Student Comics KSL 2010

Comics by the Students in the 2-day Class in the Kunstschule Liechtenstein

(Art Academy of Liechtenstein)

in March 2010 with Mark Staff Brandl.

(click on comics to view enlarged)

Brandl: Post-Hysterical: Timeline, Comics and a Plurogenic View of Art History

A 55 minute speech, with images, by artist and art historian Mark Staff Brandl. Originally presented at the CAA (College Art Association, art historians organization) annual conference, as well as at the Kunstschule Lichtenstein, in 2010. It concerns description and criticism of the standard conceptions and models of fine art history and the history of comics, while offering a new one model for conceiving of and teaching these histories.

Stephen Hicks: Why Art Became Ugly

Why Art Became Ugly
by Stephen Hicks

For a long time critics of modern and postmodern art have relied on the "Isn't that disgusting" strategy. By that I mean the strategy of pointing out that given works of art are ugly, trivial, or in bad taste, that "a five-year-old could have made them," and so on. And they have mostly left it at that. The points have often been true, but they have also been tiresome and unconvincing—and the art world has been entirely unmoved. Of course, the major works of the twentieth-century art world are ugly. Of course, many are offensive. Of course, a five-year old could in many cases have made an indistinguishable product. Those points are not arguable—and they are entirely beside the main question. The important question is: Why has the art world of the twentieth-century adopted the ugly and the offensive? Why has it poured its creative energies and cleverness into the trivial and the self-proclaimedly meaningless?

It is easy to point out the psychologically disturbed or cynical players who learn to manipulate the system to get their fifteen minutes or a nice big check from a foundation, or the hangers-on who play the game in order to get invited to the right parties. But every human field of endeavor has its hangers-on, its disturbed and cynical members, and they are never the ones who drive the scene. The question is: Why did cynicism and ugliness come to be the game you had to play to make it in the world of art?

My first theme will be that the modern and postmodern art world was and is nested within a broader cultural framework generated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Despite occasional invocations of "Art for art's sake" and attempts to withdraw from life, art has always been significant, probing the same issues about the human condition that all forms of cultural life probe. Artists are thinking and feeling human beings, and they think and feel intensely about the same important things that all intelligent and passionate humans do. Even when some artists claim that their work has no significance or reference or meaning, those claims are always significant, referential, and meaningful claims. What counts as a significant cultural claim, however, depends on what is going on in the broader intellectual and cultural framework. The world of art is not hermetically sealed—its themes can have an internal developmental logic, but those themes are almost never generated from within the world of art.

My second theme will be that postmodern art does not represent much of a break with modernism. Despite the variations that postmodernism represents, the postmodern art world has never challenged fundamentally the framework that modernism adopted at the end of the nineteenth century. There is more fundamental continuity between them than discontinuity. Postmodernism has simply become an increasingly narrow set of variations upon a narrow modernist set of themes. To see this, let us rehearse the main lines of development.

Modernism's Themes

By now the main themes of modern art are clear to us. Standard histories of art tell us that modern art died around 1970, its themes and strategies exhausted, and that we now have more than a quarter-century of postmodernism behind us.

The big break with the past occurred toward the end of the nineteenth century. Until the end of the nineteenth century, art was a vehicle of sensuousness, meaning, and passion. Its goals were beauty and originality. The artist was a skilled master of his craft. Such masters were able to create original representations with human significance and universal appeal. Combining skill and vision, artists were exalted beings capable of creating objects that in turn had an awesome power to exalt the senses, the intellects, and the passions of those who experience them.

The break with that tradition came when the first modernists of the late 1800s set themselves systematically to the project of isolating all the elements of art and eliminating them or flying in the face of them.

The causes of the break were many. The increasing naturalism of the nineteenth century led, for those who had not shaken off their religious heritage, to feeling desperately alone and without guidance in a vast, empty universe. The rise of philosophical theories of skepticism and irrationalism led many to distrust their cognitive faculties of perception and reason. The development of scientific theories of evolution and entropy brought with them pessimistic accounts of human nature and the destiny of the world. The spread of liberalism and free markets caused their opponents on the political Left, many of whom were members of the artistic avant garde, to see political developments as a series of deep disappointments. And the technological revolutions spurred by the combination of science and capitalism led many to project a future in which mankind would be dehumanized or destroyed by the very machines that were supposed to improve its lot.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, the nineteenth-century intellectual world's sense of disquiet had become a full-blown anxiety. The artists responded, exploring in their works the implications of a world in which reason, dignity, optimism, and beauty seemed to have disappeared.

The new theme was: Art must be a quest for truth, however brutal, and not a quest for beauty. So the question became: What is the truth of art?

The first major claim of modernism is a content claim: a demand for a recognition of the truth that the world is not beautiful. The world is fractured, decaying, horrifying, depressing, empty, and ultimately unintelligible.

That claim by itself is not uniquely modernist, though the number of artists who signed onto that claim is uniquely modernist. Some past artists had believed the world to be ugly and horrible—but they had used the traditional realistic forms of perspective and color to say this. The innovation of the early modernists was to assert that form must match content. Art should not use the traditional realistic forms of perspective and color because those forms presuppose an orderly, integrated, and knowable reality.

Edvard Munch got there first (The Scream, 1893): If the truth is that reality is a horrifying, disintegrating swirl, then both form and content should express the feeling. Pablo Picasso got there second (Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, 1907): If the truth is that reality is fractured and empty, then both form and content must express that. Salvador Dali's surrealist paintings go a step further: If the truth is that reality is unintelligible, then art can teach this lesson by using realistic forms against the idea that we can distinguish objective reality from irrational, subjective dreams.

The second and parallel development within modernism is Reductionism. If we are uncomfortable with the idea that art or any discipline can tell us the truth about external, objective reality, then we will retreat from any sort of content and focus solely on art's uniqueness. And if we are concerned with what is unique in art, then each artistic medium is different. For example, what distinguishes painting from literature? Literature tells stories—so painting should not pretend to be literature; instead it should focus on its own uniqueness. The truth about painting is that it is a two-dimensional surface with paint on it. So instead of telling stories, the reductionist movement in painting asserts, to find the truth of painting painters must deliberately eliminate whatever can be eliminated from painting and see what survives. Then we will know the essence of painting.

Since we are eliminating, in the following iconic pieces from the twentieth century world of art, it is often not what is on the canvas that counts - it is what is not there. What is significant is what has been eliminated and is now absent. Art comes to be about absence.

Many elimination strategies were pursued by the early reductionists. If, traditionally, painting was cognitively significant in that it told us something about external reality, then the first thing we should try to eliminate is content based on an alleged awareness of reality. Dali's Metamorphosis here does double-duty. Dali challenges the idea that what we call reality is anything more than a bizarre subjective psychological state. Picasso's Desmoiselles also does double-duty: If the eyes are the window to the soul, then these souls are frighteningly vacant. Or if we turn the focus the other way and say that our eyes are our access to the world, then Picasso's women are seeing nothing.

So we eliminate from art a cognitive connection to an external reality. What else can be eliminated? If traditionally, skill in painting is a matter of representing a three-dimensional world on a two-dimensional surface, then to be true to painting we must eliminate the pretense of a third dimension. Sculpture is three-dimensional, but painting is not sculpture. The truth of painting is that it is not three-dimensional. For example, Barnett Newman's Dionysius (1949)— consisting of a green background with two thin, horizontal lines, one yellow and one red—is representative of this line of development. It is paint on canvas and only paint on canvas.

But traditional paints have a texture, leading to a three-dimensional effect if one looks closely. So, as Morris Louis demonstrates in Alpha-Phi (1961), we can get closer to painting's two-dimensional essence by thinning down the paints so that there is no texture. We are now as two-dimensional as possible, and that is the end of this reductionist strategy—the third dimension is gone.

