then the second one is badly made. I don\u0026rsquo;t worry about that. The third one is simply the concept. Because I\u0026rsquo;ve made these three, I now consider them well made and I do them again, badly made, and once again, not made. And so on. Should we add this?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIL\u003c/strong\u003e: Yes.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n"},{"locale":"nl","short_description":"","description":"\u003cp\u003eHet Principe van equivalentie, een bekende Drievuldigheid van Filliou, vormt een rechtstreekse aanval op het (waarde)oordeel als fundament van de Westerse cultuur. Vanuit artistiek en filosofisch oogpunt kan \u0026lsquo;goed gemaakt\u0026rsquo; worden gezien als het ideaal model volgens het canon van de natuur; \u0026lsquo;slecht gemaakt\u0026rsquo; als ruimte voor studie en experiment en \u0026lsquo;niet gemaakt\u0026rsquo; als concept, axioma of principe.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n"},{"locale":"fr","short_description":"","description":"\u003cp\u003eLe Principe d\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;quivalence, la c\u0026eacute;l\u0026egrave;bre Trinit\u0026eacute; de Filliou, constitue une attaque directe du jugement (de valeur) comme fondement de la culture occidentale. D\u0026rsquo;un point de vue artistique et philosophique, \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;bien fait\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; peut \u0026ecirc;tre consid\u0026eacute;r\u0026eacute; comme le mod\u0026egrave;le id\u0026eacute;al suivant le canon de la nature\u0026nbsp;; \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;mal fait\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; comme un espace d\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;tude et d\u0026rsquo;exp\u0026eacute;rimentation et \u0026laquo;\u0026nbsp;pas fait\u0026nbsp;\u0026raquo; comme un concept, un axiome ou un principe.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n"},{"locale":"ru","short_description":"","description":""},{"locale":"de","short_description":"","description":""},{"locale":"es","short_description":"","description":""},{"locale":"el","short_description":"","description":""}],"actors":[{"id":52,"name":"Robert Filliou","category":{"en":"Creator","nl":"Vervaardiger","fr":"Créateur"}}]}