איליה רבינוביץ' - עבודות 1998-2008

The lecture was canceled by Kalsiher...
15/12/2008
Ilya


ביום שני ה-22.12.08 בשעה 20:00
בגלריה ע'ש רחל וישראל פולק במתחם קלישר
במסגרת סדרת מפגשים עם אמנים, אוצרים ותיאוריטיקנים

תתקיים הרצאה של איליה רבינוביץ
עבודות 1998-2008

הדימויים הנייחים אך המסתוריים של איליה רבינוביץ העוסקים בנושאים של זהות אישית על רקע מבנים חברתיים. העבודות נוגעות במקומות אשר נראים כמשוללי זכרון, זמניים ומנותקים. האווירה המסויימת הזאת מעלה שני דגמים של הדרה ושממון: זהו עולמו של המהגר המיוצג כגלות כפולה, כחוויה הקשורה לפנים וחוץ. מצד אחד הקושי להתחבר לסביבה התרבותית ממנה הוא בא ומצד שני המשיכה למקומות מנוכרים.
מוקד העבודה של רבינוביץ נעוץ במקומות העומדים בפני שינויים קיצוניים. בשנת 2005, הוא צילם חלל פנים של 'מלון רוסיה' במוסקווה, זמן קצר לפני הריסתו. בפרוייקט זה הוא מצא את הקשרים לתרבות ממנה בא, ע'י חקירה חזותית של היחסים בין כח/סמכות לדרך בה הם מיוצגים בתרבות של ברה'מ בעבר, ורוסיה בהווה.
עבור פרויקט 'מוזיאוטופיה' (2008) חזר לעיר הולדתו קישינב לצלם את המוזיאונים הקיימים וכן את האתרים של המוזיאונים מאז עצמאות מולדוביה ב-1991. אחד הנושאים המרכזיים בעבודה זאת היא העלמותה של התרבות הסובייטית מהמרחב הציבורי.
מאז שנת 2007 רבינוביץ יוצר מצב בו הקהל נדרש להיות פעיל על מנת להיות מעורב בעבודה. הוא מגיע לתוצאה הזאת דרך הצבה של העבודה בחלל. לדוגמא, עבודתו 'החלון האחורי' (2007) שהוצגה במוזיאון ון-אבה באיינהובן, בה הוא הציב בחדר חשוף צילומים שנעשו באמסטרדם ונתן לצופים פנסים לעזור למצוא את התמונות

איליה רבינוביץ
נולד בשנת 1965 בקישינב, מולדביה והיגר בשנת 1973 לישראל. בשנים 1998-2000 השתתף בתוכנית הפוסט אקדמית ב-Rijks Akademie van Beeldende Kunsten באמסטרדם ומאז הוא מתגורר שם.

ההרצאה בשיתוף עם סמינר הקיבוצים – בית הספר לאמנויות ולטכנולוגיה

Never Looked Better - Contemporary Artists Respond to the Leni and Harbert Sonnenfeld Photo Collection-Triple 'Knesset' (Israeli parliament) 2008

Installation views 'Triple Knesset' Beith Hatfuzot museum Tel-Aviv, photographed by Rom Eizenberg

כנסת משולשת, איליה רבינוביץ' 2008

מאז הקמתה של מדינת ישראל עברה כנסת ישראל בין שתי ערים: מבית האופרה בתל אביב, לבית פרומין ולמשכן הקבע בגבעת רם בירושלים. השינויים שנעשו במרחב הפיזי, הרס הזיכרון ההיסטורי והמורשת האדריכלית הם ייצוג לקוטביות בין תל אביב לירושלים, בין דת ולאום, בין הווה לעבר.

מגדל האופרה הממוקם בקרן הרחובות אלנבי והרברט סמואל, שומר בשמו ובחזיתו על הבניין שעל חורבותיו הוא עומד – בניין האופרה.