On the other hand, if painting is two-dimensional, then perhaps we can still be true to painting if we paint things that themselves are two-dimensional. For example, Jasper Johns's White Flag (1955-58) is a painted-over American flag, and Roy Lichtenstein's Drowning Girl (1963), Whaam! (1963; Figure 4), and others are over-sized comic-book panels blown up onto large canvases. But flags and comic books are themselves two-dimensional objects, so a two-dimensional painting of them retains their essential truth while letting us remain true to the theme of painting's two-dimensionality. This device is particularly clever because, while remaining two-dimensional, we can at the same time smuggle in some illicit content—content that earlier had been eliminated.

But of course that really is cheating, as Lichtenstein went on to point out humorously with his Brushstroke (1965). If painting is the act of making brushstrokes on canvas, then to be true to the act of painting the product should look like what it is: a brushstroke on canvas. And with that little joke, this line of development is over.

So far in our quest for the truth of painting, we have tried only playing with the gap between three-dimensional and two-dimensional. What about composition and color differentiation? Can we eliminate those?

If, traditionally, skill in painting requires a mastery of composition, then, as Jackson Pollock's pieces famously illustrate, we can eliminate careful composition for randomness. Or if, traditionally, skill in painting is a mastery of color range and color differentiation, then we can eliminate color differentiation. Early in the twentieth century, Kasimir Malevich's White on White (1918) was a whitish square painted on a white background. Ad Reinhardt's Abstract Painting (1960-66) brought this line of development to a close by showing a very, very black cross painted on a very, very, very black background.

Or if traditionally the art object is a special and unique artifact, then we can eliminate the art object's special status by making art works that are reproductions of excruciatingly ordinary objects. Andy Warhol's paintings of soup cans and reproductions of tomato juice cartons have just that result. Or in a variation on that theme and sneaking in some cultural criticism, we can show that what art and capitalism do is take objects that are in fact special and unique—such as Marilyn Monroe—and reduce them to two-dimensional mass-produced commodities (Marilyn (Three Times), 1962).

Or if art traditionally is sensuous and perceptually embodied, then we can eliminate the sensuous and perceptual altogether, as in conceptual art. Consider Joseph Kosuth's It was It, Number 4. Kosuth first created a background of type-set text that reads:

Observation of the conditions under which misreadings occur gives rise to a doubt which I should not like to leave unmentioned, because it can, I think, become the starting-point for a fruitful investigation. Everyone knows how frequently the reader finds that in reading aloud his attention wanders from the text and turns to his own thoughts. As a result of this digression on the part of his attention he is often unable, if interrupted and questioned, to give any account of what he has read. He has read, as it were, automatically, but not correctly.

He then overlaid the black text with the following words in blue neon:

Description of the same content twice.
It was it.

Here the perceptual appeal is minimal, and art becomes a purely conceptual enterprise— and we have eliminated painting altogether.

If we put all of the above reductionist strategies together, the course of modern painting has been to eliminate the third dimension, composition, color, perceptual content, and the sense of the art object as something special.

This inevitably leads us back to Marcel Duchamp, the grand-daddy of modernism who saw the end of the road decades earlier. With his Fountain (1917; Figure 6), Duchamp made the quintessential statement about the history and future of art. Duchamp of course knew the history of art and, given recent trends, where art was going. He knew what had been achieved—how over the centuries art had been a powerful vehicle that called upon the highest development of the human creative vision and demanded exacting technical skill; and he knew that art had an awesome power to exalt the senses, the minds, and the passions of those who experience it. With his urinal, Duchamp offered presciently a summary statement. The artist is not a great creator—Duchamp went shopping at a plumbing store. The artwork is not a special object—it was mass-produced in a factory. The experience of art is not exciting and ennobling—it is puzzling and leaves one with a sense of distaste. But over and above that, Duchamp did not select just any ready-made object to display. He could have selected a sink or a door-knob. In selecting the urinal, his message was clear: Art is something you piss on.

But there is a still deeper point that Duchamp's urinal teaches us about the trajectory of modernism. In modernism, art becomes a philosophical enterprise rather than an artistic one. The driving purpose of modernism is not to do art but to find out what art is. We have eliminated X —is it still art? Now we have eliminated Y —is it still art? The point of the objects was not aesthetic experience; rather the works are symbols representing a stage in the evolution of a philosophical experiment. In most cases, the discussions about the works are much more interesting than the works themselves. That means that we keep the works in museums and archives and we look at them not for their own sake, but for the same reason scientists keep lab notes—as a record of their thinking at various stages. Or, to use a different analogy, the purpose of art objects is like that road signs along the highway—not as objects of contemplation in their own right but as markers to tell us how far we have traveled down a given road.

This was Duchamp's point when he noted, contemptuously, that most critics had missed the point: "I threw the bottle rack and the urinal into their faces as a challenge, and now they admire them for their aesthetic beauty." The urinal is not art—it is a device used as part of an intellectual exercise in figuring out why it is not art.

Modernism had no answer to Duchamp's challenge, and by the 1960s it found it had reached a dead end. To the extent modern art had content, its pessimism led it to the conclusion that nothing was worth saying. To the extent that it played the reductive elimination game, it found that nothing uniquely artistic survived elimination. Art became nothing. In the 1960s, Robert Rauschenberg was often quoted as saying, "Artists are no better than filing clerks." And Andy Warhol found his usual smirking way to announce the end when asked what he thought art was anymore: "Art? —Oh, that's a man's name."

Postmodernism's Four Themes

Where could art go after death of modernism? Postmodernism did not go, and has not gone, far. It needed some content and some new forms, but it did not want to go back to classicism, romanticism, or traditional realism.

As it had at the end of the nineteenth century, the art world reached out and drew upon the broader intellectual and cultural context of the late 1960s and 1970s. It absorbed the trendiness of Existentialism's absurd universe, the failure of Positivism's reductionism, and the collapse of socialism's New Left. It connected to intellectual heavyweights such as Thomas Kuhn, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, and it took its cue from their abstract themes of antirealism, deconstruction, and their heightened adversarial stance to Western culture. From those themes, postmodernism introduced four variations on modernism.

First, postmodernism re-introduced content—but only self-referential and ironic content. As with philosophical postmodernism, artistic postmodernism rejected any form of realism and became anti-realist. Art cannot be about reality or nature—because, according to postmodernism, "reality" and "nature" are merely social constructs. All we have are the social world and its social constructs, one of those constructs being the world of art. So, we may have content in our art as long as we talk self-referentially about the social world of art.

Secondly, postmodernism set itself to a more ruthless deconstruction of traditional categories that the modernists had not fully eliminated. Modernism had been reductionist, but some artistic targets remained.

For example, stylistic integrity had always been an element of great art, and artistic purity was one motivating force within modernism. So, one postmodern strategy has been to mix styles eclectically in order to undercut the idea of stylistic integrity. An early postmodern example in architecture, for example, is Philip Johnson's AT&T (now Sony) building in Manhattan—a modern skyscraper that could also be a giant eighteenth-century Chippendale cabinet. The architectural firm of Foster & Partners designed the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation headquarters (1979-86)—a building that could also be the bridge of a ship, complete with mock anti-aircraft guns, should the bank ever need them. Friedensreich Hundertwasser's House (1986) in Vienna is more extreme—a deliberate slapping together of glass skyscraper, stucco, and occasional bricks, along with oddly placed balconies and arbitrarily sized windows, and completed with a Russian onion dome or two.

