Category: Uncategorized

  • “Mr Expanding Universe: Isamu Noguchi’s Affiliations across the New York Art World(s) of the 1930s” Isamu Noguchi: Sculptural Design, co-author Donna Ghelerter. Germany: Vitra Design Museum, 2002, pp. 66-106.

    Mr Expanding Universe: Isamu Noguchi’s Affiliations across the New York Art World(s) of the 1930s

     

    Isamu Noguchi’s reputation as a master modernist lies largely (and squarely) on his achievements as a sculptor who created abstractions in stone and wood during the mid-to-late twentieth century. Noguchi is also well known for having designed emblematic objects of the twentieth-century decorative arts. Starting in the late 1920s, when Noguchi began his career, his ideas of the artist’s role exceeded the prescribed parameters. This exhibition validates Noguchi as a visionary. Determined to shape every aspect of life, from dishware to public parks. It also raises the question: where does this encompassing perspective originate in the development of his art? The answers to this can be found in a period that Noguchi himself later reflected upon as containing the “uncertainties of the 1930s.”[footnote=1]

    Returning to New York at the age of 25, having just left Paris and his apprenticeship with Constantin Brancusi, Noguchi settled himself into the New York art world. “It became self-evident to me that in so-called abstraction lay the expression of the age and that I was especially fitted to be one of its prophets.”[footnote=2] Noguchi’s prophesies of the 1930s take the form of Brancusi-inspired pieces on marble bases; large drawings using traditional Chinese brushwork; an architectural mural influenced by Mexican socialist artists; stage sets for dance, and proposals for public works. His materials were stone, wood, cement, bronze, iron, zinc, stainless steel, terracotta, magnesite, marble, sheet metal and plaster. He was exhibiting regularly and garnering critical acclaim. Despite the attention, the reaction to Noguchi’s far-reaching approach to sculpture was uneven.

    Of course the 1930s were a period of uncertainty not only for Noguchi but for the world at large. An attempt was made to lessen the effects of the Depression on artists’ lives with the creation in 1933 of the PWAP (Public Works of Art Projects), later known at the WPA (Works Progress Administration). This government-sponsored relief project for artists provided them with a regular salary in exchange for making works to be located all over America. While numerous artists benefited from the programme, Noguchi’s involvement was unsuccessful. His multifaceted approach was ill-suited for creating art that had to conform to governmental guidelines. He fell through the national safety net at a time when art galleried were also unable to provide artists with their conventional means of support. Noguchi was in need of devising his own source of income. To solve his economic problems, he began sculpting portrait heads: “There was nothing to do but make heads. It was a matter of eating, and this was the only way I knew of making money.”[footnote=3]

    Noguchi made his first portrait head in 1925, but it was upon his return to New York in 1929 that he sculpted commissioned portraits. Throughout the 1930s, the portraits appear to have constituted his primary, or at least most reliable, source of income. Almost life-size, these heads present various modes of representation. While such portraits were relatively conventional for a sculptor drawn to the abstract, they none the less allowed Noguchi a chance to experiment with forms and materials. As one contemporary reviewer observed: “His portraits, which are invariably distinctive of his personality and style, are also likenesses and achieve an air of sophisticated modernism. This is arrived at … by emphasizing the sitters’ salient characteristics and by using such materials as seem symbolic or suggestive of their personality.”[footnote=4] Among the many personalities who sat for Noguchi were Clare Boothe Luce, then working for Vogue and Vanity Fair before she became a playwright and politician; Mexican muralist José Clemente Orozco; mime Agna Enters; waitress Ruth Parks, composer George Gershwin; art dealer J.B. Neumann; the Museum of Modern Art’s first president A. Conger Goodyear; architect Ely Jacques Kahn; Hollywood actress Ginger Rogers, and stage actress Helena Gahagan Douglas, once hailed as “ten of the twelve most beautiful women in America” and later a member of the United States Congress.[footnote=5] This body of work was treated in full by the exhibition Isamu Noguchi, Portrait Sculpture, held at the National Portrait Gallery in 1989. In the invaluable catalogue, curator Nancy Grove provides an art history of the portraits and profiles of their subjects. We have selected from these fascinating figures a group that intersected in Noguchi’s life within an expanded environment of 1930s New York culture. There one finds the points of origin for Noguchi’s creative potential. In this world of artists, dancers, architects, gallery owners fashion designers, we start with Julien Levy, the pre-eminent dealer for advanced contemporary art.

