Tyler Green
Art-focused Journalism by Tyler Green

Tyler Green Modern Art Notes

Archive for the ‘Acquisitions’ Category

Could a ‘Big Four’ earthwork enter a museum collection?

In this morning’s Globe & Mail, James Adams reports that Richard Serra’s Shift, one of the four most important contemporary earthworks in North America,  could enter the collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario. The donation would earn a developer millions of dollars in tax breaks while saving the work and preserving public access to it. Talks are at a preliminary stage and have been entirely between the museum’s curators and the developer, but the AGO sounds interested in being involved. The G&M reports that Shift would be the AGO’s eleventh Serra. [Image via Flickr user Sunshine Never Ends.]

The other three major North American contemporary earthworks are in institutional collections: The Dia Art Foundation owns Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty and Walter De Maria’s The Lightning Field. Michael Heizer’s Double Negative is in MOCA’s collection.

Shift, which is located in King City, Ont., has a fascinating history. Serra considers it a pivotal work: “To me it was a breakthrough piece,” Serra told the Toronto Star several years ago when Shift was first threatened. “You can find many pieces (by others) which came after Shift. They have direct links back to that piece.”

Perhaps because Shift is outside the United States and perhaps because Serra made it in concrete and not his trademark core-ten steel, it’s not as well-known as earthworks in the American West or Serra’s other landscape interventions, such as this one at Storm King. The Storm King piece, titled Schunnemunk Fork and made 20 years after Shift, is descended from it, as is Sea Level (1989-96).

Shift’s future had been in doubt because of exurban residential development.In November, 2009, the King City (Ont.) council designated Shift a protected landscape under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. According to Wikipedia, “Once a property has been designated under Part IV of the Act, a property owner must apply to the local municipality for a permit to undertake alterations to any of the identified heritage elements of the property or to demolish any buildings or structures on the property.” The designation frustrated the developer’s plans to save little more than Shift’s structure and temporarily saved the site and to restrict public access to the site. The developer appealed the decision.

Related: A nice Flickr set of an April, 2010 visit to the sculpture.

Richard Misrach’s post-Katrina narrative

Yesterday I began MAN’s two-part look at Richard Misrach’s new book, “Destroy This Memory.” This is part two.

In their second debate during the run-up to the 2000 election, moderator Jim Lehrer asked candidates Al Gore and George W. Bush about racial profiling. Gore indicated that he had tried to imagine what it would be like to be targeted by police solely on the basis of his skin color. When it was Bush’s turn, he rejected Gore’s empathetic approach. “Yeah, I can’t imagine what it would be like to be singled out because of race and stopped and harassed,” Bush said.

Bush’s answer revealed a failure or an unwillingness of imagination. Five years later, when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and Bush’s administration reacted with indifference and sloth, I thought back to that debate. Neither President Bush nor his administration were able to put themselves in the soggy shoes of New Orleans residents, to understand what it would be like to need help and to need it that desperately. That failure to imagine hell-on-earth led to the Bush administration’s incompetent response.

I thought of all this again while examining Richard Misarch’s new book of 69 photographs taken weeks after  the storm. The book, titled “Destroy This Memory,” is no random assortment of photographs strung together willy-nilly. It is a story, carefully told, a narrative that moves through pictures of graffitied responses to the disaster. Consider it Misrach’s attempt at imagining how bad things must have been in New Orleans, his way of trying to understand what New Orleanians went through in the month or two before his arrival in their city. Unlike our nation’s leaders, Misrach expended the emotional effort to try to get inside a people’s post-hurricane mentality, and we the viewers are richer for it.

There is no text in Misrach’s book — not even page numbers — but the imaginative calculation of Misrach’s sequencing is apparent. The book begins with two pleas: Someone has written, “Help! Help!” on the front of a duplex. [Above.] In the next picture someone has written “Help” on a black shingle roof. (I wonder if Mark Bradford knew…)

Then, suddenly, only two pictures in, we are beyond help. On the side of a house whose roof is missing shingles and whose side-yard is a storm-tossed shambles, someone has written, “FUCK!” And on the other side of a small window, again: “FUCK!” The next picture features a piece of plywood covering an apparently broken window and the admonition of last resort: “Seek God.”

Here Misrach’s narrative takes a turn toward the post-apocalyptic. The next five photographs feature Thunderdome-style warnings: “I am here, I have a gun;” “Looters shot — survivors shot again;” “I will shoot to kill;” “Don’t try. I am sleeping inside with a big dog, an ugly woman, two shotguns and a claw hammer;” and  finally, “Looters will be shot.” [Above, left.]