If we put the above two strategies together, then postmodern art will come to be both self-referential and destructive. It will be an internal commentary on the social history of art, but a subversive one. Here there is a continuity from modernism. Picasso took one of Matisse's portraits of his daughter—and used it as a dartboard, encouraging his friends to do the same. Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. (1919) is a rendition of the Mona Lisa with a cartoonish beard and moustache added. Rauschenberg erased a de Kooning work with a heavy wax pencil. In the 1960s, a gang led by George Maciunas performed Philip Corner's Piano Activities (1962)—which called for a number of men with implements of destruction such as band saws and chisels to destroy a grand piano. Niki de Saint Phalle's Venus de Milo (1962, Figure 8) is a life-size plaster-on-chickenwire version of the classic beauty filled with bags of red and black paint; Saint Phalle then took a rifle and fired upon the Venus, puncturing the statue and the bags of paint to a splattered effect.

Saint Phalle's Venus links us to the third postmodern strategy. Postmodernism allows one to make content statements as long as they are about social reality and not about an alleged natural or objective reality and—here is the variation—as long as they are narrower race/class/sex statements rather than pretentious, universalist claims about something called The Human Condition. Postmodernism rejects a universal human nature and substitutes the claim that we are all constructed into competing groups by our racial, economic, ethnic, and sexual circumstances. Applied to art, this postmodern claim implies that there are no artists, only hyphenated artists: black-artists, woman-artists, homosexual-artists, poor-Hispanic-artists, and so on.

Conceptual artist Frederic's PMS piece from the 1990s is helpful here in providing a schema. The piece is textual, a black canvas with the following words in red:

WHAT CREATES P.M.S. IN WOMEN?

Power
Money
Sex

Let us start with Power and consider race. Jane Alexander's Butcher Boys (1985-86) is an appropriately powerful piece about white power. Alexander places three South African white figures on a bench. Their skin is ghostly or corpse-like white, and she gives them monster heads and heart-surgery scars suggesting their heartlessness. But all three of them are sitting casually on the bench—they could be waiting for a bus or watching the passers-by at a mall. Her theme is the banality of evil: Whites don't even recognize themselves for the monsters they are.

Now for Money. There is the long-standing rule in modern art that one should never say anything kind about capitalism. From Andy Warhol's criticisms of mass-produced capitalist culture we can move easily to Jenny Holzer's Private Property Created Crime (1982). In the center of world capitalism—New York's Times Square—Holzer combined conceptualism with social commentary in an ironically clever manner by using capitalism's own media to subvert it. German artist Hans Haacke's Freedom is now simply going to be sponsored—out of petty cash (1991) is another monumental example. While the rest of the world was celebrating the end of brutality behind the Iron Curtain, Haacke erected a huge Mercedes-Benz logo atop a former East German guard tower. Men with guns previously occupied that tower—but Haacke suggests that all we are doing is replacing the rule of the Soviets with the equally heartless rule of the corporations.

Now for Sex. Saint Phalle's Venus can do double-duty here. We can interpret the rifle that shoots into the Venus as a phallic tool of dominance, in which case Saint-Phalle's piece can be seen as a feminist protest of male destruction of femininity. Mainstream feminist art includes Barbara Kruger's posters and room-size exhibits in bold black and red with angry faces yelling politically correct slogans about female victimization—art as a poster at a political rally. Jenny Saville's Branded (1992, Figure 10) is a grotesque self-portrait: Against any conception of female beauty, Saville asserts that she will be distended and hideous—and shove it in your face.

The fourth and final postmodern variation on modernism is a more ruthless nihilism. The above, while focused on the negative, are still dealing with important themes of power, wealth, and justice toward women. How can we eliminate more thoroughly any positivity in art? As relentlessly negative as modern art has been, what has not been done?

Entrails and blood: An art exhibition in 2000 asked patrons to place a goldfish in a blender and then turn the blender on—art as life reduced to indiscriminate liquid entrails. Marc Quinn's Self (1991) is the artist's own blood collected over the course of several months and molded into a frozen cast of his head. That is reductionism with a vengeance.

Unusual sex: Alternate sexualities and fetishes have been pretty much worked over during the twentieth century. But until recently art has not explored sex involving children. Eric Fischl's Sleepwalker (1979) shows a pubescent boy masturbating while standing naked in a kiddie pool in the backyard. Fischl's Bad Boy (1981) shows a boy stealing from his mother's purse and looking at his naked mother who is sleeping with her legs sprawled. If we have read our Freud, however, perhaps this is not very shocking. So we move on to Paul McCarthy's Cultural Gothic (1992-93) and the theme of bestiality. In this life-size, moving exhibit, a young boy stands behind a goat that he is violating. Here we have more than child sexuality and sex with animals, however: McCarthy adds some cultural commentary by having the boy's father present and resting his hands paternally on the boy's shoulders while the boy thrusts away.

A preoccupation with urine and feces: Again, postmodernism continues a longstanding modernist tradition. After Duchamp's urinal, Kunst ist Scheisse ("Art is shit") became, fittingly, the motto of the Dada movement. In the 1960s Piero Manzoni canned, labeled, exhibited and sold ninety tins of his own excrement (in 2002, a British museum purchased can number 68 for about $40,000). Andres Serrano generated controversy in the 1980s with his Piss Christ, a crucifix submerged in a jar of the artist's urine. In the 1990s Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary (1996) portrayed the Madonna as surrounded by disembodied genitalia and chunks of dried feces. In 2000 Yuan Cai and Jian Jun Xi paid homage to their master, Marcel Duchamp. Fountain is now at the Tate Museum in London, and during regular museum hours Yuan and Jian unzipped and proceeded to urinate on Duchamp's urinal. (The museum's directors were not pleased, but Duchamp would be proud of his spiritual children.) And there is G. G. Allin, the self-proclaimed performance artist who achieved his fifteen minutes by defecating on stage and flinging his feces into the audience.

So again we have reached a dead end: From Duchamp's Piss on art at the beginning of the century to Allin's Shit on you at the end—that is not a significant development over the course of a century.

The Future of Art

The heyday of postmodernism in art was the 1980s and 90s. Modernism had become stale by the 1970s, and I suggest that postmodernism has reached a similar dead-end, a What next? stage. Postmodern art was a game that played out within a narrow range of assumptions, and we are weary of the same old, same old, with only minor variations. The gross-outs have become mechanical and repetitive, and they no longer gross us out.

So, what next?

It is helpful to remember that modernism in art came out of a very specific intellectual culture of the late nineteenth century, and that it has remained loyally stuck in those themes. But those are not the only themes open to artists, and much has happened since the end of the nineteenth century.

We would not know from the world of modern art that average life expectancy has doubled since Edvard Munch screamed. We would not know that diseases that routinely killed hundreds of thousands of newborns each year have been eliminated. Nor would we know anything about the rising standards of living, the spread of democratic liberalism, and emerging markets.

We are brutally aware of the horrible disasters of National Socialism and international Communism, and art has a role in keeping us aware of them. But we would never know from the world of art the equally important fact that those battles were won and brutality was defeated.

And entering even more exotic territory, if we knew only the contemporary art world we would never get a glimmer of the excitement in evolutionary psychology, Big Bang cosmology, genetic engineering, the beauty of fractal mathematics—and the awesome fact that humans are the kind of being that can do all those exciting things.

Artists and the art world should be at the edge. The art world is now marginalized, in-bred, and conservative. It is being left behind, and for any self-respecting artist there should be nothing more demeaning than being left behind.

There are few more important cultural purposes than genuinely advancing art. We all intensely and personally know what art means to us. We surround ourselves with it. Art books and videos. Films at the theatre and on DVD. Stereos at home, music on our Walkmans, and CD players in our cars. Novels at the beach and as bedtime reading. Trips to galleries and museums. Art on the walls of our living space. We are each creating the artistic world we want to be in. From the art in our individual lives to the art that is cultural and national symbols, from the $10 poster to the $10 million painting acquired by a museum—we all have a major investment in art.

