Misled by MOCCA
Isabella Lorenzi April 13, 2015
Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque was an Canadian exhibition in 2012 and 2013 that featured six large scale works of art by Canadian contemporary artists. It was presented at both the Art Gallery of Alberta in Edmonton and the Museum of Contemporary Canadian Art in Toronto. The artists included were: David Altmejd, Lee Bul, Bharti Kher, Tricia Middleton, Yinka Shonibare MBE, and Sarah Sze. The show emphasizes three main components: “material excess, ornamentation and theatricality in their production” and explore “ hybridity, natural processes and the viewer’s experience.”[i] In addition to these concepts shaping the works of art the idea of the Baroque is included to this conglomeration. Other then the piece created by Tricia Middleton, the pieces were taken from National Gallery of Canada’s collection. This essay will discuss if the Baroque aesthetic is truly extended to the twenty-first century through this exhibition. Further, it will both investigate the curation of this exhibition arguing that it was mishandled the show in many ways and through this I will look at if a true tendency towards the Baroque exists within this show. The title Misled by Nature is taken from a quote by Johann Joachim Winckelmann, a key eighteenth-century figure who explored the modern discipline of art history and interpreted the classical past and helped influence the development of the Neoclassical. Winckelmann was a critic of the Baroque and defined it in terms of its aesthetic association of the time which saw it as a departure from the revival of classicism in the Renaissance and an aesthetic which was seen as irregular, grotesque, exaggerated and over decorated. Through this it is easy to see that the anti-classical tendencies of the baroque did not fall into favor with the opinionated tastemaker. Bernini was most often attacked in the writings of Winckelmann in regards to his depictions of “heavy garments, which conceal the grace and contour of the human figure,” which was attributed to Bernini being encouraged by the “dastardly taste for his age.’”[ii] Moreover, this is what Winckelmann was referring to when he wrote: “Nature is undoubtedly misled Bernini: a Carita of his, on the monument of Pope Urban the VIIIth, is said to be corpulent, and another of that of Alexander the VIIth, even uglier.”[iii] It is the excess of these pieces that Winckelmann found abhorrent and this association with nature is referring to the un-idealized forms present in this sculpture. Through this Winckelmann’s distaste for the Baroque is quite clear, making it a strange title for a contemporary art show focusing on the extension of the Baroque. Although as the essay will explain this exhibition does include the features of the Winckelmann’s idea of the Baroque such as the aspects of the grotesque; however, many of the pieces deal with a more contemporary definition of the aesthetic. So arguably, the title in itself is a misleading representation of the exhibition. The beginning of the historiography of the Baroque did not begin with Winckelmann but rather Heinrich Wofflin. In 1888, Wofflin published his first study of this: Renaissance and Baroque and later in 1915, Principles of Art History. This shifted the meaning of Baroque from the categorization of aesthetics to a historical period to a stylistic description of the Baroque. This began a comprehensive discourse on the definition of Baroque as a style that extended beyond the period associated with it, namely seventeenth century Europe and the colonial dispersion. The reason a definition of the baroque is difficult resides most prominently in the large diversity of the style. So, in many ways diversity becomes one of the defining characteristics. Misled by Nature reflects both the difficulty in coming up with a solid conception of the baroque as well as the diversity associated with the term. This is because the exhibition itself is a piecemeal conglomeration of the Baroque, without a solid direction or definition as to what this may mean in the contemporary world of Canadian artists. There seems to be little attempt to separate the historical Baroque from the stylistic components of the Neo-Baroque. Along with this there is little distinction of contemporary theorists such as Gilles Deleuze and the previously discussed Winckelmann, leaving a trail of unclear intentions in this interpretation of the Neo-Baroque. Mainly, the consensus among art critics is that this defining this show in terms of the Baroque is a mischaracterization. In reference to the title, art critic Alison Cooley argues that, “ a productive preoccupation with the falseness of the nature-culture dichotomy, This question of the relationship between nature and culture, manifesting throughout the exhibition, is far more provocative than the promise of a new baroque.”