An Interview of: Maya Hawke

interview by Lily Rabe
photography by Boe Marion
styling by Cece Liu
all clothing by Prada FW25

Maya Hawke’s breakout role on Stranger Things, as the frenetically precocious Robin Buckley, whose character arc would go on to challenge the entire dynamic of the Netflix tentpole, was instant proof of a rare, believable, and soulful complexity. That same year, a minor appearance as a Manson girl in Tarantino’s Once Upon A Time in Hollywood (2019), firmly placed Hawke in a class of next gen actors demanding visibility on the silver screen in an industry that is not only rapidly evolving, but also in crisis. Aside from her well-known screenwork, she is also a musician and stage actor who has released three studio albums and recently starred in an Off-Broadway play. Her titular role in the revival of Sarah Ruhl’s Eurydice, a play about the inexorable riptide of grief, earned her widespread critical acclaim. On the occasion of her recent casting in The Hunger Games: Sunrise on the Reaping (2026) and the final season of Stranger Things, Hawke and fellow actor Lily Rabe discuss the fraught, vulnerable psychic landscape of the dramatic arts and the undeniable power and seduction of process. There’s no business like show business.

LILY RABE: Hi, Maya.

MAYA HAWKE: Hi, beautiful woman.

LILY RABE: Speaking of works in progress—for me, I don’t know what it is to be in any other state of being other than work in progress. I always get so freaked out when a director says that we’ve picture locked. It sends me into an existential panic.

MAYA HAWKE: I feel the same. I feel like I’m always in a state of process and progress and creation. Where I get the most nervous is when things freeze. That’s the nice thing about the theater, because even though you lock the show, it’s never not in process, it’s never not continuing to be worked on.

RABE Yes, you always have another show, and you get to do it all over again. And then it’s over, and no one gets to see it anymore. But with theater, you don’t experience that feeling of saying goodbye like you do with film, where this one take is going to be...

HAWKE ...Used forever! They don’t get to see the four other takes that I did that were cool and different.

RABE: With the theater, you can fail better (laughs).

HAWKE: Yes, you can fail more continuously. So, it feels like failing is, in and of itself, an honorable act because it’s an impermanent state where you’re always aspiring to not fail the next time. But when you’re in a permanent state of failure, by closing the door on something, that’s when I get really sick to my stomach.

RABE: Even in the play, Ghosts, that I just did with your brother [Levon Hawke]—when the director, Jack O’Brien told us we were officially frozen—both “frozen” and “locked” feel so traumatizing.

HAWKE: Yes! I don’t want to be frozen, and I don’t want to be locked.

RABE: Once it was frozen, Jack would go back to his house in the country. When he would occasionally come in on a Sunday matinée, all of us would just be so desperate for a note from him

HAWKE: It’s true because when you freeze a show, you’re still shaping it. And it moves in different directions all on its own, just from the nature of the chemicals of the people together. Something I remember being so nervous about was when Les [Waters], who directed Eurydice, came back to see it, and I couldn’t even remember if I was still doing what I was supposed to be doing. We froze, but I don't know if I froze or not.

RABE: We both grew up in artistic families. Do you feel like that’s the way every interview you do starts?

HAWKE: It’s interesting. I wonder if that’s been your experience or not. I feel like it’s a double-edged blade, right? Because it’s both true and interesting. When I talk to most people, eventually, I start to wonder about them: How did you end up like you, or what happened to make you—you? I always wonder about a person’s childhood and experiences, so, for me, it’s such a fair question. Do you get asked that question a lot?

RABE: Yes, all the time. But what you’re saying is true. When I read someone’s profile, it always starts with their childhood and where they grew up. It just feels sort of loaded for us, but it is our history. It sounds like you don’t have a chip on your shoulder about that question.

HAWKE: I think it depends on who asked the question; I can smell whether someone is asking for the wrong reasons or for the normal reasons. One big mistake people from similar backgrounds make is getting defensive about it, because it gets a little like “the lady doth protest too much.” It’s a completely appropriate question if it comes out of curiosity and education about another person. I was doing an interview recently where someone asked me this question, and I just started talking about my high school teachers and my acting teachers. Because, yes, I have an artistic family, and that’s the reason I was exposed to acting, but it’s the same for most people: your parents loom so large. Then, you go out and you find your guides, especially as a teenager. Eventually, you wind your way back to your parents, where you’re like, “Oh, you guys are okay.” These guides that pop into your life, in these formative years, point you towards who you are, and sometimes who you are is right back to where you started. I wouldn't be me if it weren’t for Laura Barnett and Nancy Reardon and Nancy Fells Garrett, but I obviously wouldn't be who I am without my mom and dad.

RABE: I’m interested in this because I took a slightly indirect path towards the thing I always knew I wanted to be doing, and part of that was because of exactly what we’re talking about. I had tremendously supportive, brilliant, incredible, and wonderful parents. But I was still like: I’m going to be a dancer. Then the second thing was writing, when really what I wanted to be doing was acting.

HAWKE: Well, in some ways, writing plus dance is acting. (laughs) I wanted to go deep into poetry, to go into academia, and study it. My different take on poetry was that it should be spoken out loud.

RABE: But it’s certainly not acting, don't you dare. (laughs)

HAWKE: Definitely not. (laughs) But I relate to trying to carve out your version of the same pie. It takes a little while to be like: All right, I’ll eat the pie. Being sure that you do love it, and this is the thing I’m the best at—the place I feel the safest and most whole in the universe—so I probably shouldn’t turn my back on that feeling just to prove I can. But I do feel like my experience watching people move through lives in the arts—both my parents and their friends—has been my secret weapon in life. It shapes everything—my emotional life, my work life, even therapy. Having the arts as your backbone is one of the most fortunate ways to move through life, because you have these tools on how to process emotions, how to look at conflict, how to look at the truth, through scene work and storytelling. I think it takes people a long time to go back and build that tool kit, versus if you’ve just been fortunate to walk out of your development with it. I couldn't be more grateful for that.

RABE: I think there’s a lot of truth in what you said. We’ve never really talked about this, but you’re the kind of person I’d call if I were afraid to share something with others for fear of judgment. But I’d call you, or your brother, because I’d know you wouldn’t be afraid of it. And I feel like you’d say the same about me. I wonder if that’s connected to what you just articulated so beautifully. It’s like we feel safer around the edges than maybe the average person does.

HAWKE: I think we understand the plasticity of emotion. Let’s say I’m having a horrible feeling, and I’m feeling somehow betrayed and angry, and as soon as I say those things out loud, something hard and carcinogenic loosens, then you have this opportunity to reshape it and be healed. That gives you so much emotional freedom and a sense of safety. To really understand that you are not defined by your feelings, you have to see how movable they actually are.

RABE: I know that your parents moved around a lot, but you were in New York primarily. Did your parents take you to the theater?

HAWKE: Well, not only did my parents take me to the theater, but my parents took me to see you in the theater. My favorite thing in the world as a kid was Shakespeare in the Park, and I saw you there twice; it shook me to my absolute core. I get asked all the time what movies made me become an actress. But really, the three things that made me want to be an actress were my dad doing The Winter’s Tale with Rebecca Hall, you in The Merchant of Venice, and you in As You Like It. Those three shows made me realize: that's the kind of woman I want to become, with that kind of strength and grace. I knew I wanted to go to Juilliard because I saw a version of being a grown woman that was right to me. I wanted to have mastery over language, over the space, and over the story that just made me want to do this. It was really because of seeing you.

RABE: I’m speechless. I love you. I can’t talk about this without talking about Eurydice. You and I never worked together—I was pulled into your orbit through your family. Right when Ghosts ended, which I had done with your brother Levon, you were cast in Eurydice. I haven’t really told this story, but I actually went to see you in it with your brother. I had seen the original production at that same theater, with the same director, even many of the same props, and music. I went with my mother, and we usually shared the same taste in theater—but this time, I was stumped. I thought it was beautiful, but I didn’t understand it. My mother said, “Maybe someday you will.” Years later, I returned. Sitting next to Levon, I watched you—someone I love—play this role, and I was overwhelmed. I cried so hard on your brother’s shoulder I couldn’t breathe or see; tears were shooting sideways out of my eyes. You were breathtaking—your command of the stage, your connection to your body, your language. You had this agelessness that was astonishing. I realized then that Eurydice might be the greatest play about grief ever written. And my mother was right: I finally understood it, because I had lost her. Experiencing that through you—this woman and artist I love—was profound beyond words. When we got backstage, I held onto you as if being passed from Levon’s arms into yours. You and Sarah Ruhl had given me the greatest gift anyone grieving could receive. It’s an experience I will carry forever.