The world is ready for the bold new artistic move. That can come only from those not content with spotting the latest trivial variation on current themes. It can come only from those whose idea of boldness is not—waiting to see what can be done with waste products that has never been done before.

The point is not that there are no negatives out there in the world for art to confront, or that art cannot be a means of criticism. There are negatives and art should never shrink from them. My argument is with the uniform negativity and destructiveness of the art world. When has art in the twentieth century said anything encouraging about human relations, about mankind's potential for dignity, and courage, about the sheer positive passion of being in the world?

Artistic revolutions are made by a few key individuals. At the heart of every revolution is an artist who achieves originality. A novel theme, a fresh subject, or the inventive use of composition, figure, or color marks the beginning of a new era. Artists truly are gods: they create a world in their work, and they contribute to the creation of our cultural world.

Yet for revolutionary artists to reach the rest of the world, others play a crucial role. Collectors, gallery owners, curators, and critics make decisions about which artists are genuinely creating—and, accordingly, about which artists are most deserving of their money, gallery space, and recommendations. Those individuals also make the revolutions. In the broader art world, a revolution depends on those who are capable of recognizing the original artist's achievement and who have the entrepreneurial courage to promote that work.

The point is not to return to the 1800s or to turn art into the making of pretty postcards. The point is about being a human being who looks at the world afresh. In each generation there are only a few who do that at the highest level. That is always the challenge of art and its highest calling.

The world of postmodern art is a run-down hall of mirrors reflecting tiredly some innovations introduced a century ago. It is time to move on.

Stephen Hicks is a professor of philosophy at Rockford College in Illinois. He is the author of Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Scholargy Publishing, 2004). He can be contacted through his Web site. This article is based on lectures given at the Foundation for the Advancement of Art's "Innovation, Substance, Vision" conference in New York (October 2003) and the Rockford College Philosophy Club's "The Future of Art" panel (April 2004).

Artists Write: IDEAS DON'T MATTER: "How Literary Ideas Subvert and Vitiate Art" by John Link

Artists Write: Thinking While Making Things is the column of art theoretical writings by practicing artists, edited by Mark Staff Brandl, in Proximity magazine. This issue, Number 5, features "Ideas Don't Matter: How Literary Ideas Subvert and Vitiate Art" by John Link.

IDEAS DON'T MATTER: How Literary Ideas Subvert and Vitiate Art by John Link

The dirty little mandate of our "anything goes" art scene is that "everything" must revolve around ideas, must ultimately emulate some sort of literature. The connection between visual art and the literal can be obvious or it can be contrived or it can be plain silly, just as long as it is "there."

The literal need not be creative. Witness the great success of the Wim Delvoye's artwork Cloaca, tied not to poetry or other lofty forms of verbiage, but to the lowly documentary, though it purported to document the rather intellectual question of "bioethics."

Cloaca was exhibited in 2002 at the New Museum in NYC. The museum described it as a performative event "for bringing art and science closer together, by inviting us to examine the ways in which we think of our bodies as machines, at the same moment in our cultural evolution where the separation between real and virtual has grown tenuous ... a metaphor for a society that privileges the cerebral over the corporeal, exulting in the latter only when it can be packaged into a kind of perfection."

What form did this perfectly packaged idea take? "Cloaca was an elaborate installation of laboratory glassware, electric pumps, gauges, and plastic tubing, which must be kept running at all hours of the day and night in order to function properly ... requiring regular infusions of chemicals and enzymes to keep the digestive system functioning, as well as a constant internal temperature regulated by computer."

Not too clear about what all this bioethical stuff means? Now that everyone is obsessed with outcomes, wonder what this thing does? It shits, that's what. About 5 inches at a time. Like a potty trained baby, it delivered the expected product every day at the designated hour, from a spigot that vaguely resembled those found at Dairy Queen, to the applause of the gathered crowd if the delivery took place during days the exhibition was open. Each ceremony was terminated when a museum employee removed the artistic outcome from the exhibition area. The resultant turds sold for $1,000 each.

With all due respect to the prestige bestowed by having a show at the New Museum, an alien from Mars might say Cloaca looked like an elaborate high school science project mistaken as "new" artistic revelation. Is the New Museum too young to remember that Experiments in Art and Technology claimed this territory for "advanced" art in the middle of the last century? More to the point, what if Cloaca had been displayed as an untitled and unexplained abstract contraption? The enlightened class may be enchanted with ideas, but they still can't think for themselves; they require help from a narrative.

Serious art is seriously malicious: emerging art makes fools out of the greatest possible number of art experts. Its natural prey is found in those who form large and complacent groups secure in the belief they know what's what. Today that group is certain that ideas are the core of art.

In the late 19th century the French Academy turned out to be the vulgarians when they were finally destroyed by the best art of their time. Their domination of the art system of that day did not protect them from art's malice. Today's vulgarians hold high positions in our museums, galleries and publications, not at all unlike the members of the discredited Academy. Curiously, these powerful "taste makers" celebrate the same avant-gardism the Academy hated, as if that will protect them from the Academy's fate. But like their Academy predecessors, they have developed a high degree of comfort with mutually-held ideas and avoid the difficulties of looking for real innovation.

Genuine innovation evolves slowly and painfully, without leaving footprints that conform to commonly accepted rules, and therefore remains invisible to those who embrace such conventional wisdom. Today, that's because such academicians have tied themselves to the rule of ideas and take comfort in the certainty that satisfying this dictate can provide. However, beauty sheds rules, sheds criteria, sheds standards, sheds anything a priori to itself, including ideas and truth. It exists to be seen, felt, and absorbed, not ruminated upon. It is tied to materials, not ideas, and looks retro to those who assume (wrongly) that ideas were the essential ingredient of avant-gardist art when it was still a living force in the evolution of ambitious art.


John Link was born in 1942 and lives in Michigan. His work includes painting, drawing, printmaking, photography, sculpture, and digital media; it is included in the collections of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Smithsonian Institute, Oregon State University, Golden State University, Clorox Company, Arthur Anderson & Co, California College of Arts and Crafts, Osaka University of the Arts, and Mitsubishi International Corporation. Articles about him have appeared in the Miami Herald, San Francisco Examiner, New Art Examiner, Los Angeles Times, Digital Video, Chicago Tribune, and The Chronicle of Higher Education. He has written for Arts, New Art Examiner, Digital Video, New Work, American Craft, and Dialogue. He taught art and art history for 39 years, starting at Southern Illinois University and continued at Virginia Tech and Western Michigan University. He was department head at the two last institutions.

Heimspiel 09, Cartoon und Kritik

An Bild anklicken, um grosser zu sehen.

Oben in Deutsch, below in English

Click on image to see larger.

.

Heimspiel 09

Heimspiel: endlich mit haupsächlich echte regionale Künstler! Danke Corinne Schatz und Katharina Ammann! --- Grosser Buh-Ruf für Koni Bitterli, der mein Bild halb versteckt und absichtlich belieidigend gehägt hat. Kleinkarierrt. Offentsichlich ist er mmer noch zornig mit mir wenig meine veröffentlichte Kritik von jetzigem Kuratoren-Arroganz?





.

Orientierungslose Ratlosigkeit

Manchmal liefert einem der Alltag die schönsten Bilder: Bei der Heimfahrt von der Kunst09 in Zürich fährt vor mir ein dunkelblauer BMW, der zuerst die Ausfahrt aus dem Parkhaus und dann den Weg aus den architektonischen Grossstadtträumen von Örlikon nicht findet, grundsätzlich in die falsche Richtung blinkt und schön langsam den ganzen Verkehr aufhält.

