Ben Vautier
This week at the L Magazine I take a look at the work of Wade Guyton, Kelley Walker, and The X-Initiative fair currently on view in Chelsea. The teaser below.
“I hesitate to take a position that might impede the forward march of the new,” a friend told me last week in a discussion about Fluxus art. He was responding to my apathy about the movement and its place in art history. Known for making no distinction between life and practice, Fluxus artists expanded art's definition, helping to open up a myriad of new avenues for artistic exploration. Still, I can count the number of people I know on one hand interested in seeing another headstand Fluxus performance, and I'm fairly certain pushing the “What is art?” boundary in the age of “Whatever I tell you it is” has reached a few inevitable limits.
Beyond there no longer being much point in challenging the various forms art can take, one must also question the once implicit value of “the new.” I don't think anyone has any concrete answers, but Wade Guyton and Kelley Walker's collaborative efforts represent one of a growing number of artists who don't appear overly concerned with re-inventing the wheel.
This year's Venice Biennale included a Guyton/Walker room, with their now trademark stock images of oranges and banana peels on paint cans and crates. The brightly colored banana specifically evokes Warhol, its ubiquity underscoring the essential nature of the original silkscreens. Were it not for its edition number, it would be indistinguishable from anything else reproducible. Furthering Warhol's transformation of appropriated imagery into art, Guyton and Walker's use of pictorial forms not only functions as the art, but serves to obscure objects either used to make or protect it. As such, the artists successfully recast the popular question “What is art?” to read, “Where is art?”
To read the full piece click here.
{ 17 comments }
That’s a great topic that really could be explored in more depth. We have a choice between only novelty on one hand and refinement and recombination of already existing modes on the other. It relates to much of what Arthur Danto explores in his seminal book The End of Art as well as with Saltz’s perpetual peeve about “Nth degree conceptualism.”
I appreciate your practical point that no one wants to sit through these Fluxus type performances more than once. But even in the art world many or most don’t even want to do it once. It’s enough to just read a one sentence description of the tedious thing. What is lacking generally is a commentary on substance, value (intellectual) and quality from a larger cultural and historical perspective.
That’s a great topic that really could be explored in more depth. We have a choice between only novelty on one hand and refinement and recombination of already existing modes on the other. It relates to much of what Arthur Danto explores in his seminal book The End of Art as well as with Saltz’s perpetual peeve about “Nth degree conceptualism.”
I appreciate your practical point that no one wants to sit through these Fluxus type performances more than once. But even in the art world many or most don’t even want to do it once. It’s enough to just read a one sentence description of the tedious thing. What is lacking generally is a commentary on substance, value (intellectual) and quality from a larger cultural and historical perspective.
That’s a great topic that really could be explored in more depth. We have a choice between only novelty on one hand and refinement and recombination of already existing modes on the other. It relates to much of what Arthur Danto explores in his seminal book The End of Art as well as with Saltz’s perpetual peeve about “Nth degree conceptualism.”
I appreciate your practical point that no one wants to sit through these Fluxus type performances more than once. But even in the art world many or most don’t even want to do it once. It’s enough to just read a one sentence description of the tedious thing. What is lacking generally is a commentary on substance, value (intellectual) and quality from a larger cultural and historical perspective.
This is a nice post. Your friend might drive me crazy- “the forward march of the new” seems quite backward looking to me (never mind “hesitating to take a position”). Philosophically speaking, does it seem like very many artists are claiming the new as their aspirations? I think there was a specific time when this was the drive, which I always have identified with the avant-garde. But if we look at well-known (or not!) artists today, is it accurate to understand many of them as trying to “reinvent the wheel”?
So you’re right to say “the once-implicit value of the new”, in my opinion. It becomes interesting then to consider what has taken the place of the new, as a central concern of otherwise heterogenous art practices- or at least, it’s interesting to me. The bummer is, it seems like personality/celebrity is the new new.
This is a nice post. Your friend might drive me crazy- “the forward march of the new” seems quite backward looking to me (never mind “hesitating to take a position”). Philosophically speaking, does it seem like very many artists are claiming the new as their aspirations? I think there was a specific time when this was the drive, which I always have identified with the avant-garde. But if we look at well-known (or not!) artists today, is it accurate to understand many of them as trying to “reinvent the wheel”?
So you’re right to say “the once-implicit value of the new”, in my opinion. It becomes interesting then to consider what has taken the place of the new, as a central concern of otherwise heterogenous art practices- or at least, it’s interesting to me. The bummer is, it seems like personality/celebrity is the new new.
This is a nice post. Your friend might drive me crazy- “the forward march of the new” seems quite backward looking to me (never mind “hesitating to take a position”). Philosophically speaking, does it seem like very many artists are claiming the new as their aspirations? I think there was a specific time when this was the drive, which I always have identified with the avant-garde. But if we look at well-known (or not!) artists today, is it accurate to understand many of them as trying to “reinvent the wheel”?