[iv] This illustrates the title’s application to the exhibition but also shows that although associated with the Baroque it serves little purpose in defining the Neo-baroque; further adding to the confusing nature of the curation. Had the exhibition followed its title instead of delving into the depths of Baroque discourse it could have produced a more uniform concept that arguably each of the six works would have easily reflected far more easily than the Neo-Baroque. To add to this idea, art critic, Peter Schjeldal, from the New Yorker, was invited as a speaker to a set of talks that went along with Misled by Nature. He argued that the use of “baroque” as label for the show is a cop-out for the style to be conveniently “excessive” and “decorative,” but it “falls short of a truly baroque sensibility.”[v] Mr. and Mrs. Andrews Without Their Heads, by Yinka Shonibare, MBE, is a play on eighteenth century British artist Thomas Gainborough’s Mr. and Mrs. Andrews (Fig 1 and Fig 2). The original piece was a painting that depicted landowner Robert Andrews sitting with his wife, it is a follows the “fashionable convention of a conversation piece” which in this case displays the couple sitting outside, displaying their landholdings as well as Gainsborough’s skill in naturalistic scenery.[vi] Shonibare’s contemporary sculptural representation of this work has removed the scenery from the portrait and has substituted the sitters for “two anonymous, darker skinned mannequins adorned in garments fashionable for the period but made of African batik clothe.” So essentially, the baroque concept behind this piece refers to the transcultural exchange of commodities and cultures that began during the historical Baroque period. The Gainsborough painting was intrinsically English and Shonibare is removing the national identify and replaces this singularity with a pluralistic tactile material that is representative of the history of global trade and exchange. The curators associated this with the term “hybridity’ which is defined by the curators as “a form of representation that allows for two or more distinct cultural elements to coexist, intermingle, extend and overlap.”[vii] The concept of hybridity can be traced back to the historical Baroque, as the age of exploration began, art began to pool cultural and artistic elements with the discovery of new cultures. Namely, the “first account of this was Latin American religious art, so close to the Iberian or Flemish Baroque but so closely intermingled and autochthonous tones boldly introduced into Baroque concert.”[viii] So this seamless blending that arguably creates hybridity can be seen as extending into contemporary Baroque art. In this particular painting that references the historical Baroque as the textile is represented of the global trade discourse that arose out of the seventeenth-century. Shonibare references the relationship between contemporary times to the historical baroque that led up to it through the fabric: “It is Indonesian influenced. It was manufactured in Holland and then in Manchester and shipped to West Africa. The, after independence, it was adopted as African cloth. But as you can see from the history, its identity is a construct.”[ix] Through this one can see the reference to the trade that grew out of the Baroque era, which arguably does not make it a work of contemporary Baroque art but a historical reference. However, the contemporary extension of the Baroque is still due to the artist’s intentions when creating this piece. The exhibition catalogue quotes Shonibare asserting that: “I am interested in those influences which make up so-called identity, the things we construct for ourselves. The one event that which has done the most to create new hybrids of people and the culture is Empire…This is a part of history. We cannot change it. It has created people who are multicultural and bilingual.”[x] This shows the extension of the global expansion that began with the Baroque and has grown immense connecting and intertwining people and cultures all across the globe. Moreover, like Shonibare states, the world is filled with the multicultural and bilingual, and because of this unique cultural identities are constructed and perpetuated by globalization in the modern world. He is in effect questioning the very interplay and crossing over that culture and identity occur in society tracing back to the historical Baroque period. This piece is used in the exhibition’s catalogue in the introduction as a piece that is supposed to “act as an appropriate starting point.”