Genauso scheint es sich auch mit der Kunst09 zu verhalten, die sich für die wichtigste Kunstschau in der Schweiz neben der Art Basel hält und sich "in den letzten 15 Jahren zur hochkarätigen Veranstaltung entwickelt" haben soll - so der Pressebericht.

Was finden wir vor Ort?
Eine Veranstaltung, die zwar nach Aussen elegant daherkommt, aber ohne Ziel und orientierungslos im Seichten dümpelt und den Besucher nur aufhält. Ein Supermarkt für Sofakunst.

Es gibt durchaus viel versprechende Namen - nur leider halten die Arbeiten nur in den wenigsten Fällen, was sie versprechen und Entdeckungen sind bis auf eine oder zwei Ausnahmen nicht zu machen. Was auf Kunstmessen grundsätzlich gilt: dass es, auch wenn es um Kunst geht, nie wirklich Kunst sondern Waren zu sehen gibt, wird auf der Kunst09 nur umso deutlicher und es ist schade, auch gute Künstlerinnen und Künstler so schlecht repräsentiert zu sehen.

Nun stellt sich der geschätzte Leser vielleicht die Frage, warum ich mich dennoch darum bemühe einen Text zu dieser Veranstaltung zu verfassen, wenn doch besser darüber geschwiegen werden sollte. Berechtigt, kann ich da zurückgeben. Den Anlass dazu gibt die ZKB in ihrer Pressemitteilung zur Verleihung des alljährlichen Kunstpreises. Es geht dabei nicht um die Auswahl der präsentierten Künstler oder Galerien für diesen Preis - nein, es geht um ein Zitat, das ich Ihnen nicht vorenthalten möchte:

"Was früher die Rolle der Kirche war, ist heute die der Bank: Das Fördern der Künste und das Wecken und Verbreiten des Kunstverständnisses und -interesses in der Bevölkerung. Zum dritten Mal in Folge nimmt die Zürcher Kantonalbank diese Verpflichtung auch an der Kunst Zürich wahr und verleiht mit einer Preissume von CHF 10.000 den ZKB Kunstpreis an eine von 12 ausgewählten Soloshows."

Ist das Selbstüberschätzung oder einfach nur Unzeitgemäss? Ist es ernst gemeint oder steckt da ein satirischer Werber dahinter? Können die wirklich Rechnen oder sind das Hinweise auf die Gründe, die in die internationale Finanzkrise geführt haben?

Mich hinterlässt das ratlos und lässt mich am Verstand der Menschheit zweifeln.

Shooting Foxes....scoping the IAW...

I have long been a fan of the Sharkforum and resident artist/critic Mark Staff Brandl's take on the present state of art criticism.

This is by way of a practice run to 'scope' the afore mentioned 'art criticism now?' agenda :-)
I love that word 'scope' you'd think we were shooting bears..maybe we are...certainly foxes...

His latest project involves asking artists to write about their practice and its theoretical basis as a challenge to the current curatorial/academic mish mash that sometimes pertains in the IAW (international art world). He (I think correctly) cites the current fashion orientated dealer driven art world as suffering from a 'glossies' approach that has jettisoned the baby with the bathwater and quite correctly identifies a gap 'in the market' (how loaded that phrase has become in the past 30 years) where artist's voices have become swamped in other louder discourses. Usually these discourses are tied hand and foot to financial and kudos driven 'standing' in that same 'IAW' and have long since lost any real veracity or in some cases coherance as theoretical writings let alone curatorial statements or overviews.

We here in Nottingham have some recent first-hand instances of this I.A.W. Gobbledygook thanks to our sudden emergence into the IAW thanks to Nottingham Contemporary. As our provincial minds sink in the flood of propaganda we are about to be verbally lashed by maybe it a good point for some circumspect analysis of this phenomena.

My own artistic history is pretty much framed in two decades. Firstly 1980-1990 then 2000-2010.

Phase 1: I graduated from Hornsey college of Art London (Middlesex University as is now) in 1981 and my art history tutor there was John A. Walker who has written extensively about the specifically political dimension to celebrity art as well as popular cultural connections ( Art in the Age of Mass Media 2001). At this time there was little separation between 'art' and 'theory'. Indeed it was common practice to read and absorb not only general theory but specific artist's statements. Magazines like Artscribe and Art Monthly put artist statements centre stage and along with a varied 'contextaul' studies area which ranged from contemporary poetry to applied design we were encouraged not only to think for ourselves but also to be as wide in our reading as possible. In those days notions of 'networking' and 'careerist' 'making it' were viewed from a heavily left-wing viewpoint ( Hornsey had been a scene of 'Riots' alongside actions in France in 1968 ) so much so that I do not think the words were ever used.





We were serious (maybe too serious) students with serious ambitions to create serious artworks. There was little hope of making money except in maybe the long term and we set ourselves for many years of cold, lonely debate and artmaking activity in usually sub standard freezing cold 'studios'. We did have a sense of community and a shared sense of what the 'art world' was and what was 'significant'. What was written about in Artscribe framed the debate and our sense of the 'art world'. There were few curatorial driven exhibitions to see and a hang of Bacon or Auerbach at Marlborough would be the highpoint of a summer. Serious artists shown seriously with little theoretical framing except in large Thames and Hudson or Phaidon tomes or reviews in the 'serious' press. Waldemar Janusczack, James Faure Walker, Sarah Kent, Brian Sewell, Mathew Collings...the names of those critics I remember 20 years later such was there standing....Artcribe had a 'local' i.e. usually London focus.

The art world then may have been smaller (pre boom and bust and the internet) but one felt one could get a handle of the major developments and the significant figures as they emerged. I remember seeing early shows by Doig and Julian Opie. Indeed I even ended up as a figure in a Gilbert and George photo piece. This was pre Goldsmiths, Hirst and the collapse (in my opinion) of those values and the boom in a larger, more fashionable, successful and in my opinion shallower art world. That art world was fed, watered and bloomed under the hands of an advertising executive and there was indeed a cut off point. The change in attitudes can be dated to the Royal Academy Sensation show...soon Stuart Morgan tried to sail artscribe into 'International Art World' waters and promptly sank....he just didn't understand the Prada Bag set...

There and ever after even the hard leftists in the artworld found themselves chasing a beguiling gravy train and many acres of comment fell over backwards justifying their selling out to a capitalist driven art world on a scale hitherto unimagined. Craig-Martin at Goldsmiths and priniciples of newly business orientated Academies across the country raced to catch up and cash in. This also coincided with a boom in markets across Europe and the USA and suddenly Brit was HIP. Nobody could bare to criticise a position we so fully deserved...now we were art top dogs we could look down on others and crow....and of course objective criticism.hard criticism..was thrown out the window.

I remember attending a show in the mid 1980's where the curatorial statement ran to over a thousand words and was written in such impermeable 'academese' that nobody could actually read it. I dismissed it but foolishly did not realise the power of the word was on the march.....

Soon fellow artists were 'locating their practice' and referencing Derrida and Foucault. Indeed one friend went from rather dull printmaker to being an expert on postmodernism in a matter of weeks. The honesty and integrity of magazines like Artscribe and Art Monthly were suddenly outshone by their glossy step-children ...Frieze, Flash etc etc and countless others that spawned and drowned in their own scenes. This also coincided with the first attempts to push M.A.'s and Phd's for artists.....up until that point M.A.'s were few and far between and centred on the 'top' institutions The Slade, Chelsea and Royal College. More importantly these were heavily studio-based courses...long on practice short on theory....evn in the late 1980's one could still just paint at the Royal College like David Hockney......just....