הבניין, שעוצב על ידי יוסף נויפלד בשנת 1925 הוקם בשנת 1945, ושימש בשלוש שנותיו הראשונות כקולנוע "קסם". בתקופת מלחמת העצמאות שכן בו מטה חיל הים. עם הקמת המדינה, מועצת המדינה השתכנה בו מ-15 בדצמבר 1948 עד דצמבר 1949. הכיכר נקראה משום כך "כיכר הכנסת" במקום השם המקורי "כיכר" או "רציף הרברט סמואל" . לאחר שעברה הכנסת לירושלים בשנת 1950 עבר הבניין לרשות עיריית תל אביב, וזמן מה נערכו במקום ישיבות מועצת העירייה. בשנת 1988 נחנך במקום מגדל האופרה. מתחת למגדל המגורים נמצא קניון, ובו חניון, אולם קולנוע, משרדים, חנויות ומסעדות.

בית פרומין שימש כמשכנה הזמני של הכנסת בין השנים 1950-1966. הבניין ממוקם במרכז ירושלים, ברחוב המלך ג'ורג' 24, ופעלו בו הכנסות הראשונה עד השישית.

עם עלייתה של הכנסת לירושלים, נבחר לשמש כמשכנה בית פרומין, מבנה משרדים בן שלוש קומות שבנייתו החלה ב-1947 ולא הושלמה. החל מה-13 במרץ 1950 התקיימו ישיבות הכנסת בבניין זה. אולם המליאה התמקם במרתף הבניין, שיועד במקור לשמש כסניף בנק.ב-30 באוגוסט 1966, בעת כהונת הכנסת השישית, עברה הכנסת למשכנה החדש. בית פרומין נמסר למשרד התיירות ששכן בו עד שנת 2004. הקרקע, שבמקור הייתה שייכת למינהל מקרקעי ישראל, נמכרה תמורת 10 מיליון ש"ח ליזם פרטי, שעל פי התכנית שהופקדה בוועדה המחוזית לתכנון ולבנייה - התעתד להרוס כליל את המבנה ולהקים תחתיו מבנה בן 16 קומות למגורים, למלונאות ולמסחר. באותה שנה הוגשה הצעת חוק, לפיה הבניין ישומר, חלקו הפנימי ישוחזר, ויוקם בו מוזיאון הכנסת. הצעת החוק עברה בקריאה ראשונה ב2005. כיום עדיין שוכנים בבנין בתי הדין הרבניים של מחוז ירושלים, ובית הדין הגדול לערעורים.

אבן הפינה למשכן הכנסת הנוכחי, הממוקם בגבעת רם בירושלים, הונחה בשנת 1958. הבניין תוכנן על ידי האדריכל יוסף קלרווין. בשנת 1966 נחנך הבניין המכיל את אולם המליאה, חדרי הועדות, לשכות חברי הכנסת והממשלה. השנה נחנך בצדו המזרחי של הבניין אגף חדש. השתרשותו של המשכן בגבעת רם בתודעה הקולקטיבית הישראלית כ"כנסת" ומחיקת האתרים ההיסטוריים מהנראטיב הלאומי ומהמרחב הציבורי הישראלי היא סימפטום למדיניות הנעדרת ראייה היסטורית. חברה עם מרחב ציבורי ומרחב זמן נעלמים היא מוגבלת, תזזיתית, קצרת מועד, ברת חלוף.

Never Looked Better - Contemporary Artists Respond to the Leni and Harbert Sonnenfeld Photo Collection-Triple 'Knesset' (Israeli parliament) 2008

Shopping center Opera Tower Tel Aviv

View towards North , Opera Tower Tel Aviv

Opera Tower Tel Aviv

Facade, Opera Tower Tel Aviv


View towards North , Opera Tower Tel Aviv

Facade, Frumin House Ministry of Religions Jerusalem

Synagogue, Frumin House Ministry of Religions Jerusalem
Knesset 'Giveat Ram' Jerualsem

Lobby Knesset 'Giveat Ram' Jerusalem





Never Looked Better - Contemporary Artists Respond to the Leni and Harbert Sonnenfeld Photo Collection‏‏ at Beth Hatefusoth THE NAHUM GOLDMANN MUSEUM OF THE JEWISH DIASPORA Tel Aviv

Participating Artists:Yochai Avrahami,Ilya Rabinovich,Michael Blum,Yael Bartana,Yosi Atia and Itamar Rose
Curated by: Galit Eilat, Eyal Danon

