Book Summary: Art Since 1900 - Modernism to Post-Modernism

Hal Foster, Rosalind Krauss, Yve-Alain Bois, and Benjamin Buchloh, Art Since 1900 (New York: Thames and Hudson 2004)
Art Since 1900 is a comprehensive account of the artwork, artists, and ideas that embody 20th century modernism, antimodernism, and contemporary postmodernism. Its authors represent a collaboration of Columbia and Princeton University art historians whose views are widely accepted within the United States art community. The contains four introductions to the major theories and critical models used to analyze art and cultural production, and then proceeds to a collection of over 100 essays describing key moments, people, and ideas arranged by decade. For the purposes of this annotation I will concentrate on the transition from modernism and post-modernism by picking out three years (1971, 1984, and 2003) as a means of describing a progression from modernism to contemporary post-modernism.

1971 was marked by two significant acts of censorship at the Guggenheim Museum whose controversy helps differentiate modernism from postmodernism. The first incident involved the cancellation of a major retrospective exhibition of Hans Haacke. The two pieces consisted of text and photographs that presented documentary information about the ownership status of large number New York slum apartments (which turned out to be owned by two or three families). While the photographs depicted the condition of the neighborhood where the buildings resided and the text presented public information available from the New York Public Library in a non-accusatory manner, the presentation of the sum total revealed a petit-bourgeois empire of tenement holdings. The Museum Direct Thomas Messer wanted the pieces removed from the show calling Haacke’s pieces “work that violates the supreme neutrality of the work of art and therefore no longer merits the protection of the museum.” By connecting social and economic information together Haacke created a confrontation between New York’s underclass and Manhattans elite, which included institutions like the museum. The combination of these fragments of “text” resulted in artwork that was no longer removed from the economic and political spheres. Modernist ideas surrounding art’s cultural autonomy from socio-economic systems were punctured. A few months later a second scandal occurred with the removal of Daniel Buren’s “Peinture-Sculpture” from the Sixth Guggenheim International Exhibition. The Huge banner Buren installed within the museums central atrium created a conflict surrounding the assumption that the space within which a viewer interacts with art is also neutral and serves as an appropriate illustration of Foucaults theories on power and discourse. The Banner became a confrontation between the artwork and the building, between Buren and Frank Lloyd Wright, and ultimately between art and political ideology. Art it seemed could not be extracted from political ideology no matter how abstract it had become.
The essay 1984a chronicles the shift from conceptual art to a socio-economic discourse. The early photographic works of Ed Ruscha and Dan Graham followed the pop-art tendency towards “de-skilling” by assuming a banal style while taking a systematic approach to concepts like vernacular architecture and other artifacts of “modern” cultural practice. Their work reintroduced the question of public urban space, which had not been revisited since before WWII in modernist art, but did so in a manner that was not as romanticizing as the earlier works of Walker Evans and Dorthea Lange nor did it make a strong critique of American culture. Major essays by Victor Burgin, Allen Sekula, and Martha Rosler explored the idea that photography could once again insert political, social, and historical context and function as an instrument of cultural discourse. Burgin states, “The optimum function of art is to modify institutionalized patterns of orientation towards the world and thus serve as an agency of socialization. No art activity therefore is to be understood apart from the codes and practices of the society, which contains it; art in use is bracketed ineluctably within ideology… We must accept the responsibility of producing art which is more than just art as its content.”
Unlike early modernist photography, Sekula and Rosler demonstrated the post-modern idea that an individual photograph is not a complete “political” expression, but rather serves as fragments of an ongoing discourse. Sekula’s work went beyond the traditional limitations of documentary photography by presenting multiple frames in series. Martha Rosler’s early photomontage work juxtaposed harsh imagery from the Vietnam War into an image of eloquence found in scenes of fashion, advertising, and home décor. She later followed Sekula’s multi-frame approach and explored “the inadequacy of the photographic image” in her seminal work “The Bowery in Two Inadequate descriptive Systems, 1974-5. Roslers work revealed the incomplete nature of any individual artwork and the need for participation in a larger discourse.

The essay 1984b presents the defining characteristics of a post-modernism ideology that had began to form as early as 1968 in the work of Robert Rauschenberg. We are introduced to Francis Lyotard and Frederic Jameson who attempt to describe the significant differences between post-modern and modernity. Lyotard defines postmodernism as occurring at the moment change no longer produced progress (a modernist ideal) but became the status quo as a means of driving the capitalist economy. This in turn, introduced skepticism towards the meta-narratives of captialism. Jameson views Postmodernism from a Marxist perspective as the inevitable response to the beginning of Late Capitalism, which is characterized by globalization, and mobile workforces and capital.

