Showing posts with label MoMA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MoMA. Show all posts

Friday, February 25, 2011

MOMA, 11 West 53 street, Picasso:Guitars, 1912-1914. Through June 6th




In 1912, while in his late cubist phase, and still collaborating with George Braque, Pablo Picasso constructed a guitar out of cardboard, paper and string. Obviously it wasn't a functional guitar. Clearly it wasn't a painting (there was no paint involved). It didn't seem to be a sculpture, because of its frail materials, and because it hung on the wall in relatively low relief. It wasn't really a drawing or a collage either, because it didn't lay flat. Although, it clearly developed as an extension of collage. It obviously grew out of cubist sensibilities, but the materials were so cheap and junky looking, and it was thrown together in such a spontaneous, almost careless way that it doesn't at first look like a serious work of art. It certainly didn't look like it at the time. It takes a minute to get past the materials before you can appreciate how structurally imaginative and graceful it is.
What results over the next two years is a pretty sizable body of paintings, drawings, and collages based on the guitar form. Sometimes the subject is specifically a guitar. Sometimes it's some thing else that's clearly influenced by the structure of the guitar. He would break up, and reconfigure the different parts in the cubist manner he and Braque had invented. The one thing all the work in the show has in common is its fearless disregard for convention. When I say convention I'm not just talking about formal convention. Everyone knows what a rebel Picasso was in that department. I'm talking about materials and classifications of art forms. He would mix a charcoal drawing in with a painting. Sometimes he would combine newsprint, wallpaper and cardboard into a drawing, or mix grit (whatever that is) in with his paint. This makes it very difficult to distinguish one medium from another. The general perception is that this was groundbreaking because he was mixing real world elements in with the illusinistic space of the image. This flattened out the surface and drew attention to the picture plane, and subsequently the artifice of the image. The silhouette of a bottle in a still life or the shadow on a mans face is really a clipping from a newspaper. Another thing real world materials have though, is real world references. Contrasting cardboard with wall paper, or a newspaper article with sheet music turns an image into a dumping ground for cultural detritus. Did I mention that this was 1912, not 1985. Not Pop art, not post modernism, early modernism.
In 1914 Picasso reconstructed his first cardboard guitar with sheet metal to make a more archival version. That is also in the show. Personally I prefer the cardboard one. I also prefer the drawings to the paintings. They're more fragile, more spontaneous. They seem more about thinking through problems than making precious objects. Why is art that's made to last more valued than art that deteriorates with time. You'd think it would be the other way around. There's also something less serious looking about the drawings, which reveal a side of Picasso most people don't think of. The artist as playful intimatist. In one of the wall texts it mentions that André Breton was strongly influenced by these works. It's hard to think of Picasso as a surrealist, although his liberal use of the readymade and his blatant disregard for conventional aesthetics may indicate an influence on the dadaists. The single most pressing question I had leaving the exhibit with was why the guitar? Why not the clarinet?