Triple Knesset-statement

Since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, moved the Knesset between two cities: from it's first location in Opera House Tel -Aviv to Frumin's house and than to its permanent location in 'Givat Ram' Jerusalem. Since than the changes that have occurred in the public and mental spaces regarding the architectural styles are serving as evidences to the polarizations between religion and nation the past and the present. In the process of documenting those prior parliament locations, I discovered that the level of conservation of those two historical sites is limited to the informative level. The Opera tower is located in the corner of Yarkon and Herbert Samuel Street in Tel -Aviv, and it carries the name and conserves the façade of Opera House that was standing in that location before 1986. The building that was designed by Yosef Noifeld in 1925 was built in 1945 and it functioned in it first three years as 'Kessem' (magic) cinema house. During the period of the 1948 war it functioned as a military headquarters. The first Israeli parliament was using this building between December 1948 and December 1949. That was the reason that square next to it was renamed from 'Herbert Samuel' to 'Knesset' Square. After that the Knesset moved to Jerusalem in 1950, the Tel-Aviv municipality used the building and later in the 60's it was used as the old Opera House. In mid 80's the old building was demolished and in 1988 the new Opera Tower was inaugurated. It includes a luxury apartments ,shopping mall, cinema and parking lot. The Frumin house is located in King George Street in the centre of Jerusalem. It was built for a bank purposes but the construction works stopped in 1947 and from the year 1950 till 1966 it hosted the Israeli parliament. The assembly hall was in the cellar where originally the bank's safes where supposed to be located. In 1966 the Israeli Parliament relocated to it's permanent location in 'Giveat Ram' and The Frumin House was given to the Ministry of Tourism. Since the year 2005 it used by the Ministry of Religions and the Rabbinical Courts are situated in that building. The corner stone for the establishment of the current parliament location in 'Giveat Ram' Jerusalem was laid in 1958.The building was developed by the architect Yosef Klarewine. The building was inaugurated in 1966 and it contains an assembly hall, commission's halls, chambers for the government and the members of the Knesset. A new wing was built an inaugurated this year, it is connected to the older part and most of the Knesset activities are taken place in the new part. The enrooting of the current location as 'The Knesset location' and the disappearance of the two prior locations from the Israeli national narrative is a symptom for a society that is lacking of a historical perspective or a society with a transient state.

Custom Search

Muziotopia (Chişinău / Iasi) 2008.

Muziotopia (Chişinău / Iasi) 2008.


The project, which I was working on during the summer 2008, resulted in an investigation and documentation, regarding the forms of archiving and representing recent history in the public sphere.

My research consisted of photographing the on display collections and juxtaposing them with found footage from archives of those museums. Furthermore I searched for written information, which could shed light on the changes that those institutes were going through after 1989.
In the scope of my research I photographed in the following museums: The National Museum of Ethnography and Natural History, the National museum of history and Archeology, The National Museum of Fine Arts, The Pedagogical Museum, The Military Museum, The Union of the Writers museum, The Union of the public transport workers museum.
I photographed as well in the former buildings where some other museums connected directly to the former regime were located. Obviously those institutes ceased to exist after Moldavian independence in 1991.

As a result of my research, a clear and disturbing reflection evolved: I traced the process of omitting recent history that is present in those public institutes. Each institute tried to re-create its own concept and strategy of re-presenting the continuity and existence of the Moldavian state. Artifacts related to ancient history of the state where re-contextualized, while the artifacts and other archaeological exhibits dealing with recent history of XXI-XX century where removed and replaced with the other artifacts which support the new national discourse.
Reflecting on the idea of the museum as a cultural machine that produces the content for the group identity, a thought-provoking question emerged: how does national identity can be formed if the different presented narratives do not correspond one with each other?

To get a glimpse over the situation in Moldova at the Romanian side, I traveled to Iasi to photograph institutes alike. The three main museums for History, Art and Science - The Palace of Culture in Iasi were closed for renovations and I managed to photograph five houses of writers, the Museum of natural History and The Kogelnecanau House. Analyzing the situation in Iasi, led me to similar conclusions regarding the role of their museums in re-presenting and re-creating the national discourse.