[xi] However, its relation to the rest of the show is concealed behind the poor organization of the curators involved. Although the piece is easily the most obvious Baroque of the lot, its relation to the rest of the artist’s perception of the contemporary Baroque is hidden through the misleading essays. The first of the two was written by Jonathan Shaughnessy “Misleading is Knowing” discusses three of the piece in the exhibition. The first of which includes three pieces, firstly, Sarah Sze’s 360 (Portable Planetarium) and Lee Bul’s After Bruno Taut (Negative Capability) are discussed primarily in the essay and Shaughnessy looks at them as conceptions of space as well through their relation to the viewer (Fig 3 and Fig 4). Following this Bharti Kher’s piece nothing marks the perimeter, just a hollow sound echoes is introduced lastly and the essay experiences a lack of connection as the piece did not fit into the discussion with the other two (Figure 5). The thin line of connection is through that of the Deleuzian concept of the fold. However, to begin, Kher’s piece will be discussed first do to its arguable connection conceptually to Shonibare’s transcultural discourse. Kher’s piece is inherently a transcultural piece in that it, like Shonibare, deals with the constructed identity of merging societies and ideas. This piece of work is in reference to the bindi, “a mark, most often made of felt, vinyl or paint applied on the forehead between the eyes and worn by both men and women throughout India and South Asia.”[xii] The bindi serves as a unique cultural symbol, as it is related to Hinduism and meditation through tradition but they have also come to be used as facial decoration outside of their traditional roots. So, the bindi holds both one of religious and cultural significance but at the same time as become mass produced as a beauty item, divorced from its religious roots. For Kher, who is a Delhi based artist, this is exploring a form of cultural identity and how this has been dispersed through globalization to gain completely different meaning through the means of mass consumption of a commodity. The actual piece of art itself is formatted like a large-scale triptych, which is covered in circular patterns of various shapes, sizes and colors all in reference to the bindi, in order to create pattern against the black background. What is created is “a beautiful meandering matrix that could be read as a creviced landscape or more infinitely reaching celestial constellation.”[xiii] This is just one of the bindi paintings that Kher has produced all of them exploring “the realms of decorative, the mystical and the mass marketable that these cultural emblems represent, in India as well as their global dissemination.”[xiv] This displays their aesthetic function as well as their much broader cultural reference that the bindi has extremely dualistic qualities in its meaning. Further, this displays the artist desire to explore this cultural realm and fuse together all of the meanings in the conglomeration of a commodity in order to create a stunning aesthetic. This piece of work is, arguably, conceptually along the same lines as Shonibare. Shonibare’s work although making a direct reference to the historical baroque deals with the meshing of identity through the modern world of globalization and she does this through the use of a commodity, her choice being textile instead of the bindi. However, just through the simple choice of approaching this question through a commodity which has greatly changed over time due to cultural shifts and expanding global connectedness. Further, although different in cultural context both pieces of work are easily relatable in the transcultural nature of the Baroque and arguably both seem to be extensions of this in the modern context. Although this connection seems almost obvious the curators failed to relate the two pieces together in any way other then putting them in the same exhibition. Although similar rhetoric is used to discuss both there is never any connection drawn between the two directly, which is debatably a huge fault of the curators and the way in which the order the exhibition, most specifically through their catalogue. The other two pieces which where included in Shaughnessy’s essay by Bul and Sze are more shares a more compatible link. Bul’s After Bruno Taut (Negative Capability) is in reference to a progressive architectural piece by Vladmir Tatlin’s Monument to the Third International. Aesthetically, there is no doubt that Bul was inspired by Tatlin’s construction, composition and mentality. This is paired with a direct reference via the title of Bruno Taut’s architectural ideals, which are “notable for their modernist utopian aspirations on the one hand and functionalist on the other.”[xv] So through this one can see that the piece is speaking to an architectural aesthetic that desires to produce “impossible realms, but whose practice was informed by a kind of pragmatic progressivism.”[xvi] This is coupled with a reference to mass-consumption through the use of beads which are mainly cheap, ornamental and decorative plastic pieces, the kind fabricated in Asia and sold at low prices in Western dollar stores.”[xvii] This concept through the essay is weakly related to the idea of utopia as a reference to the frailty of the reality of this idea and so it essentially represents the human failure associated with the utopian ideal. On the other hand, Sze’s 360 (Portable Planetarium) is a large installation piece that includes large amount of materials joined together, “pulling together a fragile universe out of detrital material of everyday consumption.”