Over the next eight pictures Misrach reminds us of one of the ‘extra’ ways people suffered during the Katrina period: People didn’t just lose their stuff, they lost their support networks, including their pets.

After Misrach suffuses his story with that kind of personal loss comes the most devastating photograph in the series. It was taken at night. It is of a one-story building surrounded by debris. A barred door is open and askew. It is hard to see inside the house because what looks like a large appliance, perhaps a washing machine, is blocking our view. To the right of the door, in light blue spray paint, someone has written “Possible body.” Possible. Only possible. [Above, right.] Even President Bush would have been able to imagine the horror of the scene that likely laid behind that appliance.

Misrach’s next four photos are all of death notices spray painted onto houses. They’re all simple, straightforward, urgent and short: “RIP Zack and RIP Lil Joe,” reads one.

Now Misrach lets despair take over. He gives us three photos of a big-rig trailer, tilted over on one side. Someone has written “Fuck you” on it. Misrach’s three pictures begin by zooming in close on the words, and then pull out to give us a broader view. As I quickly flipped through them, I felt like I was staggering backwards, almost falling down.

Shortly thereafter, Misrach’s pictures seem to turn a corner. We see New Orleanians share some messages of survival: “I am alive”; “Lisa + Donnie R OK,” written with a phone number so that their friends can check in; and a few photographs later, a bit of Joe Friday-esque dark humor painted on the side of badly damaged light-blue house: “Sorry, we have moved,” along with a presumably new phone number.

Little by little some optimism seeps into Misrach’s story. After a few more pictures about the plight of pets, Misrach shows us a house on to which rescue workers had repeatedly spray-painted “dog” as a way of indicating a pet was still stuck inside. Someone has spray-painted “RESCUED” on top of it all, along with a smiley face. [Above, left.]

More emotional upswing: “Keep the faith,” urges one writer. A photograph of a small, white Toyota left perched atop a bass boat by the flood waters includes a sign left by the boat owner: “Please remove your car from the boat without crushing it!” We hope it’s dark humor.

The narrative upswing continues, now with some swagger: “Hey Katrina! That’s all you got? You big sissy!!! We will be back!!! Norman, Keena, Sean, Lil Norman.” The humor becomes more explicit. Someone’s friends or neighbors left a message on a blue stucco house marked by a flood stains: “T&E — We love what you’ve done with the place!” Someone advertises by painting “Yard Sale” on the side of a tree that’s fallen on a house. Another home has been picked up off of its site by the flood waters and has been let down in the middle of a street. Just above the corner of the house someone has spray-painted “Wicked Witch,” with an arrow pointing down at the corner of the house. [Above, right.]

Finally, at the end of the book, Misrach pulls back from the cheeky humor and the almost-but-not-quite optimism. “Yep, Brownie, you did a heck of a job,” snarks a wisecracker in mocking approval of FEMA director Michael Brown and President Bush’s inexplicable praise of his agency’s response to Katrina. “Resign Bush,” suggests one spray-painter. A homeowner has painted contradictory messages on the front of his house: “The South will rise again,” faces off against, “The end was here.”

Misrach’s last five pictures tie up his story. They do not suggest a happy ending or even optimism. They say: “Broken Dreams”; “Keep the faith” and “We will rebuild”; “I’ll miss you”; “What now?” [left] and “Destroy this memory.” If only.

Related: Part one of MAN’s review of “Destroy This Memory.” My 2006 Q&A with Katrina-chronicler Robert Polidori, whose “After the Flood’ is literally and metaphorically the book that ‘came before’ Misrach’s work. Richard Hughes’ installation at the 2008 Carnegie International was likely inspired by Katrina.

Acquisition: Figurative Thiebauds at SFMOMA

For many years one of the most notable gaps in SFMOMA’s collection had been the lack of a figurative Wayne Thiebaud. The museum has a nice ‘cakes’ painting, a good riverscape, and a thrill ride of a San Francisco cityscape, but until recently, no figurative paintings.

Fifty years after SFMOMA gave Thiebaud his first solo show, that’s changed: SFMOMA has acquired Girl with a Pink Hat (1973, at right), a gift from Jeannette Powell. It is also the first Thiebaud painting from the 1970s to enter the museum’s collection. (The museum also has numerous figurative studies on paper.)

