Ever is Over All by Pipilotti Rist
A Critical Study by Beck
Ever is Over All by Pipilotti Rist is beautiful, dreamlike, and strangely hypnotic. From the way the woman in the blue dress moves towards the camera, to the music, where soft drum beats intermingle with humming voices, without language - it almost feels like a nature documentary. Something which feels best suited to a close-up of ants carrying leaves, or a gazelle leaping in the savanna.
On the right, is a close-up video of wildflowers - the shot endlessly turning and tumbling. On the left, we see a woman in a blue dress and red heels walking down the sidewalk. She advances towards the camera, carrying a red hot poker plant (also known as a torch lily) in her hands - a large, African flower nearly as tall as she is. From her blue dress and red heels, down to the way she moves - her skipping steps, and broad smile - she almost looks as though she’d be more suited to a fashion runway, rather than the road.
But she then shatters the viewer’s expectation - both metaphorically, and physically - when the smiling woman turns, and casually bashes in the window of a nearby parked car.
The woman wields her flower as a weapon - bringing it down like a sledgehammer. There is a kind of catharsis in the way she smiles. She is not guilty, but relieved - as though the destruction of this car had finally set her free from invisible shackles, and now she could finally move on with her life. And she does not linger long. The woman immediately swings the lily back over her shoulder, and continues walking, carrying it as one would carry a spear or rifle, like a soldier walking off to war.
Adding to the surreal nature of the video is the apathetic reaction of her audience. As she continues to shatter window after window, the people walking beside her on the street might turn and look at her briefly - but they immediately either turn away or keep walking, even after witnessing her act of floral vandalism. The people do not seem to react or care at all - or at least - they pretend not to.
It all comes to a climax when the woman in the blue dress crosses paths with a female police officer. The flower-woman does not hesitate. Once again, she shatters another car window - right in front of the policewoman - and keeps on walking. The officer turns to her, and their eyes meet. But instead of reacting with shock or outrage - the police officer only offers the woman a jaunty salute - and keeps on walking. An understanding seems to pass between them. An act of solidarity, despite the two women being from two different worlds.
In Karen Archery’s 2016 article about Pipilotti Rist, the author claims her flower to be a phallic symbol. Which I found a rather strange take, in an otherwise well-founded and well-researched article. In my opinion, trying to apply these Freudian ideals in the modern era is both lazy and reductive. It assumes male as default, despite the fact that in many cultures, flowers are distinctively feminine.
Women have them on their dresses, and wear them in their hair. Little girls picking flowers or braiding daisy-crowns are seen as adorable, even picturesque - but little boys doing the same are often scolded or ridiculed. Flowers are often given as gifts to women as a sign of romance, bouquets are often expected for anniversaries or Valentine’s Day. Any men with an interest in flowers are often seen as either effeminate, or aberrant. while women who don’t enjoy them are often seen as either stuck-up, or liars.
To claim this is a phallic symbol is to imply that it is something stolen. A man’s tool, a pale imitation - rather than a reclamation - where Rist takes this delicate feminine symbol that was imposed upon her, and re-appropriates it for her own use. Additionally, I believe the object of her destruction - the car - is not evidence of some kind of secret masculine envy - but an act of open female rebellion.
The car is often a masculine symbol - one emblematic of wealth and status. Even a man’s character is often called into question based on the car they drive. Men who drive big trucks have small penises. A man who drives a hybrid or an SUV must be weak, effeminate, pretentious, or all of the above. A man who drives an expensive sports car is automatically made more rich, cool, and desirable. Women’s supposed inability to drive remains a staple in the stale comedian’s toolbox even older than airplane food. And advertisers have certainly taken advantage of this.
Women are often a feature in car commercials, but are rarely the driver. When not promoting the latest “family” car, (complete with a large trunk, a car seat, and a kid in each hand) - women in car commercials are probably most often seen in red dresses and low-cut tops, with an arm looped around a man’s, or clinging to his shoulder. The woman will often treat the car with almost sexual desire - running her hands over it, praising its beauty - or is treated as some kind of accessory - with her body draped over the vehicle like a sexy tarp - offering the implicit promise: “if you buy this car, you can have this too”.
Megan Fox, featured in Michael Bay’s “Transformers” (2007)
Which is what makes Rist’s destruction of the cars with such a feminine symbol all the more powerful. When she brings her flower down upon the window of a car, she is taking an object that is often considered to be beautiful, fragile, and female - to shatter an object of wealth, power, and status. A piece of nature used to resist the mechanical, artificial, and the construct.
I do admit that seeing a figure of authority witness a crime, and not only decide not to intervene, but offer a tacit approval of their actions - does give this video a bit more of an unsettling edge, in our modern, much more self-conscious age. Given the knowledge that in the real world, people who are wealthy, famous, or otherwise in or connected to positions of power can and often do get away with crimes which others would be prosecuted for. And while I doubt that was the author’s original intention, I don’t think this video was designed to make the audience comfortable either - and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing.
Art can certainly be a great place to find comfort - but I don’t think we should neglect the value of uncomfortable art. When we are unsettled, it can often cause us to step back, and force us to re-evaluate. Not only the world around us, but our own ideals and perceptions about the world that we may have taken for granted. It allows us to see how far we’ve come, and more importantly - how far we have to go.
It does make one reflect on how people tend to react to any sort of female artist or public figure who dares to be remotely daring or controversial. Whether it be through their art, their politics, or how they use their bodies - the reaction towards female artists tends to be disproportionately hostile. As though all women must serve as some kind of perfect role model for all other women, everywhere, all the time - and react to a woman stepping outside of these boxes with outrage and betrayal.
Would Ever is Over All be quite so controversial if it featured a man in a suit wielding a golf club, smashing cars to the sound of thrash metal? Somehow, I doubt it. Ever is Over All is beautiful, hypnotic, and aggressively feminine - and perhaps that’s why it makes people so uncomfortable.
Citations:
Archery K. (2016) Pipilotti Rist || Available at: https://www.frieze.com/article/pipilotti-rist-2
