Urs Fischer

I first encountered the work of Urs Fischer at the New Museum- in person that is.  I had seen his work in magazines and online and there were advertisements for the New Museum show all over the subway showing a sculpture of a very realistic looking tongue poking through a plaster wall.  Bits of plaster lay on the tongue and the way in which the tongue was 'frozen' in movement was also realistic as if the photograph had captured a moment in time of a tongue moving through a piece of drywall.  The image above even has some marks on the plaster wall similar to that made by pencil accidentally scraping the wall.  Nice.  I was attracted to the visceral reaction of seeing this as an image.  I wanted to see it in person.

The show had many of these boxes with large crisp images on all sides of ordinary objects and pop references.  I wasn't attracted to these and there were many.  Here is an image of some of these boxes.  Their flatness was annoying to me, maybe...or maybe it is their size.  As I walked around them, they didn't make me take the imagery in a different light even if that doughnut is the same size as the phone booth. 

I did like the trompe l'oel piece in this show in which every square inch of the gallery was photographed and reprinted as a wallpaper that covers the very same walls and ceiling.  The absurdity of that is wonderful to me.  Obviously this is something that would be a useless photograph.

I've never seen Bread House (2004).  I'd like to see one of the bread houses (I think there is more than one).  From the Whitney site:

                                "Bread House (2004) is a life-size cabin built from loaves of sourdough bread, 

                                expandable foam, and wood. The quaint alpine structure is set on an arrangement 

                                of Oriental carpets and inhabited by four young parakeets that haven’t yet learned 

                                to fly. Over time the house decays, shedding crumbs on the floor and emitting a 

                                distinct, pervasive odor. As with all of Fischer’s works, the meaning lies within the very 

                                substances and processes of its making, whereby ideas become material and materials 

                                take on a life of their own."

I'm not sure how anyone can dislike the above piece... I really wish I'd seen it.  I'd like to stand in that pit of dirt within a white walled clean space.  Imagine walking in the gallery door to find this!!  Of course, major koodos goes to Gavin Brown gallery for allowing such a thing to happen to their gallery floor...  Here is a quote about this piece from the New Museum website:

                                     "In 2007, in a now-legendary exhibition, he excavated the floor of his New York 

                                     gallery, digging a crater within the exhibition space. Throughout his work, with 

                                     ambitious gestures and irreverent panache, Fischer explores the secret 

                                     mechanisms of perception, combining a Pop immediacy with a neo-Baroque 

                                     taste for the absurd."

The description, "Pop immediacy with a neo-Baroque taste for the absurd" hits the nail on the head.  I wouldn't have been able to necessarily put that together but in reading it - I completely agree and now appreciate Urs Fischer's work through that lens.

Separately, in an Interview magazine interview - I like what Fischer says about the artist and working.  It makes me think of that Tom Sachs show at Sperone Westwater I just saw:

                                   "If you don't enjoy making work, then it's bad. It's rough. Artwork is brutal for so 

                                   many people. They let it happen to them, but it's brutal. I like the idea of an artist 

                                   as somebody who works. A lot of the artists I like share this understanding. Like 

                                   Bruce Nauman. He always seems to have an understanding of what he does. 

                                   He does work."

Body pieces:  In re-looking at images of Fischer's work, I noticed several that had a direct sense of the body.  I love the way that the photographs are transformed with the object - the objects are in direct relation to the body - a banana jutting out like a huge errant nose and a screw embracing the side of a tuxedo-ed woman.  The banana and the screw make the photos of the human a hybrid between the object and the image of the person...and althought it is about the photograph, the image - they are all images of people and the objects placed on the photos interact with the body.  The melting bodies are also transformed - or transforming during the period of an exhibition - and that is also lovely.

William Pope L.

William Pope L. is an artist who works in more than one discipline and with a variety of materials. He is best known for his series of more than 40 'crawls' started in the 70s: performance-based pieces in which he inched along on busy city streets in order to draw attention to the plight of those members of society who are least empowered. The photograph above is one of Pope L. doing a crawl through the Bowery dressed in a suit.From a Bomb Magazine Interview with Martha Wilson:

'I did that street work over a period of several weeks, and when I first began I believed in the image, that the conjunction of a black man and his suit, crawling down the Bowery could produce not just
contradiction, but a feeling that would somehow transcend itself. My take on homelessness in New York was that we’d gotten too used to seeing these people on the streets. I hadn’t gotten used to it, but it seemed as if people were devising strategies in order not to see the homeless. We’d gotten used to people begging, and I was wondering, how can I renew this conflict? I don’t want to get used to seeing this. I wanted people to have this reminder.'