HAWKE: It felt strange because, during rehearsals, Sarah often told me I reminded her of your mom. That made your reaction when you saw it even more meaningful to me. I almost felt like I felt as if Sarah wasn’t saying I reminded her of your mom, but that you would come to the play and feel her presence. I was so moved by the play. I haven’t had much experience with grief, but every night in that play, I felt it deeply—as if I were learning grief through the play itself. I feel like I grew a lot from doing that. We were in the deep end of sorrow that winter and into spring.

RABE: I feel like I’m back in the experience now.

HAWKE: You were so crazy good in Ghosts. It was a very intimidating thing to have seen you three times right before I started my play. How did it feel ending Ghosts, because ending a play is very strange and lonely, and you feel a little insane for a couple of weeks. And then you balance out.

RABE: It’s stressful, sad, and strange. Ending a job, a film, or a TV show can be incredibly emotional, but it’s not the same as a play. The schedule seeps into your cells—you become a creature of habit: when to wake up, when to have caffeine, when to eat. Being in the theater for eight shows a week, you almost go underground, and then suddenly, it’s over. Even though Ghosts was painful, I didn’t feel even close to ready to be done.

HAWKE: When you’re at a midpoint, you think you’re ready to be done with it, then towards the end, you think you can go on forever. One of my favorite Leonard Cohen quotes is, “You look good when you’re tired, you look like you could go on forever.” Weirdly, it’s from a poem called “How to Speak Poetry.” And it’s a true reflection of acting because you can get into that space where you feel like you could go on forever. You’re also in this community of people who are with you in that experience. You feel unified in this group that is going through it together, and it’s the least lonely a person can ever feel. But then, it ends, and you’re not ready for it to end, and suddenly it’s extremely lonely and anxiety-inducing, trying to carve back out who you were before it, and how you’ve changed from it.

RABE: You can never be who you were before. Do you find that with certain roles, when it comes to the end, you’re desperate to hold on to them, or sometimes you’re ready to let them go? And are there things that you do to encourage one thing or the other?

HAWKE: I feel like I’m always encouraging letting go. To me, great acting is the ability to be fully committed and involved while maintaining a relationship with yourself. I think sometimes people give themselves a lot of credit for losing themselves; that it means that you’re more serious and real. But to me, the real goal is to be fully committed and find a way to keep being you during it—to keep being a good partner, a good sister, a good friend, a good tenant. One of the hardest things, weirdly, was to keep up therapy while I was doing the play. But I think it was so valuable, because it was like checking back in with me every week for an hour. That’s what helped me release it when it was over. I also just had a big ending with Stranger Things, a character I played for seven years. It was funny because my dad called me—he was doing a TV show that was coming to an end—and he was like, “I feel so weird, I don't know if we’re going to do another season of this show. How will I let go of this character while also not letting go of him?” And my advice was to let go completely. Imagine you’ll never do it again. Because by the time you’ll do another season, you will be different. The characters can change too. You can build a new one. On Stranger Things, every season, I let go of whatever Robin from that season was and built a totally new one. For me, it’s about getting back to hearing your voice, your instincts, and your feelings, because you is where you filled up the cauldron before, and took that character out of the cauldron of you, so you always have to be churning.

RABE: Aren’t you doing a comedy right now?

HAWKE: Yes. Speaking of works in progress, I’m working on a romantic comedy—sort of. It’s a bit of a genre cruncher. It’s about a couple who convince themselves their relationship has sociopolitical consequences: when they’re getting along, they get promotions and their stocks go up; when they fight, their favorite celebrities get into car accidents, their stocks tank, and they get demoted. So they try to hack their life by hacking their relationship, forcing harmony to get whatever they want. As you can imagine, that has some negative repercussions. It’s about the danger of thinking you can control everything, and the need to just be honest. But it’s really fun. Lewis Pullman is such a great actor, and it’s the debut of an extraordinary first-time director, Graham Parkes. I’m also getting to play a role I’ve never really played before: a shrewd, smart, hot adult woman.

RABE: I feel like I’ve never done a run at comedy. But I’m very romantic about what the experience would be like; I’ve certainly romanticized it.

HAWKE It’s really fun because you get to play with all the silliness and the ridiculousness. But then, there’s this core of love and relationship, and I have probably spent the majority of my conscious years thinking about those two things. For better or for worse. You have this tremendous resource of the thing that you spend most of your time thinking about, so there's this depth there, and this messiness, and all of the experiences to draw from and to build off of. There’s also this kind of joy and silliness and mania to it.

RABE I was just thinking about how sad Ghosts was, but it was also so funny, as was Eurydice.

HAWKE: I cracked up laughing. But the thing about the truth: it can be funny and sad at the same time.

RABE: Exactly. We can become all things.

HAWKE: Absolutely. When you’re most available to laugh is also when we’re almost crying. When you’re just living in the most poignant emotional space, the wind could blow through you; you can laugh or cry, and you’re not sure which one. That’s the kind of art I want to be making, art that walks on that edge.

RABE: Tell me, what’s it like being on a tour as a musician? What’s it like being a rock star? (laughs) Is it you up there?

HAWKE: This is what’s confusing to me, because I kind of don’t want it to be me up there. If I’m going to stand in front of people, I want to be a character as a form of armor. Because no matter what, you’re playing a character. You can’t be you all the time on stage; you have to pick a version. But every time I tried to put a character on top of my writing, it felt false. The songs feel personal, so I don’t know how to be a character while singing them. That delineation confuses me. I haven’t figured it out yet. I want to look great on stage and put on a good show, but when I start trying to put on a show and pick a costume, it feels disconnected from the music. I almost just want to be naked on stage singing, because that would make me feel most connected—that’s how I feel in my songs. I’m committed to figuring out how to put on a show musically that incorporates all those things.

RABE: Do you get nervous in the same way as before the plays?

HAWKE: I get much more nervous. I have nerves that are almost at the level of a deterrent. Sometimes I think, maybe we just don’t do it tonight. With plays, the nerves are bad, but they’re not at the same level. It’s almost like it’s a ship that’s gonna leave the dock whether you’re on it or not, so you better jump on, versus being the captain of the ship with my music, saying, “I don't know if we should even leave the dock.” Also, there’s something about having your name on the poster. When someone’s coming to see you in a play, they’re coming to see the play, but with a concert, it’s just your name. If I could go back in time, I would have picked a band name, so it’s less pressure. When I was touring, I had stage deafness, where all of a sudden I just couldn't hear anything. It felt like time travel. I felt like everything moves in the slowest pace anything has ever moved, and the show’s over before you know it. I couldn’t hear my own voice, even whenit’s mixed perfectly; all I can hear is the audience.

RABE And what about public speaking or doing press? Do you get nervous about that?

HAWKE No. I sometimes get nervous if I think there’s a trick up someone’s sleeve, because I’ve been tricked before. Maybe now I have my guard up a little bit when doing press, but I don’t get nervous in that way.

RABE I get nervous even when giving a speech at dinner with really close friends where I know I’m safe. But with acting, I find tremendous comfort in the fact that it’s Lily Rabe playing this part.

HAWKE: Me too. I like implicating other people in my own disaster (laughs). I feel very nervous when no one else has been implicated. But the press isn’t nerve-wracking to me because I love conversation; it feels like where my comfort zone is. I’m happiest in a good talk.

RABE: You know when you’re on a press line, and then suddenly there’s this incredibly curious person who asks you a question that’s better than any question you could have ever imagined being asked. And it just makes the whole thing wonderful?

HAWKE: Yes. In those press walks, I can get nervous because I always want to be quippy and quick, and usually—as I’m sure you've noticed in this conversation—I’m just not that quick. It takes a little while for me to get to my point. So, sometimes I get nervous from, you know, Oh, I wish I had a spicy one-liner for this moment.