    A child of privilege, Julien Levy (1906-81) was part of the generation known as the Harvard Moderns, who attended college together before embarking on careers that would essentially institutionalize Modernism in America.[footnote=6] Just two years older, Noguchi’s background was worlds away from Levy’s. Growing up estranged from his father, the renowned poet Yone Noguchi, Isamu lived with his American mother in Japan until he was sent to America at the age of fourteen. He cobbled together an education, studying medicine before enrolling at the Leonardo da Vinci Art School in New York. Despite these differences, Noguchi’s and Levy’s lives intertwined to a remarkable degree. Both went to Paris in 1927, where they met the writer Robert McAlmon and were inducted into the same circles. McAlmon allegedly introduced Levy to his wife Joella Lloyd, daughter of the poet Mina Loy, whose friend Constantin Brancusi presented the newly-weds with Le Nouveau Né, a bronze sculpture head of an infant.[footnote=7] It was in the artist’s studio that Levy recalls meeting Noguchi: “Brancusi wears a smock and has a white beard and a white dog, and any stranger is shortly rendered indistinguishable by the white dust that falls over him. Noguchi was happy to work there, polishing and cutting stones and listening to Brancusi talk, learning about materials and about form.”[footnote=8] (The lives of Levy and Noguchi share some racier episodes; in his autobiography, Levy recounts a tour he conducted at the behest of Clare Boothe Luce, with Noguchi in tow, of the Paris brothel Le Sphinx.[footnote=9] Both men had affairs with Frida Kahlo – Levy a brief dalliance in New York, Noguchi a love affair that raged in Mexico until it outraged Kahlo’s husband, the muralist Diego Rivera.)

    Levy opened his art gallery in 1931 to promote experimental film and European photography. By 1932, the gallery had presented the first exhibition of Surrealism in New York, codified the ritual of the opening night cocktail party, and become known as the place to see something new. There were premiere exhibitions of photographs by Henri Cartier Bresson and Man Ray; collage films and objects by Joseph Cornell; “snapshots of the mind”, as Salvador Dalí called his early paintings; Alexander Calder’s mobiles; modern day ex-votos by Frida Kahlo; Surrealist paintings by René Magritte; proto-Abstract Expressionist works by Arshile Gorky; plans and models for fantasy architecture by Emilio Terry, even cartoon cels by Walt Disney. This diverse programme was unusually brilliant in its vision, but not in its eclectic embrace. Levy’s gallery was a microcosm of the art world of its day, an art world in which creative people working in all media mingled freely, irrespective of the boundaries that have come to separate them since. An exhibition of paintings by the Neo-Romantic Eugene Berman was illuminated with lamps by the industrial designer Russel Wright. Artists’ sets and costumes for the newly founded American Balley Theater were shown accompanied by the music that was scored for them, including one piece by the writer/composer Paul Bowles. As a phenomenon of the 1930s. this expansive approach to culture suited the restrictive economic conditions. With little money to go around, artists could afford to let their egos relax, pool their efforts, and work as many angles as possible.

    The entrepreneurial Levy had several ploys to earn income for the photographers he represented, including brokering portrait commissions. “It was one of my many ventures – I just tried to hit photography from as many angles as I could think of. Including applied photography. I tried some photographic textiles…”[footnote=10] The portrait venture was well in keeping with the means by which many of Levy’s artists had already reconciled their Modernist ambitions to the exigencies of earning a living. The expatriate Man Ray had a handsome income throughout the 1920s and 1930s as a fashion and portrait photographer. He applied the same compositions and radical techniques – the photogram, solarisation and double exposure – that characterised his most purely experimental works. The sculptor Alexander Calder drew portraits in wire, often on commission. Fleshed out by shadow and space, these directly anticipate the artist’s most important works, the kinetic sculptures that Marcel Duchamp dubbed “mobiles”.[footnote=3] As with Noguchi, the artistic conventions – and, when the work was a commission, the economic incentive – of making portraiture supported and advanced these artists’ respective innovations. Also like Noguchi, their bodies of work portray the larger contexts of the art world and society in which these makers moved.

    Levy showed another Modernist-cum-portraitist, whose life and work overlapped with Noguchi’s, the photographer Berenice Abbott (1898-1991). Man Ray’s assistant in Paris, Abbott had been well trained. When she left him, she opened a rival portrait studio. It was in Paris that Abbott met Noguchi, though he did not sculpt her head until 1929, when they were both back in New York.[footnote=12] Cast in bronze, light nervously pattering over its surface, Abbott’s portrait shows her boyishly bobbed hair massed to a point on her forehead and focuses her being into a pair of eyes that view the world wide open. Documenting the many aspects of the city – its buildings, people and strange empty spaces – is the crux of Abbott’s art, as exemplified by her celebrated work, Changing New York, the urban portrait she created as an employee of the WPA. As a financial sideline, she took pictures of other artists’ works and of gallery installations.[footnote=13] Abbott’s photograph of Noguchi’s 1934 sculpture Death (Lynched Figure) is a complete visual document: it records the image and conveys its impact. From the angle and lighting of this shot, one immediately appreciates the contemporary critic’s disturbed reaction: “If there is anything to make a white man feel squirmy about his color, he has it in this gnarled chromium victim jigging under the wind-swayed rope.”[footnote=14]