I still have some of the copies of artscribe I would spend hours poring over..then for a few brief years before his untimely death Peter Fuller's 'Modern Painters' seemed to show a way forward with erudite well written articles by the likes of Jed Perl rubbing shoulders with informed 'outsiders' like david Bowie and poet Jamie McKendrick. I ws verbally lashed by a graphic designer who then head of Goldsmiths M.A. for even suggesting Fuller was worth reading as too rightist..the same Goldsmiths that spun a silk purse out of a sow's ear a year later with Damien Hirst......ah the irony of it all. Nothing corrupts good intentions and political principles like a hefty wad of cash especially in the Halls of Academe....

What Fuller recognised (he was a good critic grounded in an appreciation of the English Tradition especially the writings of Ruskin, Moore, Sutherland and Hockney..read 'Beyond the Crisis in Art' currently out of print) was the essential connection between an artists's writing and their art. Especially if one moved closer to the arts and crafts area of Gill, David Jones and all the way back via William Morriss to William Blake.

That tradition has never been broken it merely been supplanted by the hysterical winnying of a thousand 'on the make' mediocrities in both studio and academia. Tie-ins and stitch-ups replaced a grounded and reasoned debate. A in-depth knowledge was not needed to spurt out a trendy 1000 word review of Hirst that never delved into his fragile and lately revealed lack of knowledge of anything remotely to do with art. Like the Peter Sellers film 'Being There' all that mattered was to be in attendance at the 'Cinderella's Ball' to catch some benefits from the King's largesse. Many very good painters and theorists (equally) retreated to the shadows ...some never to return.....John Hubbard, David Blackburn, Simon Lewty, Gillian Ayres even artists with reputations as formidable as Athony Caro's, John Hoyland's or Tom Phillips' were not safe. they were all pushed form the banquet table by the greedy and Sunday Supplement friendly advertising savvy new brood....they have never left nor raised their snouts since.....Chapmans, Hirst, Emin..you know the rest....

Now there seems to be a new mood afoot where not only Aesthetics but the artists themselves may once more be allowed their rightful place at the high table of art and there a very good chance their writing a lot better than the charlatans who supplanted them.

Read David Smith, Robert Motherwell, CY Twombly, Philip Guston, Picasso, Matisse.......it a long and noble tradition of both thinking and doing..

Hirst on Art.........don't make me laugh

more like this on my journal

http://shaunbelcher.com/blog

Academic artists? Oxymoron?

There was a time when the phrase 'academic artist' was synomonous with a certain conservatism and use of traditional strophes that reflected the academic virtues of fine handling of paint, drawing of a certain standard and a certain 'resemblance' to the world of the viewer who would recognise the metaphors and the world that produced the works. A 'hang' may be as crowded as the Rowlandson of Somerset House but like the Royal Academy Summer Show one knew what one was getting.

Now the phrase has more chance of pertaining to an altogether more insubstantial, less skilful and frankly bizarre world.....for now we have a new breed of 'institutional academic artists'. These strange hybrid creatures (neither fish nor fowl) have realised that their 'practice' ( a cosy word for what they 'do' that has jettisoned the need to actually 'do' anything) is a fair hothouse flower that could not survive in the cruel harsh winds of UK PLC in a recession. having realised that their slender talents are unbankable in any BRITART fab cash in bank way they are flocking to peddle their wares at the feet of Symposiums and Academic meetings. spitting out acronyms like the funnel of one of Turner's Steamships and generally trying to survive by writing as much about themselves and doing as little actual 'work' as in artwork' as possible.

The Botanic Gardens at Kew do not have as rare and flimsy a bunch of Credit Crunch Orchids to maintain as the New Universities (desperate for AHRC money to keep the wolf from the door having spent all the cash the poor students have provided). One cannot turn around these days for collaborative projects, new commissions, artists in residence ( a wide term as will be seen) and lectures by people less able to academicise than actually 'do' anything. In the past there were often spurious connections to float the poor artist into the academic flow...

Some artists benefitted from a fragile correspondence between their practice and the particular specialism of a department...Lace or plastic, car engines, botany..tie-in art flourished and some artists swiftly moved from garrett to academic offices and never left such was the increase in prosperity not to mention the warmth involved.

Now we are at a fascinating juncture in this process as the wind of time and change starts to blow back on these poor fragile blooms. As the realisation that UK PLC is not only bereft of jobs but the talents to actually do something instead of just talk about doing it University departments are clutching at new straws...economic development and regeneration are the key.

From talking about their practice these hybrid 'Academists' are now spouting a whole new range of acronym driven homilies....again to keep their place in the warm flowerbed....it is too cold out in Real Land..too many redundancies too few opportunities.

So as the recession bites maybe one would expect the chill wind to produce some hardier perennials..maybe a return to some of those traditional practices and skills as mentioned in the old concept of 'The Academy'. No not a jot of it...

No it appears we will wait in vain for hardy snowdrops to bloom in their stead.

I have recently trawled through some academic notions of practice and whilst many reduce the brain to a sponge and yet others begger belief both in description and action none so far has matched my latest prize.....

An artist who shall remain nameless is speaking at a destination which alack shall also remain anonymous
on his revalatory practice of.......


'Pouring special brew on a station platform and shouting'

I wish dear reader that I could be making this up...but alas it is true. Said artist manages to not only stupify with the nonsensical act but then to explicate it in almost Johnson like hyperbole....Dear friends what looks like the drunken action of a immature less than gifted imposter is in fact art..and not only art but art of a high order..art that bears a direct descendance form the Greek Gods and Hermes himself and yes from a tradition of lay preaching....

This is where we are good kind people mouthing platitudes and accomodating gibberish in the name of art....

I may not know much about art but I do know many kinds of shit when it travails the ear and this is 100% genuine bullshit and some of our academic institutions live and breath this kind of nonsense.....so far...

Methinks a little pruning in the gardens of the comfortably well off not amiss...and soon.

Maybe then some of those real blooms and real skills can blossom without choking in the avant-garde weedbeds of edification, explication and plain verbose drivel......and we can leave that to rot like any good remnant of verdure on the roots of the finer arts.

And a handy gardening tip if it smells like shit it probably is...treat with caution and dig it under whenever possible.

more like this at

http://shaunbelcher.com/blog

Thinking While Making Things : Open Thread

Practicing artists writing theory?!!! Edward Winkleman, on his wonderful art blog, one of the most important on art, has a post concerning my column for Proximity magazine (and Sharkforum reprints the articles), where theoretical articles are published by good, practicing artists. The column was inspired by a great thread on Ed's blog. Perhaps this post will be a big discussion too! Go check it out and add your voice.

Link: http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2009/10/thinking-while-making-things-open.html

Curators crowned kings of the art world

"Curators crowned kings of the art world: Artists relegated to also-rans in power list."

In the "I told you so" department, an article by Andy McSmith in The Independant, including the list of the top 100 most powerful people in the artworld.

"If you want clout in the art world in these recessionary times, you are better off putting pen to paper as a curator than paintbrush to canvas as a jobbing artist."

Continue reading here.

.

Brandl: Art Museum of Canton Thurgau Paintings Acquisition

It is a particular thrill for me to announce that the Art Museum of Thurgau in Switzerland has just acquired 20 paintings of mine! They comprise a representative cross-section of several years of my series titled "Covers." I am very pleased that they will be in such a great institution and under the care of its eminent director Markus Landert and curator Dorothee Messmer!

Es ist mir ein besondere Vergnugen mitzuteilen, dass das Kunstmuseum Thurgau in der Schweiz hat 20 Gemälde von mir gerade erworben,--- die bilden einen bezeichnenden Querschnitt durch mehrere Jahren aus meiner Serie "Covers." I am very pleased that they will be in such a great institution and under the care of its eminent director Markus Landert and curator Dorothee Messmer!