RABE: Like a sound bite. I’m not good with that either. I’m also not good with the log line. When people are like, “What’s this about?” I'm like, “Well, pull up a chair.” (laughs)

HAWKE: I’m bad at those, too, but I am good at talking.

RABE: Hamish [Linklater] always says, “Career is a dirty word.” Do you often think about your next steps, hoping for anything specific, or are you thinking about each project on its own in the moment you’re in your life?

HAWKE: When I was starting, I was trying to explain to my agents how I wanted them to think about my career. I would say things like, “I want to be sixty years old doing Shakespeare in the Park, so let’s keep that goal in mind to guide our choices.” In many ways, that’s still true, but I do think career is a dirty word. When Stranger Things first ended, I was in a sick brain about my career, and my sick brain was saying, “Your career is over.” I felt like I got lucky as a teenager and got to join something that worked, and everything else is the side effects from that luck, and now that luck ran out, you’re finished. I was really anxious, to the point of driving myself a little bit insane while I was doing the play. On every off day, I would take a bunch of meetings, because I was anxious from the loss of that anchor of Stranger Things. So, that was the strategy: I wanted to do whatever I could while I still could. Then, all of a sudden, I had this empty terrain of the foreseeable future, and I had no idea what was structuring it; it was really scary. I started thinking a lot about my career, what I wanted, what my goals were, and what was possible. As a young person, I had dreams, but with how the industry has changed, now those dreams are unclear. I don’t know if there’s such a thing as a movie star anymore. The path is all changing, and because of the nature of how quickly things are changing these days, Hamish is right, career is a dirty word. It just has to be about experience and about what’s pulling you in one direction or another. It’s okay if that’s sometimes money, and it’s okay if sometimes it’s going to cost you money to do this job. You just need to do it. You just have to make sure that you’re keeping that balance and don’t get addicted to either thing. It’s easy for me to get preoccupied with strategy and career, but I try to put it to bed.

RABE: I don’t think about my career when I’m working on something I love. I go to work every day and come home feeling like I’ve given every ounce of my sweat and soul because this is what I love. I love that feeling.

HAWKE: It’s addictive.

RABE: I want to be there all the time. So, when I'm getting to do that, I’m not thinking about my career in any sort of way. There is something just innately unhealthy about it, but also delusional. I’ve learned over the years that I’m almost always wrong when I think something is going to be a certain way, and I’m rarely right. So, I try to keep those voices as quiet as I can.

HAWKE: It’s not a game that you can play with a strategy. It’s like saying you have a good strategy for playing bingo. You just need to follow your heart and try everything because no matter how good a career you end up having, if you don’t follow it from your gut, it’s going to feel hollow. No matter how bad your career turns out, if every choice you made was your own, and you made it with love, and with the people you love, and the stories that you love, then I think you’re going to feel like you had a great career.

RABE: I have a feeling that we will want to just keep working until the end. Hopefully, we’ll never have that moment where we have to stop and look back and assess anything. (laughs)

HAWKE: Let’s leave that for our obituary writers.

Soft Gallery: Marta Minujín

 

Marta Minujín with her first mattress in her studio on Rue Delambre, Paris, 1963

 

interview by Hans Ulrich Obrist

photography by Ada Navarro Aguilera


In 1963, Marta Minujín invited Christo, Niki de Saint Phalle, and Jean Tinguely to an empty lot in Paris to set her artwork ablaze. This incendiary happening—a term coined by Allan Kaprow in 1959—marked a radical turning point in the Argentinian artist’s career. Today, with her first solo exhibition in Mexico City at Kurimanzutto, Minujín stands out as an artist able to see, hear, feel, and even taste the future: a future both soft and hard, sweet and self-possessed. Her most recognizable works include fluorescent mattress sculptures twisted into amorphous, seemingly impossible forms—love letters to intimacy, sex, and mortality. The first were made from discarded mattresses found outside hospitals. Even more political are her toppled monuments of phallocentric power, some covered in loaves of sweet bread, turning collapse into satire and protest. These horizontalized spires became pillars of anti-authoritarianism, critiques of capitalism, and monuments to soft power. Her technological happenings anticipated the future of mass communication. Utilizing satellites, phone lines, and closed-circuit television, Minujín forged connections that foreshadowed today’s world of constant contact. Spanning more than six decades, Minujín’s oeuvre is rooted in her belief that people should live in art, not just look at it.

“We wanted to destroy art—museums, galleries, everything.”

 

Marta Minujín inside Minuphone, 1967

 



HANS ULRICH OBRIST: This is your first exhibitionin Mexico, and it brings together recent works, but it's also the first timethat the El obelisco acostado (The obelisk lying down)—ahistoric piece—will be shown in Mexico. Can you tell us about this?

MARTA MINUJÍN: I made this piece in 1978 for the First Latin American Biennial in São Paulo. I got the idea to laydown all monuments—to change the idea that the world is vertical. The world is actually multidirectional. I don't like thinking that it's all straight. So, I invented the Statue Of Liberty lying down, the Eiffel Tower lying down. All monuments around the world, lying down. The first one I made was a full scale replica of Buenos Aires’s Obelisco, which is seventy-four meters long, but lying down. It was immersive—the people could walk in, there were televisions and Super 8 film projections. Since then, I have made many, many monuments lying down—including the James Joyce tower in Dublin lying down, covered in loaves of bread.

OBRIST: They somehow challenge the authoritarian narrative of publicly imposed representation. They are also anti-monuments?

MINUJÍN: I wouldn’t quite call them that. It has to do with the popular myths that the statues convey—they are national symbols. Like the Statue of Liberty, right now, as a symbol is technically sinking. It is totally lying down and the torch is extinguished. Before, the United States would welcome everyone, but now not so much. So, the statue has to be lying down and that will be my next project for the Venice Biennale next year. I am presenting this to the government for the Argentinian Pavilion, but I’m not sure if they are going to send me there. (laughs) I will do the Statue of Liberty lying down and then cover it with fake hamburgers. People will take one and change it for a real one at McDonalds locations all over the world.

 
 
 

Marta Minujín with El Obelisco acostado (The Obelisk lying down), Parque do Ibirapuera, São Paulo, Brazil, 1978

 

OBRIST: You’ve told me about the Obelisco de Pan Dulce and the Torre de Pan for James Joyce. Food is clearly an important aspect of your art—the idea of edible art. How did the concept of actually eating the artwork enter your practice?

MARTA MINUJÍN: The first edible artwork I created was the Venus de Milo made of cheese. I’ve always been fascinated by participatory art. The idea is similar to my early work, like La Menesunda: people engage directly, moving through the experience, eating, walking, and interacting. I want them to have moments they’ll never forget—like taking a bite from a Statue of Liberty made of hamburgers, or holding a slice of a bread-covered tower, or the Panettone Obelisk. I’ve made many edible monuments because I love for people to be active participants in my work, not just spectators.

OBRIST: You told me once that at ten years old, you suddenly knew you were an artist. Can you talk about this epiphany?

MARTA MINUJÍN: I knew I was an artist at five. I started making art when I was ten. I was a child that knew exactly what I wanted to do. I knew from the beginning. I'm very happy that I did it, but I suffered a lot because I've been very poor in New York, very poor in Argentina. But I got many grants. I received a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1966, so I could live on that.

OBRIST: Last year I saw the exhibition of your very early work at Kurimanzutto in New York. These pieces from the late 1950s emerge right at the moment when informalismo was a strong global force—in Europe, Latin America, even Asia. That’s also where your Catalogue Raisonné begins, with these first informal works. Alberto Greco was important to you then; he would point to a wall and say, “Look at this wonderful surface—I’ll sign it.” Already there was this shift in your attention, from painting an image to recognizing the wall itself as an object.

MARTA MINUJÍN: He was a very big influence on me. When I met him, I was sixteen. I was still in school, and I loved him so much as a friend. At the time, I was painting in a kind of surrealist style—I didn’t really know what I was doing. Then suddenly, I put the canvas on the floor and started working there. I made one painting that was inspired by Alberto Greco. I did many, many works—three or four a day. And then I destroyed almost all of them. Years later, we found some still in my studio; that’s why a few have reappeared now. After that, I began working with mattresses.