[xviii] The piece according to the essay is referencing both an Eastern and Western aesthetic, which arguably can allude to the transcultural nature of the piece; however, this does not come to full fruition under the lines of the Baroque, rather, it seems to simply reflect the identity of the artist as being multicultural, which is not mutually exclusive to the Baroque aesthetic. When looking at this piece there does not seem to be a greater indication of a discussion on the relationship between two cultures but simply a reflection of the identity of the artist. The closest the artist gets to this is through her “reconciling competing worldviews and the interpretations of space,” which has been a long-term focus of her art.[xix] Through this comparison one can find many parallels between Bul and Sze works. To begin, the both deal with the concept of space and its representation. Sze is literally dealing with our perceptions of space through the use of space and materials to create her own composite and Bul is creating a version of a Utopia, an ideal that has existed but the reality is that that it is impossible to create a true Utopia. This displays the connection between them in terms of space and physical size, but a more important connection is focus of both artists on the perception of the viewer. Shaughnessy states that both of these works “invite the viewer to engage in aesthetic realms in which the ultimate goal is to not reach firm conclusions over each of the installations; content and meanings, but rather to provokes many observations, feelings and questions.”[xx] This concentration on point of view is arguably the strongest link back to the Baroque, although no mention of this is made in the catalogue, in fact no strong claim in reference to the Baroque is made to either of these pieces. Art historian, Miek Bal argues that during the historical baroque period a new found awareness was formed around the idea of the ‘point of view,’ “which we now call self-reflection, a self-consciousness of the human individual.”[xxi] This ‘point of view’ is perhaps a combination of the artists self-reflections when creating a piece which was mention previously through Sze’s 360 but beyond this it is discussing the relation of the subject to the object. Further, it is creating an effect on the viewer, which leads to the self-reflection of spectator. Miek Bal states: “The characteristic of a baroque point of view is that the subject becomes vulnerable to the impact of the object.”[xxii] An impact, no matter what its meaning or implication, on the viewer is exactly what both artist hope to achieve through their works and this is what makes these pieces extensions of the Baroque. Although this essay has come to the conclusion that Sez, Bul and Kher have all created pieces that reach a Baroque tendency, the curation is arguably at fault for not displaying this aptly. In fact, what could have been a strong and stable essay only confuses the meaning and purposes of the pieces. Further, to end the essay Shaughnessy relates all three pieces back to the Deleuzian concept of the fold. In Deleuzes’ The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque he uses the philosophy of Leibniz to deconstruct the concept of the Baroque and further use it as a instrument for understanding the extension of its nature and applying this to various intellectual and art movements. Deleuze argues that the fold is used in the Baroque invites infinity into it process of being; moreover, the Baroque “endlessly produces folds, “which serve to create form and through this the elements.”[xxiii] Shaughnessy argues, “The concept of the fold provides a plausible approach to consider these expansive and immersive artworks. The sculptures and installations of Bul, Sze and Kher expose eyes, intellect and emotion to the inestimable sensual offerings that mitigate the will to know and understand the world, ourselves and others.”[xxiv] Although this argument can be made, it has been done in a weak way, arbitrarily creating connection between Deleuze and the three artists without actually discussing the true nature of his complicated theory. If one wanted to apply Deleuze to the three artists as their connecting element, it could have debatably been done in an effective manner. However, throwing in a quote at the end and claiming through abstract terms that this is both the connection between the paintings and their reference to the Baroque is a deficient argument. The final essay in the catalogue, “Finding Beauty and the Sublime” by Josée Drouin-Brisebois includes the two works: David Altmejd’s The Holes and Tricia Middleton’s Embracing ruin and oblivion is the only way to live now (Figure 6 and Figure 7). These two pieces appear to be far more congruent with the title and what the curators meant by it then any of the other pieces and this in part is true as Tricia Middleton’s piece is the only one that was commissioned specifically for this show. Both pieces are also large scale, immersive environments and create an experience for the viewer. Although an argument can be made that both of these pieces reference an extension of the Baroque, this essay will argue that that is not their purpose and they in fact fit with the title of the exhibition most completely. Both pieces are over exaggerated, overdecoratesd and grotesque and discuss the relationship between civilization and nature. Altmejd’s The Holes is overwhelming in its approach to the aesthetic making it’s meaning hidden from the viewer from beneath the overstated work of art. Drouin-Brisebois describes the work as “presented on an enormous, light-blue platform, the piece evokes a natural diorama, musicological display and theatrical stage…a slow degradation as hairy bodies transform into surprising organic and built environments.”