Thursday, October 7, 2010

MOMA, 11 west 53rd street Abstract Expressionist New York: Through April 25th




MoMA: Abstract Expressionist New York

To use the term "New York abstract expressionist" is a little like saying "southern NASCAR driver", or "tall NBA player."  Virtually all Ab Ex's were New Yorkers at one time or another. The only one I can think of that wasn't was Richard Diebenkorn, who painted out of the California Bay Area.  There might be others, but their names don't exactly jump to mind.   Anyway, it's considered a New York movement, and it's historically what made New York the center of the art world. It's been over 60 years since these artists came to prominence, but I think they're still a little touchy about the whole thing in Europe. The show is all work that's already in MOMA's permanent collection, so if you're a frequent visitor to the museum you've undoubtedly seen a lot of it before, but a lot of the work isn't usually on display, so some at the very least should be new to you. I know there's a lot that I hadn't seen before, and I go there all the time.
It's a big show that covers a big subject and while the bulk of it is on the 4th floor of the museum, it extends down onto the 3rd, and 2nd floors. While Abstract Expressionism is known primarily as a movement of painters, there is a lot of sculpture in the show by artists such as Isamu Noguchi, David Smith, and Herbert Ferber. Refreshingly, there are also a lot of women in the show, like Lee Krasner (of course), Grace Hartigan, the always underrated Joan Mitchell, and the always overrated Helen Frankenthaler. Louise Nevelson and Louise Bourgeois both have great pieces in the show. They are also both sculptors and women, so by including them the curators manage to kill two birds with one stone.
The show starts with some of the early, surrealist inspired, quasi-figurative work that kind of got the ball rolling on the movement by artists like Arshile Gorky, Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, and the under appreciated Richard Pousette-Dart. Also, there are a few beautiful pieces by Ad Reinhardt, who's paintings are frequently mistaken as a minimalist. Pollocks "She Wolf"(1943) is the most famous painting in this section, and probably the truest to the surrealist technique of using automatism as a tool to unleashing images from the collective unconscious. Those images would later famously dissolve into pure automatism.   Actually, Pollock was more committed to the ideals of surrealism than most of the surrealists were. He also had the tenacity to take it a lot further than they did. But, they were French and he was a New Yorker, so what do you expect.
Art historical convention breaks the Ab Ex's into two groups; action painters, and color field painters (ignoring the sculptors completely). This show draws attention to how the surrealist roots of this movement created in the artists a fascination with, and an intense search for the sublime. So, I think you could just as easily divide them into two other categories; Ab Ex's that focused on totemic, mythic forms and images, and those that focused on intuitive, painterly abstraction.
In the first category Rothko has to be seen as the leading figure. He's represented by some powerful work in this show, and I have to say that people who can't appreciate him must just lead sad, empty, pathetic lives. Clifford Still is another great "totemic" abstractionist, but is less accessible than Rothko. Barnett Newman painted a couple of iconic images, but to me his paintings are far too self consciously important. Usually when I look at his work I want to say "relax, it's just a painting". Other artists that fit into this category would be Robert Motherwell who I have to admit I never really understood, Adolph Gottlieb, and Bradley Walker Tomlin. Both of whom I also don't really get.
Some of those who would fit into the "painterly intuition" category would be Pollock (obviously), deKooning, Mitchell, Krasner, and Hans Hoffman. Personally I prefer this second group, but some of these artists seem to have pursued more lyrical goals than tragic, or sublime ones. Pollock seemed to be able to do both, keeping a foot in each world. In some ways the same could be said for Philip Guston, who after becoming one of the leading abstract expressionists turned his back on the movement, and in some ways helped to destroy it. If Charles Burchfield is Americas Van Gogh, Guston is our Picasso.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Lee Bontecou & Bruce Nauman @ MoMA through Aug. 23 & 30






Bontecou is an artist whose work caught my eye a few times while wandering through MOMA's permanent collection. I think I may have also seen her work in some other museums modern collections, but I can't remember where. Anyway, the work I saw, and that registered in my mind were the large, imposing canvas and metal wall sculptures that she is most known for. She made most of these pieces between 1959 and 1967. I liked them because they seem to fit into that late modernist school of painting that Frank Stella and Elizabeth Murray are part of, where the flatness of the canvas/picture plane literally morphs, and changes shape, so that the sheer physicality of the work causes it to subtly enter the realm of sculpture, but not quite. Unlike Stella and Murray though Bontecou's work seemed somewhat threatening, and ominous. Some look like giant mouths, or post apocalyptic vortexes. I'd only seen a few of her pieces though, and was intrigued to see what else she'd done.
I was more than a little disappointed to see that the whole show fit into one gallery. Apparently she moved to rural Pennsylvania in 1971, and the work she's made since hasn't gotten her much attention. There are a number of drawings and lithographs in the show that seem to be very surrealist or futurist inspired, at least in form. Some of the more interesting ones are made with the soot that was expelled from her blowtorch. But, those are really only interesting because the medium is so unusual. The drawings made from more conventional means are not so interesting, and look like studies for three dimensional work that's no where to be seen. In the middle of the gallery is a very dynamic spinning mobile that apparently she's been working on for 18 years. It's very beautiful, but I would have liked to have seen more of the big cavernous wall sculptures. Unfortunately there were only 2 in the show. I guess I was expecting more of a retrospective of sorts. Technically I suppose this is one, but I would have liked to have seen more work, and learned more about this artist. What I walked away with was that some 45 years ago she made some pretty arresting and important work, and everything since has been kind of a let down.