OBRIST: I'm very interested in this idea of the mattresses because the mattress works are continuing until today, and they're a very important aspect of your practice. What was the epiphany with the mattresses?

MARTA MINUJÍN: You are born, you make love, you give birth, you sleep, you die in a mattress. It's 50% of your life. And I needed a soft shape. So, I took the mattresses from my bed and glued them onto the canvas. Then I started adding cardboard boxes, mixing different materials with the mattresses. Little by little it grew. When I was living in Paris, I met Niki de Saint Phalle, and she said to me, “Why don’t you paint on the floor?” So, I painted the floor. That was it. I then visited a hospital and sourced some mattresses, which became some of my first mattress sculptures. After that, I abandoned painting objects—for maybe forty-five years. Instead, I focused on performances, happenings, and installations. Then, in 2014, I returned to the mattresses. Now I do both: some textile-based works—you probably saw one at Kurimanzutto—and, of course, the mattresses.

OBRIST: The mattresses also connect to your idea of the Soft Gallery, since softness was something you explored there as well. Can you talk about how you came to invent the Soft Gallery and what it meant for you?

MINUJÍN: This started in 1964 with a work called Roll Around In Bed and Live!, which you could actually go inside. I made it in Paris, because I was living in a place with no bathroom, no hot water, no heating. So, I built this house to protect myself. But I couldn’t sleep inside it—I just couldn’t. In the end, I destroyed it. After that, I made La Chambre d'Amour [The Chamber of Love] together with the Dutch artist Mark Brusse, who I was close to at the time. Then I went on to other projects. The last one from that Soft Gallery series was Erotics in Technicolor, for which I won the Di Tella Prize. With that prize I moved back to Paris and began working with technological art. I did many happenings with artists like Allan Kaprow and Wolf Vostell. In fact, in 2026, the Reina Sofía will present a major retrospective of my happenings and performances. That’s important, because I really began with happenings and performance in the mid-1960s. For example, in 1966 I did Three Country Happening using technology, and even earlier, in 1963, I staged La Destrucción [The Destruction], which was my very first happening.

“I built this house to protect myself. In the end, I destroyed it.”

 
 

Documentation of La Menesunda (Mayhem), Instituto Torcuato Di Tella, Buenos Aires, 1965

Documentation of Simultaneidad en simultaneidad (Simultaneity in Simultaneity), 1966

OBRIST: There’s a clear connection between the Soft Gallery and La Destrucción. With the Soft Gallery, you wanted to create aspace where people could experience art in a softer, more sensorial way. But you also opened it up by inviting artists like Charlotte Moorman, Juan Downey, and Carolee Schneemann to stage performances and events there. In a way, that collaborative and performative dimension had already begun with La Destrucción in 1963.

MINUJÍN: I love happenings—I really love happenings. La Destrucción, yes. In that work, everything was destroyed. A lot of my works, destroyed. After that, in early 1965, I staged a huge happening called Suceso Plástico in a football stadium in Uruguay. I was very influenced by Fellini at the time. It was completely crazy: there was a helicopter dropping live chickens, people with chickens on their heads, motorcycles roaring through the crowd, and participants performing all sorts of theatrical acts. It’s hard to explain—it was so complex—but it all came together as this wild, chaotic, immersive spectacle.

OBRIST: Another really key happening was Mayhem, or La Menesunda. It remains one of your most important works to this day. You had David Lamelas and many other artists involved, and it included sixteen different urban environments. It took place at the Di Tella Institute on Florida Street in Buenos Aires. Can you tell us about it? In a way, it might be your biggest project, because you weren’t just making art—you wanted to reproduce the city itself.

MINUJÍN: Art critic, Pierre Restany called La Menesunda “Pop Lunfardo.” The title itself—menesunda, meaning “mayhem” in Lunfardo, which is slang—captures the chaotic energy of Buenos Aires streets, which we wanted to represent in the installation. I developed the idea with the artist Santantonín, and we invited others to help, but most left for grants, so only David Lamelas stayed. The piece reflects both the disorder and the rhythm of the city—it’s Pop Art, but very local, very Buenos Aires.

OBRIST: You described it as a labyrinth: one room was a refrigerator, another smelled like a dentist’s office, and in another, a couple lay in a bed. The installation even included scents, and it caused a scandal at the time. Can you tell me more about how it was a portrait of Buenos Aires?

MINUJÍN: I like people who don’t know anything about art. My idea is that people should live in art, not just look at it. Like a happening—you enter and are surprised by everything. Anything can happen.

OBRIST: You wanted to create surprise for the viewer.

MINUJÍN: Yes, people enter one by one, alone, and they have to react to each situation. Sometimes they’re completely enclosed and must dial a number to open the door. You find yourself inside an old telephone booth, and then you move on to another space. Each environment engages you differently. There are eleven situations inside. In one, a couple lies in bed—you can even talk with them. That couple stays in bed all day.

OBRIST: Like a living sculpture. And this was all at the Instituto Torcuato di Tella, which was integral to a major cultural moment in Argentina in the 1960s. What was so special about this institute?

MINUJÍN: At the Instituto Torcuato Di Tella, we took over the whole institute and shared the space among ourselves. It was an incredible time. It was fantastic because, at the same time that Pop started in New York, we were starting in Argentina. The director, Jorge Romero Brest, sponsored our work. He didn’t care that we were only twenty years old or that we wanted to destroy art—museums, galleries, everything. He was so open-minded, so smart, so fantastic. He became my best friend.

OBRIST: Where did Jorge Romero Brest get the money to support these projects?

MINUJÍN: Brest was also an art critic and a philosopher, but he sponsored the artists through the Di Tella family. Torcuato di Tella was a wealthy industrialist. They had the biggest art collection in Italy, and they brought it to Argentina. The institute only lasted four years.

OBRIST: Why did it close? Because of the dictatorship?

MINUJÍN It closed because of the Onganía dictatorship [1966-1970]. But Argentina is always going through a dictatorship.

OBRIST: At one point, your work entered a whole new dimension with technology, which is now inspiring many younger artists. Billy Klüver created Experiments in Art and Technology [EAT], bringing artists and engineers together, which you were involved in as well. From the mid‑’60s onward, you began exploring this approach. I wanted to ask specifically about Simultaneidad, which is a pioneering work in this area.

MINUJÍN: I was following Marshall McLuhan at the time and admired him greatly. I read his book—Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964)—which completely captivated me. I was in Buenos Aires reading it, and it inspired me so much that I even went to Fordham University to try to meet him in person. His ideas about media as extensions of human senses and the way technology shapes our perception were revolutionary to me and influenced my approach to art. Before that, I had been doing happenings in Buenos Aires, but they weren’t technological. When I arrived in New York and finally met Allan Kaprow and Wolf Vostell, I asked them to collaborate on a Three Country Happening with me, using all kinds of media. This was one of the first times I integrated technology directly into performance. We communicated across different locations using telephone, radio, television, and even the Early Bird system, an interactive communication artwork I used to connect participants live across distances. Everything was carefully orchestrated so the audience became part of the work itself. Michael Kirby later wrote about that happening, recognizing its importance in merging art, technology, and audience participation. It was an incredible, pioneering experience, and it shaped the trajectory of my work from then on.

OBRIST: It’s interesting because Three Country Happening involved each artist creating a simultaneous happening in their own country: Vostell in Germany, Kaprow in the US, and you in Buenos Aires. You called your contribution Simultaneidad en simultaneidad (Simultaneity in Simultaneity). Can you explain how it worked, since it was so influenced by McLuhan and involved multiple screens?

MINUJÍN: For Simultaneidad, I invited sixty of the most famous people in Buenos Aires—actors, athletes, celebrities—because their presence was frequently covered in the newspapers. I asked them to come to the Instituto di Tella auditorium on two consecutive Mondays, dressed elegantly in black tie. I installed sixty TV sets, one for each participant. During the first session, we recorded their voices on the radio, took photographs, and filmed them as they arrived, sat down, and watched themselves on the television screens. When they returned the following Monday, all the film had been developed. They could see themselves on live television—broadcast through Buenos Aires’s two channels—and also watch Kaprow in the US and Vostell in Germany, performing simultaneously. The feeds were transmitted so they could experience these other happenings in real time. It was incredible: each person saw themselves on television while hearing their voices on the radio. Some participants even experienced a playful “media invasion”—a messenger would arrive at their home with a telegram or ring the bell unexpectedly, asking, ‘Are you this person?’ Then, they’d rush to pick up an old-fashioned telephone to engage with the event. At the time, this was an extraordinary invasion of media into daily life. Today, of course, we are completely saturated—everything comes through our iPhones, and our faces, voices, and actions are instantly documented and shared. Back then, it was a glimpse of how media couldtransform perception, identity, and experience.