[xxv] Through this we can see the idea of nature and civilization being remade and recreated through inevitable decay of life. Moreover, it displays a grotesque environment that is in many ways misled by its natural elements; however, still not in the way in which Bernini did. This piece reflects the curator’s conception of the show far better then that of attaining an extension of the Baroque. Further, Tricia Middleton’s Embracing ruin and oblivion is the only way to live now, which was commissioned specifically for this show embraces the concept of nature as being a greater force than that of humanity. This piece which is “envisioned as a monumental free-standing ice cap situated inside a larger, fortress-like room…creates a new hybrid structure that will exist somewhere between nature and civilization.”[xxvi] So through this one can see that this like most of the pieces in this exhibition do make reference to point of view in that it is an immersive experience; however, because the show does not connect all works through this framework, the nature-culture dichotomy presented by the curators is at its most relevant through these works. Moreover, this work and Altmejd’s serve different purpose then the extension of the Baroque in the context of this exhibition, which is why this essay will not argue that they are Baroque but rather works regarding this dichotomy of nature and culture. The reference to the baroque is a feigned attempt by the curators to connect this exhibition, and largely they do so unsuccessfully. In conclusion, Misled by Nature was badly organized and badly curated. It made a reference to the extension of the Baroque into contemporary art but did not fulfill this goal and instead, presented a conglomeration of pieces that were badly connected through the curation and did not follow along one clear discourse. To begin, the title was misleading in itself because it referenced a critique of the Baroque, which did not necessarily fit to any pieces other then Middleton’s and Altmejd’s. Further, the three essays included in the catalogue which group together the six pieces of art made little sense in overall argument and reference to the overall show. The introduction was directed towards the historical Baroque period and it brought in the piece Shonibare created as both a reference to the historical, transcultural Baroque but also transforming it into a modern examination of cultural boundaries and global dissemination. Further, this essay argued that the Shaughnessy’s grouping of pieces could in fact be directly linked to containing Baroque tendencies or ideals through a methodology divorced from that of Shaughnessy. Firstly, that Shonibare and Kher shared similar conceptual thinking in terms of the modern day cultural environment and how this has changed through the spreading of commodities and ideals. Secondly, Sze and Bul although holding more reference to other artistic movements both created pieces that were meant to have some sort of impact on the viewer and this Miek Bal argues is an essential element of the Baroque. Finally, this essay argued that the two final pieces by Middleton and Altmejd were conceptually concentrated on the dichotomy between nature and culture and they did not manage to transcend into extension of the Baroque in this framework. So through this one can see the Baroque absolutely exist within Misled by Nature; however, the curation and organization of the catalogue and the exhibition overshadow this relation creating a mismanaged and confusing conglomeration of pieces strung together by numerous concept few of them leading to a better understand of the Baroque.
Bibliography
Bal, Miek. “Baroque Matters.” in Rethinking the Baroque. ed. Helen Hill. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011. 183-202. Cooley, Alison. “Nature- Culture Dialogue Dominates MOCCA’s Neo-Baroque Art Show.” In Canadian Art, (March, 2014). Accessed April 5, 2015: http://canadianart.ca/reviews/2014/03/27/misled-by-nature/ Crowston, Catherine, Josée Drouin-Brisebois and Jonathan Shaughnessy. Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque. Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 2012. Deleuze, Gilles. The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque. Minneapolis: The Regents University of Minnesota, 1993. Glissant, Edouard. “Concerning a Baroque Abroad in the World.” Goodden, Sky. “Review: MOCCA Attempts the Neo-Baroque.” in BLOUINARTINFO (February, 2014). Accessed March 23, 2015: http://ca.blouinartinfo. com/news/story/1008437 /review-mocca-attempts-the-neo-baroque# Irwin, David. Winckelmann: Writings on Art. London, Phaidon Press Limited, 1972. Krunák-Hajagos, Emese. “Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque.” in Artoronto.ca (April 2014). Accessed: April 3, 2015: http://www.artoronto .ca/?p=23264 Farago, Claire. “Reframing the Baroque: “On Idolatry and the Threshold of Humanity.” Rethinking the Baroque. ed. Helen Hills. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011. 99-122. “Mr. and Mrs. Andrews,” from National Gallery of London, Accessed April 2, 2015: http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/thomas-gainsborough-mr-and-mrs- andrews. Wacker, Kelly A. Baroque Tendencies in Contemporary Art. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007. Wofflin, Heinrich. Principles of Style in Art History: The Problem of Development of the Later Style in Art. Trans. N.D. Hottinger. New York: Dover Press, 1932. Zimonjic, Peter. “Misled by Nature Arrives in Toronto.” In National Gallery of Canada Magazine, (February, 2014). Accessed April 1, 2015: http://www.ngcmagazine.ca /exhibitions/misled-by-nature-arrives-in-toronto Images Cited Fig 1: Yinka Shonibare (MBE) Mr. And Mrs. Andrews Without Their Heads. 1998 Two mannequins, Dutch wax printed cotton textile, dog mannequin, painted metal bench, rifle, 165 x 635 x 254 cm with plinth. From: http://www.artoronto.ca/?p=23264 Figure 2: Thomas Gainsborough. Mr and Mrs Andrews. c. 1750, oil on canvas, 69.8 by 119.4 cm, National Gallery of London. From: http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk /paintings/thomas-gainsborough-mr-and-mrs-andrews Figure 3: Sarah Sze. 360 (Portable Planetarium), 2010. mixed media, wood, paper, string, jeans, and rocks
411.5 x 345.4 x 469.9 cm installed. National Gallery of Canada. From: ttps://www.gallery.ca/en/see/collections/artwork.php?mkey=206533 Figure 4: Lee Bul, After Bruno Taut (Negative Capability), 2008, crystal, glass, and acrylic beads on stainless steel armature with aluminum and copper mesh, with chains made of PVC, steel, and aluminum, 274.3 x 296.4 x 213.4 cm, National Gallery of Canada. From: http://www.ngcmagazine.ca/exhibitions /misled-by-nature-arrives-in-toronto. Figure 5: Bharti Kher. nothing marks the perimeter, just a hollow sound echoes, 2011. Bindis on painted board
243 x 182 cm each. National Gallery of Canada. From: http://www.gallery.ca/en/see/collections/artwork.php?mkey=215412 Figure 6: David Altmejd, The Holes, 2008, wood, mirror, glue, plaster, foam, metal wire, epoxy clay, epoxy resin, paint, horse hair, synthetic branches, synthetic flowers, pine cones, glass beads, quartz, quail eggs, glitter, and snail shells, 291.5 x 883.9 x 518.2 cm, detail, National Gallery of Canada. From: : http://www.ngcmagazine.ca/exhibitions /misled-by-nature-arrives-in-toronto Figure 7: Tricia Middleton, Embracing oblivion and ruin is the only way to live now, 2013 – 14. Mixed media installation. From: http://www.ngcmagazine.ca/exhibitions /misled-by-nature-arrives-in-toronto
[i] Catherine Crowston, Josée Drouin-Brisebois and Jonathan Shaughnessy, Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque (Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 2012) 10. [ii] David Irwin, Winckelmann: Writings on Art. (London, Phaidon Press Limited, 1972) 44. [iii] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque 15. [iv] Alison Cooley, “Nature- Culture Dialogue Dominates MOCCA’s Neo-Baroque Art Show, ” In Canadian Art, (March, 2014). (Accessed April 5, 2015: http://canadianart.ca /reviews/2014/03/27/misled-by-nature/) [v] Ibid. [vi] “Mr. and Mrs. Andrews,” from National Gallery of London, Accessed April 2, 2015: http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/thomas-gainsborough-mr-and-mrs-andrews [vii] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 18. [viii] Edouard Glissant, “Concerning a Baroque Abroad in the World.” 625. [ix] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 19 [x] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 18. [xi] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 18. [xii] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 36. [xiii] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 41. [xiv] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 41. [xv] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 32. [xvi] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 33. [xvii] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 33. [xviii] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 26. [xix] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 36. [xx] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 36. [xxi] Miek Bal,“Baroque Matters.” in Rethinking the Baroque, ed. Helen Hill. (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011) 189. [xxii] Ibid. [xxiii] Gilles Deleuze, The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque (Minneapolis: The Regents University of Minnesota, 1993) 3. [xxiv] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 3. [xxv] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 47. [xxvi] Ibid., Misled by Nature: Contemporary Art and the Baroque, 56-58.