Through this process, I wish to initiate question marks regarding the political truths that were shifting the Moldavia region in the last decades. A question is being raised to the extent of the national trauma that might be causing the Moldavian society to erase and reject any objective reference to the cultural and social atmosphere of the Soviet era. The role and responsibilities of cultural heritage institutions like the museums seems ambiguous in the light of the denial ideology they present to the public. Finally, a more general discussion is opened regarding the intersection of politics, history, culture and social participation in a period of rapid changes.

EXHIBITION
RO-MD/Moldova in Two Scenarios

21 of October - 10 of November 2008 (10.00-17.00)
Locations: The National Museum of Ethnography and Natural History (str. Kogalniceanu 82)
The Museum of Romanian Language M.Kogalniceanu (str. 31 August - 98).

Opening: 21 of October, 16.00, The National Museum of Ethnography and Natural History
Press conference: 21 of October,14.00, The National Museum of Ethnography and Natural History

The exhibition presents visual art projects as a result of interaction
between artist and experts (sociologists, historians, political
annalists) involved in this interdisciplinary project. The
participants investigated by juxtaposing the current cultural, social
and political situation in two Moldova regions (Moldova region from
Romania and the Republic of Moldova). The main project installation is
located in the National Museum of Ethnography and Natural History,
while the other projects are exhibited in The Museum of Romanian
Language M.Kogalniceanu. Along with the visual art projects will be
presented the video documentation of the colloquium from Iasi and the
audio files with the experts contributions. The participants analysed
and commented upon the former and current conditions of two patterns:
post-socialist and post-soviet of two societies, decades after the
collapse of eastern block and dismantling of Soviet Union. In the same
time the artists and experts looked closely in to the future scenarios
of the society's in question.

Participants:

The artists:

Dan Acostioaei/ Iasi

Denis Bartenev/ Chisinau
Bik van der Pol (Liesbeth Bik and Jos van der Pol)/Amsterdam
Maxim Cuzmenco/ Chisinau
Veaceslav Druta/ Chisinau
Tatiana Fiodorova/ Chisinau
Lavinia German/ Iasi
Alex Grigoras/ Iasi

Violeta Ionita/ Iasi

Gulsun Karamustafa/Istambul
Iratxe Jaio and Klaas van Gorkum/Amsterdam
Lucia Macari/Amsterdam-Chisinau
Tilmann Meyer-Faje/Amsterdam
Aurelia Mihai/ Bucharest-Hamburg
Dumitru Oboroc/ Iasi
Ghenadie Popescu/ Chisinau

Ilya Rabinovich/Amsterdam
Igor Scerbina/ Chisinau
Vadim Tiganas/ Chisinau
Vladimir Us/ Chisinau

The experts:

Igor Casu, Chisinau (historian)
Sorin Bocancea, Iasi (political analist)
Petru Negura, Chisinau (culturologists and sociologist)
Flavius Solomon, Iasi (historian)
Mihai Ursu, Chisinau (muzeum curator)

Curator: Stefan Rusu

Partners: The National Museum of Ethnography and Natural History, The Museum of Romanian Language M.Kogalniceanu,

National Museum of History and Archeology, Art College A.Plamadeala.

Media partners: magazine "Stare de Urgenta", magazine Contrafort

RO-MD/Moldova in Two Scenarios is a project organized by Contemporary
Art Center, Chisinau in partnership with VECTOR Association, Iasi that
consist in a series of interdisciplinary workshops, production of 3
documentary films ( 1 film produced by VECTOR Association and 2 others
by KSAK Center ), colloquium and seminars that took place in Iasi and
Chisinau, a project publication and final exhibition produced by KSAK
Center in Chisinau. The RO-MD/Moldova in Two Scenarios project
components - the films by Veaceslav Druta and Aurelia Mihai, also a
video documentation of the colloquium from Iasi were presented in the
frame of 8 Periferic Biennale (Art as Gift, 3-18 of October).

The project is supported by the Romanian Cultural Institute through
the CANTEMIR Program, Bucharest; PATTERNS Program /ERSTE Foundation,
Vienna and MONDRIAAN Stichting, Amsterdam.