 

Marta Minujín and Andy Warhol, El pago de la deuda externa argentina con maíz, “el oro latinoamericano” (Paying Off the Argentine Foreign Debt with Corn, “the Latinamerican corn”), 1985

 
 

Documentation of La destrucción (The Destruction), 1963

 

OBRIST: Before the iPhone, of course, we had the landline. Today, it’s almost an antique object—but in 1967, you created a visionary project called the Minuphone, which initially looked like a telephone booth. You worked with Per Biorn from Bell Telephone and connected with Billy Klüver’s Experiments in Art and Technology. How did it work?

MINUJÍN: Yes. I received a Guggenheim grant and used all the money to realize the project. Billy Klüver introduced me to an engineer who specialized in robotics, and together we built the Minuphone. I described all my ideas, and he made them a reality. We recreated a telephone booth so that when someone entered and made a call, unexpected effects would happen. Green water would rise and fall, then black water would obscure the view outside. It functioned like a color organ, with lights reacting to the interaction inside. As you spoke, your voice created an echo effect, so you might hear yourself repeating, “Hello ... hello? How are you?” The other person on the line could also hear this echo. At the same time, a screen with black light appeared, allowing you to play with your shadow, while numerous other interactive effects occurred. The most striking effect was a light directing you to look down, revealing yourself on a television embedded in the floor. A Polaroid camera would take your picture, so when you left, you could take home a snapshot of yourself in real time.In total, there were seven different interactive effects. On any given day, participants might experience variations—sometimes black light, sometimes the screen wouldn’t activate depending on the number dialed. Each experience was unique, which made the installation very dynamic and engaging.

OBRIST: In a way, the Minuphone led to the Minucode. I’m very interested in the Minucode because it represents a form of free technology—almost like an algorithmically determined dinner party that you designed.

MINUJÍN: Yes. I received a Rockefeller grant to create a project, and I decided to invest all the money into organizing a very unique event. I brought together forty economists, forty politicians, forty figures from the fashion world, and forty artists. It was a cocktail party with champagne, and I installed six cameras throughout the room so that the guests were filmed from every angle. They forgot they were being recorded, which created an intimate, spontaneous atmosphere. Before attending, each guest had to complete a questionnaire that was published in the newspapers. This way, everyone arrived having already seen the test and the others’ answers, so they were familiar with one another. I even tried to invite Robert Kennedy—I had seen him crossing the street in 1968, just before his assassination—and I asked his lawyer if he could attend. The party included fashion icons like Veruschka, designers, and models, as well as artists—though initially I had planned for only forty, eventually eighty artists showed up. People came even without formal invitations because, in American society at the time, everyone knew about events hosted by the Center for Inter-American Relations. Charlotte Moorman, for example, brought a cello and performed in a corner. The following week, I organized a structured interaction at a gallery with a projection of the event: each guest had ten minutes to move through different groups—politicians, economists, fashion figures, and artists. The idea was to create a dynamic, fluid social environment where everyone engaged across disciplines. Moorman’s performance was integrated into this setting, adding an artistic layer to the social experiment. The whole project was a combination of social choreography, technology, and participatory art.

 
 

OBRIST: Can you talk about your time in New York, meeting Andy Warhol.

MINUJÍN: I was a hippie. When I arrived in New York, I visited all the galleries and went to Leo Castelli’s. I met Andy Warhol, who became my best friend at the time, as well as Nam June Paik, Rauschenberg, and many others I admired. I spent time in the Cedar Bar with people like Carlos Slim. Then, someone introduced me to LSD, and I became fully immersed in the hippie lifestyle—I abandoned art for three years, living in Central Park until around 1970 or ’71. During that time, I met figures like Charlie Chaplin and musicians such as Jimi Hendrix and Johnny Winter, all part of Steve Paul’s scene. I took LSD daily, almost as a spiritual practice. Romero Brest visited me in New York, and I was living barefoot in the summer, never wearing shoes—which, as you can imagine, left my feet in poor condition. I decided to bring the hippie culture to Argentina. Romero Brest asked if I wanted to do something in detail, and I said yes. I imported psychedelic aesthetics, including lights, film, sound equipment, and techniques I had seen at rock concerts. I also brought acid and shared it with young people who helped me organize events. I had them dress like Hare Krishnas, and I transformed spaces with black lights, strobe lights, silver rooms, incense, and music. It became a full immersion in the hippie lifestyle, and many young people in Argentina followed this cultural wave. After some time, I returned to New York, and the hippie scene had vanished there. It was an intense, transformative period, both personally and culturally, that influenced my later work in immersive and participatory art.

OBRIST: You also created a performance-based economic exchange. In the 1980s, as Argentina faced a looming default on its foreign debt, you explained that, as the ‘Queen of Art’ in Argentina and Warhol the ‘King of New York,’ you symbolized your respective economic systems. You organized a performance in which you delivered his studio as a supportive act—connecting art, economy, and politics in a way that feels especially relevant today.

MINUJÍN: I became friends with Andy Warhol in the 1960s. I went to all the parties with him and even met Dalí, because Dalí would host underground artists every day at the Sunrise Hotel, and Andy was always there. After I returned to live in Argentina, I continued seeing Andy whenever I visited New York—we went to parties, exhibitions, and events together. I decided that, as the ‘Queen of Art’ in Argentina and Andy as the ‘King of New York,’ we could resolve things symbolically. I invited him to participate in a performance where I would pay Argentina’s debt to him in corn—because corn is Latin American gold. Historically, Latin America supplied food during the First and Second World Wars, so corn represented both sustenance and value. He accepted, and the project became a platform for performance, economy, and artistic exchange. I repeated this concept later with a Margaret Thatcher lookalike at the ICA in London, and with an Angela Merkel lookalike at Documenta 14 in Athens. Each time, the project combined economics, symbolism, and art in a performative and humorous way.

OBRIST: What’s fascinating about your work is its focus on process. This issue’s theme is work in progress—literally and philosophically, things are always evolving. That seems very true for your art, which is constantly in motion. The process never stops. “My idea is that people should live in art, not just look at it.”

MINUJÍN: My work is philosophical. And it never stops. With the Statue of Liberty lying down at the Venice Biennale, I always have the next project in mind.

OBRIST: Speaking of process, what does a day in your studio look like?

MINUJÍN: I go there to work, and new ideas come to me constantly. My mind never stops—I have too much imagination. When someone says, “I want to make a film,” I say, “Go for it!” It’s amazing.

OBRIST: I wanted to talk a little bit more about the show at Kurimunzutto. The title is To Live in Art. That seems to be a very important aspect linking many of your works—to live in art. Can you explain that a little bit?

MINUJÍN: Yes, because with everything—the Menesunda, all my work—the idea is that people live in art. They inhabit situations where you can’t say you’re outside of art; it’s completely immersive. Even with the monuments and all my other projects, it’s about living in art. I truly believe life could be richer if people experience art this way, because art creates something unique within each individual. But sometimes you have to guide them into it—they won’t necessarily sense the energy on their own, you see?

An Interview of: Camille Henrot

interview by Oliver Kupper

with Estelle Hoy

photography by Steven Taylor


Paris-born, New York–based artist Camille Henrot draws on Buster Keaton’s physical comedy, early Disney animation, and pressing contemporary issues for her first live performance. In collaboration with arts writer Estelle Hoy and costume designer Sandra Berrebi, Henrot stages a tragi-comedy filled with Commedia dell’arte characters, setting the New York City housing crisis as a sharp and timely backdrop. The performance shifts seamlessly between absurdity and pointed social commentary, blending slapstick humor with moments of reflection. Through pratfalls, exaggerated gestures, and chaotic scenarios, Henrot probes how to navigate a world dominated by unpredictability and nonsense. The piece celebrates resilience, resourcefulness, and the human ability to find humor and meaning amid systemic challenges, offering audiences both laughter and a sharp, thought-provoking lens on contemporary urban life.

OLIVER KUPPER: I want to talk about your creative partnership and how it originally started. I read that you became friends around the time of the pandemic, during lockdown.

CAMILLE HENROT: It started with discovering a text by Estelle called “Ça m’est égal.” I was immediately attracted to it. It has to do with the idea of everything being on the same level, which is a feeling I have regarding the difficulty of establishing priorities; this feeling that everything is on the same level. The piece had an illustration of a fox in the snow. I felt deeply connected to that text. It was almost like somebody had been digging a tunnel through my own brain. I thought I need to meet this woman.

ESTELLE HOY: It’s been amazing because we’ve had the chance to collaborate on many projects. The piece we’re working on at the moment is related to Commedia dell’arte, an Italian form of theater. We started it on the beaches of Tuscany, where there were these clear demarcation lines between spots on the beach that you could rent. This is really very representative of the project: the amenities, access, and aesthetic varied depending on your ‘level.’ The more you pay, the more elevated your conditions, and you find quintessentially Italian striped umbrellas with lounge chairs, Campari, dolphin gelati, and a seaside restaurant. We weren’t at the very top of the beach ladder, much to our disappointment. (laughs) Apparently, Camille has always been obsessed with this form of theater—this morning, she sent me drawings from when she was fifteen years old, which were almost reimaginings of Commedia dell’arte stock characters. It’s like she’s been sitting on this for thirty years.

 
 

HENROT: It’s true that the Commedia dell’arte characters have always inspired me. Even before I was fifteen, I was drawing the Pierrot and Harlequin characters. When I was very young, there was a puppet show in the park that I’d watch. Later, I recall visiting the Louvre, where I saw a series of sad characters in costumes in a Jean-Antoine Watteau painting called Pierrot. They looked really depressed, yet they were wearing colorful clothing, like at a party. I was intrigued by that. Michel Tournier also wrote a novel featuring these characters. But there was always something quite scary and a little bit depressing about it. It’s like there was some hidden perversion in the story. I’m at my mother’s house right now, where I found those drawings I did of Pierrot, Harlequin, and Pantalone.

HOY: One of the characters in this Performa opera, Capitano, has really big shoulders and overblown calves. He’s almost a CrossFit-type character. I was thinking about that when I was looking at your early images, because you drew characters with quite broad shoulders.

HENROT: Yes, it was the ’80s. (laughs) I was watching George Michael’s music videos. I was also watching the documentary Madonna: Truth or Dare (1991). I loved her book, Sex (1992). I was interested in all of it. This Commedia dell’arte project for Performa has a lot of childhood fascination in it.

KUPPER: Your work has these abstract, childlike ideas behind it, or engages in the way that maybe children would play.

HENROT: I see that in every artist, to be honest. Most artists haven’t given up on their childhood. Louise Bourgeois said, “All my subjects have found their inspiration in my childhood.” I would say, especially for artists, the difference is whether you embrace the intoxication of your childhood or resist it. We live in a patriarchal world, but we also live in an adult-oriented world where people under twenty and over sixty are treated as if they don’t exist. It’s strange when you think about it, because we’ve all been children, and we will all grow old eventually. So, the idea that society privileges a certain age group, while disregarding others, is quite weird. It’s almost like there’s no concept of intergenerational community. Childhood determines so many aspects of ourlives. The way children see the world, what they contribute to society, is so precious, and there’s so little value placed on the way they perceive the world.

HOY: Even in the embryonic stages of this collaboration, it was geared towards children. It evolved quickly from a target audience of kids to a more adult one, but children will still enjoy it because it’s hyper-visual.

HENROT: Initially, we wanted to do a play for children, a bit like Peter and the Wolf. Then, with the type of drawings I made and Estelle’s writing, we realized it would be inappropriate to say it’s for children. (laughs) But I do think kids will come and laugh, because there are elements of humor that are clown-like—Commedia dell’arte’s signature tricks and physical gags.

KUPPER: Commedia dell’arte is really the origin of modern-day slapstick comedy, but it’s also serious in the sense that it reflects the class struggles of that time. Obviously, we’re living in a time when the socioeconomic divide is so vast. But going back to silent film, I was thinking about how Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin were also exploring similar tropes, which helped people get through the Great Depression.

HENROT: Buster Keaton is a big inspiration for me and for this project. I went to a one-woman show by Christina Catherine Martinez, a stand-up comedian and art critic from Los Angeles. I told her about our project, and it was incredible—she connected all the dots, showing how much French culture is affiliated with vaudeville theater, which stems from Molière, who drew inspiration from Commedia dell’Arte. She explained to me how Buster Keaton’s parents were vaudeville actors, and that the European culture of theater was influential to him. There’s a continuity between Buster Keaton’s vaudeville and comedy, the first cinema with sound. Apparently, when creating a comedic play, the actors requested that an audience be present during rehearsals so they could determine if the material was funny. This is actually the origin of recorded laughter in TV sitcoms. I decided to integrate recorded laughter into the play because I find it amusing to take something from TV and bring it back to the theater. But I had no idea that it came from theater in the first place.

KUPPER: This project is an exciting way to encapsulate many of these ideas for the modern age.

HOY: Engaging actors has been a completely different format from what Camille and I have done before, and that’s presented problems while also being enlightening. When I write an essay, I know the cadence I want it to have; I have a fixed idea of how it should sound when read aloud. It’s been remarkable to see all the iterations that manifest with actors. We had an audition for New York performers with a wide range of talents, including Pilates, juggling, and stand-up comedy, and their depictions were diverse. And definitely not as intended—much better. They were embodying the characters, developing their signature movement, posturing, and intonation. Truly extraordinary to witness, albeit through a laptop on a stool. (laughs)

HENROT: I completely agree. I believe we still need to continue rehearsing and workshopping the script, as we want the project to be very physical—to be grounded in movement. It’s not easy to write movement. At many points, we skirt around the topic of dance, but never actually discuss it. This is where the complexity of writing and documenting movement lies. It was difficult for me to write the dialogue because when I had it in my head, it was too fast for me to put into words. Then, when I write it down, I lose the magic, because I need to hear the dialogue or to speak it myself. There’s a huge difference between the written text and the text performed, because you can really simplify it.

HOY: It has to be quite reductive. I’m not sure if it’s essential to document precise movement. Perhaps because every performance will be different, depending on who’s cast. One character might have a juggling skill, then the next person in the role won’t have that same ability. So, it might even be better to indicate gestural movements that they adapt themselves, which I noticed they did anyway. They really run with their own characters.

KUPPER: An artist collaborating with an art critic is a unique dynamic. When you first started collaborating, did you feel any intimidation?

HOY: From my perspective, absolutely not. I’m not easily offended by feedback. One of the ways that I know Camille needs to be emphatic is that she switches to French. She’s not the type of artist who is intimidating—she’s just a very kind and generous person. Camille, do you think that my being a critic might lead to giving you negative feedback?

HENROT: I think about it as a positive thing. It’s better to receive criticism when you’re in the process of making something, rather than after. I think about it as a luxury in the sense that I know Estelle is sharp-tongued; she wouldn’t let it go if something isn’t exactly right. I trust her to be completely direct with me if she thinks something’s good or not, and I’m the same. I always speak my mind. It’s easy for us to work together because we’re both direct. Additionally, we don’t have huge egos, so even if we can’t align, it’s effortless to negotiate because we always approach things from an analytical perspective: how can we make it work, rather than trying to have the last word. I don’t think we’ve ever had an artistic or personal conflict.

HOY: There are numerous constraints around our projects that make them more complicated, but on an interpersonal level, we’ve never had any significant disagreements. And even when we disagree, we just acquiesce. If I don’t agree with something, you might run with it anyway, and next time, if I love a bad joke you don’t, you’ll give me more room—depending on the project.

