freecooperation mailinglist
archive
< |
> |
Re: art is a political problem
tobias c. van Veen
Dec 10, 2003 21:35 PST
Gotchya. Haacke is rather infamous for his detail and critique. Checking on the web, I also found this little tidbit: http://www.recirca.com/backissues/c99/buchloh.shtml "In the same essay, [H.D.] Buchloh's assertion that public monumental sculpture 'seems to occupy the same space and moment in history when memory as the source of dialectical alteration of given reality is destroyed and lost' (123) reveals another important concern that runs throughout Buchloh's essays: the mnemonic function of public art and sculpture in the context of post-Second World War Europe. This concern is most forcefully articulated in Buchloh's searing critique of Joseph Beuys' early performance work. Focusing on Beuys' mythic construction and subsequent documentation of his own rescue from a plane crash by Tartars in Russia during World War Two, Buchloh argues that Beuys perpetuates a collective social and historical amnesia in post-war Germany, at a time when the historical condition of memory in Germany was at its most fraught. By contrast, the installation work of the French artist, Arman provides a mnemonic counterpoint to the condition of national cultural amnesia. For Buchloh, Arman's assemblage of found objects like dentures, reading glasses and gas masks function as 'memory images of the first historical instances of industrialized death' (274)." Interestingly, Morton goes on to say, of Buchloh, in this next paragraph: "Buchloh's repeated pronouncements on the fate of Marcel Duchamp's Readymades - that they fall prey to the very institutional structures of artistic display and aesthetic value which they originally attempted to challenge - is re-articulated in the institutional critique of Hans Haacke. Like Duchamp, the oppositional imperative of Haacke's work has been increasingly co-opted by the corporate administration of aesthetics. What is more, from the present historical moment, it appears rather unfortunate that Buchloh claimed a marginal status for Haacke in 1988, when Haacke's most recent work has included commissioned public art works on the façade and garden of the New Reichstag building in Berlin." Looks like both baby & bathwater suffer some tarring here. That's Stephen Morton reviewing Buchloh's _Neo-Avant-garde and Culture Industry: Essays on European and American Art from 1955 to 1975_, MIT Press, Cambridge MA and London, 2000.
Just to clarify: the curator in question was not calling me an (artistic) fascist, but rather declaring himself an 'artistic fascist'. He was describing how he wanted certain parameters followed during the event, to the point where, in previous events, he's asked people to leave, refunding their money, rather than having them stay and, for him, ruin the environment of the event. Thus, his self-declaration as a 'fascist', but with a certain inflection that was quite intentional--satirical sobriety. Fascism has a very different ring in North America (where I speak from), Canada in particular (where I am). Interesting that Heidegger wore the swastika. That I did not know; I've read his lectures in these areas, his responses, and so on, and always considered the case quite difficult. Heidegger's silence on the subject is weighty. He also quit the Nazi party and the rectorship fairly early on. I'd be interested in seeing the pictures of this, lectures with the swastika, if anyone has some links to post here or sources. Of note -- thanks for the great conversation here. best, tV |
< |
> |