*Center for Contemporary Art-[KSA:K] is a non-profit, independent
institution registered in the year 2000. The new strategy of the
Center is the development of cultural forms and art practices, which
would reflect the dynamic of the social, political and economic
transformations of the society. Center supports the advocacy
activities in promoting of cultural policies suitable for the defining
and the consolidation of artist position and contemporary art
practices in the society. (www.art.md)

* Vector> Association is a non-profit cultural association that
provides the production of exhibition and educational programs,
research and editing activities, analyzes of the relations between the
art practices and visual culture in socio-political context. Vector>
supports those practices related to social re-articulation, political
consciousness and economical transformation that brings critical
analyses that could offer reinterpretations of the attitudes and
behavior from the perspective of cultural action. (www.periferic.org)


Stefan Rusu – visual artist/curator
RO-MD/Moldova in two scenarios project curator

Details about the project:
Centrul pentru Artă Contemporană, Chişinău [KSA:K]
str. Independenţei 1,
tel. + 373 22 772507
tel./fax + 373 22 573395
http://www.art.md

This project was made possible with the support of THE NETHERLANDS FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS,DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE

Custom Search

Rear Window installation, Be(com)ing Dutch Van Abbe Museum Eindhoven 2008

images used for the installation




Installation view
exhibition

Be[com]ing Dutch

The Exhibition

24/05/2008 - 14/09/2008

Location: Van Abbemuseum
Curators: Annie Fletcher,Charles Esche
The exhibition Be(com)ing Dutch is part of a large scale project that has been in progress for two years. During that time, the museum has focused on what have become sensitive issues for the Netherlands, such as identity, nationality, citizenship and social cohesion. In those two years artists, intellectuals, politicians and the people of Eindhoven were invited to find possible answers to awkward questions. What does ‘Being Dutch' or ‘Becoming Dutch’ mean in the 21st Century? Who are ‘the Dutch’ anyway and how do we want to be seen by ourselves and others? The outcome of this whole process is being shown in an exhibition of artists’ works in the museum and throughout the city of Eindhoven.

Be(com)ing Dutch is unusual in the Netherlands because it takes on an outright political and social subject and translates it into artistic terms. Since 2006, when the Van Abbemuseum was awarded a prize that made it possible to turn our existing ideas into reality, the discussion in the Netherlands about who we are, where we come from, where we are heading and about our norms and values in a globalising world has become even more topical and urgent. The long term planning allowed the museum to talk with people at length and to organise major public discussions such as the Eindhoven Caucus. Now it is the turn of artists, many of whom have participated in all the stages of Be(com)ing Dutch, to show you what they have found. Twenty one of the thirty seven artists have conceived new works for the exhibition, guided by three broad directional themes: ‘Imaginary Past’, ‘ Imaginary Present’ and ‘Imaginary Future’. Look for more information about the complete Be(com)ing Dutch project at www.becomingdutch.com.

Charles Esche & Annie Fletcher

Be(com)ing Dutch activities & Art beyond the walls

The Question Paintings March
Saturday 24 May from 15:15 h.

Arabic course
25 May, 7, 21 and 28 June, 6 and 13 September

Johan van der Keuken - Amsterdam Global Village, 1996
28 and 29 June, 26 and 27 July, 30 and 31 August and 13 and 14 September at 12:00 hours

Phil Collins – Free fotolab (Eindhoven)
24 May until 28 July 2008

Libia Castro & Ólafur Ólafsson - Avant-garde Citizens
24 May until 14 September 2008

Erwin van Doorn - A Stop for the Crowd/ Halte voor de Menigte
24 May until 14 September 2008

The State of Translocality - Series in the State of Translocality
5 until 11 July 2008

Petra Bauer & Annette Krauss - Read the masks. Tradition is not given
30 August 2008

Ronen Eidelman - Means of survival
From 12 September 2008

Bik Van der Pol - Close Encounters
14 September 2008

With the artists:

Petra Bauer
Abdellatif Benfaidoul
Michael Blum
Libia Castro & Ólafur Ólafsson
Phil Collins
Carla Cruz
Gerrit Dekker
Erwin van Doorn
Ronen Eidelman
Ed van der Elsken
Hadassah Emmerich
Alexandra Ferreira
Daan van Golden
Rana Hamadeh
Nicoline van Harskamp
Alicia Herrero
Hans van Houwelingen
Johan van der Keuken Annette Krauss
Agung Kurniawan
Surasi Kusolwong
Toos Nijssen
Ahmet Öğüt
Wendelien van Oldenborgh
Bik Van der Pol
Ilya Rabinovich
Mario Rizzi
Mounira Al Solh
Fiona Tan
Alite Thijsen
Lidwien van de Ven
Tintin Wulia
Bettina Wind
Stephen Willats