Another performance, called The Great White Way, featured Pope L. crawling for the 22 miles that make up Broadway in NYC. It took five years to complete. I'm not sure where rests and vacations and other work fit into this timeline. The artist wore a Superman outfit and had a skateboard strapped to his back. This is from his C.V. on the Foundation for Contemporary Arts site, Pope L. states:

'My work is not glamorous yet it is ambitious in its feeling. It seeks a visceral, bodily, material "explanation" for human desire writ large in human action....Like the African shaman who chews his pepper seeds and spits seven times into the air, I believe art re-ritualizes the everyday to reveal something fresh about our lives. This revelation is a vitality and it is a power to change the world.'

In regards to changing the world - or his ability to do so - he seems to question it as well -the arrogance of thinking one could or whether one would know really how to control the world. From the Bomb interview again with Martha Wilson:

"MW Is the purpose of your work to change the world in some tiny way?

WPL That seems arrogant to me, somehow.

MW Well, no, the opposite would be self-indulgence, which would be much worse than the arrogance of trying to change the world in some small way.

WPL Hmmm… You think you know what that change should be…

MW Ah. That would be arrogance. To believe that you have any control, whatsoever, that anybody would listen, that anybody will actually do anything differently, that the media, the social structures… would change."

I admire him for confronting these issues - the world being changeable by his art or not. I think it is more than self indulgence. I mean maybe he has to do it for himself - so what! Most artists have to make art for themselves. That is how they deal with the world - how they communicate. I wonder if there has to be a hope to make his work though...if there is a certain amount of hope he has to have to continue.

Probably because I am one, I do find his speaking of white liberals to be uncomfortable. It is funny because this same uncomfortableness that I felt in reading his quote is exactly the uncomfortableness he is speaking of that leads white liberals and blacks to be unable to effectively talk about race. Again from Bomb:
"WPL In this country, there’s a history of black people being constructed as valueless or threatening or nothing. If you hold up a mirror to certain white liberals, and you say. “Hey you know, you’re right! You’ve got a point. Black people are pieces of shit,” they’d get nervous. Me, I’ve always rejected whites when they spoke about blacks, as if what they had to say had no credibility. But then I thought, What if I reversed it? What if I explored what whites think about black folks as a kind of truth. Especially liberal whites. There’s a whole nest of vipers and ambivalence there… It’s sad. I don’t speak about blackness with most of my white friends. We very rarely talk about race, and if we do it gets very uncomfortable…

MW Even though you collaborate with Jim Calder, who is white, you don’t actually spend much time discussing race as a subject?

WPL We have discussed it. White people don’t seem to think about being white or ‘raced’. They don’t have to think about it. That’s just my take, from what I’ve observed. When you get into a discussion with someone white about race, either one or two things happen: It either peters out and there’s nothing to say: or there’s everything to say and you say nothing. It seems there isn’t a common ground where you can take a position and maybe have some back and forth, yeah, and maybe it gets a little fractious. So what!? But at the same time, perhaps you get to share your concept of the world in terms of race. Basically I don’t think that conversation happens very much. At least not productively."

I think the uncomfortableness is guilt. I think white liberals do have a guilt thing that conservatives don't have. Guilt can easily lead to uncomfortableness on the subject of race. I do agree with him that white people don't think about being white as a 'race.' That is where the idea of the Other comes in.