Postmodernism is marked by the dispute of authenticity and originality, rejection of foundational ideology, and through the cacophony of opposing ideas that are joined together in discourse. It views modernist art as not a representation of meaning but a construction of meaning and seeks to deconstruct these metanarratives through image appropriation and the blending of disparate ideas and phenomena.

Postmodernism’s evolution has seen the removal of artist as author and the appropriation and combining of cultural fragments into dialogical discourse. The final essay 2003 advances two current ideas of post modernism: the utopian ideal and the Archival approach to the creation of discourse.

Ready-made art that fosters community collaboration such as group project of Gonzalez, Foerster, Gillick, Tiravanija, and others distribute new ideas on how to respond to consumerism. In the utopian model we see collaboration and interaction as a means of creating meaningful discourse and socialization. The critic Nicolas Bourriard sees modern large-scale “artist-as-curator” exhibitions as art events that are not so much about the “what” of art but the “whom”. “Art is an ensemble of units to be reactivated by the beholder-manipulator”. Whereas the alternative Archival approach services to give voice to sub cultural histories through the uncovering of hidden or repressed dialog. Recent installation work by Thomas Hirschberg and Sam Durant are examples of history recovered from obscurity.
The transition from modernism to post-modern is one from a singular viewpoint to a multifaceted expansion of our understanding of the events and history that form our current cultural practices. Art Since 1900 has certainly provided much of the art-history discourse necessary to elevate one’s own art practice.

The Story Teller - Walter Benjamin

Benjamin, Walter. “The Storyteller“ in Illuminations trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Schoken Books 1969)

Walter Benjamin’s essay The Storyteller offers an interesting assessment of modern media and literature prior to the start of World War II that offers indictments of the effects of technology and mass communication on culture that resonates equally well with contemporary American culture.

Benjamin suggests that the tradition of storytelling has been lost due to the rise of the novel. He laments this loss because he sees storytelling as containing key ingredients for the formation of wisdom. Good storytelling is the retelling of events in a way that creates an experience for the audience. It is the most effective means of handing down wisdom through the ages. Whereas the novel is tethered to the printed page, the story is portable and expansive as it may migrate from the page to the voice and be augmented with gesture. Another significant difference is the way the novel terminates itself from our memory through the its complete closure at the end of each book. Stories on the other hand, in the great tradition of the Greek epic, are really just accounts of activities that have taken place that hold some sort of significance that is to be contemplated. A story never really end, they just connect, to the next event. When we die, our life is distilled into the significant actions and events that are recounted through story, which keeps the truth and lessons of our life alive. It is the connectivity to the traditions of the past that lead to the contemplation of our own future. A novel is not effective in this way because it is layered with too many characters, too many explanations, and too much information. Explanations and narrative are the antithesis of contemplation and therefore render the novel impotent concerning the formation of experience and wisdom. This can be said for newspapers and contemporary journalism. Information is only valuable at the time it is new. Too much information and explanation enables the audience to segregate the story from their own lives. Too much specificity enables us to treat the story as about “the other” and which is why we have become consumers of news and a culture that is experiencing a shortage of wisdom. The founder of the magazine LeFigaro, Villemessant, once wrote “To my readers, an attic fire in the Latin Quarter is more important than a revolution in Madrid.” Contemporary storytelling prevents the audience from committing the story to memory or from getting the since of continuity to the past and future. This amnesia of our own mortality dooms us to make unwise life choices that have little regard for the consequences of our actions.

Benjamin uses the example of the Greek storyteller Herodotus as an ideal to be pursued by artist. In a story about the Egyptian King Psammentus Benjamin illustrates how the simple recounting of events without explanation offers the audience the opportunity to connect and reflect on the significance and meaning of the story in contemporary terms. Herodotus’ story would be helpful in coming up with ideas about what kind of traits our government leaders should possess.

Stories should be stripped of explanations of our interpretations. This by itself will allow a compactness that enables the story to embed itself in memory, which is where it must reside if we are to convey wisdom. A story must be repeatable. The absence of information illustrates how the myth or parable can exaggerate or even fabricate, and yet still communicate a larger truth more effectively than information alone.

Bejamin argues that the most effective storytellers are the chroniclers. The repetition of actions gives the audience the opportunity to connect with the story and reflect on their own interpretation of the deeds. Modern news stories tell us the meaning of events and eliminate the need to even think about it. The Chronicler simply recounts the events. Where a single photograph might provide information, a series of photographs that document activities, such as the FSA photographs, builds a much stronger case than a typed report filled with statistical explanations.

How do we know if we are able to be good storytellers? There are two types of storytellers, those who travel the world and have life experiences, and those who stay within the historical fabric of their hometown. Artisans were traditionally the best storytellers because they had traveled during their apprenticeships and returned to lay down roots in their communities. To be good storytellers we must have life experience or be good listeners of those whose life experiences provide powerful narratives. The narrative is the most poignant story that can be told. . Pascal wrote, “No one dies so poor that he does not leave something behind.” It is the natural history of life and death that gives a story its authority and validity.

Finally, Benjamin complains of modern economies and technology as creating a culture that seeks abbreviation and lacks the quiet mind necessary for contemplation. We are all too busy to hear or recognize the wisdom found in experiences. If we were to rest before the Grand Canyon and consider the sublime wonder of its perfection, we would have to recognize that its perfection is the result of sustained forces of effort, that are occurring all the time. The human pursuit of this level of perfection is craftsmanship. Machinery and manufacturing have replaced craftsmanship and citizens are in a constant state of flux as is made evident in Sebastio Salgado’s book Migration. One questions whether or not the artist who heeds Walter Benjamins advice for storytelling will have an audience left to see, hear, and ultimately contemplate the wisdom of our experiences.

The Task of the Translator

Benjamin, Walter. “The Task of the Translator“ in Illuminations trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Schoken Books 1969)

The Task of the Translator addresses the foundational question of what the role of artist is and is not. It could be discerned as the definition of the difference between a commercial artist and a fine artist, for at the beginning of the essay Benjamin asserts, “no poem is intended for the reader, no picture for the beholder, no symphony for the listener.” The original experience does not exist for our audience but is instead a moment of “hidden significance” that is revealed through our efforts to translate it. Whereas the commercial artist is trying to communicate a particular explanation or interpretation to a specific target audience, the fine artist must realize the temporal state of ideologies and focus instead on conveying experiences that may be considered within the framework of whatever contemporary ideology exists. “Art’s essential work is not to make statements, or impart information, because this necessitates audience understanding which is inherently redundant.”

While the essay focuses on the means necessary to communicate an original text from one language to another, the visual artist may extrapolate ideas from these theories about how best to approach the representation of the physical and spiritual experiences that are significant. All meaningful communication then is the translation of experience into the language of our medium whether it is visual, oral, or literary.

The objective of the translator is to communicate the original experience as transparently as possible. We must recognize the contextual and historical essence of every experience. Each moment experiences a death. From this river of death we are trying to express the significance of a moment that has occurred in the past. Recognizing the time, space, constraints, we must recognize that we can never recreate the original and therefore any attempts to do so will fail as translations. Instead Benjamin looks at linguistic theories and sees the common purpose of representation found n all languages. While multiple languages may have word elements that identify the same referent object, or denotative meaning, the intentionality of how the words are used, their connotative meanings, cannot be translated accurately depending on the translatability of the subject matter. Benjamin suggest that we should form a “pure language” through the supplementing of the new language with the uniqueness of the original. He points out the systematic nature of languages and how new elements may be introduced to increase output. Languages follow structural rules, but are expansive in the possible outcomes.
Contrary to the idea that more information is beneficial for accurate communication, Benjamin suggests that the transmission of information is not beneficial for conveying meaning. “The inferior translator id defined as one who provides inaccurate transmissions of inessential content.” In speaking of art Benjamin writes, “The essential substance of art is not information, but is in the unfathomable, mysterious, or poetic.” The literary work tells very little to those who understand it. Shared meaning is based upon shared experience, which means we are not conveying anything new to our audience.

Translation is a mode of representation. Translatability must be an essential feature of the experience we wish to convey. If we apply our interpretations or explanations of the event or experience, we are changing the meaning to that of our own perceptions and we are limiting our audience’s ability to relate to the work in their own way.
Benjamin introduces the concept of our artwork-translation as having an afterlife. First we are creating an afterlife for the moment or experience we are translating, and secondly, our artwork will potentially have an afterlife, “whose appreciation goes beyond the limitations of contemporary meaning or posits”, if it is re-actualized through successive retranslations in. Fame is not something that occurs during the life of our work and therefore is something that artist shouldn’t be concerned with.