The Mondriaan Foundation awarded its 2006 Development Prize for Cultural Diversity to the Van Abbemuseum for the Be(com)ing Dutch project. Within this project’s framework, the museum has organized a diversity of gatherings over the last two years resulting in The Be(com)ing Dutch exhibition.

A comprehensive catalogue will be published in spring 2009.

My contribution for the exhibtion:

'Rear Window ' - installation
Background :

Since my immigration to Amsterdam in 1998, I was always curious about the locals’ daily lives, which have been the subject for many conversations with international artists participants in the program of the Rijksakademie Van Beeldende Kunsten

I developed a fascination for the 'open curtains' phenomena, where one can easily view the private interior of people’s homes from the street level. In social conversations this served to present the locals as an example for how open minded the Dutch people living in Amsterdam are. A 'we have nothing to hide' attitude that proved to be restricted and limited in what I could actually observe when I tried to focus on it. At times, I could get a glance on small 'idyllic' scenes, mostly ones that I would associate with a music box scene: sweet, perfectly orchestrated and mechanical.

It was hard for me to accept that my looking into apartments and viewing private rooms was part of the norm. This relationship of the private space and the public sphere is one of the phenomena that distinguish Amsterdam from other European cities.

More recently I started 'peeping' with a telephoto-lens into some of these rooms and taking photographs of the scenes I find. On these occasions I do not stand in the street but rather ask acquaintances for a permission to use their windows in order to look into their neighbor's apartments. The results are ‘Rear Window Photographs’, the title of which references Alfred Hitchcock’s film. I am currently taking photographs for this project, and in April 2008 I will print them in Grafisch Atelier Daglicht (http://www.grafisch-atelier- daglicht.nl ) as silkscreen images on news print paper.
The Installation
For the exhibition 'Becoming Dutch', I made the following installation:
Upon entering the space, visitors received a small light with which they initiated a search and discovery of the installation. A large number of Rear Window Photographs in various sizes were spread around the space, waiting to be spotted, realized, and contemplated by the drifting visitor.

Coming across more and more images unwrapped the initial uneasiness caused by the dark, turning the search into a playful experience in which visitors became active participants. The photographs were printed using a silk-screen technique, a particular aesthetic that created a layer of unresolved tension throughout the viewing experience. An image that seemed sharp enough from a distance
became obscure on a closer look. In the accumulative process of encountering
new photographs and realizing their collective nature as 'rear window peeping
photographs', the participant was faced with an essential theme of the installation: the reflexive notion of voyeurism and its relation to the other.
Our capacity to look and to see ourselves through the eyes of others is at the core of our psychological formation. Social sanctions against "staring" or being "nosy" reflect deeply rooted cultural taboos which forbid looking too closely. An exception is made when, within the safety of a darkened auditorium and in the company of others, our urge to peep may be indulged and we may temporarily escape and forget who we are as we become involved in searching images in the space.