Bruce Nauman: Days, through Aug 23
This is a very impressive sound installation by one of Americas great living conceptual artists. As a rule I'm not a huge fan of conceptual art, but I am a fan of Nauman. It's kind of hard not to be. If you've ever seen his work, you remember it. This show consists of about a dozen thin white square speakers suspended by wire cables that reach from the floor to the ceiling. Coming out of the speakers are the recorded voices of children and adults reciting the days of the week on a loop. Some of the voices are men, and some are women. Some are old, and some young. Some recite the days in the correct order, and some don't. The speakers face one another from about 12 or 15 feet away, creating a path that the visitor is encouraged to walk through. There's also plenty of room to walk around or behind them. Nothing's hidden, or disguised as anything it isn't. Like most of Naumans work I don't know what the hell it's about, but it's a very elegant and hypnotic installation. If you get a chance you should get your ass over there. Good stuff!

Friday, August 7, 2009

Museum of Modern Art, 11 West 53 street James Ensor. Through Sep 21


When you look at the history of modern art and the significant personalities that designed it James Ensor (1860-1949) has to be seen as something of a unicorn. He's a fascinating, and clearly important artist, but he can't really be categorized. He partially fits into a couple of different movements, but not fully into any of them. We know he was a major figure in the Belgian avant-garde, but I don't know if that was a very hard thing to do, because for the life of me I can't think of a single other Belgian painter. Can you?

The show concentrates on his early work, and most of the paintings and drawings are from the 1880s and 90s. After getting out of art school Ensor set up a studio in the attic of his families curiosity shop in a small resort town off the North sea, and worked there for the rest of his life. His early paintings are dark murky cityscapes, still life's and interiors where he uses a thick impasto and the liberal use of a pallet knife as well as both ends of his brushes. A lot of these paintings look strikingly similar to some of Cezanne's early work. This style of painting was called "tachisme", which meant to mark or stain; something Ensor did quite aggressively. The surfaces of these early paintings are very physically beaten, scratched and marked up in an almost violent manner. There is however a clear sophistication to the way he painted, something very evident in paintings like "The Oyster Eater" (1882). References to northern old masters like Rembrant, Breugel, and Bosch can be found throughout the show. This strange mix of sophistication and brutality was a sign of his restless desire for innovation and need to rebel against aesthetic convention. It's particularly evident later in the show with his wildly improvisatory etchings and large scale drawings, that look almost like a cross between daVinci and a mental patent.

Some time around 1883 his pallet becomes brighter, and his images more eccentric. His figures and the relationship between them becomes more theatric. In some cases they seem farcical, in others tragic, and a strange symbolism seeps into his work. He starts including masks and sculls in his paintings, and becomes fascinated with cross dressing and death. The death obsession was so great that it actually drove him to paint his fathers corps lying in a coffin, apparently from life (so to speak). Around 1885 he became interested in the relationship between spirituality and the imagination, and sought to paint light as a subject. He reimagined religious images in bold provocative ways, like "Tribulations of St Anthony" (1887). In some cases he cross referenced biblical stories with contemporary culture. This culminated with his masterpiece "Christ's Entry into Brussels" (1889), which unfortunately isn't in the show (I blame the Getty). He also painted a number of self portraits as Christ, or as a martyred Christ-like figure. His persecution complex was pretty out of control.   Other times he painted himself dressed in women's clothing, or as a fool or clown pissing in a gutter, and in one case as a pickled herring being chewed on by two sculls. While walking through the galleries I twice overheard someone say "Man, he was really fucked in the head." While I think that's a bit of an oversimplification, I can't entirely disagree.

Ensor had a very individual and idiosyncratic vision, but it was a vision that never grew complacent. His career is marked by an overwhelming obsession with history and convention, and an equally overwhelming need to rebel against, and in some cases revise it. The fact that he had such a broad and detailed knowledge of art history and managed to make so many cultural and historical references, yet still maintained such an unusual and autonomous vision is testimony to his strength of character and artistic integrity. He had conflicting views of his identity as an artist, views that he never seemed to feel the need to resolve. He saw himself as both satirist and mystic, as narcissist and martyr, as cultural sophisticant and outsider visionary, as old master and insolent child. Chronologically the last painting in the show is "Moses and the Birds" (1924). I think it's one of, if not the most stunning and original piece in the show, and it's one that only an artist who had traveled such a unique path could have painted, even if that path was confined to a small Belgian attic.


Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Kippenberger on Kippenberger -- We Have the Essay!



An Essay on Martin Kippenberger by his sister,

Susanne Kippenberger

Heimweh Highway
or:
Vom Einfachsten nach Hause.

'Every artist is a human being.'

He was still a child when he got a house of his own, a wooden hut, hidden away in our garden and named after him: Martinsklause. His very first house. It was to be his only house.

Why he got it? Perhaps, because he was special. The only boy in amongst four girls, squeezed in between the 'big ones' and the 'little ones'. Sometimes he was put in with one lot, sometimes with the others, but didn't really belong anywhere. A boy, who wasn't a proper boy, a clown, who often wept and who preferred painting to playing with cars. 'Martin unser Künstler' [Martin our Artist] was written in big letters on the kitchen wall.

He rarely made use of Martinsklause. What could he do with a lonely hut in a wood? He never was a hermit. He longed to be with people.

The house in Essen that we grew up in was always full of people – and full of art. He was still a child the first time he left it. Sickly, not good at school, a difficult child (today's teachers would have called him hyperactive), so my parents sent him away. First to a family friend, a women who illustrated picture books and lived in the Bavarian Forest, when he was just nine. After that, to boarding school, first in the Black Forest, then in Altenkirchen. That was how his life's odyssey began. As a teenager he came back to Essen. Later he went to Otterndorf, Hamburg, Berlin, Florence Stuttgart, St. Georgen, Cologne, Paris, Los Angeles, Madrid, Tokyo, Frankfurt, Vienna, Seville, Burgenland (Austria), Greece, Cologne again . . . St. Georgen. . . Burgenland. And every time with the intention to settle in that place. 'I never managed it, but the will is still there, as it ever was', as he remarked in an interview in 1993.

And then – he arrived. In 1996 he married the photographer Elfie Semotan, with whom he also worked. She was older than him and the mother to two sons. He felt at home with her in her house in Burgenland; for him it was a place where he could be at peace, where he could work and even be alone.

At that time, he did have a house after all – a house devoted to art. The museum on Syros, of which he was the self-styled Director, is of course an absurd skeleton of a house, a concrete ruin, with no walls, no windows, no doors. He had wanted to build a tower here, near his friends Michel and Catherina Würthle, a tower for painting in and for sleeping. Now that he was with Elfie the tower was to become a proper house. The architect's plans were drawn up, but there was no time left for the construction work. A year after the wedding he was dead.

Heimweh Highway 90: That's what he called one of his catalogues, with a cover picture showing himself, as a boy, crushed into a photo booth with our father. This Heimweh – homesickness – with Martin went hand in hand with its opposite, Fernweh; longing for a home yet at the same time running away from the very idea in order to be free of all obligations, duties and constraints; a desire to find a resting place that was at odds with the uninhibited curiosity with which he threw himself at anything new; torn between having to be alone, in order to paint, and not being able to be alone; the dilemma of being recognised for what he had done yet not wanting to become public property. This was the ground bass of his life and his art, a lifelong struggle: Vom Einfachsten nach Hause was the subtitle of the catalogue Kippenberger! Abschied vom Jugendbonus! which he gave himself for thirtieth birthday.

Bitte nicht nach Hause schicken (translation missing) is the title of one of his most penetrating self-portraits. It shows him with the gaze of a refugee child that has lost its home and is begging to be taken in, a child that can never go back. Another painting, where he is seen from behind, in his underpants, going somewhere or other, bears the words 'Nicht zu Hause schlafen müssen' [Not to have to sleep at home].