In order to expand the potential of the afterlife of our work we should avoid putting too much specificity to it because, as Benjamin writes, “The context of the now will never exactly mirror that of the original.” Instead the artist must commit the destructive act of removing their voice and too much information and remain like the fingerprints of the potter left on the clay vessel.
History cannot be written as it is happening. Significance comes through trans-generational translation. Renewal comes from the updating of a translation into contemporary language. The act of translation has the unique characteristic of both elevating the original and yet it can never equal it, thereby creating distance between the original and the audience which creates an aura around the expression of our translation (i.e. art object).

A look at Walter Benjamin

Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction“ in Illuminations trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Schoken Books 1969)

Written in 1936, Walter Benjamin’s essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction provides interesting insight into contemporary issues surrounding the function of art, mass media, and the evolution of capitalism. The preface to the essay briefly summarizes the Marxists views on what we now call “Late Capitalism”. Benjamin writes of Marx’s prognostications on what could be expected of Capitalism in the future, “The result was that one could expect it not only to exploit the proletariat with increasing intensity, but ultimately to create conditions which would make it possible to abolish capitalism itself.”

Modern Art seems, to be on a parallel course with the development of technology. The traditional “ritualistic” art object has been rendered obsolete. Technology and its means of reproducing art and nature has exceeded the power of cult, and like capitalism, will eventually lead to the abolishment of art that is based upon ritualistic function. Mass media has replaced the ritual of contemplation with the social practice of consumption.

Benjamin examines the value of artwork based upon two opposite extremes – its traditional cult value, and its contemporary exhibition value. The essay first defines what traditional art is in terms of its function and aura. Historically art has served a ritualistic function. It’s earliest manifestations dealt with magic, which evolved into religion, and ultimately the affirmation of political power. Cave drawings and stone formations are considered works of art whose value is based upon the aura that connects us to a particular place and time and yet maintains its distance no matter how close you are. Latter artworks, based upon the portraits of the aristocracy, possess an aura of authority that is enhanced by its separation from the working class.

These traditional art objects possessed an aura that was based upon the inseparable attributes of uniqueness and originality. The aura of a work of art is what established its authenticity. Traditional art’s permanence and authority was based upon its non-reproducibility. However, art has always been reproducible. Whether fabricated by students, the artist themselves, or third parties, replicas have always existed. These handcrafted replicas never threatened the authenticity of the original artwork however as the existence of original was still necessary in order to label the replica as a copy or forgery. Mechanical or Technical reproduction is quite a different story. Technical reproduction does two things that replicas do not. First of all meaning that was once attached to an art object is now separated and transmitted through means of mechanical reproduction. The process of reproduction is more independent of the original, it’s meaning dislocated from the art object. Secondly, technical reproduction such as photography and film can actually enhance the original beyond “natural vision” by increasing its time and space through magnification and slow motion shutter techniques. Also, technical reproductions or art designed for technical reproduction can put a copy of the original into situations, which would be out of reach of the original. . While the authority of an art object is lost when it’s authenticity (due to technical reproduction) is compromised, its cult value is exceeded by its new found exhibition value that has the ability to stimulate social formation.
My own child responded to my inquiry about what he wanted for Christmas by giving me a stack of advertisements he had circled stating, “Tomorrow there will be more catalogs. This is all I saw that I wanted from today’s catalogs”

Modern technologies of reproduction detach the art object from the “domain of tradition.” However, by the reproduction meeting the audience in their own situation, the object is reactivated. Technology obverts the ritual function of art by destroying its aura and, “will empower the proletariat to shatter tradition and transcend their traditional existence.” Benjamin sees film as being the most powerful medium for change in cultural values because of its ability to simultaneously construct and deconstruct traditional values. “The painter is like a magician who never penetrates the patient while the camera operator is like the surgeon cutting into the patient.” A film about a legendary person will eventually remove the myth of that person. This argument can be linked to Maslow’s theory of human need that states we cannot see a miracle multiple times. Reproduction ultimately demystifies or deconstructs the miracles of creativity and authenticity. Reproduction of natural “truths” at first depreciates the aura of that which is reproduced. Technology drives the deconstruction of history while at the same time creates historical indexes or signifiers, which create social formations.

