Two more things need to be stated here. The first concerns the construction, the editing in
the strict sense, but considered in terms of its development, its duration. If Kazma proceeds
by subtracting, he also does so by reordering. The images he offers us are not necessarily
edited together (and projected) in the order in which they were recorded. The action that is
shown does have its own internal logic, but this does not always coincide with the
chronological unfolding of the action in reality. In Taxidermist, for example, the action shown
is that of a man at work who, like Pygmalion with his statue, will restore life (or at least, the
appearance of life) to a dead animal by means of a whole host of meticulous actions. When
he has achieved this, thanks to the magic of his power of material transformation, we
spectators are confronted with the equivalent of a resurrection. And it is now, without
warning but without excess, that Kazma chooses to abruptly show us images of the animal
being cut apart and gutted, all of which obviously occurred before the “resurrectional” work
of the taxidermist that we have just witnessed. This rupture brings us back to reality with a
jolt. It shatters the dream of a renaissance of living beings, beings that are symbolically
stronger than death. In these places, matter is what is discussed; matter is what is worked;
matter, and nothing else, is what is shown.

[Paul Ardenne, from his text Pensive Gaze, 2009]