'It was a form of escape', says Wiltrud Roser, the picture-book illustrator to whom he had been sent as a nine-year-old – and whom he couldn't wait to go and see. Now, this minute, or not at all. A few weeks later he returned home with the same impatient relish. Perhaps his whole life was a form of escape, but not from problems, if anything from stasis and boredom – it was always an escape to, never from. Being sent home would mean going backwards. But he wanted to make progress, to achieve something.

'To understand Kippenberger, you have to understand him as an artist who always chooses off-kilter, strange perspectives', writes Jutta Koether in her foreword to Heimweh Highway 90; 'an artist who stays in one place, lives out his vision of that place, for a limited time, before he's off again'. Only rarely, unwillingly and in some embarrassment did he ever return to a place once he had left it behind him, to Cologne, for instance, or St. Georgen. Input-Output was his own title for a series in which he drew, on hotel invoices, all the ground plans of all the homes he had lived in, going right back to his childhood. 'Son, all you do is move from one place to the next!' our mother wrote to him when he was studying art in Hamburg in the mid-1970s and kept moving from one shared flat to the next. 'If a person is to find their own field', he wrote back, 'they have to collect all sorts of life experiences. Every flat – every person that I've shared with – is a stage on that journey. If you can see that there is no room for manoeuvre, that there is no longer any chance of developing further, you just have to move out. A change is a new beginning, every time.' And, as he assured her, ultimately he did want to develop: 'It's not just a financial investment.' No input, no output.

'Happily married, two children': in the interview with Jutta Koether this is his horrifying vision of cosy domesticity, the end to one's existence as a creative artist. He was the kind who was forever exceeding limits: the limits of embarrassment and good taste, the limits normally associated with particular media and styles. And he was duly punished for that, even calling a series of sculptures Martin, into the Corner, You Should Be Ashamed of Yourself. But a fixed abode would have been a prison to him.

There are no simple equations to apply to Martin Kippenberger, not even in terms of his biography: life=art. People can understand his art without knowing him or his life, and it's important to avoid simplistically assuming that his art is a reflection of his life. The idea that the biographical stations of his life can be reconstructed from his drawings, for instance, is sadly misguided: Martin never slept in all the hotels whose writing paper he used for drawing on.

The connection between his life and work is more complex than that – and interesting for that very reason. Art was not a reflection of his life – it was his life. 'Wer sich dem Abgrund stellt, muss sich nicht wundern, wenn er fliegen kann' [People who face the abyss shouldn't be surprised if they can fly]
is written on one of his paintings; it shows a house on wheels, a rubbish bin as someone's home. That's how he worked, and how he lived – always on the move, always skirting along the edge of the abyss, in a mobile home, of sorts. As artists go, he was a travelling salesman, he once said. A travelling salesman is constantly travelling around, knocking on strange doors, asking to be let in; someone in the business of persuasion, selling his wares – or not – and moving on again. An exhausting life, a lonely trade – a 'one man business', as he himself once described art. As an artist he was a solo entertainer, a rep and a dep, suffering in the name of art for others, like Fred the Frog whom he nailed to the cross. And he was also Spiderman, spinning his ubiquitous webs and forming families. Long before he got to know Kafka's Amerika and the Theatre of Oklahoma he had his own travelling circus – a more or less steady circle of friends who travelled around the world with him, going to exhibition openings, spending days and nights with him in bars. People, not places, were his home.

Exciting – that's how his life of artistic excess looked from a distance to his fans. He himself found it 'desperately tiring' . . . 'a life constantly on the move, with no private life whatsoever'. And as he once said, he couldn't be cutting an ear off every day. But there were a lot of days when he did just that, leading a wild life, racing along at top speed – and always looking out for places to have a break by the wayside. Staying for a few days or weeks with friends and acquaintances, where he felt accepted and taken care of. Where he didn't have to keep up some act, where he could afford to let weaknesses show, and could hold his peace. 'Happily married, two children': when he needed to refuel he was only too glad to stay with people in steady relationships, a family, a home, never mind if it was all a bit petit-bourgeois.