So you’re right to say “the once-implicit value of the new”, in my opinion. It becomes interesting then to consider what has taken the place of the new, as a central concern of otherwise heterogenous art practices- or at least, it’s interesting to me. The bummer is, it seems like personality/celebrity is the new new.
*please disregard above quote
how is the forward march of the new backwards??? Did technological development stop during the postmodern era?
At this point, cultural ‘progress’ is a result of technological innovation. This trend is only accelerating, and I think it is contemporary artists’ responsibility to address this accelerating change, while linking the ‘new’ to its historical antecedents …
Fluxus needed to exist in order to completely break down the barriers of what could be considered art.
Thats not an endpoint, but it is the current bedrock for artistic production.
Personality/Celebrity was a result of monocultural mass communication. This was new for Warhol, so I think your observation is about ummm… 40 years out of date.
The new ‘new’ is about customization, alteration, niche communities, virtual reality, telepathic communication, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, etc.
Modernism continues, get with it.
*please disregard above quote
how is the forward march of the new backwards??? Did technological development stop during the postmodern era?
At this point, cultural ‘progress’ is a result of technological innovation. This trend is only accelerating, and I think it is contemporary artists’ responsibility to address this accelerating change, while linking the ‘new’ to its historical antecedents …
Fluxus needed to exist in order to completely break down the barriers of what could be considered art.
Thats not an endpoint, but it is the current bedrock for artistic production.
Personality/Celebrity was a result of monocultural mass communication. This was new for Warhol, so I think your observation is about ummm… 40 years out of date.
The new ‘new’ is about customization, alteration, niche communities, virtual reality, telepathic communication, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, etc.
Modernism continues, get with it.
Wow. Hey, look, I was only asking. But I’m unconvinced. I don’t buy your positivist approach- it’s historical, to me. I’m unmoved by the claim that cultural progress is bound up with technological advancement. The “march of the new” was to the beat of avant-gardism, and gave us formal abstraction… to the best of my understanding. It’s interesting to me to consider artists today who are, in your opinion, Daniel, occupied with achieving ‘newness’ in the rhetorical terms of a march.
Your point about Andy Warhol is worth considering. The difference, I would say, is the formal, material decisions he made that had an effacing effect on individuality. Hard to parse at the moment, but I don’t think Warhol’s take on fame aligns with what I’m thinking of. Maybe, Warhol’s subject was fame/celebrity*, but contemporary artists’ subjects are too often, at bottom, themselves. There was a subversive edge to Warhol’s project that may be lacking today.
But hey I’m an artist, not an historian…
But I think I’m with it.
*this is an oversimplification
Wow. Hey, look, I was only asking. But I’m unconvinced. I don’t buy your positivist approach- it’s historical, to me. I’m unmoved by the claim that cultural progress is bound up with technological advancement. The “march of the new” was to the beat of avant-gardism, and gave us formal abstraction… to the best of my understanding. It’s interesting to me to consider artists today who are, in your opinion, Daniel, occupied with achieving ‘newness’ in the rhetorical terms of a march.
Your point about Andy Warhol is worth considering. The difference, I would say, is the formal, material decisions he made that had an effacing effect on individuality. Hard to parse at the moment, but I don’t think Warhol’s take on fame aligns with what I’m thinking of. Maybe, Warhol’s subject was fame/celebrity*, but contemporary artists’ subjects are too often, at bottom, themselves. There was a subversive edge to Warhol’s project that may be lacking today.
But hey I’m an artist, not an historian…
But I think I’m with it.
*this is an oversimplification
Wow. Hey, look, I was only asking. But I’m unconvinced. I don’t buy your positivist approach- it’s historical, to me. I’m unmoved by the claim that cultural progress is bound up with technological advancement. The “march of the new” was to the beat of avant-gardism, and gave us formal abstraction… to the best of my understanding. It’s interesting to me to consider artists today who are, in your opinion, Daniel, occupied with achieving ‘newness’ in the rhetorical terms of a march.
Your point about Andy Warhol is worth considering. The difference, I would say, is the formal, material decisions he made that had an effacing effect on individuality. Hard to parse at the moment, but I don’t think Warhol’s take on fame aligns with what I’m thinking of. Maybe, Warhol’s subject was fame/celebrity*, but contemporary artists’ subjects are too often, at bottom, themselves. There was a subversive edge to Warhol’s project that may be lacking today.
But hey I’m an artist, not an historian…
But I think I’m with it.
*this is an oversimplification
Ok, I know using words like ‘forward-march’ is a little bit of a turn off… How about more of an upright wobbly spiral. I.e.
http://purplemotes.net/extras/tatlin.jpg
or http://www.kheper.net/evolution/evolutionary_spiral.gif
I do not think that trend just all of a sudden stopped in the 70’s. I do think that minimalism, fluxus, early conceptualism do mark the end of some sort of ‘ephemeralization’ process in art.
I agree with you about the problem with many contemporary artists boring self-reflectivity. But, just ignore it and move on. Nobody expects somebody to appreciate every genre of music. And likewise, there is no need for a singular story line in art..
All I’m saying is, Unless we cause a global catastrophe, (or just fail) we our steadily progressing towards the establishment of a global consciousness. we are on the verge of post-humanity, and soon, personal-identity-art is going to seem very very quaint.
Ok, I know using words like ‘forward-march’ is a little bit of a turn off… How about more of an upright wobbly spiral. I.e.
http://purplemotes.net/extras/tatlin.jpg
or http://www.kheper.net/evolution/evolutionary_spiral.gif
I do not think that trend just all of a sudden stopped in the 70’s. I do think that minimalism, fluxus, early conceptualism do mark the end of some sort of ‘ephemeralization’ process in art.
I agree with you about the problem with many contemporary artists boring self-reflectivity. But, just ignore it and move on. Nobody expects somebody to appreciate every genre of music. And likewise, there is no need for a singular story line in art..
All I’m saying is, Unless we cause a global catastrophe, (or just fail) we our steadily progressing towards the establishment of a global consciousness. we are on the verge of post-humanity, and soon, personal-identity-art is going to seem very very quaint.
Ok, I know using words like ‘forward-march’ is a little bit of a turn off… How about more of an upright wobbly spiral. I.e.
http://purplemotes.net/extras/tatlin.jpg
or http://www.kheper.net/evolution/evolutionary_spiral.gif
I do not think that trend just all of a sudden stopped in the 70’s. I do think that minimalism, fluxus, early conceptualism do mark the end of some sort of ‘ephemeralization’ process in art.
I agree with you about the problem with many contemporary artists boring self-reflectivity. But, just ignore it and move on. Nobody expects somebody to appreciate every genre of music. And likewise, there is no need for a singular story line in art..
All I’m saying is, Unless we cause a global catastrophe, (or just fail) we our steadily progressing towards the establishment of a global consciousness. we are on the verge of post-humanity, and soon, personal-identity-art is going to seem very very quaint.
It’s not that it’s a turn-off so much as it doesn’t seem accurate to understand “the new” as a central concern of artists. Marching or not. Slate.com currently has a little feature that marks the 100th anniversary of the Futurists. That about illustrates the historical context of the ‘forward march of the new’: 100 years ago, before the world wars and the technologically enhanced razing of the West.
The thing I can’t get on board with is the idea that technological innovation will induce post-humanity. That’s a big-city conceit. Looking at your website, I’m mindful of Atomized, by Houllebecq, which I presume you’ve read. I don’t buy any of that; I think it’s a representation of the historical sublimation of progress and technology conflated with the theory of evolution in the hyper time frame of contemporary culture. Evangelicals have the Rapture, to which ‘post-humanity’ is the other side of the ideological, apocalyptic coin.
It’s not that it’s a turn-off so much as it doesn’t seem accurate to understand “the new” as a central concern of artists. Marching or not. Slate.com currently has a little feature that marks the 100th anniversary of the Futurists. That about illustrates the historical context of the ‘forward march of the new’: 100 years ago, before the world wars and the technologically enhanced razing of the West.
The thing I can’t get on board with is the idea that technological innovation will induce post-humanity. That’s a big-city conceit. Looking at your website, I’m mindful of Atomized, by Houllebecq, which I presume you’ve read. I don’t buy any of that; I think it’s a representation of the historical sublimation of progress and technology conflated with the theory of evolution in the hyper time frame of contemporary culture. Evangelicals have the Rapture, to which ‘post-humanity’ is the other side of the ideological, apocalyptic coin.
It’s not that it’s a turn-off so much as it doesn’t seem accurate to understand “the new” as a central concern of artists. Marching or not. Slate.com currently has a little feature that marks the 100th anniversary of the Futurists. That about illustrates the historical context of the ‘forward march of the new’: 100 years ago, before the world wars and the technologically enhanced razing of the West.
The thing I can’t get on board with is the idea that technological innovation will induce post-humanity. That’s a big-city conceit. Looking at your website, I’m mindful of Atomized, by Houllebecq, which I presume you’ve read. I don’t buy any of that; I think it’s a representation of the historical sublimation of progress and technology conflated with the theory of evolution in the hyper time frame of contemporary culture. Evangelicals have the Rapture, to which ‘post-humanity’ is the other side of the ideological, apocalyptic coin.
Comments on this entry are closed.