Thursday, September 15, 2011

art is both commodity and artifact

So, what is the fascination with interdisciplinarity all about? 'The art critic Harold Rosenberg once published a book called The Anxious Object. The title was a reference to the art of the sixties—Pop Art, Minimalism, and Conceptual Art. Rosenberg thought that those art objects were anxious because they were uncertain of their own identity. They kept asking themselves questions like, Am I a work of art, or just a wall of Polaroids? Am I a sculpture, or just a pile of bricks? More existentially: Am I an autotelic aesthetic artifact, or just a commercial good?

What causes anxiety to break out in a work of art? Self-consciousness. Maybe, in the case of the academic subject, self-consciousness about disciplinarity and about the status of the professor—the condition whose genealogy I have been sketching in this chapter—is a source of anxiety. That status just seems to keep reproducing itself; there is no way out of the institutional process. And this leads the academic to ask questions like, Am I an individual disinterested inquirer, or a cog in a knowledge machine? And, Am I questioning the sta­tus quo, or am I reproducing it? More existentially, Is my rela­tion to the living culture that of a creator or that of a packager? 'The only way to get past the anxiety these questions cause is to get past the questions—to see that they are bad questions because they require people to choose between identities that cannot be separated. A work of art is both an aesthetic object and a commercial good. That is not a contradiction unless you have been socialized to believe that it must be.

- Louis Menand


art is both commodity and artifact

So, what is the fascination with interdisciplinarity all about? 'The art critic Harold Rosenberg once published a book called The Anxious Object. The title was a reference to the art of the sixties—Pop Art, Minimalism, and Conceptual Art. Rosenberg thought that those art objects were anxious because they were uncertain of their own identity. They kept asking themselves questions like, Am I a work of art, or just a wall of Polaroids? Am I a sculpture, or just a pile of bricks? More existentially: Am I an autotelic aesthetic artifact, or just a commercial good?

What causes anxiety to break out in a work of art? Self-consciousness. Maybe, in the case of the academic subject, self-consciousness about disciplinarity and about the status of the professor—the condition whose genealogy I have been sketching in this chapter—is a source of anxiety. That status just seems to keep reproducing itself; there is no way out of the institutional process. And this leads the academic to ask questions like, Am I an individual disinterested inquirer, or a cog in a knowledge machine? And, Am I questioning the sta­tus quo, or am I reproducing it? More existentially, Is my rela­tion to the living culture that of a creator or that of a packager? 'The only way to get past the anxiety these questions cause is to get past the questions—to see that they are bad questions because they require people to choose between identities that cannot be separated. A work of art is both an aesthetic object and a commercial good. That is not a contradiction unless you have been socialized to believe that it must be.

- Louis Menand


Wednesday, August 10, 2011

art is storytelling

Why should anyone want to buy a Cezanne for $800,000? What's a little Cezanne house in the middle of a landscape? Why should it have value? Because it's a myth. We make myths about politics, we make myths about everything. I have to deal with myths from 10 AM to 6 PM every day. And it becomes harder and harder. We live in an age of such rapid obsolescence.... My responsibility is the myth-making of myth material—which handled properly and imaginatively, is the job of a dealer—and I have to go at it completely. One just can't prudently build up a myth.

- Leo Casteli

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

change to pop art

Arriving in the art world at a time when Abstract Expressionism was the dominant paradigm, Johns and Rauschenberg reacted against what they considered the exaggerated emotional and philosophical claims of the older painters for their art. Rauschenberg later recalled that "The kind of talk you heard then in the art world was so hard to take. It was all about suffering and self-expression and the State of Things. I just wasn't interested in that, and I certainly didn't have any interest in trying to improve the world through painting." Similarly, Johns explained that "I'm neither a teacher nor an author of manifestos. I don't think along the same lines as the Abstract Expressionists, who took those sorts of things all too seriously." Instead of self-expression, the two young artists wanted to find new ways to use art to reflect everyday life. Rauschenberg famously declared that "Painting relates to both art and life. Neither can be made. (I try to act in that gap between the two.)" Johns echoed the same idea: "I'm interested in things which suggest the world rather than suggest the personality. I'm interested in things which suggest things which are, rather than in judgments."

The brash and iconoclastic Rauschenberg made a number of symbolic attacks on Abstract Expressionism. In 1953, he literally erased an Abstract Expressionist work. After obtaining a drawing from Willem de Kooning for the purpose, Rauschenberg carefully rubbed out the image, then framed the smudged sheet and hand-lettered a label, "Erased de Kooning Drawing, Robert Rauschenberg. "In 1957, Rauschenberg mocked the supposed spontaneity and uniqueness of the Abstract Expressionists' work by making two collage paintings, Factum I and Factum II, that appeared identical, even to the drips and splashes around several large brush strokes. Most damaging, however, was Rauschenberg's innovation of a new form of art. In 1954 he began to attach real things to his canvases, in order to make his paintings independent objects rather than illusionistic representations of them: "I don't want a picture to look like something it isn't. I want it to look like something it is. And I think a picture is more like the real world when it's made out of the real world." Rauschenberg named these three-dimensional works "combines," and they became so influential for successive generations of younger artists, many of whom were eager to break away from the traditional two-dimensional picture and the sanctity of traditional art materials.

- David Galenson





Robert Rauschenberg - Factum 1 and Factum 11 (1957)




Single Most Important Work by Each Artist


Experimental (age):

Brancusi 52, Bird in Space

Kandinsky 46, Der Blaue Reiter

De Kooning 46, Excavation

Mondrian 71, Broadway Boogie-Woogie

Pollock 38, Autumn Rhythm

Rothko 54, Red, White and Brown


Conceptual (age):

Braque 26, Houses at L’ Estaque

Braque 29, The Portuguese

Duchamp 30, Fountain

Johns 28, Three Flags

Malevich 40, Suprematist Composition: White on White

Matisse 37, Joy of Life

Oldenburg 32, The Store

Picasso 26, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon

Rauschenberg 34, Monogram

Warhol 34, Marilyn Monroe Diptych



most important works of 20th century


Pablo Picasso, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907)

Marcel Duchamp, Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 (1912)

Umberto Boccioni, Unique Forms of Continuity in Space (1913)

Marcel Duchamp, Fountain (1917)

Vladimir Tatlin, Monument to the Third International (1919)

Pablo Picasso, Guernica (1937)

Richard Hamilton, Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing? (1956)

Robert Smithson, Spiral Jetty (1970)