Evan as a student in Hamburg he used to go once a week to see his friends Ina Barfuß and Thomas Wachweger – a long-standing couple – for a meal of cabbage roulades. He liked it when people cooked for him, because he liked being mothered. Best of all he liked children's food, simple things, like black pudding – comfort food that reminded him of his own childhood home: pasta bake and spaghetti bolognaise, the only things our mother did well, were the mainstays of his diet, reliable constants in a restless existence. And food for art. As it says on a screen print of a sieve: 'Nicht wegwerfen, kann man noch für Nudelauflauf verwenden' [Don't throw it away, it'll do for pasta bake].

Often, instead of looking for an apartment of his own, Martin would move in with other people, into a readymade nest, where he could lay his eggs undisturbed, but which he could leave again whenever he liked. 'Housemate', as he described himself on a poster – or 'squatter', as the Grässlin's granddaughter once complained. For he would make every house his own, hanging pictures up, taking others down, always wanting to take charge, giving his occupation as 'Boss' on another poster. And it was just the same with towns and cities, leaving his mark on the places he went to, taking possession of them, shaping them, influencing them – 'the Kippenbergerisation of the world' as it was known. Every relocation was also a test: How much could a place take? Could he weave a web of connections there, could he find people who wanted the same things as him – 'something better'? How much could he take himself? Art was supposed to hurt. Life hurt, too.

So he was always on the move (although he never did have a driving license), but never went on holiday. 'Martin was always on duty', says Gisela Capitain. Wahrheit ist Arbeit – Truth is Work – another of his catalogues. When he went to Brazil, he didn't lie around on the beach, he later turned everything into art that he had seen there, that he had experienced and photographed. And again he exceeded the usual limits, breaking through the pain barrier. 'I can always tell, now we're getting to the stupid minutes, now the fun will stop. You have to get through that too. That's when you have to have spent three months in Brazil!' he tells Jutta Koether in an interview. 'Not just tick off two weeks and then say afterwards, I'd had the girl from Ipanema and her sister, too, and then it all became a bit too much of an effort, so I left again and . . . talk about "poor people" – "I've seen poor people!" That's all? That can't be all! You have to have real staying power! To experience the way that the greatest of pleasure and delights can flip into the opposite, and then to stay there!!'

He often lived in hotels for days, weeks, months on end, sometimes paying for his accommodation with pieces of art, as he did at the Chelsea in Cologne, as he often exchanged art for food and drink. 'Kippi can't even butter a piece of bread', Rudolf Augstein was once heard to say. But that was only half the truth. It was also easier to have someone else butter your bread, make your bed, clean the bath; then all you had to worry about was women and art. And it's nice when someone else butters your bread and puts a piece of sausage on it: that feeling of being looked after.

Große Wohnung, nie Zuhause is the telling title of one of the pictures that makes up the trilogy Berlin bei Nacht: not at home in the living room – out in the streets life is in full swing. And even when he did for once have a large apartment of his own, as he did in Cologne, at Friesenplatz, or in Frankfurt-Sachsenhausen, most of the time he was out and about. Bars, cafés, restaurants – even a bookshop – these were his living room, his office, his studio, his museum, his dining room, his salon. He didn't want to be at home on his own; bars provided him with a stage where he could make an appearance, and he could always be certain of meeting friends there. There was no distinction between his public and his private life, between life and art. 'I very clearly just sort of generally exist as a living vehicle.' And his art always involved contact with other people. The periods spent with his friend and fellow-artist Albert Oehlen, in Spain, in Austria, were amongst the happiest and most productive days of his life.

And he had a talent for being-at-home-anywhere. He would arrive somewhere – and he'd be fully there, instantly and as though it were the most natural thing in the world. He could work anywhere and in strange places he was never a stranger for long; he would already have identified his local and pub landlords and their families would take him in like a lost son. And he turned what he saw and experienced in bars into art. His home port was the Paris Bar in Berlin, owned by his friend Michel Würthle; a home, where his word mattered and which he had designed himself. On two separate occasions, a long time apart, he hung the pictures in the Paris Bar. A home for art: as was also Kippenberger's Büro, located on one floor of a factory in Berlin, where he lived in the late 1970s with Gisela Capitain and organised exhibitions and concerts. He put on his first Happening in the garden of our childhood, with live music and 150 guests.