Almost concurrently, the museum has also received a 1968 Thiebaud, Student (below). It’s part of ‘The Doris and Donald Fisher Collection at SFMOMA’ and is on view now as part of the initial hanging of the Fishers’ long-term loan.

While Thiebaud started painting figures at least as early as 1959 — Beach Boys is almost literally half Cezanne’s Bather and half a family snapshot –  they didn’t become an intense focus of work until the mid-1960s.

In 1964 and 1965 Thiebaud made many figurative paintings, typically of a subject or subjects sitting in a chair and strikingly unaware of the painter’s presence (or anyone else’s, for that matter). Thiebaud seemed to mark this territory most clearly with Man Sitting — Back View of 1964, in which he emphasizes the sitter’s role as a still-life by painting a seated man from behind. (The painting is in the collection of the Albrecht-Kemper Museum in St. Joseph, Mo.) Other examples from this period include the Tooker-esque Five Seated Figures (1965) and Woman in Tub (1965). Sometimes it seems as if only the painter’s wife Betty is allowed to look at him, as she does in one of Thiebaud’s masterpieces: Girl with Ice Cream Cone (1963) in the Hirshhorn’s collection.

(Thiebaud was so intensely interested in figurative painting in 1968 that he accepted a commission from Sports Illustrated to paint the Wimbledon tennis tournament outside London. They were published in a June, 1968 issue of the magazine. I’ve never seen a copy. Readers? Librarians? Archivists?)

Acquisition: Mark Grotjahn at Cleveland

The Cleveland Museum of Art is in the process of acquiring Mark Grotjahn’s 2009 Untitled (Red Yellow and Blue Face 821). The painting, which is oil on cardboard mounted on linen, is 95 inches-by-73-inches and is a promised gift from Scott Mueller and Margaret Fulton Mueller. (The museum says that it will be formally accessioned in September.) It is currently installed in Cleveland’s recently opened, Rafael Vinoly-designed contemporary art galleries.

Red Yellow and Blue Face is magnetic and arresting. Like many good Grotjahns, it’s a ‘pop-tune painting’ that lingers in your subconscious like a catchy Lady Gaga backbeat: Those eyes, those straight, colorful lines, those bold primary colors.

With his recent paintings Grotjahn has stepped away from multi-point-perspective-based abstractions in order to mine Les Demoiselles d’Avignon-period Picasso. The painting from that show that hews most closely to Picasso is the painting that Cleveland has acquired, a fitting choice because Cleveland’s collection is particularly strong in Picasso.

Red Yellow and Blue Face — as well as other canvases in Grotjahn’s recent series — are indebted to paintings that Picasso did in the run-up to Les Demoiselles, most notably 1907’s Dance of the Veils (below, from the collection of the Hermitage) and a study related to Dance of the Veils in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art.

In those paintings Picasso melded his recent interest in African sculpture with Paul Cezanne’s crisp, hatchings-like brushwork and a dedication to flattening pictorial space. Grotjahn explores all of those elements in Red Yellow and Blue Face. The almondine eyes that command a viewer’s attention are plainly inspired by Picasso’s figure in the two paintings I referenced above, but Grotjahn adds a twist: He flattens out the eyes, turning them into a knowing, punny nod at Picasso’s nearly career-long fascination with leaving semiotic nods at female orifices around his paintings. (And those aren’t Grotjahn’s only references to Picasso’s ori-fascination. Just below Grotjahn’s ‘eyes’ is a group of circles.)

In Dance of the Veils, Picasso almost entirely restricts his palette to three famously inharmonious colors, red, yellow and blue. Grotjahn adheres. Picasso’s hatching never crosses. Grotjahn adheres. Picasso’s space is flat, but he hints at depth. Grotjahn adheres.

But Grotjahn strays from Picasso in ways that nod to Grotjahn’s own previous practice too. Grotjahn’s earlier, trademark abstractions are tightly controlled, wound up in their own rigid, comin’-at-you verticals. The 1907 Picassos that Grotjahn used as points of departure for his recent paintings  are similarly rigid, and like those early-to-mid 2000s Grotjahns, seemingly as much pinned to the canvas as painted on it. In Cleveland’s new paintings, Grotjahn seems to be forcing himself away from straight-edges and masking tape, to venture away from straight lines of uniform width and toward a little mess. (It’s as if Grotjahn used Jay DeFeo to unlock his less-controlled side.)  That could have resulted in a mess. Instead the painting feels like tightly coiled energy, a painterly sun-god from which you don’t want to look away.