Photography and film are considered the two most powerful tools for ideological change. “That which is easiest to consume is least criticized and therefore more powerful and dangerous”. The presentation of a photographic viewpoint can distort or displace reality more subtlety, inviting less criticism of its ideology than a painting or sculpture, which is farther removed. Photography and film offer conventional forms of representation, which are consumed with enjoyment while the more abstract representations are criticized with aversion. More potent is film and photography’s role in no longer allowing the spectator to think what they want to think. They are forced to consume what is project in the image via a cinematic process of “suspension of disbelief.” The spectator who concentrates on a work of art is absorbed by it. The masses that are distracted by the spectacle of art are absorbed by the art. It is our absorption into cultural products that enables art to exceed its original ritualistic ability to create culture. This creates an environment write for Fascism, where you are given the means of expressing your rights without really giving you that right.

We're gonna be OK!

I just finished watching the vice presidential debate and I have to say I think America is in trouble. Sarah Palin was absolutely masterful in controlling the debate through her rhetoric and using the television cameras to speak directly to the people, while Joe Biden simply spoke to the moderator, answered the questions asked, and tried to provide substantive information about his party's plans for governing.

How could the democrats be so stupid as to present information in response to rhetoric! Sarah Palin told Americans that "we have got to..." and "we're gonna" and made promises to give every household $5000 to pay for medical care. McCain isn't going to fly the white flag in Iraq, and on and on...

Joe Biden seemed taken by Sarah Palin's charm and school girl patriotic civic lessons to the point of being brought to smiles and laughter when confronted with her simplistic responses. It’s like he thought she was too cute to be dangerous. At one point Palin even uttered the same words as a Lee Greenwood song. The big bright eyes of the republican stared directly at the masses while the narrow eyes of experience just looked beadier as he flashed is big toothy grin. It reminded me of the classic image of the puppy and the old hunting dog. When the new pup arrived he didn’t pay attention until it was too late and he was left in the yard as the new pup rode in the front seat on his first hunt. Sarah Palin’s the new dog in Washington politics with the same big eyes and enthusiasm that believes in the lies she’s propagating.

Joe Biden and the democrats are such intellectual elitist that they think Americans can see through the smoke cloud when Palin stated over and over how McCain and the republicans were going to reclaim oversight over Wall Street. The party of corporate welfare is somehow going to play schoolyard monitor over big business? This is America! The land of $1 menu items, big gulps, hummers, and reality television that isn't real! The people that are going to elect the next president are just as likely to watch WWF Raw as they are Bill Moyer’s NOW. After a hard day's work people are not watching television to be informed, they're watching to be entertained. Jerry Springer could have moderated this debate.

This made for television debate is the best example of how our elections are mediated through corporate news organizations. Did you notice how the camera's locked in on Sarah Palin (are her glasses even prescription?) and how often the camera moved around during Biden's answers? What purpose did the behind the podium shots serve other than to highlight the tight skirt Palin was wearing. I saw little difference between watching this debate and watching Sandra Bullock in Miss Congeniality.

The moderator didn’t restrict the candidate’s responses to the questions and so we were bombarded with republican rhetoric and Joe Biden’s winey responses. Joe Biden didn’t speak to the audience. Joe Biden was in an auditorium at Washington University while Sarah Palin was in millions of households talking to us like we were having a cup of coffee and shooting the breeze over the economy. I don’t think my neighbor can run the country either, but after a beer or two I’m pretty sure the two of us could. I wish Will Rogers were around to see this.

I hope I’m wrong. I know we were all wrong about Sarah Palin in terms of her intelligence and coach-ability. Have we forgotten that Diane Sawyer started as a beauty queen? You don’t need a passport to get to the Whitehouse, nor do you have to be a Rhodes scholar. The majority of people electing the next president aren’t either.

It’s time the Democrats reached the right audience. It’s time for democrats to reclaim patriotism, independence, American ingenuity, and all other facets of the Great American West mythology. It’s time East Coast democrats summon images of Mel Gibson in The Patriot rather than well-coifed parliamentary elitists. If Hollywood is donating so much to the Democrats, why can’t they get the script right? Why is it we get Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger instead of Steven Spielberg? These days I think we’re getting mostly muppets.

Of course all of this is just rhetoric.