CUNY James Gallery's Silent Pictures Exhibitions with Brandl Painting Installation

Silent Pictures, running from September 1 through October 11 in the James Gallery in NYC focuses on aspects of comic book structure that do not depend on words to advance an image sequence. The exhibition is inspired by artist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Art Spiegelman's personal collection of wordless comics and graphic novels -- mostly black and white rare artist books from the 1930s. The show will feature a selection of these books, as well as more recent "abstract comics," and a related film program -- all of which investigate essential qualities and aesthetics of this hugely popular medium.

The abstract comics, compiled by art historian and artist Andrei Molotiu for a just released anthology, Abstract Comics Fantagraphics Books, 2009), call attention to the formal mechanisms that underlie all comics. The art gathered by Molotiu emphasizes the dynamic graphics that lead the eye and mind from panel to panel, suggesting that these structural elements are fundamental to the emotional register of the medium. This section of the exhibition features an old-fashioned wire magazine stand ("spinner rack"), which hosts a collection of paintings by Mark Staff Brandl called A History of Composition in Abstract Comic Covers. Done in oil, acrylic and collage on canvas panels, the 30 pieces in this series unite comics, pop art and Pollock-related abstraction with his actual interpretation of the history of composition in painting from Prehistoric times until now.

The James Gallery is located off the lobby of the Graduate Center at 365 Fifth Avenue (between 34th & 35th Streets). Hours are Tuesdays through Fridays, 12-8 pm, and 12-6 pm on Saturdays & Sundays. Admission is free; for more information call 212-817-7138 or visit http://www.gc.cuny.edu/events/art_gallery.htm An opening reception for Silent Pictures will be held on Thursday, September 10, 6-8 pm.

A few details follow.

Philosophy Bites: Derek Matravers on the Definition of Art

"Philosophy Bites" is a website which features "podcasts of top philosophers interviewed on bite-sized topics." Dave Edmunds and Nigel Warburton seek out expert philosophers and interview them on significant topics in very short, understandable, even entertaining, --- yet scholarly --- , podcasts. Well worth listening to is this one, Derek Matravers on the background to abd problems with the current definition of art.

Go to the website here.

Or listen directly here.

UND09 in OBERUZWIL

You are invited to the "und09" exhibition and opening

Ich freue mich, Sie zur diesjährigen "und09-Vernissage" einzuladen:


Opening: Friday 4. September 2009, 7 pm Fabrikhallen Heer & Co., Wiesentalstrasse 39, 9240 Oberuzwil (Weg ist signalisiert; direkt bei Bahnviadukt Bahnhof Uzwil)

Freitag 4. September 2009, 19 Uhr
Fabrikhallen Heer & Co., Wiesentalstrasse 39, 9240 Oberuzwil
(Weg ist signalisiert; direkt bei Bahnviadukt Bahnhof Uzwil)


The "und09 - aktuelle Kunst" exhibits in an area of about 1000 m2 recent art by Ghislaine Ayer, Mark Staff Brandl, André Büchi, Karin Bühler, Peter Dew, Liliane Eberle, Reto Jung, Jérôme Keller, Herbert Kopainig, Alex Meszmer/Reto Müller, Jürg Rohr and Harlis Schweizer.

Die "und09 - aktuelle Kunst“ zeigt auf über 1'000 m2 aktuelle Werke von Ghislaine Ayer, Mark Staff Brandl, André Büchi, Karin Bühler, Peter Dew, Liliane Eberle, Reto Jung, Jérôme Keller, Herbert Kopainig, Alex Meszmer/Reto Müller, Jürg Rohr and Harlis Schweizer.


www.und-art.ch

Kongress für kulturelle Freiheit 1

Die Entwicklung der Kultur wird und wurde massgebend immer auch mitbestimmt von den Bedingungen, unter denen sie stattfindet.

Dass die Freiheitsstatue der Kultur eine Attrappe ist, die unter ihrer lächelnden Maske, ihre Fratze der Manipulation versteckt, wird der breiten Masse solange wie möglich vorenthalten. Denn das Volk kann sich wie in vergangenen Zeiten auch schon, von Opium ernähren. Das politische Interesse und die Teilnahme am demokratischen Prozess, soll Sache der gewählten Vertreter und Vertreterinnen bleiben, welche für ihr Tun nicht zur Rechenschaft gezogen, dafür Sorge tragen, dass die "neoliberale Statue" auf dem Terrain des grenzenlosen Wirtschaftswachstums stehenbleibt und zwar so, wie sie mit allem Drum und Dran eben ist !

Liebes Volk, lass die Finger von der politischen und kulturellen Programmgestaltung... überlass es lieber den Gewählten, die dann schon das Beste daraus machen. Zum Beispiel Freizeitparks, oder Supermärkte bauen, wo wir unser demokratisches Verständnis dann ganz praxisbezogen ausleben dürfen. Die Shoppingreservate der Wahlfreiheit haben uns das Paradies zurückbeschert, denn hier können wir selbstbestimmen, welche Vergnügungsbahn und welche Verkaufsregale wir im breiten globalisierten Sortiment nutzen wollen, damit die Wirtschaft wieder angekurbelt wird.

Und weil sich dieses Betriebssystem, den Wohlstand für Alle versprechend, bewährt hat, bringen wir es auch im kulturellen Leben zum Tragen. Denn auch hier haben wir die gewählten Fachleute, die schon wissen was Niveau hat, was gefördert, präsentiert und publiziert werden soll und was eben nicht. So wie es die Lobbyisten der Konzerne im Parlament tun, tun es für uns die Kuratoren in der Kulturkommission. Und das sind keine Vetterliwirtschafter sondern Volksvertreter. Die Bedeutung von Kuratorium heisst bekanntlich richtig übersetzt Vormundschaftsbehörde. Hier werden die Rahmenbedingungen der Kultur über Bildungs,- und Vermittlungsstrukturen, Subventionsmassnahmen und Zulassungskriterien festgelegt. Aber Achtung...da blinzelts wieder unter der Maske der grossen "Libera". Die teilnehmenwollenden Kulturschaffenden werden doch liebevoll an der Hand genommen und aufnahmebedingt ans Gängelbändchen gelegt.

Wer heute im Kulturbetrieb erfolgreich sein möchte, muss zuerst ein entsprechendes Profil entwickeln, das passt, damit dieses auf der Zahnradbahn greift, die ihn auf den Gipfel der kulturellen Möglichkeiten befördert. Die Züge stehen in alle Richtungen aufgegleist bereit.

Täglich sind die Medien voll von glücklichen Gewinnern der Konkurrenzwettbewerbe auf der Fahrt zu den Gipfeln über den Wolken, worunter die Täler der Armut und Arbeitslosen aus dem Blickwinkel verschwinden.

In solchen Verhältnissen wäre es nun an der Zeit dringend einen Kongress für die kulturelle Freiheit ins Leben zu rufen. Denn in Anbetracht dieses regulierbaren Plankulturbetriebes, ist künstlerische Freiheit längst zur Farce geworden. Doch gab es bereits eine solche Organisation, die zwischen 1950 und 69 unter dem Namen "CCF Congress for cultural freedom" operierte.

Wie schon oft aber bei Organisationen geschehen, wurde auch hier erst später bekannt, dass hinter den Aktivitäten der Organisation, Geldgeber sprich Kontrolleure standen, in diesem Falle der amerikanische Geheimdienst CIA, durch den dazumal im Klima des kalten Krieges, verschiedene europäische Zeitschriften und Kunstschaffende, in Kampagnen gegen die damaligen kommunistischen Lager, zum Teil ohne ihr Wissen hineingezogen und instrumentalisiert wurden. So sind auch heute die Fragen rund um den instrumentalisierten Kulturbetrieb bzw. zu den dienstleistenden Künstlerfunktionen, aktueller denn je.