Related: MAN’s February, 2009 Q&A with Grotjahn. Christopher Knight’s review of Grotjahn’s most recent exhibition at Los Angeles’ Blum & Poe gallery. Jerry Saltz’s 2006 take on Grotjahn in the Village Voice is a must-read.

Crystal Bridges acquires a Duncanson

One of the most puzzling stories in American art is the National Gallery of Art’s near-total failure to make its American art galleries represent America. For some time I’ve expected more from the National Gallery, the museum at the foot of the U.S. Capitol, a museum that partly sits on Pennsylvania Ave. NW, with the Supreme Court and Congress on one side and the White House on the other. On my most recent visit to the NGA’s American galleries there were around 200 art works on view. None were by women. Only one was by an artist who was not white.

It’s not because work isn’t available: This morning Crystal Bridges announced it has acquired a Robert Scott Duncanson painting, Flatboat Men (1865, above). The Virginia Museum of Fine Arts purchased this smashing Edward M. Bannister last year and this lovely Duncanson in 2006. (Both the Smithsonian American Art Museum and the Cincinnati Art Museum are particularly rich in Duncanson, but I can’t link to CAM listing. Here’s the museum’s collection website. Oddly enough, artists are listed by first name.)

Nauman’s ‘Days’ critiques torture so effectively that…

Earlier this year the Philadelphia Museum of Art presented a beautiful, eerie, challenging installation of Bruce Nauman’s Days. (As you may recall, the PMA first presented the work in the American Pavilion at the Venice Biennale and brought part of that show to Philly.)

In March, I wrote about how psychologically intense Days is, how it continues Nauman’s 30-year exploration of torture and that it seems to be substantially about America’s torture of detainees during the Bush administration.

A key element of Nauman’s piece is its soundtrack, a use of sound that I argued was about techniques used at American detention centers such as Guantanamo Bay. Last week the Philadelphia Museum of Art told me that the audio of Days was so intense that it had to shorten its usual guard rotations.

The work is in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art, where it is now on view.

Related: Nauman’s Double Steel Cage Piece, Nauman begins to explore torture, Nauman’s hanging chairs.

Acquisition: Doug Aitken’s ‘Migration’ at Minneapolis

The Minneapolis Institute of Arts has acquired Doug Aitken’s migration (2008, stills at left and below). migration is now in the collections of three American museums: The MIA, the Hammer Museum and the Carnegie Museum of Art, which debuted the work at the 2008 Carnegie International. The fourth and final edition is held by a European institution. Last year the MIA acquired the ‘linear’ version of the piece, which is a single video projection onto a wall. It is on view now in the MIA’s Until Now: Collecting the New exhibition. (The work was also editioned in a ’sculptural billboard version.’)

migration is a 24-minute film that features animals in hotel rooms. An owl sits still as feathers that were once contained by either a pillow or a comforter flurry down around it. A buffalo knocks stuff over. A beaver finds its way to water. A fox jumps on a bed and sends pieces of a puzzle flying. The animals-in-hotel-rooms clips are separated by close-ups of typical hotel room features such as door latches and cheap lamps, as well as by what appears to be stock wildlife video footage, apparently of migrations.

The film is surrealism-made-deadpan. It can be read a number of ways: A critique of sprawl-enabling land-use policies that have encouraged Americans to eat up as big a footprint of animal habitats as possible.  A non-narrative children’s story. An opportunity to re-consider our own interactions within environments we’ve built and standardized, environments that are so homogeneous that we don’t think about them anymore. A delightful, 21st-century updating of Edward Hicks and Henri Rousseau.

But for the last couple weeks I’ve been thinking of migration this way: It seems — and is — both weird and surreal to interject animals into our environments. As Aitken shows, the animals don’t quite know what to do, but they typically revert to something that seems natural to them. (Witness the beaver making a, er, bee-line for water.)

But it’s also weird and surreal to interject humans into many animal environments. We’ve recently been bombarded with images from this interjection: We’ve placed dangerous heavy industry — oil-drilling equipment — in the animals’ place, off the shore of the southeast United States, in the Gulf of Mexico. As it turns out, British Petroleum and its partners didn’t quite know what to do in those environments, and now an environmental disaster is devastating an ecosystem. (In a related story, the intensified incursion of humans into Africa didn’t turn out as well for wildlife as Rousseau’s fantasies of man-wildlife interaction in faux-Africa.)

