Herbert Kuhner
Negation in Six-Pack by the Republican Club
“Blasphemy, obscenity, charlatanism, sadistic excesses, orgies, the aesthetics of the cesspool are our moral means. That includes rape and murder. Murder is an integral part of sex. - - - Otto Mühl, actionist
“Mühl’s specialty is minors and sex, and my speciality is the agonizing torture of animals….I could well envision that murder could be a component of a work of art. Killing was and is beyond all moral judgments.”
- Hermann Nitsch, actionist
More Mühl: “Everything is worthy of presentation….That includes rape and murder.” “Coitus, torture and the annihilation of man and beast is the only drama worth viewing…..Murder is an integral part of sex. House pets have to serve as surrogates. I intend to commit the perfect murder on a goat that will serve as a substitute for a woman. In my next films humans will be slaughtered. Slaughtering humans must not continue to be a monopoly of the state. It will soon become an ethical necessity to rob banks and to shoot a random cripple down.”
“Otto Mühl is one of the most important artists of the post-war period.” We are dealing with the artistic work of Otto Mühl … The exhibit is necessary in order to determine who Otto Mühl is. On the other hand, these elements cannot be separated from each other.
- Peter Noever, MAK Director
Those who promote Mühl’s work are disseminating the spirit of Mühl. These two elements are indeed inseparable.
Profil magazine: “The former Minister of Culture Rudolf Scholten comments on the agitation concerning the major Otto Mühl exhibit in Vienna: ‘The “moral-attackers” look a bit ridiculous as they bang the same heads against the same wall decade after decade.’”
- Rudolf Scholten, MAK Board of Trustees
Mühl in Die Zeit, February 26, 20004:
“I’m not a child molester. That’s idiotic. They were all fully-developed girls.”
Die Zeit: “They were 12 and 13 years old.”
Mühl: “So what! I allegedly raped one of them. That certainly was not the case. I’m sorry that they are all so devastated. They are victims of the breaking up of the commune, rather than of free sexuality.”
Andreas Schlothauer concerning proceedings during the trial of Mühl on January 23, 1990: “After the moving descriptions of seven girls who were sexually abused by Mühl, a compilation of videos was shown after the courtroom had been cleared of spectators. In addition to violent actions by Mühl, his wife Claudia was shown forcing minors to engage in oral sex with her in front of an enthusiastic audience. ‘I have seen the films, and they cannot be compared to anything I’ve ever viewed,’ said Frau Jelinek, the judge (not related to Austrian writer Elfriede Jelinek). ‘The boys did not want to do it; they were in tears. They received a permanent shock. One was her son, the son and his stepmother!’ (One of the boys was the son of Otto Mühl and Claudia’s sister).”
A woman who was abused as a child relates: Otto Mühl didn’t only maltreat us girls during the time of the Commune, the boys were also abused, beaten and humiliated. And it is impossible to assess the serious consequences this had for us. All of us were abused in both body and soul. No child left the commune without having been injured. He cannot be good to any child. No matter whether they were younger or older girls, or younger or older boys. Are these facts self-evident and have become socially acceptable?… Otto Mühl always sees small children as sex objects….And now he has the same power over many children in Portugal again. The same thing can happen again to those children!”
In June of 2005, three events of the Republican Club, New Austria were held in conjunction with the Charim Gallery in Vienna, which is the control center for Otto Mühl and actionist art in Austria.
Those who promote Mühl’s work are disseminating the spirit of Mühl. These two elements are inseparable.
I wrote Doron Rabinovici, Club Board Member, suggesting that I present a program, including a discussion, on the subject of Art and Violence. On Feb. 13, 2006, I received the following answer: “I will present your program suggestion to other board members, but I for one, oppose it. I don’t find the topic relevant. It doesn’t fit in our discussion series. There is no reason for us to do it. It doesn’t fit into the dramaturgy of our events. We favor a debate on a topical and controversial subject that reflects the interests of our members.”
Read more »