With Pope L.'s work, I am interested in his use of alternative 'charged' materials such as mayonnaise and peanut butter. (I can't find a direct reference to the Mayo jars image above; I don't know what piece that is from. The second photo is the cover of his book, "William Pope L. The Friendliest Black Artist in America".) Pope L. says that mayonnaise is a kind of makeup and he points out that as it dries and is out of jar, the more transparent it becomes. That is interesting. In the Bomb article (obviously the best interview /writing with him I could find online since I'm using it so much) he says that mayo is 'bogus whiteness.' I find it particularly interesting that his material choices come from his childhood. They were cheap foods from his childhood. Being a food product which will deteriorate over time - they change in texture and in the way they look. And then there is the smell. Visceral. In the Bomb article, he speaks further on race associated with these materials:
"Mayonnaise gave me a quirky material means to deal with issues black people claim they don’t value very much, e.g. whiteness. Black folks’ political and historical circumstances are at odds with whiteness, whether we want them to be or not. There are societal limitations to how much one can reconstruct one’s conditions. We are born into whiteness. On the surface, it seems wholly to construct us, and the degree to which we may counter-construct sometimes seems very limited. But, I believe we can be very imaginative with limitations. And I am lucky that today I can hold that point of view… Mayonnaise was a very useful and fresh way for me to get out of this dead-end: whiteness constructs blackness. Mayo and peanut butter allow me to think about race in a more playful, strange, and open-ended way. For example, the idea that there’s a pure good blackness or a pure bad whiteness is untenable for me. I use contradiction to critique and simultaneously celebrate."



Another favorite part of Pope L.'s work is his views on contradiction. I don't know enough about his work - and have never seen it in person - to see the contradiction in his work aside from pairing a black man in a suit in his Bowery crawl piece. But that awesome Bomb magazine interview has some good tidbits on this subject I'd like to include anyway:

"In my family, there was this tendency for things to fall apart. The conflict was in the desire to keep things together. The driving force in my work is recognizing those two tendencies and seeing them as ways to make things happen, i.e. how to produce a world or object with these types of tensions.....The reason for the contradiction is that I’m suspicious of things that make sense. Maybe I’m afraid of it. False security. Whereas contradiction does make sense to me. When I was able to accept that something could be true, and not true. I felt at home. This feeling felt threatening yet familiar. For example, one of the hardest paradigms is that your family can hurt you and love you at the same time. How can that be possible? I believe if you do not accept that this can be the case, then you have to reject your family. Now, one doesn’t have to be with one’s family. But I have decided to be with them, to live my life with them. It was important for me to come to grips with the fact that I could love them and at the same time, not like them very much. This may sound simplistic, and overly autobiographical, but being able to accept that contradiction at this level has been a guiding principle for me; it’s not an answer, it’s a positioning that’s always unstable.”

Regarding the two images above:
The image on the left, Aquarium, is a fish tank filled with red water and inks. Plaster models of Le Corbusier's Carpenter building are dunked in the tank and marked by the experience to create a set of 'Monoprints." This piece was in a show at Samson in Boston. The second image is one in which I can't find any information on but I like it so much that I kept it here. It seems to have the same elements as Aquarium in that it is about white and color in a color context but is made from a conceptual place of critiquing issues of race in our society.

Dorothea Tanning - Overview: Life of art

I am very impressed by this artist. Her work changed and grew over time and she seemed to never stop moving, changing, growing. She died this Tuesday at the age of 101. She began being known in the Surrealist circle of the 1930s and was married Max Ernst. This first set of images, above, are from this period-1940s. I've always had a soft spot for Surrealism. I love the dreamlike, psychological space they inhabit and the darker undertone that is often found. I also heavily identify with the idea of a broken up body image. I've gotten myself into trouble with this in the past. It conflicts with my feminist views since, more often than not, these broken bodies belong to women and the male artist's objectification of them. I am sure Tanning faced the questions of a not whole female body as a female artist at some point in her life.

I think my own attraction to dismembered bodies is the following:

It isn't about gore but it does contain violence. It has a sexuality to it that I find interesting - that might be the problematic conflict mentioned above. I do wonder if this conflict is that a female in a male culture begins to take on the male gaze themselves in order to adapt. I have thought this was the case for awhile. We women pick apart our sisters as much or more so than our male counterparts. We sexualize and objectify each other at the same time as we complain that men do it. Perhaps that is a reason.

I think that I also am attracted to the body depicted in compartments, turned around and upside down is that it forces the viewer to really look at what is in front of them as being a body. You notice what it is separate from your own body. It is the same feeling that I get in my body (recognizing it) as I get when standing in the presence of a sculpture that is body sized in a gallery. I become present with my own body in that moment.