In the oily wake of recent events, Aitken’s film seems all the more fantastical. It’s easy to get carried away with the juxtapositions in migration and with the beauty of the film. But in thinking about migration over the last few days I’ve mostly remembered how confused the animals seem in Aitken’s hotel rooms (and how lost the elephant is in  the cousin to Aitken’s piece: Douglas Gordon’s 2003 Play Dead; Real Time.) Human intrusions into natural habitats often work about as well as animal intrusions into our habitats. Maybe we should have read Aitken’s film as a whispered warning.

Related: Holly Myers wrote about Aitken and migration for the LA Times last year.

Synecdoche and the National Gallery of Art

SynecdocheatNGA.jpg

Synecdoche, the Byron Kim installation acquired by the National Gallery of Art late last year, is not a great work of art. It is closer to the end of every art historical precedent it engages than it is to the beginning: abstract painting, the use of the grid, monochrome painting, abstraction-as-portraiture, minimalism, even its use of art world insiders as models to help the work ‘get over,’ WWE-style.

I can’t quite decide if Synecdoche is a ‘curator’s darling,’ a work of art that requires a press release for decipherment. As previously discussed on MAN: The work is the manifestation of a conceptual strategy Kim used to examine America’s diversity. Each panel represents the skin color of one person, a ’skin tone portrait,’ of sorts. Sitters, some of whom were people Kim knew, some of whom were strangers, presented Kim with their arm for 20 minutes, and Kim painted the color of the arm with which he was presented in oil and wax.

Sometimes when I stand before Synecdoche I am impressed by its chronicling of the late 20th-century American melting pot and sometimes I think that Kim’s use of wax is an eye-rolling reference to such. Ultimately there is nothing new or exciting about the work. It’s solid, but it is not an important work of art.

Still, it is a worthwhile acquisition for the National Gallery of Art, a mostly federally-funded institution that should be collecting works of art that engage the most prominent American philosophical conversations. Synecdoche, which Kim began in 1991 and to which he has added ever since, is one of the better examples of American artists engaging with with the 1980s and 1990s debate about multiculturalism in America.

SynechdocheDetail.jpgThose decades featured the 20th century’s first national, white backlash against the inclusion of non-white men and their points of view in American government. Ronald Reagan prepared the way for such in 1980 when after the Republican nominating convention he launched his candidacy for the presidency in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a provocative, racial choice that told white Southerners (in particular) that they had a right to complain about having to be equal to non-whites. Philadelphia, Miss. is best known as the site of the most famous racial killing in 20thC America, the murders of three civil rights workers in 1964.

Who could forget: Who do you trust, Clarence Thomas or Anita Hill, as decided by a bunch of uncomfortable white men from a previous generation? President Bill Clinton’s claim that he wanted a cabinet that “looks like America,” a notion that conservatives mocked en masse — then adopted once George W. Bush ascended to the presidency? Lani Guinier?

In 1991, Dinesh D’Souza’s book “Illiberal Education” kicked off the debate about race and gender in college admissions, a debate that was unslowed by the resolution of the effectively-resulting court case, Grutter v. Bollinger. Rodney King and OJ Simpson.

That’s the America in which Kim’s work was conceived and started, an America in which where you stood on a public debate often depended on the color of your skin: In the riots that followed the Rodney King acquittal, rioters seemed to target stores owned by Koreans and other Asians. Whites and blacks had two very different points of view on OJ. Polls consistently found (and find) that whites and people of color disagree profoundly on affirmative action. If there’s one thing about Synecdoche that really works it’s that the colors remain separate. They do not come together. Synecdoche reveals the myth of the melting pot is revealed. The installation is a synthesization of two decades of recent history: America was never homogeneous in the ‘Synecdoche years.’

KimWithPeople.jpgMore remarkable than the artwork is the purchaser: the National Gallery of Art. Since the NGA re-opened its American galleries a year ago, it has consistently presented “American art” as white male art. Last June I noted that the NGA’s American galleries featured artworks almost exclusively by white men and on several visits since I’ve noticed that only one artwork — out of almost 200 — has been by a non-white-male artist. The acquisition of Synecdoche, an intensely artwork that specifically addresses the American experience and that was made by an Asian-American artist, certainly doesn’t fix that problem. I’d like to think it can be read as one of the museum’s curatorial departments (modern and contemporary) clearing its throat in the direction of another (American).