    The unnamed critic writing about Noguchi’s 1935 exhibition at the Marie Harriman gallery for the left-leaning journal Parnassus was exceptionally full of praise for this work when it was shown alongside the admirable portrait heads, three models for the public sculptures and some brush drawings. He or she concluded: “But it is when he goes in for sociological ideas that Noguchi seems the freest.” According to the artist, Death was made after a photograph he saw reproduced in the International Labor Defense, and intended to be shown alongside Birth, a work he modeled from life, after watching a woman at Bellevue Hospital endure the agonies of labor.[footnote=15] Objecting to the depiction, Harriman excised this white marble sculpture from the installation, though she permitted Noguchi to show the lynched man. The exhibition was extensively reviewed and, unlike the Parnassus writer, most critics agreed that Noguchi should stick with portraiture. Arch-intellect Henry McBride put it most nastily: he deemed Death “just a little Japanese mistake”. These words were still ringing when, in his 1968 autobiography, Noguchi declared his conviction to seek acceptance for his work outside the conventional art world. “That settled it!” he wrote, after quoting McBride’s review at length, “I determined to have no further truck with either galleries or critics.”[footnote=16]

    Julien Levy had not yet opened his art gallery in 1929 when Noguchi sculpted his head in bronze. He never gave Noguchi a solo show, even though he apparently respected his work; perhaps he found his relationships with other dealers too polygamous. Noguchi’s habit of showing around New York certainly raised eyebrows in the press. Following simultaneous exhibitions at the John Becker and Demotte galleries, a review of Noguchi’s December 1932 show at the Reinhardt Galleries begins: “As if two exhibitions in a single season were not enough to satisfy any artist, Isamu Noguchi displays yet another segment of his talents before the turn of the year.” The reviewer goes on to note “the strange and floating Miss Expanding Universe that has been dangling conspicuously in Julien Levy’s front window this winter.”[footnote=17] The following month, Julien Levy’s beautifully illustrated six-page monographic essay on Noguchi’s work, the first ever published, appeared as the cover story in Creative Art. In it, Levy attributes a “bi-polarity” to Noguchi’s work: “He is always attempting a nice balance between the abstract and the concrete, the relating of fact to meaning, while specifically he exercises a vigorous interpretation of oriental and western aims.”[footnote=18] Levy accounts for Noguchi’s catholic tastes and diverse talents as a search for a singular style. He strongly encourages the artist to follow in the direction of the portrait heads, which he applauds for “applying the formal elements of sculpture to enhance the psychological implications of a portrait” to such a successful degree that “if the portraits were featureless, there should still remain a sort of impression of the subject.”[footnote=19] By contrast, he warns Noguchi against his proclivity for the purely abstract; Levy called the latest large-scale figures in aluminum, including Miss Expanding Universe, “only half-realized, amorphous”. (Here one can detect why Levy hesitated to represent Noguchi fully at his gallery.) The essay concludes: “At first glance, Noguchi appears to have lost connection with the logical continuity of his past progress, but one cannot predict toward what end this tangent may lead.”[footnote=20]

    The Noguchi feature had repercussions over several issues. In March, Creative Art ran a notice to identify the photographer whose pictures “aroused so much favorable comment” as F. S. Lincoln, Massachusetts Institute of Technology=trained biologist and mechanical engineer. His talents as an art photographer were discovered by Buckminster Fuller, when Lincoln, seeing one of his exhibits, offered to make photographs of it as speculation in publicity.[footnote=21] In May a heated round of lengthy letters between Robert Josephy, a designer, and Julien Levy was published. Josephy admonished Levy for his use of the term “style” and admired Noguchi’s attempts to be true to himself: “and if at twenty-eight he has not yet done his masterpieces, there is still no need for him to embrace any such rationalization of artistic sterility.”[footnote=22] Levy defended his position. Josephy rebutted. Levy let his case rest. But the essay and exchange marked Isamu Noguchi as a controversial Modernist, even within the informed art press.

    As Levy confided after seeing Noguchi’s ceramic vases: “one sometimes wishes [Noguchi] would forego some of his more ambitious projects and give us more of these comparative ‘trifles.’”[footnote=23] Levy’s final presentation of Noguchi’s work is perhaps the most significant – though the objects themselves might be considered mere “trifles”. The occasion was The Imagery of Chess, a group show held in 1944 that featured artist-designed chess tables and chess sets. The announcement card was by Dadaist Marcel Duchamp who, as one reviewer described, had “stopped painting when he took up chess and is now one of the leading spirits in the ‘art applied to chess’ movement.”[footnote=24] During the show, Duchamp refereed the event that matched the world champions of blindfolded chess in simultaneous games against players who included the artist Max Ernst and The Museum of Modern Art Director, Alfred Barr, Jr. The sets were more-or-less functional – the Surrealists André Breton and Nicholas Calas submitted a board covered with drinking glasses filled with red and white wine, permitting captors to drink the sweet taste of victory, literally. More pragmatic, Noguchi’s contribution was singled out in Newsweek for being functional and well in keeping with his work as a whole: “The sculptor Noguchi, who is a modernist but no surrealist and has designed playgrounds as well as the panel over the door in Rockefeller Center, created the most beautiful piece in the show – a black plywood chess table of curved design with quarter-size pieces of inlaid plastic to indicate alternate play squares. This table, which would also be nice for tea, can be raised or lowered and the top opens out revealing a pocket to hold the chessmen. Noguchi’s men are angular abstractions of red and green plastic (acetate).”[footnote=25]

    Following the reviewer’s advice, the table went into commercial production: from 1947 to 1949 it was manufactured by Herman Miller. One promotional picture shows it against a bamboo backdrop set for cocktails with a Japanese-inspired arrangement and a sake bottle. Another shows it being used as a sewing table, with skeins of yarn, buttons and pins displayed in the partially opened pockets. The plastic chessmen were not manufactured.

    By this mid-century point, Noguchi was no longer interested in making portrait heads. He had developed his work along lines in which figurative representation, as a form of naturalism, was irrelevant. His decorative arts sensibility had become assimilated into a body of work that included affordable, industrially produced furniture. These provided him with a source of income in true with the vision of his mature art.

    During the 1930s, Noguchi considered his most successful resolution regarding the problems of space and sculpture – problems that essentially had to do with issues of interaction and movement – to be his theatre sets, especially the 21 sets he produced for the modern dancer, Martha Graham (1894-1991). Prior to 1935 Graham had not used sets; Noguchi’s design for Frontier was the first ever to appear in her work. Their collaborations continued until 1966. Noguchi and Graham met in the late 1920s when his mother made costumes; his sister would later dance with the company. In 1929, Noguchi made two portrait heads of Graham. The first she rejected, although the artist always preferred it over the second version.[footnote=26]

    Another portrait subject from the New York world of dance offers an opportunity to explore issues of Noguchi’s identity as they came to bear on the reception of his work during the 1930s and informed one of the most extreme passages in his career. Michio Ito (1892-1967) was a Japanese modern dancer who had trained in Germany. He lived in London, where he starred in At the Hawk’s Well, a play by William Butler Yeats styled after classical Japanese Noh drama. Ito himself was deeply inspired by Egyptian art; his unique dance style was based on definite, almost frieze-like motions. He kept his face still, his features frozen, while he performed. Former student Helen Caldwell recounted: “It was his desire, he said, to bring together East and West in a style of his own. Like a sculptor he worked over every gesture until it meant what he would have it mean. ‘If you cry “Stop!”’ he explained, ‘in any place in my dance, you will find that it is a pose that means something.’”[footnote=27] No wonder Noguchi responded as he did: unlike any of the other heads, Noguchi’s depiction of Michio Ito takes the form of a bronze mask.

    Noguchi sculpted the bronze portrait around the time he had his first foray into theatre, making papier-mâché masks for Ito’s 1926 production of At the Hawk’s Well. Ito had moved to New York in 1916, where he established himself as a leading figure in dance: Agna Enter danced in his Pinwheel Revue in 1922; Martha Graham in his Garden of Kama in 1923. When he moved to Los Angeles in 1929, he played to packed audiences. In 1930, “Michio Ito and his ballet were given a veritable ovation by a crowd that overflowed the [Hollywood] Bowl and filled every standing space on the hillside”.[footnote=28] Ito’s popularity did not prevent him from being interned, along with the rest of the Japanese living on the West Coast, following the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. He returned to Tokyo in 1942.

    As a Japanese-American, Noguchi’s art was never beyond being discussed on racial grounds. Virtually every early review, including Levy’s essay, takes on the artist’s identity as a main subject and/or impetus for his work. Noguchi himself was keenly interested in Asian art and traditions, and cultivated Eastern principles in his work. In 1930, he travelled to China, where he studied brush drawing for eight months; in 1931 he spent seven months in Japan, attempting to renew his relationship with his father, while studying haniwa and Zen gardens and working in ceramics. (He was no doubt attracted to Michio Ito’s dance because of its explicit references to Kabuki and Noh theatre, the latter traditionally performed in mask.) All of these experiences impacted directly on his work. What is objectionable, however, is how broadly Noguchi’s interpreters read his work through his Asian background as opposed to the language of the forms themselves. Attributing the success of a portrait to an artist’s “racial kinship” with his Japanese model is simply racist.[footnote=29] The fact that Noguchi was part-American only increased speculation. A critic wrote of the artist having “that uncanny intuitive quality and delicacy of perception that sometimes seems to come with a mingling of racial strains”.[footnote=30] Again, a quotation from Henry McBride exemplifies the xenophobia that seemed to be part of America’s everyday discourse. Not sure what to make of a talent that presents itself in two exhibitions at once, McBride theorises: “Being essentially Eastern, [Noguchi] may eventually arrive at profundity through this virtuosity of his. We must give him the benefit of that surmise. But if he were Western, on the contrary, we should agree that he could never surmount so much cleverness to arrive at sincerity.”[footnote=31]