And then there are cyborgs. There are human/not human juxtapositions that I am attracted to and surrealist work that depicts the broken apart human body does make me question our body and our human-ness in a similar way that the idea of cyborgs do.

Concerning the narrative quality of these works, here is a quote from Tate magazine (online):

'Tanning's paintings of the early 1940s reveal her taste for the unsettling moods and preternatural occurrences of Gothic novels. Girlish figures struggle with unearthly forces in scenes that combine the familiar and the imaginary. With growing technical mastery she manipulated colour and light to infuse the quotidian with metamorphic identity and extraordinary surface qualities.'

Beginning in the 1950s and 1960s, Tanning's work took on a different form with abstraction and fragmentation. They still hold a dreamlike quality - but not hyper-realistic. It seems to become hazier and more about color and paint in some ways - I guess if you take out the hyper-realistic, this automatically comes to mind but color and paint can still be a central concern in hyper realism. It is just that a narrative shifts the focus for the viewer at first taste.

These (above) are my favorite. I love the hotel room above. (Chambre 202 Hotel du Pavot 1970). All that grey and brown with a splash of red carpet and fleshy pink bodies protruding from the walls. In the 70s, Dorothea began to make soft sculptures based off of the figures from her paintings. But, of course, what the artist bases their work off of is not necessarily the way in which their work is considered.

Critics spoke of Tanning's work in the feminist context which is not what she desired. She did not want to be categorized as a woman artist or within the feminist context.

From the Tate Article again:

Refusing to be co-opted into the re-evaluation of women artists associated with Surrealism, she has repeatedly said that the forces that impelled her to take up the career of artist, and that sustained her work, had everything to do with being human but nothing to do with being a woman....Not that she has been anything less than acutely aware of the various inequalities that have affected her life and the reception of her work. In her memoir she wrote movingly of the compromises that life with Max Ernst entailed. But these paled compared with the joy brought by her partner. 'Does the sharing of a direction deprive a female of her imagination? Or her hands? Is it a hardship, is it unfair to have to live in an enchanted space where striving after approval by other not always distinguished human beings is no more than a faraway rumour, frivolous as the place cards at a distant dinner party?'

I understand her not wanted to be pidgeon-holed as a feminist artist. Feminist art holds a special place in my heart - but I also understand that it is sectioned off to this one area and this one - although important- context. To be pidgeon-holed is to be limited. As for being a 'woman' artist - I also understand her dislike of this label, of course. It is a way of categorizing based on sex vs. on the merit of her work.





I am also fond of her work depicted above which seem to be mid 70s. I enjoy the flat color and shapes in this work - and she never leaves the body behind. All is contained in the body. It does seem like the work after the 1940s would be harder to place within the literary realm she referenced simply based on it's lack of narrative. Maybe that is part of the reason her work became viewed more about the female body - because it was soooo body. Really.




I do not have images here except this one - but before turning to poetry in the late 1990s, Tanning completed a collection of 12 large flower paintings. She just kept moving. I hope to follow and forage my own path in such a long winded manner.

Wim Delvoye

I've definitely slacked on this blog lately...maybe cause I'm not accountable to anyone to write it - except myself.

Wim Delvoye is another artist I've been into for awhile. There is something punk or rock about him - like Banks Violette I tie him to music. I think they listen to different music though - I'm only making that statement from looking at their work. Banks is a hard industrial grind or heavy metal grind (which he does tie to his music in speaking of his work): grind being the operative word when I look at his work. Delvoye has something punk rock going on with his tattood pigs...and something gothic with his heavily filigreed machines- that also fit in with the machine punk aesthetic. (Machine punk - i've liked it's look and been drawn to and also turned off by its sense of nostalgia.)

Wim's Work- The Tattooed Pigs



Delvoye has an Art Farm where he raises pigs in order to tattoo them. I've seen images - like the ones above - where the pigs are alive. And I've seen stuffed tattooed pigs in galleries. This work makes me uncomfortable because I feel like the pigs are tortured with the tattooing.