HENROT: It’s almost as if we’re two scientists conducting an experiment. We’re putting a little bit of sodium and a little bit of oxygen, a little bit of phosphorus, and we’re like, “Oh, did it explode?” Being funny is so difficult. I feel like you really need to check your ego at the door. For this project, we consulted numerous people, received feedback from friends, and tested our audience.

HOY: Artists are given a chance to truly concoct an experiment for the Performa Biennial. They want people to take risks, even if that means they could fail. Maybe Camille and I approach art-making in the same way; we’re not afraid to fail.

HENROT: No, no, to be honest, I am afraid to fail. I’m terrified. In fact, I’ve pushed back several times when given the opportunity to do performance, because an immediate audience is one of the most frightening things for me. I’ve been trying to avoid it my entire life. Nothing exemplifies being avoidant of live performance more than doing film, because it’s quite the opposite. In film, you control everything—the angle, the movement, you can change the color, you can do slow motion. And in performance, it’s basically an imitation of life: it’s the law of gravity, the law of time, it’s real humans in the flesh. Sometimes I look at the actors rehearsing, and in my mind I’m like, “Can we zoom in and get a close-up of that?” (laughs) I have to keep reminding myself that I can’t.

KUPPER: I think your work deals with incongruity—things that don’t fit into things. Underlying this, I think, is trust in yourself as an artist, as well as trust in Estelle and your collaborative relationship. If one person falls back, you’ll catch each other in these sorts of creative nets.

HENROT: It’s true. I would not have accepted this commission if I hadn’t met Estelle. I never saw myself doing it, as I don’t see my type of creativity fitting this format very well. But then I met Estelle, and I knew I wanted to work with her. And I have friends who are musicians and costume designers, so this very quickly became an ambitious project—it’s not quite a performance, it’s almost like a musical.

KUPPER: Can you talk about the fashion and costuming involved?

HENROT: For me, the costuming was a big drawcard for the project. It came first. I have this friend, Sandra Berrebi, who’s a costume designer for cinema. She’s also done costuming for Hermès. I really like her creativity—I feel in sync with her mind. We’ve been friends for almost twenty years, and I always wished we would have a project together. She often posts these images on her Instagram, referencing children’s films from the ’80s—these little operas, musical characters, and muppets. I loved the idea of having a more cartoonish approach to the design of the costumes. Rose Lee Goldberg, the founder and curator of the Performa Biennial, was interested in having me integrate sculptures. It’s intriguing to be given the possibility to sculpt instead with the set in some ways, for example, with light materials like fabric and cardboard. We have references to West Side Story, The Apartment, Tex Avery, etc. I’m more interested in sculpting a silhouette than sculpting an object that the performers dance around, because for me, a sculpture doesn’t need anything to exist around it. And I think a prop has to be light and unprecious, and to engage with the body. I’m more interested in bodies—my sculptures are bodies. If there’s already a body on stage, I don’t want to issue another lifeless body. The body of the actors is so much more interesting because it can move.

HOY: One of the characters’ costumes is built up over his head, so you never actually see their face.

HENROT: It’s a character called Pantalone, he’s the landlord—he is just a pair of pants. In Commedia dell’arte, it’s always the same recurring characters, and he is one of them. Pantalone is one of the bad guys. His greedy hands are always coming out of his pockets, and sometimes from the fly of his pants. We have one character who’s a grasshopper, inspired by Aesop’s fable The Ant and the Grasshopper. There are numerous artistic references for the characters.

KUPPER: They are all archetypes of people that are living in the real world now: crypto influencers, landlords. (laughs)

HENROT: Yes, the crypto character was difficult for us to write; that’s where the limits of your own experience show, because neither of us is a guy, or in tech. (laughs) Also, neither of us is American–it’s a totally different culture from Australia or Germany or France. It’s tricky not to be cliché when you approach something unfamiliar and exotic. However, we’re actively working on it; we’re having Aperol Spritz with real tech experts, trying to capture some of their behavior and phrases.

HOY: The grasshopper character Camille mentioned, Dagmara Zalezinska-Swierszczynska, has Sandra designing an incredible costume, which is compartmentalized and detachable. She’s making all these segments that will be disseminated at the end, which wewon’t elaborate on, so you’ll have some of it to look forward to as a surprise

Linder: The First Cut Is the Deepest

 
 


interview by Summer Bowie

photography by Hazel Gaskin


Nothing is a better testament to the ineffable power of printed matter than the fact that you are holding a print magazine in the 21st century. No one is tracking how long you will stay on this page and measuring it against your identity markers or browsing habits. There is no cookie policy. It’s just you, the images, the text, and the paper. What memories or feelings will this content summon within you as you consume it? If you’re anything like Linder, your sensual experience with turning the pages and inhaling the bouquet they have absorbed might give rise to an uncontrollable urge to reach for the scissors. Known for her iconic photomontages that contrast the incongruous gender representations respective to men’s and women’s magazines of the 20th century, Linder has always had an expert facility for hijacking images. She collects these flotsam and jetsam of Western popular culture and connects them in ways that mirror the hidden synaptic connections within our collective unconscious. Forever beseeching the muse, Linder finds ways of luring her in a multitude of media, including music, dance, markmaking, and printmaking. Her career has been an endless conjuring of that undefinable feeling when the muse comes to possess you and time stands still. Linder may find her in a Playboy, a song, an atlas, or a dress. Each might contain just one part of her that is begging to be reunited with the rest of itself. If you find part of her in this magazine and you feel so compelled, we won’t hold it against you. We won’t even know.

SUMMER BOWIE: Hi, good to see you. Thanks so much for doing this.

LINDER: Oh, thank you. I’ve just been spending most of the day driving through the English Lake District, which was the real cradle of Romanticism. The poet John Ruskin was there, William Wordsworth, and Beatrix Potter. They have a lot of great secondhand bookshops. So, I went there to find material to make new works for Andréhn-Schiptjenko’s booth at Art Basel Paris.

BOWIE: Wow, you must be telepathic because I was just about to ask you what you did today. What did you find?

LINDER: One of them is an atlas of dermochromes. These were books that were produced—full of cases of syphilis—for doctors out in the country who had minimal training. There’s a lot of genitalia in here. Oh, it’s really quite peculiar. I also got a beautiful book of ballet from exactly the same period [shows book]. It’s an extraordinary ballet called The Green Table. Have you heard of it?

BOWIE: Yes, it’s about a war room table, by Kurt Jooss. Oh yeah, that’s gorgeous.

LINDER: There are so many wonderful photographs in here. And I got a huge portfolio from Paris at the turn of the 20th century. It’s full of the most extraordinary illustrations. So, that was my Monday. When one is too much in need of finding that right image, it somehow escapes you. Sometimes I sit there, and the muse does not turn up. I’m just there, I have all the most beautiful material, I have lots of time, and nothing happens. In that case, I usually go for a walk and try to trick the muse when I get back. It’s best when things just find you.

 
 

BOWIE: You open the door and let the invitation do the work for you.

LINDER: Exactly that. There’s an English saying, Chance favors the prepared mind. It’s like going on a first date. You’re open to invitations, but at the same time, you’re quite cool. You want the gods to gently lay these treasures at your feet, and they did today, so I’m very happy. As I was driving back from the lakes, I was listening to the BBC, and they’re talking about the meetings between Zelenskyy and Starmer and Trump, asking questions about how they plan to choreograph it all. It was quite strange after getting this book from a ballet about peace negotiations. It was a great reminder that it’s not just the arts that are choreographed.

BOWIE: Of course, we have the theater of war, and diplomatic negotiations are one of the highest forms of theater. You’ve also taken inspiration from recent technologies like deep fakes, but you’ve never actually worked with digital media. Can you explain why?

LINDER: I worked a little bit with AI, but I found it too easy. I like a slight struggle, as if one is making a jigsaw puzzle, but the lid has been lost. So, I have no idea what the image will be. With the images I’ve just shown you, I would begin to lay those out—lots and lots of images. It’s quite contemplative at first. I look at all those images and think what could I put in to hijack them? I want to take them to a place they shouldn’t go. I just love that sinful moment of cutting up a precious book. Whereas with digital media, there’s no sensation, no perfume, no sense of weight of the original object. I’m just devoted to print media. I love the smell of it. These books have quite a musty, moldy smell right now. For me, that signals that it’s time to work. I like the sensuality of working with very old newsprint. Sometimes when I apply glue, I get an olfactory shock from whatever the paper has absorbed, things like pipe tobacco or a bacon smell.