    Noguchi spent seven months in 1942 in an internment camp located on an Indian reservation in Poston Arizona. He says that he went to the camp voluntarily, though one wonders why anyone would willingly forfeit his freedom to live under detention. Perhaps he was determined to make the best of what he saw as an inevitable situation. Having been for so many years the subject of press comments that openly alienated him, Noguchi would have been keenly aware of the vulnerability of his status. When the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on 7 December 1941, Noguchi was staying in Hollywood, having driven out west with Arshile Gorky that summer. He seems to have been actively looking for some kind of patriotic service to perform. In a letter dated 21 October 1941, for example, Clare Boothe Luce advises him to get in touch with a friend in Washington, D.C., who is “looking for someone who could make shortwave broadcasts in Japanese. It seemed to me (knowing where you stood about the horrible war) that you were the person.”[footnote=32] When this and other prospects failed to materialise, Noguchi decided to go to Poston with the intention of improvising living conditions in the camp. His plans included gardens, recreation areas, even a cemetery.
    He had several unrealised public proposals from the 1930s to draw on. From 1933 alone, there was the proto land-work, Monument to the Plow, a pyramid of earth, one mile wide at its base, to be located in Idaho at the geographic centre of the United States, and Play Mountain, the size of a New York city block, a sculpture landscape for sledding, water sliding, and climbing. More recently, on a trip to Hawaii in 1939 to specify a sculpture project for the office lobby of a pineapple company, Noguchi had also, at the behest of the Honolulu parks commissioner, come up with models for playground equipment. Neither of the Hawaiian projects were realised, and nor was Noguchi’s plan for Poston – apparently life in an internment camp was not a subject for improvement.

    Noguchi’s mail from the seven months he spent at the camp is eerily studio business as usual.[footnote=30] There is an order for a piece of pink marble for the portrait Ginger Rogers had commissioned while he was in California. The collector Edward James responds to a request from Noguchi who was hoping to include his portrait head of James in in a forthcoming exhibition at the San Francisco Museum of Art. James had been chasing the apple blossom season up the coast of California and apologises for not getting the letter in time, but he advises Noguchi to obtain photographs of the portrait from Man Ray and send them to a curator at The Museum of Modern Art who, James feels sure, will want to include it in a proposed exhibition. There is a correspondence regarding an exhibition in Cambridge, Massachusetts, organised by the Quakers, of work by Japanese artists in internment camps; the writer looks forward to receiving Noguchi’s contribution.

    When Noguchi first showed his proposals for public works of art in 1935, they were accompanied by his statement that “sculpture can be a vital force in man’s daily life if projected into communal usefulness”.[footnote=34] As Poston, after it became clear that he was not going to be given the opportunity to make such a sculpture, he says he simply took a leave of absence from the camp one day and never returned. Back in New York, his proposal for a war monument stands as a twisted counterpart to a playground model he made just prior to his detention. Contoured Playground of 1941 is an optimistic answer to the city’s call for equipment with no dangerous edges. This Tortured Earth of 1943 is also a contoured landscape, this time sculpted by bombs and other equipment of war. As an image of psychic landscape it is a bleak view. In the light of this, the public monuments and parks that Noguchi did go on to realise appear all the more impressive, their mission of communal usefulness so long in waiting.

    In the course of the development of Noguchi’s political consciousness, he crossed paths with American fashion designer Elizabeth Hawes (1903-71). Innovative and rebellious, Hawes changed her course in life many times, from couturier to social activist. Noguchi sculpted a portrait head of her in the early 1930s when she was an observant young woman intent on changing the system.[footnote=35] Hawes worked determinedly to reroute the origin of styles worn by Americans, who typically favoured Paris for their views on fashion. Her efforts paralleled those of other Modernists who were making New York the new centre of international culture. Today Elizabeth Hawes is remembered primarily by historians who become intrigued with her clothes, the people who wore them and the fascinating life their creator led until she died, destitute, at the Chelsea Hotel.[footnote=36]

    In 1928, Elizabeth Hawes, aged 25, established her first couture clothing business in New York City. It was a time when the mere concept of American fashion was untenable to most participants in this exclusive world. While Hawes focused on fashion in the 1930s, it was always from a broad spectrum encompassing many aspects of the arts as well as the social issues of her day. The name Hawes gave to the clothes in each new collection reflect her interests, concerns and sense of humour: “Prosperity is Just Around the Corner” afternoon dress (1933); “Diego Rivera” crepe skirt and chenille blouse (1933); “Alimony” evening dress (1937); and “Beautiful Soup” tea gown (1938). That Hawes seemed so unconventional to the conservative fashion industry is no surprise, nor is the fact that her ideas found appeal with many artists of the period who became her friends, lovers and collaborators.

    The wave of young talent going to Paris in the 1920s included both Noguchi and Hawes. Arriving in 1925, Hawes held a variety of jobs in fashion, including reporting back to the United States on the latest Parisian styles. For the newly founded New Yorker magazine she contributed communiqués under the pen name Parisite. In 1928, with the help of Mainbocher, then the Paris editor of Vogue, Hawes designed clothes at the atelier of Nicole Groult, Paul Poiret’s sister. Following Noguchi’s arrival in Paris in 1927, he became an apprentice in the studio of Constantin Brancusi by way of an introduction from the writer Robert McAlmon. For both, working in Paris was an interlude. In 1929 the Guggenheim Fellowship that had financed Noguchi’s travels came to an end, and he had to return to New York. For Hawes it was a well thought-out decision to establish herself in New York as one of the first American couturiers.

