Naturally the exceptionality of the swastika-symbol was a big topic in the curatorial considerations and when deciding whether to show this piece. The decision to show it was taken for the context of this exhibition in the given location in Athens.

Austria, due to its history, has to deal with issues of fascism and totaliitarian ideology. This debate is furthermore important, as the offshoots are still present today in daily routine as well as pop-culture and daily politics. Even if historical fascism "is history", not all of the tragic mechanisms are extinct, which lead into catastrophe 3 generations ago.

The impulse to show this work by Christian Eisenberger abroad with the exhibition "flavors of Austria" stems from the strong impression it produced with me. On the other hand it became rapidly clear, that it is also a delicate decision for the whole exhibition (also in the context of the place: Athens).

No doubt, the confrontation with a symbol of the offenders (the symbol under which the crimes were committed) can unsettle the victims (victim-society). But just like it is hard to image to avoid words like "NAZI" in discourse about fascism, or to avoid showing the swastika in movies that are set in this historical period, I think it doesnt make sense to deny this visual vocabulary to the fine arts when dealing with these issues.

To me this object, that is made up from water-levels (many more than would be necessary to guarantee that it is hanging perfectly straight) pinpoints the following: a pathological ambition towards (a misled interpretation of) purity/perfection/simplicity/order/clarity (in an over-arching strive for an unassailable position and intangible security). Totalitarian ideologies have a tendency to seek such a position, ignoring that real-world equilibria are not static, but keeping balance over the time-axis in an ever-changing environment. Facing an increasingly complex and interconnected world which is ultimately indeterminable due to unlimited interdependency it can be all too tempting to eliminate the resulting feeling of insecurity with "Ultra-solutions" (see Paul Watzlawick and 1, 2). Such approaches have a potential to lead into catastrophe as they are inflexible, lack the ability for compromise and are unable to put themselves into perspective.

In an exhibition (as well as everywhere else) communication needs at least one sender and one recipient, a shape-giving part and and audience. I dont see the decision to show this object as "ultimate", but it seemed appropriate in the context (taf and Athens). Our experience with the exhibition showed, that no misunderstandings occured during the time it lasted in Athens and in so far supports that assumption. It could be derived form the above interpretation of the piece that this decision is not "terminal" and for other places, spaces and contexts, such a decision has to be reconsiderd.

The various approaches to hanging art come to mind when looking at this object. One extreme being the strictly geometrical approach, trying to find "perfection" in dividing up the wall squeamishly by calculations and geometrical operations - attempting to rely on mathematics in search for aesthetic decisions. The alternative being to trust that visual judgement comes closest to human perception.