Art Basel 2009 Art Fair Podcast

Mark Staff Brandl, Continental European Correspondent for the renowned art "radio" podcast "Bad at Sports" roams the Basel Art Fair 2009 with guest co-host Peter Noser, gallerist, curator and artist. They comment primarily on the “main fair,” but also cursorily on Scope, Volta, the Solos Show, die Liste (and look forward to a Bridge addition next year). Additional walk-on voices include Maya LaLive d’Epinay, Martin Kraft, Alex Meszmer, many others, and a few seconds of Olga Stefan. Mark managed to wipe-out some excellent comments, or record them so poorly that they were unusable. Ce la technologie. A quick but comprehensive look at the “real” Basel, the most important international art fair, the Queen yet also Great Whore of Babylon.

Brandl made some multiples especially for the fair including pins and his T-shirt in the photo. They all bore the Latin phrase “Abite in Malam crucem, artis nundinae!”, signed Marcus Scipio Incendiolus. Or, roughly in English, “Screw Art Fairs!” In German, as appropriate for Basel, that’s “Zum Teufel mit Kunstmessen!”

Listen here.

Direct download here.

Some of the names dropped and/or people who appeared:
Andre Emmerich
Tracy Williams Gallery
Georgina Starr
Anna Craycroft
Eugène Leroy
Jonathan Lasker
Galerie Mark Müller
Christina Streuli
Reto Boller
Brigitte Kemann
Jean Luc Moulène
Feeble Painting
Zilla Leutenegger
Roman Signer
Pipilotti Rist
Bice Curiger
Parkett magazine
Kunsthaus Zürich
Bettina Funcke
Art in America
Marconi Gallery
Lari Pittman
Regen Projects
Rob Pruitt – Gavin Brown Enterprise
Ilya and EmiliaKabakov
Chen Zhen
David Reed
Yan Pei Ming
Paddy Johnson – Art Fag City
Thomas Woodley – Bildmanufaktur
Marianne Rinderknecht
Visarte
Knoedler Gallery
Scope Art Fair
The Solo Project Art Fair
Red Dot Art Fair
Design Miami Basel Art Fair
Volta Art Fair
Die ListeArt Fair
Daniel Glaser and Magdalena Kunz
Tag Fine Arts – MJ Hobby- Limon
Katsutoshi Yuasa
Japanese Printing (without a press)
Victoria and Albert Museum
Olga Stefan
Galerie Klaus Benden
Monique Meloche Gallery

Open Museum

Das Transitorische Museum zu Pfyn öffnet vom 2. bis zum 9. August 2009 das digitale Archiv und zeigt Interviews und Filme in einer Installation in der Trotte Pfyn.

Vernissage: Sonntag 2. August 09, 11 Uhr

Öffnungszeiten: täglich 14 bis 20 Uhr

BALCONYTV.COM INTERVIEW WITH STEVEN VAN ZANDT in DUBLIN

Tom and Pauline of BALCONYTV.COM interview Little Steven (Van Zandt), the American musician, songwriter, arranger, record producer, actor, and radio disc jockey, who is best known as a member of Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band and his smash hit radio and podcast program The Underground Garage. They discuss his record label Wicked Cool Records, his program, the crisis of craft in music and the future of Rock.

Brandl: TV Art Evangelist

Michael Moore: Bernie Madoff, Scapegoat (für Schweizer --- Denk UBS!)

Elie Wiesel called him a "God." His investors called him a "genius." But, proving correct that old adage from the country and western song, you never really know what goes on behind closed doors.

Bernie Madoff, for at least 20 years, ran a Ponzi scheme on thousands of clients, among them the people you and I would consider the best and brightest. Business leaders, celebrities, charities, even some of his own relatives and his defense attorney were taken for a ride (this has to be the first time a lawyer was hosed by the client).

We're clearly in one of those historic, game changing years: up is down, red is blue and black is President. Aside from Obama himself, no person will provide a more iconic face of this end-of-capitalism-as-we-know-it year than Bernard Lawrence Madoff.

Which is too bad.
Yes, he stole $65 billion from some already quite wealthy people. I know that's upsetting to them because rich guys like Bernie are not supposed to be stealing from their own kind. Crime, thievery, looting -- that's what happens on the other side of town. The rules of the money game on Park Avenue and Wall Street are comprised of things like charging the public 29% credit card interest, tricking people into taking out a second mortgage they can't afford, and concocting a student loan system that has graduates in hock for the next 20 years. Now that's smart business! And it's legal. That's where Bernie went wrong -- his scheming, his trickery was an outrage both because it was illegal and because he preyed on his side of the tracks.

Had Mr. Madoff just followed the example of his fellow top one-percenters, there were many ways he could have legally multiplied his wealth many times over. Here's how it's done. First, threaten your workers that you'll move their jobs offshore if they don't agree to reduce their pay and benefits. Then move those jobs offshore. Then place that income on the shores of the Cayman Islands and pay no taxes. Don't put the money back into your company. Put it into your pocket and the pockets of your shareholders. There! Done! Legal!

But Bernie wanted to play X-games Capitalism, run by the mantra that's at the core of all capitalistic endeavors: Enough Is Never Enough. You have the right to make as much as you can, and if people are too stupid to read the fine print of their health insurance policy or their GM "100,000-mile warranty," well, tough luck, losers. Buyers beware!

It would be too easy -- and the wrong lesson learned -- to put Bernie on TIME's list all by himself. If Ponzi schemes are such a bad thing, then why have we allowed all of our top banks to deal in credit default swaps and other make-believe rackets? Why did we allow those same banks to create the scam of a sub-prime mortgage? And instead of putting the people responsible in the cell block in Lower Manhattan, where Bernie now resides, why did we give them huge sums of our hard-earned tax dollars to bail them out of their self-inflicted troubles? Bernard Madoff is nothing more than the scab on the wound. He's also a most-needed and convenient distraction. Where's the photo on this list of the ex-chairmen of AIG, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup? Where's the mug shot of Phil Gramm, the senator who wrote the bill to strip the system of its regulations, or of the President who signed that bill? And how 'bout those who ran the fake numbers at the ratings agencies, the lobbyists who succeeded in making sleazy accounting a lawful practice, or the stock market itself -- an institution that's treated like the Holy Sepulchre instead of the casino that it is (and, like all other casinos, the house eventually wins).

And what of Madoff's clients themselves? What did they think was going on to guarantee them incredible returns on their investments every single year -- when no one else on planet Earth was getting anything like that? Some have admitted they did have an inkling "something was up," but no one really wanted to ask what it was that was making their money grow on trees. They were afraid they might find out it had nothing to do with gardening. Many of Madoff's victims have told investigators that, over the years, they have made much more than the original investment they gave Bernie. If I buy a stolen car from the guy down the street, the police will take that car from me regardless of whether I knew it was stolen. If I knew it was stolen, then I go to jail for receiving stolen property. Will these "victims" give back their gains that were fraudulently obtained? Will the head of Goldman Sachs reveal what he was doing at the meetings with the Fed chairman and the Treasury secretary before the bailout? Will Bank of America please tell us what they've spent $45 billion of our TARP money on?

That's probably going too far. Better that we just put Bernie on this list.

This piece written by Michael Moore appears in this week's Time magazine (and in full at Time.com) as part of their annual "Time 100" issue highlighting their choices for "The World's Most Influential People."

Moore's new documentary on the wonders of capitalism will be in movie theaters this fall.