    The showroom she created in 1930 was fresh and lively. Utilising the talents of friends including Alexander Calder,[footnote=38] Noguchi and the architect Willy Muschenheim, she created an interior for Hawes, Inc. that was unlike any other clothing establishment in New York City at that time. Calder contributed a wire fish bowl and a reclining chair; there was a scroll by Noguchi, and aluminum tables by Robert Josephy (who championed Noguchi to the readers of Creative Art). Wire soda-fountain chairs and re-upholstered second-hand furniture completed the look. The atmosphere at Hawes, Inc. was salon-like, with a deliberate overlapping of New York circles. For the socialites, actresses and other women of means who could afford to buy Hawes’s custom-made clothing (or have their heads sculpted by Noguchi), viewing her dresses in this unexpected environment was certainly a novelty and in marked contrast to the classic luxury of Parisian couture houses.[footnote=39]

    What made Hawes’s establishment even more unconventional were the events that she staged when showing each new collection: “Usually we break the show in the middle with some sort of oddity.”[footnote=40] There was a performance of Calder’s Circus (perhaps Noguchi assisted Calder with the gramophone, as he did on occasion). In 1933 a short film, The Panther Woman of the Needle Trades, was shown. Directed by photographer Ralph Steiner,[footnote=41] the film featured Elizabeth Hawes dramatising the development of her creative life. In 1937, the divertissement was a riotous showing of men’s fashions by Hawes. These clothes, a significant leap from then current styles, tested the sartorial limits of her male friends who modeled them. One, an advertising salesman, wore “sailor pants, laced in back, made of light weight, fine wale corduroy, and a sweat shirt of striped upholstery linen.”[footnote=42]

    Hawes was always eager to travel, and in 1935 she planned a trip: “Like many another questing soul, I wanted to go to the Soviet Union.”[footnote=43] Curious about socialism and wanting to see behind the scenes, Hawes arranged for a showing of her clothes at the Soviet Dress Trust: “I was fascinated with looking at a bit of the beginning of something and they were fascinated with looking at my most elaborate and capitalistic clothes.”[footnote=44] Five years later, following the closing of Hawes, Inc. in 1940, Hawes’s political beliefs become enmeshed with her work. Subsequent jobs included reporting for the leftist magazine PM, grinding screws at an aeronautical plant, and writing for the Detroit Free Press and the United Auto Workers. In 1936, Noguchi, too, desired to see another way of life, particularly a place where artists worked with more freedom than he felt was available to him in New York City. He left for Mexico and spent eight months executing a mural, History Mexico, at the Abelardo Rodriguez Market in Mexico City. Noguchi’s interests in the social and political implications of art led to the rejection of many of his projects by both critics and bureaucrats. One project that was realised was a plaque for the Associated Press building at the Rockefeller Center, New York City. Rendered in a social realist style, the cast stainless steel relief depicts a photographer, a journalist and phone, wirephoto and teletype operators as tireless workers.
    The wooden portrait of Eleanor Lambert (b. 1903), made by Noguchi in 1932, sits today in the foyer of her New York apartment.[footnote=45] Eleanor Lambert is well known for her work as a publicist in the fashion industry, which she began to concentrate on in the 1940s after an earlier period spent handling publicity for art galleries. Her gallery clients, whom she charged $10 per week, included the Wildenstein, Knoedler and Perls galleries, as well as the Marie Sterner Gallery which in 1930 put on the first exhibition of Noguchi’s portrait heads. For an additional fee, Lambert also offered to promote the individual artists. Sympathetic to the financial constraints, she sometimes worked for payment in kind, trading her services for their art. Noguchi was among those who benefited from Lambert’s professional talents and connections for little or no fee; his portrait of her, however, was a commission for which she paid him $150. Admiring the talents of this curly-haired and determined artist, as Lambert today remembers Noguchi in the 1930s, she recommended him to friends – in this way, he came to sculpt Clare Boothe Luce, Suzanne Ziegler and others.