The NGA has installed Synecdoche in the East Building, in its modern-and-contemporary galleries. I’d like to see it installed in the West Building in the NGA’s American art galleries. That would be ‘using’ the piece in the spirit of the work itself. Synecdoche could be an important acquisition — but only if the National Gallery of Art uses it as one.

On Monday: Synecdoche and an early Yinka Shonibare.

Related: The Kim acquisition was first reported on MAN. Kim and curator Molly Donovan will have a public conversation at the National Gallery on Sunday afternoon.

Acquisition: Martha Rosler's 'The Gray Drape' at the Hirshhorn

Rosler3.jpgIn 2004, seven months after CBS’s “60 Minutes” and The New Yorker reported on the torture of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the American people re-elected George W. Bush. In the five years since, as journalists such as Dana Priest, Jane Mayer, Mark Danner, and Philippe Sands have uncovered the extent to which the Bush administration enabled and encouraged torture, polls have showed that a majority of Americans are shrugging, hoping that the issue will go away, that the errors and even the possible crimes of the Bush years simply might be ignored, forgotten.

The most recent poll to examine whether Bush-era torture policy should be investigated didn’t even use the word “torture.” Instead the polling firm Ipsos asked respondents: “Should there be a bipartisan blue-chip commission to investigate how detainees were interrogated?” Fifty-four percent of respondents failed to favor such a commission. (Journalism organizations such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press are complicit in this logophobia: They avoid using the word “torture,” instead gently referring to ‘enhanced interrogation techniques.” That phrase was originally coined by the Gestapo.) The majority of the American people seem to side with conservative Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, who recently winced at the release of Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memos that encouraged torture:

“It’s hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, ‘Oh, much good will come of that.’ Sometimes in life you want to keep walking… Some of life has to be mysterious.”

This national compulsion to look away from recent malfeasance is seemingly custom-made for Martha Rosler, an artist who has spent the last four decades pointing out how Americans’ pursuit of the good life has often blinded us from noticing how our nation has fallen short of its ideals. Rosler’s most recent body of work addressed Americans’ disengagement from the biggest American war since Vietnam: the ongoing conflict in Iraq. The Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden has just acquired and installed a major photomontage from that series, The Gray Drape (2008, above).

RoslerCleaningtheDrapes.jpgThe timing of the acquisition is especially fascinating: The Gray Drape entered the museum’s collection on the same week McClatchy reported that former Vice President Dick Cheney ordered Guantanamo Bay interrogators to find a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a key link that the Bush administration needed to justify the war it wanted to wage in Iraq. The McClatchy story and ensuing reports add a chill to The Gray Drape: Rosler’s photomontage can be read as revealing how our blindness to and then our national disinterest in Bush-era torture led us into Iraq.

The Gray Drape shows a glamorous woman in what appears to be her bedroom, more interested in her linens than she is in the world outside. The drape she is waving — read: her love of upscale consumerism — appears to be preventing her from noticing the wail of the Iraq War outside. She doesn’t want to know because she doesn’t want to know. The Gray Drape might also be read as an examination of empty patriotism: The woman’s drape-waving movement recalls the way you might see someone wave an American flag at a NASCAR race or at a parade. Of course there is no red, white and blue on Rosler’s flag-proportioned drape, just white, a possible reference to both the moral hollowness of America’s engagement in Iraq and to the jingoism encouraged by many on the right. (Rosler’s 2008 video Prototype (God Bless America) makes a similar point. A still from the work is below. To see an excerpt from the video, click here. An excerpt from Prototype is about two-thirds of the way through.)

RoslerPrototype.jpgRosler has covered some of this territory before, most obviously in Cleaning the Drapes (1967-72, above), which is in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art. By revisiting Cleaning the Drapes so directly in The Gray Drape, Rosler is establishing a parallel between the way America fought in Vietnam and the way it has fought in Iraq. Between 1967 and 1972 — the peak years of American involvement in Vietnam and the years
to which Rosler ascribes Cleaning the Drapes — the United States engaged in the morally questionable spraying of Agent Orange, in civilian massacres such as that at My Lai and in the bombing of Cambodia and Laos. Rosler isn’t just revisiting old work with The Gray Drape, she’s arguing that America’s past conduct is relevant — and that we’ve failed to learn from it.