BOWIE: You’ve also done some works with India ink recently. What inspired you to start making marks on the paper?

LINDER: On the weekend that Roe v Wade was being debated, I had been thinking about my youth, when there were just two channels on TV and the Abortion Act [England, Scotland, and Wales, 1967] was being passed. I was always drawing and painting. I had such a crush on Aubrey Beardsley at the time, and I loved his drawings of small fetuses in bell jars. I began to think about how I could go back to making marks and how I could make a large pen. I suddenly looked at a roll-on deodorant, and I thought, if I empty that, and if I put ink in, that’s like a huge pen, and I was so excited. I was sitting there, drawing, looking at Shunga, all sorts of references, and doing these drawings of fetuses in these watery worlds, really peculiar. I love them because the ink comes out really quickly, so you have to keep the pen drawing very quickly. I did that, and then that dreadful news when it was overturned. That’s maybe why I’ve not gone back to those drawings just yet. I had more than one abortion when I was young, and one of the places I went to was in Liverpool. I remember young women from Ireland were there, because it was still illegal for them. They would all tell their moms they were going to see a friend in Liverpool. The guilt was tough. You would think that things would get better, but the opposite happened.

 
 

BOWIE: Now, it’s easier to get an abortion in Ireland than in most parts of the US. Is the making of the work a very emotional process for you?

LINDER: It’s deeply, deeply pleasurable. It feels very sort of reparative, as if time stands still. I don’t know whether I’ve been cutting out for five minutes or an hour. It’s deeply pacifying and exciting too. I’m a detective, thinking, what’s the muse up to? If I find a fabulous portrait of somebody, I’m thinking, where shall I position her? What kind of room would she be in? It’s that aesthetic arrest I get with a certain image, and I just know I have to work with it, but then the work begins.

BOWIE: A few years ago, you did EMDR [Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing] therapy, and it had a profound effect on the way the work felt for you. Can you talk about that?

LINDER: In 2018, I was invited by Art on The Underground to stay for the summer to design these huge billboards around one of the stations in London. It was all set up to be this really wonderful summer, and then I began to have very intense flashbacks from my childhood. I’ve done a lot of therapy over the years to process the incest I experienced, so I naively thought it was no longer lurking in the darkness of my psyche. Suddenly, my psyche was throwing up this new crop of images from my childhood, and it was very shocking. I have a friend who works with sex offenders in prisons to try and rehabilitate them. So, I asked her what treatment she uses, and she said it’s EMDR and that I should try it. I found a woman who practices it from California, and she took me to hell and back. It’s almost like a Victorian form of therapy, someone waving a wand in front of you in order to neutralize a past experience, but for me, it was incredibly profound, and at times very funny. The only problem was that after I finished my therapy, for about a month, I couldn’t work with pornography. I’d go and see my therapist, and she’d say, “How are you?” and I’d say, “I’m really good, but I’m looking at a pile of Playboys and there is no motivation to do anything with them. Everything I was shown as a young child has been neutralized. Can I have my money back?” Luckily, it only lasted for a short time, and then the images got their charge back.

BOWIE: What was it like in the ’90s, balancing this just-beyond-burgeoning art career with early motherhood?

LINDER: I was thirty-two when I got pregnant, and I’d read all those feminist books from age sixteen about healthcare and pregnancy, and I wanted to do it my way. I wanted to have my baby at home, but at my age, the National Health Service called it a geriatric pregnancy. They kept saying it might be a blue baby, but I did have my son at home, and because home births were very rare in Manchester at that time, the midwife brought all her student midwives in at midnight to watch my son being born. Then, at 8 AM, he still wasn’t born, so the new nurse came in with her student midwives, and my son was born to this adoring female audience who had never gotten a chance to see a home birth. It was wonderful. But being a working mother was difficult. I was photographing Morrissey on his tours for two years, and that was kind of manageable. I’d just go away for a while and come back to see my son. I had good family care. Now, my son is always part of the performances I make. I’m really lucky. He scores music for films, so that’s a good person to have in the family.

BOWIE: You were deeply intertwined in the whole late ’70s, post-punk Manchester scene, and you were the front woman for a group you formed called Ludus. What made you want to make music?

LINDER: If you go to a concert, usually there’s the audience, and then up on stage, elevated, is the superstar. I wanted to make music because for a very short period—’76, ’77, ’78—the gap between the audience and the stage just disappeared. There wasn’t any barrier. Post-punk was exciting because everybody would get up on stage and try and hit drums for the first time, or get hold of a trumpet, make some squeaky noise, or hammer a guitar. I had never sung in my life, but I knew that my larynx is capable of producing a variety of sounds, and it was very liberating. Ludus is Latin for play, so we would improvise a lot, and you could feel that ecstatic freedom where everybody’s really locked as one. I would say to everybody in an improvisation, “You can’t make a mistake,” which is a gorgeous way to work, because in this society where we’re all trying to prove how perfect we are—as mothers, artists, whatever—improvisation reminds you that nothing is wrong and nothing is right.

 
 
 
 

BOWIE: You’ve also produced a number of performance pieces with dancers of various disciplines. Why do you like working with movement artists?

LINDER When I was very young, every Christmas, my mum would buy me the new Princess Tina Ballet Book. Those books absolutely hypnotized me because both men and women had makeup on and were equally extraordinary. I just sensed that this obviously was going to be my destiny. I would beg my mum and dad for ballet lessons, and they would just laugh. They were gorgeous, but we were very working-class. In 2013, I was having a retrospective at the Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, and I got in touch with the Northern Ballet company in Leeds. It was the best thing ever after years of looking at those books and finding deep sanctuary in the world of ballet, and they loved working with me because they could do things that were far removed from traditional ballet postures.

BOWIE: You create an interesting provocation for ballet dancers because there’s an unwritten hierarchy of dignity within the performing arts where ballerinas are at the top and sex workers are at the bottom. But you challenge them to tap into a side of themselves that is often reserved exclusively for erotic performers. You confront them with the notion that we’re all just taking on different forms of expression.

LINDER: It’s an empathetic leap into how that woman perhaps would have got up off that shag rug, or how she would have crossed a room, and how she and her friends would have interacted. I haven’t been able to work with anybody in the sex industry, but I did get to work with Mia Khalifa three years ago. She can do that lexicon of pornographic poses in her sleep. She was fluent in that language for a very slender part of her life, but she paid a huge price for it. It was extraordinary working with her, and I do really admire her being so outspoken.

BOWIE: Your performances have very striking costuming, and you have a very particular sense of style. Can you describe your sartorial sensibilities?

LINDER: I’ll be seventy in December, and it’s quite interesting to think about how one should look at my age. After about fifty, you start to feel like a vampire. You can’t see yourself mirrored back within popular culture. So it’s interesting to become invisible, but like in all the good fairy stories, if you’re invisible, then you have a certain agency. You’re not so easily definable. I’ve been working with my friend Ashish Gupta, who works purely in sequins. He has a studio in Delhi, and sequins can become highly politicized. We’re all supposed to just become invisible or muted. But when you have on one of Ashish’s head-to-toe sequined dresses, you feel armored. And because you can’t hide in sequins, you’re forced to lengthen the spine. You have to really own that. Some days, though, like today, I want to be totally anonymous, going around bookshops looking quite normcore. I’ve got my hair in a bun and I’m doing my perverse shopping in peace.

 
 

BOWIE: What is it about that experience that makes you want to go unnoticed?

LINDER: When I was little, I cut up my best dress, and I still don’t know why I did it, but I remember the pleasure of doing that. About a year ago, I told a bookseller that I make collage, and he wouldn’t sell me an encyclopedia because it was too precious. Today, I told someone that I was buying a birthday present, and now I’m looking at these exquisite books, and I’m in that moment of hesitation because I know I’m about to cut something up. Some books, like the ones I got today, I may never find anywhere else. There’s always this moment when I have to take a deep breath because I have so much respect for the printed word and illustration. And then, of course, seconds later, I’m having a great time cutting. I’m cutting all the best bits out of every book and every magazine.