    For Noguchi to have a publicist working on his behalf in the early years of his career provided alternative means of visibility. During this period he had obtained recognition from New York art galleries, but he found the context limiting. As publicist for the newly founded Whitney Museum of American Art, Lambert was involved with the Public Works of Art Project (PWAP), which was headed by the museum’s director Juliana Force. For Noguchi the government programme supplied financial support and allowed him to pursue his views of sculpture as an element of society. Lambert recalls her participation in working with Force to help Noguchi obtain a PWAP grant.[footnote=46] But in exchange Noguchi was unwilling to produce free-standing sculptures, his ideas being far more inspired and monumental. He proposed Play Mountain to be realised as a playground in New York City. But this, and other ideas such as a “ground sculpture covering the entire triangle in front of Newark Airport, to be seen from the air”, were all rejected.[footnote=47] To Noguchi this denied opportunity was an affront that stayed with him throughout his life. He stated decades later: “It was true that I could make some money doing heads even then at the depth of the Depression, but it was not what I wanted to do.”[footnote=48]

    While as an artist Noguchi was in some conflict about portrait sculpture, he did acknowledge that it was “A very good way of getting to know people. Thus it was that I made long-lasting friendships, in particular with Martha Graham and Buckminster Fuller.”[footnote=49] Noguchi and Fuller (1895-1983) met in 1929 at Romany Marie’s, a bohemian café in New York City’s Greenwich Village. Fuller considered Noguchi’s portrait of him, done that same year, as a cohesive act: “he said, could he make a head of me? and I said I’d be glad to have him do it. So posing for him day after day gave us a chance to build up our friendship that went on and on from there.”[footnote=50] Both Noguchi and Fuller were beginning to pursue their visionary ideals, and their immediate friendship influenced events in the early 1930s.

    The chrome-plated bronze portrait of Fuller, made at Noguchi’s studio, which was painted entirely silver at Fuller’s persuasion,[footnote=51] was one of fifteen heads exhibited at the Marie Sterner Gallery in February 1930. Noguchi employed a range of materials and styles. The reflective planar head surface of Fuller’s head strikingly represents this forward-thinking architect of geometric forms. Or, as Fuller describes it: “Completely reflective surfaces provided a fundamental invisibility of the surface.”[footnote=52] It was just prior to their meeting that Fuller had invented his Dymaxion House. A model of the hexagonal house, constructed around a central mast, had been shown in Chicago, at Marshall Field’s House of the Future, show in 1929. In 1930, Fuller’s energies were engaged in promoting the Dymaxion House to architects, possible sponsors, and all those who would listen to his concepts of the future.

    Following the exhibition at the Marie Sterner Gallery, Noguchi and Fuller took to the road with Noguchi’s sculptures and the model of the Dymaxion House packed in the back of Fuller’s station wagon. Their first destination was Cambridge, Massachusetts. For an exhibition at the Harvard Society for Contemporary Art. The Society was founded in 1929 by some of Julien Levy’s fellow Harvard Moderns Edward Warbug, John Walker III and Lincoln Kirstein (whose portrait Noguchi did in bronze). Its innovative approach to exhibiting art included presentations of architectural and industrial design such as Fuller’s Dymaxion House, along with modern paintings and sculpture. The portrait heads by Noguchi, including those of Martha Graham, George Gershwin and Fuller, were unconventionally shown, placed on pedestals made of galvanized furnace pipe.

    For the Society’s exhibition, the model of the Dymaxion House was placed in the courtyard of the Fogg Art Museum. Presumably Fuller’s architectural drawings were also exhibited. These plans contain handwritten, syncopated poetic descriptions of the house’s remarkable features including “pneumatic beds inflating to desired firmness”, “hexagonal pneumatic divan”, “bakelite floor” and a “dish washing machine which washes dried & returns dishes to shelves”.[footnote=43] Fuller also gave a lecture, one of many he was delivering at this time to explain his inventions. Afterwards Noguchi and Fuller drove to Chicago, where a similar exhibition was held at the Arts Club of Chicago.

    Noguchi returned briefly to New York before sailing in April 1930 to Paris for an extended trip in Europe and Asia. Fuller sent him a telegram from Chicago, intended to reach him aboard the Aquitania before it sailed from New York on 16 April. This Buckminster Fuller monologue on their friendship must have befuddled the Western Union operator to whom it was relayed. It concludes with the following statement: “IDEAL ART WHICH IS PROGRESSIVE INDIVIDUAL RADIONIC SYNCHRONIZATION OF TIME WITH ETERNAL NOW THROUGH REVELATIONS NONWARPABLE TRIANGE.” Fuller was dismayed to find out that his telegram, which he had been “at some pains to compose, as complete summary of our philosophic conversation”,[footnote=54] did not reach Noguchi before he sailed.

    Their “philosophic conversation” continued when Noguchi returned to New York: in 1932. While he was away, Fuller had taken over a magazine called T-Square. He immediately changed the name to Shelter, eliminated all advertising, and announced that issues would come out when “I had something I felt deeply in need to saying”.[footnote=55] Shelter, published from 1930 to 1932, was an opportunity for Fuller to incorporate the works, ideas and philosophies of friends and colleagues such as Noguchi, as well as to amass support for his own architectural plans. Back in New York, the first sculpture Noguchi made was Miss Expanding Universe. Fuller supplied its title and placed the piece on the cover of the November 1932 issue, where it hovers in a stunning photograph by F.S. Lincoln.