While Rosler has worked in a variety of media, including video and installation, her choice of photomontage to make work that addresses America’s two most disastrous recent wars is telling. While photomontage was born in the late 19th-century, it was the the artists of the world’s first anti-war movement, Dada, who brought the medium to maturity and who merged photomontage with intense and immediate political content. Rosler seems aware that many Dadaists had personal experiences with the horrors of war — this untitled Max Ernst from 1920 is photomontage-as-autobiography — whereas she doesn’t. Ernst portrayed the battlefield directly. Rosler almost always includes a kind of filter. She hasn’t been there, but she can — and does — examine the way Americans around her experience and address ongoing war (or pointedly fail to, as the case may be). [Image below: Saddam's Palace (Febreeze), 2004.]

SaddamsPalaceFebreeze.jpgThere’s nothing unusual about an artist, especially Rosler, examining her nation’s conduct and its attitudes toward war or instruments of national policy. Artists, like newspaper columnists or historians, have important contributions to make to the national dialogue as our nation grapples with the legacy of the Bush administration’s wars and pro-torture policy. Credit the Hirshhorn, a Smithsonian Institution museum located almost exactly halfway between the Capitol and the White House, for being willing to join in that dialogue and for acquiring work that examines the most difficult aspects of recent American history. Art museums — especially contemporary art museums — have an obligation to be willing to engage, to serve as a bridge between the public and artists. (This is the second time in less than a year that the Hirshhorn has pointedly pushed an artist or a body of work into the discourse.) More museums should follow the Hirshhorn’s example.

Acquisition: Wolfgang Staehle at the Hirshhorn

StaehleNiagara.jpgIf there’s one constant through the last 150 years of American art, it’s that artists have a fascination with Niagara Falls. That continues with Wolfgang Staehle’s Niagara (2004), an hour-long, pre-recorded video projection. The Hirshhorn just acquired Niagara, which is on view now in its The Cinema Effect show.

As I noted in a series of 2006 posts (see below), scads of 19thC artists painted Niagara Falls, including Birch, Catlin, Church, Hicks, Peale, Moran, Bierstadt, Twachtman, Cole, Hale, Kensett, Trumbull and others. In the 20thC artists have obviously captured the Falls itself, but they’ve also used it as an implied backdrop for all manner of modernist perspectives: Margaret Bourke-White photographed hydro-power generators at the Falls, entropy-obsessed Gordon Matta-Clark took apart a building nearby, and Alec Soth treated the region as a faded, touristy relic.
ChurchNiagaraAmerSide.jpg

Staehle’s work harkens back to the 19thC and revisits the sublime landscape, capturing it from almost exactly where Frederic Edwin Church did in his Niagara Falls, from the American Side (1867).
In fact, the installation in ‘The Cinema Effect’ emphasizes the relationship between Staehle’s video and 19th-century American painting: Curators Kerry Brougher and Kelly Gordon have installed Niagara as big as they could, from the floor to the ceiling. Church’s painting is 8.5 feet tall and 7.5 feet wide. The Staehle is even taller. (Staehle’s Niagara comes with no installation instructions, so the ’size’ of the installation is up to the installer.)

Of course the difference between how 19thC audiences saw 19thC paintings of Niagara Falls and the way audiences today will see the Staehle are profound. When American landscape painters showed their ‘Niagaras’ they hoped to wow their audiences with the powerful scale of their work. The canvases were effectively metaphors for the ambitions of manifest destiny-obsessed Americans. Man conquered the landscape on canvas, why couldn’t he conquer the landscape itself too? Today, when we’re used to big movie theater screens, big home-theater screens (and also to big canvases), Staehle’s piece doesn’t rely on size or sublimity. Instead it asks questions: Is a video projection of Niagara more or less impactful (or sublime) than oil-on-canvas? Beyond the obvious art historical, size-myself-up attraction, is Niagara Falls still a relevant subject? Can landscape art, even when made with contemporary digital materials, still capture the imagination? When I first saw Niagara at NYC’s Postmasters gallery in 2004 and then again at the Hirshhorn, I thought, ‘No.’

But then I realized I couldn’t stop looking at it. People walked up to me and started talking with me — and instead of looking at them I kept staring at Niagara.

Related at the Hirshhorn: The museum owns George Inness’ Niagara (1893).

Related: Spencer Finch. Andreas Gursky. Adam Cvijanovic. Gordon Matta-Clark. Alec Soth I. Alec Soth II. Clyfford Still.