Places 1993-2006

Places 1993-2006

Contemporary photography has taken postmodernist alienation and disenchantment as its subjects – whether through the built environment or through the human subject. But no critique of today’s postindustralist capitalism or the disenchantment with our former utopias quite prepares one for the utterly desolate world presented by the photographs in this book.
There are three, loosely grouped chapters: non-places, places of memory, and chairs. The photographs have been taken over a span of thirteen years, from 1993 to 2006. The chapters together constitute a journey that takes us to Moldavia, Israel, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia and Mexico. The book is the receptacle of the artist’s life, of a lifetime spent in emigration, yet all its places look alike, and all are devoid of people.
There is no one word in any European language to describe the state of being that is exile. Exile not merely understood as a fact of biography, but exile as a permanent inner condition. It is not just a state of longing or of homesickness, but rather of being forever unhomed, of never quite belonging wherever you may have settled down. It is a state that cannot be cured or altered, for it springs from a deep uprootedness of the soul. Losing your home means not just the loss of a place and the subsequent relocation in a foreign country. It means losing one’s cultural and social identity, one’s status within a community, the value and context of memory. Even if you are physically able to return, home is the one place you can never go back to; home is the permanent presence of absence.
Ilya Rabinovich’s photographs comprise a double figure of both exile and estrangement. The first, the outer figure, shows us the collective utopia of a better life turned into the impersonal hell of the globally uniform. Those apartment blocks, corridors, interiors, parking lots, cinemas, hotels, schools, and waiting rooms, testify of a culturally estranged world that is by now terribly familiar to us all. These places could be everywhere – and, in fact, they are. Sometimes we know from a palm tree that we are not in some Northern country, from a patch of snow that this is not the South. But even whatever there is of nature in these images seems oddly displaced. The occasional personalized touch to a building or an interior -- a tree wedged in a corner, a vase of flowers -- seems like an uneasy prop, all the better to reveal the hopelessness of ever calling places like these ‘home’. Many photographs leave one with a suffocating feeling of confinement. Those buildings and spaces testify to the lifestyle of a global middle class, or those striving to emulate it, and its standards of luxury, higher education, the exclusive neighbourhood, the better car. What emerges, page after page, is anonymity and cultural impoverishment. Places bereft of memory, corrupted by the pretentious fake and, above all, obsessed with a certain propriety, a normative behaviour excluding all else.
Most terrifying of all, however, is that there are no people in any of those places. Nothing alive is stirring there, not even a bird. When looking at these images, you are abandoned to loneliness, as if everyone has gone away, turned their back on you. It makes you yearn for human warmth, for the crowd to occupy the seats of the cinema once again, for a boy with a football to come skipping around the curb of a road, even for the visual swoosh of a passing car. But there is something in each and every one of these images that bars access to the life one knows must be going on in these places, access even to the places themselves. This exclusion, this desolation, is the second, inner figure of exile in these images, the one that sets them apart from any other type of postmodern photography: the exile that speaks of the life of the emigré.
A very carefully chosen technique brings about these effects of barring, of estrangement, of never quite owning the world you see. Sometimes there is an ever so slight shift in centrality, making you feel that something is wrong, dislocated; often the viewpoint is very low, like a child’s perspective of a classroom or a home. Sometimes the horizon is halfway up the image, creating a sense of floating, of the entire space being upside-down. Or of access barred by a stretch of empty space so wide it defies crossing. Sometimes there is a technical disruption of the perfection of the image, a form of wilful optical destruction enhancing the senselessness of the place.
Most postmodern photography can allow itself to be dispassionate, objective and critical because the intrinsic point of departure of its critique is a feeling of ownership, of belonging, of being part of the culture it portrays.
In Rabinovich’s case, the photographs do not represent or target postmodern alienation and displacement as a kind of moral photographic subject, even though today’s alienated human condition unmistakably emerges from those desolate photographed environments. It is as if the photographs themselves are desperately looking for a place to inhabit, a world to belong to, but find none.


Marianne Brouwer, October 2006

Hotel Rossiya project, Moscow 2005.

A modernist complex of buildings, which was built in the middle of the sixties in Brezniev's time. It was the biggest in Europe with 2700 rooms, and was in use by party members coming outside of Moscow and also for important foreign guests. It's location next to the Kremlin on The Moscow River, visualized from one hand the ever-lasting apparatus ruling the Russian empire - The Kremlin and from the hand the bright new future that the rule of the Communist party was representing. In year 2005 I traveled to Moscow to photograph some of the interiors at 'Hotel Rossiya', and in January 2006 it was closed and demolished. While photographing I realized that this institute was actually representing the now days situation in Russia. Part of the buildings was not renovated and was for use of local tourists. Another part was rented out as offices for foreign companies. Another part was renovated and for foreign tourists. The cellar had tunnels going in the direction of the Kremlin. Hotel Rossiya represented for me possibility of investigating the connection between my backgrounds, growing up in communist republic and the way that power and authority were presented. It functioned as a forgotten time capsule, which I could briefly access.

This project was made possible with the support of THE NETHERLANDS FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS,DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE