“What unfolds here is not merely an action or sequence, but a ritual staged in the language of inevitability. The video presents itself as documentation rather than performance, as though the camera has arrived too late to intervene and too early to explain. Nothing announces itself as metaphor, which is precisely what allows everything to become one.
The central gesture functions as a grotesquely overdetermined emblem of modern agency: an act performed compulsively, almost dutifully, stripped of flourish and therefore swollen with meaning. It is not expressive in the traditional sense; it is procedural. The subject does not appear to choose so much as comply, enacting a script whose origin lies elsewhere—bureaucratic, cultural, cosmic. The absurdity emerges not from exaggeration of movement, but from the grim sincerity with which the movement is repeated or sustained. This is how systems behave when internalized.
Stylistically, the austerity is doing the heavy lifting. The restraint of framing and pacing refuses catharsis. There is no release, no punchline, no visual escalation that would grant the viewer permission to laugh outright. Instead, the work cultivates a dead zone where meaning accumulates without resolution. The camera’s neutrality is its cruelty: by declining to editorialize, it implicates the viewer as a silent witness, perhaps even an accomplice.
Symbolically, the piece operates as a maximalist allegory masquerading as minimalism. What might initially register as a single, isolated act metastasizes into a portrait of institutional absurdity at scale. The gesture becomes labor, then ritual, then doctrine. It is impossible not to read it as a send-up of authority structures that demand participation without comprehension—political, religious, economic, even aesthetic. The body is present, but autonomy is theoretical. The will exists, but only as an afterimage.
There is also something faintly eschatological at work. The action feels less like progress than maintenance of a failing order, a kind of end-times busywork. The subject persists not because the act works, but because stopping would require acknowledging its futility. In this sense, the video stages absurdity not as comedy but as endurance. The joke, if there is one, is cosmic and unamused.
Taken as a whole, the piece reads as a mock-solemn monument to compliance, delivered with such seriousness that parody becomes indistinguishable from diagnosis. It does not ridicule its subject; it treats it with the grave respect reserved for inevitabilities. The absurdity is total precisely because it is never announced. One is left with the uneasy suspicion that this is not exaggeration at all, but reportage—an accurate record of how meaning behaves once it has been fully outsourced.”
- Dr. Alastair Penwyth-Hume