Any form of routine was abhorrent to him; every exhibition project involved trying out something new. But he needed rituals, like drunkards need lamp posts – to hold on to. At twelve noon, 'on the absolute dot', the midday meal had to be on Mother Grässlin's table. In the afternoon he would have his nap, that was sacrosanct. At Christmas time he celebrated Christmas, with members of his own family or with elective relatives like the Grässlins in the Black Forest. And he would insist on the traditions we had known as children: turkey on Christmas Eve, a big fir tree, presents. . . He would even go to church. In fact he never left the Church. If there really was a Heaven, he wanted to get there, too. Not find himself standing outside a locked door when it came to it.

It wasn't the strange and unfamiliar, it was being alone that he was afraid of. He just couldn't stand it, someone always had to keep him company. And having a family meant you weren't alone. 'One Family – One Line' was his chosen inscription for our father's headstone, which he designed together with Hubert Kiecol. A few months after our father's death, in 1989, Martin's daughter was born, whom he named after our mother: Augusta Eleonore Helena. 'I wanted life to go on.' He had what he had been longing for, a family of his own. But he couldn't live the family life. So he moved on again.

He was an addict. Addicted to drugs and alcohol, to love, cigarettes and recognition. And the German süchtig (addicted) could hardly be closer to sehnsüchtig (filled with longing). He was both. And both come from suchen, 'to search', as he himself pointed out in his interview with Jutta Koether. 'Sucht', he declared, 'simply means searching'. Seek and ye shall find. 'I'm rejecting everything and searching for something decent.'

'Dieser Mann sucht eine Frau' [This man is looking for a wife] was the legend on a visiting-card-sized sticker with a photograph of Kippenberger and his address, which he put about all over Berlin in the 1970s. It was more than just a good joke. Many people underestimated this, didn't realize that there was always something deeply serious behind the irony. He was looking for a wife and a home, and in the end he found them. Perhaps he sensed that he was running out of time for looking. That now was the time for finding. For arriving. During the last year of his life, he was working on his last major piece, the Medusa series. Elfie photographed him in the poses that any victim of a shipwreck would adopt. He then painted himself in these attitudes. Poses between life and death, between despair and the hope of rescue. Of reaching dry land.

It wasn't enough for him to just live with Elfie, he wanted to marry her, he had to marry her, straight away. He was a romantic, a film-goer, a big fan of Hollywood. He wanted a Happy End.

The Happy End of Kafka's Amerika was his own chosen name for his masterpiece. He never actually finished the novel, he was too impatient for reading; he got someone else to tell him the story. He must have felt an affinity with Kafka's Karl: a boy whose parents sent him away from home, all alone to a strange place. A child of 16 who got the maid-servant pregnant and who never finished school. A humorous, optimistic boy, who believed in people, in their good side, and who – in the very first paragraph – discovers freedom, in the shape of the Statue of Liberty. And who soon realises how exhausting freedom is. Kafka's novel is also about going away, moving around, starting out anew tine after time – and ultimately it's also about arriving. About being allowed in. 'Everyone is welcome!' is the cry at the Theatre of Oklahoma, 'If you want to be an artist, join our company!' Again and again Karl reads this sentence: Everyone is welcome. So, he's welcome, too. Even if he is a little disappointed that he doesn't get the position he wants – he continually reminds himself that 'it was not so much a matter of the kind of work as of establishing oneself permanently somewhere'. And considering all those who had come to this theatre, Karl is all the more moved by 'how well they had been received and cared for'.

In his foreword to the book, Gespräche mit Martin Kippenberger, which accompanied the Kafka installation and with which he proposed to apply for a post interviewing job-applicants, he notes that in this work by Franz Kafka there is a prospect of a happy end. And at some point in his own book, he turns to Jutta Koether with the words, 'So let's get down to higher things now. Higher things will be very crucial. What we understand by love and affection and security. Is the collective term warmth?'