I found further information on his Art Farm project on Wikipedia - of course:

'Though Delvoye started tattooing pig skins taken from slaughterhouses in the United States in 1992, he began to tattoo live pigs in 1997. Delvoye was interested in the idea that “the pig would literally grow in value," ^[7] both in a physical and economic sense. He ultimately moved the operation to an Art Farm in China in 2004 where restrictions regarding animal welfare were less strict. The pigs have been inked with a diverse array of designs, including the trival, such as skulls and crosses, to Louis Vuitton designs, to designs dictated by the pig's anatomy. The designs are created by Delvoye and his three colleagues in residence."^[8] In an interview with ArtAsiaPacific's Paul Laster, Delvoye described the process of tattooing a live pig,"we sedate it, shave it and apply Vaseline to its skin.""^[9] As another manifestation of contradiction in Delvoye’s art, he owns a pig farm though he is a practicing vegetarian.'

Wow - he's a vegetarian! It does make me feel better that he sedates them...the after burn of a tattoo isn't painful like the actual moment. His idea of the pig increasing in value is interesting...and when you see the stuffed pigs (I guess the ones from the slaughterhouse in 1997) - it is fascinating. I wanted to say a fascinating 'object' but I was conflicted in calling a taxidermy animal an 'object'. But then they are - all taxidermy animals are objects. And the difference is that their bodies are preserved as an object or cut up and consumed. Although I believe taxidermy animals do have their insides /meat taken from them for consumption and the preserved part is merely the outside? This opens up an entire thought process in my head about embalming and burying humans, carnivores, vegetarians, the dead body and how/if it cycles through the earth. Mind opened.

Gothic



One of the first pieces of his work that I saw and loved was one of his gothic pieces - specifically the filigreed dump truck or cement truck models similar to the cement mixer above. It was in a gallery space amongst some of his Xray stained glass pieces - also similar to those above. Many of these stained glass pieces are homoerotic in nature along with some S+M imagery. They blatantly refer to Catholicism in their stained glass shapes and blatantly thumbed their noses at Catholicism and maybe Religion in general with their erotic nature.

Aside from the amount of skill and work it'd take to make one of the filigreed pieces - I was attracted to the ridiculousness of having an overly-decorated representation of a functional object. The decor is Flemish Baroque and the objects that are made range from dump trucks to buildings. I think that this decor also speaks Catholic to me - only in that it is about decoration and elaborateness Catholic churches often contain much decor.

Cloaca


Cloaca is Delvoye's digestive machine. Food in = waste out. I've heard it stinks too. He wanted to see the digestive process and comment on the uselessness of life. The fact that he made this machine - this body - is interesting. It only functions to turn food into waste - but it does move machine and body closer to each other from a certain point of view.....

I found an interview with Wim Delvoye and Nicolas Bourriaud.

From the article:

'I’m a boy and I’m not ashamed of what I’m made up of: science, trucks, cars, models, and to a certain extent my aggressive side. And I never use the female body. Except in stained glass windows. Most of the time, however, I explore scatology: the colon and the stomach. Sexuality interests me less than digestion does as a subject and as a metaphor. I’m more interested in themes that unify. In the 1990s, women artists began focusing their work on a new subject: their sexuality. This quasi-institutionalized separatism of the 1990s shocks me. It’s politically correct: all of a sudden, during the post-cold war period, people could no longer hide behind the flag. The United States of Mickey Mouse was over. Everyone had to invent an identity for themselves. There were so many good social projects camouflaging a kind of visual poverty…Art is not by definition morally good. I’ve never believed in justifying one’s good heart or intelligence through art.'


He does have a masculine side to his work that I never fully recognized as being masculine. It isn't over caricatured masculinity that yells out MAN to me. I probably didn't recognize it because what he considers overtly masculine, I consider the norm- since femininity is the Other. At first I wasn't sure if what he was saying about feminist art and identity art in the 90s was a dig on those artists or on feminists...I'm still not sure. He does say 'social projects camouflaging a kind of visual poverty' which makes me think that he may think that socially critical work doesn't focus enough on the image???? He says he is interested in digestion because he is interested in art that unifies - not separates as sexuality does. Can that really be done though? It seems like he is creeping towards universality there....

There is definitely something within Delvoye's point of departure -mentioned above- which confuses me. But I do know what I am attracted to in his work - regardless of his intentions:

1. reference to Catholicism
2. use of heavy decor for images of functional objects
3. the body that is created by making the digestive machine
4. something dark in his sense of humor and his work