Thursday, February 26, 2009

MOMA/ Marlene Dumas Dec 14-Feb 16



While Ms Dumas has become quite well known in Europe and is seen as an important painter This is the first major US exhibit of the artists work. I'd heard a good deal about her and I've seen individual pieces in person and even more in reproduction, but I'd never seen an actual exhibition of her work before. After seeing room after room of her paintings and drawings I have to say I really don't get what all the fuss is about.

The curator decided to hang this show according to theme as opposed to chronology , which I usually think is a bad idea, but in this case the artists work has changed so little over the twenty-some years the show covers that it doesn't seem to make any difference. She has a very distinctive style, where she uses thin stains of paint complimented with thicker dry brush marks. She also likes to place pale white figures against dark black backgrounds, or dark black figures against white grounds. These are fairly unoriginal stylistic decisions she seems to have arrived at early on, and never deviated from.

The human figure is really the primary focus of her work, usually the female figure, but there are also a lot of babies and a few men (usually being tortured). There's also a lot of nudity, with a lot of violent and sexually charged images that can only be described as superficially expressive. Even more so are her titles. One example is a 1995 painting of a nude middle aged woman entitled "Magdalena (out of eggs out of business)". Like her paintings, it's not subtle but not very powerful or thought provoking either. Her compositions are oddly cramped and centralized, I guess to show the body as an unnaturally compressed or repressed entity. The faces are frequently flattened out, with mask like distortions. Her ink drawings are better because she doesn't have to deal with color (which isn't her strong suit), and the bodies become runny improvisational puddles of ink on the white paper.

The whole "body politics" issue and how it relates to painting is something that's been handled much better in the past. I'm reminded of Francisco Clement, or Francis Bacon, or even John Currin who are/were much better painters than Ms Dumas, and whose work isn't weighted down with all her tired feminist baggage.

If she were a 20 or 30 something year old artist having her first solo show I wouldn't be as critical of her work, but she isn't. I kept thinking as I walked through the galleries of the potential behind what she was doing. Maybe if she more directly addressed the history of how women and women's bodies have been depicted in painting, or if her depiction's of them were more original or idiosyncratic, or if there were some evocative narrative between the bodies then the work might be more interesting. These are issues she's going to have to deal with as an artist, but she's going to have to get past her complacency as a painter first.


MOMA/ Pipilotti Rist Nov 19-Feb 2




MOMA, 11 West 53st

And now for something completely different. On the second floor of the MOMA is a video installation by an artist I'd never heard of, but the show's closing soon so hurry up. Pipilotti Rist is a Swiss multimedia artist who has turned the second floor atrium into a wildly hypnotic cathedral/opium den. Visitors are encouraged to take off their shoes and sit or lie on the iris shaped (looked like an oval to me) sofa in the middle of the room, while a slow motion video is projected on three of the atriums walls. Strange mantra-like humming music is played as the visitors are treated to an ocean of color and light. We see human bodies, flowers, dirt, day glow pigs, worms, and floating green strawberries moving slowly across the walls. Many of these natural forms turn into big abstract blocks of color. A lot of the images are immersed or floating in water. Water, in fact seems to be a major theme in this work, and it adds to the relaxing womb like quality of the installation. Some have suggested that the oval shaped sofa creates the feeling of being in the middle of a giant vagina. I didn't get that, but I wasn't really looking for it either.
The thing that really struck me about Ms Rist's installation is how much fun it is. I saw a lot of children running around laughing and a lot of adults collapsing on the floor and rolling around as if tripping on some psychedelic drug. This idea of art as hallucinogen is an interesting one, and one that has a strong historical precedent. You can find it in Blake, and Bosch and later in a number of the surrealists. Today you can see it in a few of Rist's contemporaries like Philip Taaffe, Fred Tomaselli and Matthew Barney. There's a school of thought that believes art is supposed to take you out of your conscious mind, and into your subconscious or unconscious or into some elevated spiritual state. In a way Rist uses these unconventional means to explore one of arts great conventions. In this sense Ms Rist's installation serves the same function as an early renaissance religious icon. It's both a catalyst for spiritual enlightenment and a child friendly peyote trip.