    The ideological impact of Shelter is evident upon looking at this issue. The magazine claiming to be “A Correlating Medium for the Forces of Architecture”, incorporates progressive, cross-discipline views on architecture, art and even the English language. There is an article by Noguchi, “Shelters of the Orient”; an article on Noguchi’s sculptures, “Colloidals in Time”; Richard Neutra on “New Buildings in Japan”; and C.K. Ogden’s plan for “Basic English” which reduces the number of words in the language to 850. The ideas contained in the pages of Shelter were not passing, momentary notions fixed in the temporal space of 1932, but concepts that Noguchi and Fuller independently pursued throughout their respective careers.[footnote=56]

    In his article, “Shelters of the Orient”, Noguchi establishes a relationship between traditional Asian styles of architecture and modern sensibilities in Western architecture. At its conclusion the correlation becomes a direct link to Fuller: “Translated into modern terms there exists a striking similarity between the ancient Japanese house and Fuller’s Dymaxion.”[footnote=57] Elsewhere Noguchi speaks of a material that plays an important role in his artistic life – paper and its “multitudinous use – diffuser of light, as protection against the wind and rain, lanterns and umbrellas”.[footnote=58] When Noguchi began designing his Akari paper lanterns in 1951, he had considered the role of this material in Japanese life for almost twenty years.

    As an artist, Noguchi did not recoil from verbal philosophies on art. “Colloidals in Time”, which features two other works by Noguchi (a portrait head, Ruth Parks, in the collection of the Whitney Museum of Art, and Draped Torso, an aluminum sculpture at the Metropolitan Museum of Art), includes his beliefs regarding sculpture and its relationship to the universe, “As a result of our contacts with, and feelings for life, art reminds those, whose minds are clear, of truth.”[footnote=59] While Noguchi and Fuller worked in different spheres, overlapping only on occasions, they absorbed each other’s ideals, and their shared sensibilities incorporated far-reaching perspectives on the world. Decades after Shelter, Noguchi saw their relationship in this way: “Our imagination expands as far as our expanding knowledge and beyond. We were already there in orbit, Bucky and I. New York was our city that glimmers in the distance, and we talked of time and cosmic space.”[footnote=60]

    In 1933, using the money he made from Shelter, Fuller applied his Dymaxion principles to transportation, the result being the Dymaxion Car. Working at a factory in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Noguchi made the plaster models for the car and Fuller, with a team of 27 men, had this extraordinary vehicle build. Fuller often transported well-known figures around in the Dymaxion car, including the pioneer aviatrix Amelia Earhart and the writer H. G. Wells. Noguchi was a passenger on one particularly notable trip – on 7 February 1934, he and Clare Boothe Luce, Dorothy Hale and others, drove with Fuller to the premiere of Gertrude Stein’s Four Saints in Three Acts at the Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford, Connecticut.[footnote=61]

    In a letter of 28 June 1933 arranging their plans for Birdgeport, Fuller imagined that these circumstances might allow Noguchi to realise his art more completely: “It seems to tme that this is the chance that you and I have always looked forward to in the matter of your executing the best of design.”[footnote=62] From these words of encouragement in 1933, Noguchi persevered within the art world, gaining the perspective, discipline and strength to create the range of forms for which he became well known. Perhaps the most complete expressions of his vision are his garden landscapes. It takes only a stroll through Jardin Japonais (1956-58) at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris, his first garden project, to experience the synthesis of Noguchi’s work – finally, a large space, such as he had been desiring since the early 1930s, allowed him to transform an urban area using water, stone, copper, wood, trees, grass and even fish. Employing elements of traditional Japanese gardening in unprecedented modern ways, Noguchi unified his Eastern and Western aesthetics, and integrated sculpture and design into everyday life. Stone sculptures function as seating, within a plan of shifting planes and contours that can be viewed as an abstract picture, or moved through and animated as a useful public setting. This garden in Paris takes us miles from the “uncertainties” and strife of the 1930s.

    (We are extremely grateful to Amy Hau, whose expert knowledge of the holdings of the Isamu Noguchi Foundation was invaluable to our research. All citations from material in the archives are published with kind permission of the Isamu Noguchi Foundation.)
  • “Reflections on Silver Studios.” The Metal Party: reconstructing a party held at the Bauhaus in Dessau on February 9, 1929 / Josiah McElheny. New York: Public Art Fund, 2002, pp. 26-30.

    Reflections on Silver Studios

    In light of Josiah McElheny’s recent reconstruction, it’s a short hop from the Bauhaus Metallic Party to Andy Warhol’s Silver Factory, the pop studio environment in New York where a perpetual party reputedly took place from 1964 to 1968. Both were social spectacles of modernism with reflective backdrops: avant-garde events that merged art, fashion, music, dance, decor, even film.[footnote=1] The results were synthetic performance environments where every participant was also a creative constituent in a flow of actions and conversations (to say nothing of constituent participation in imbibing, ingesting, inhaling, and injecting). Together they advance an art history according to which parties signify as art. But what happens when the same retrospective light moves past the seemingly similar dynamics and meaning of the Bauhaus and the Factory and hits metal?

    The same year that Bauhaus students and faculty clanked and tinkled the Dessau Night away at a theme party devoted to metal, another silver studio environment came into being. Isamu Noguchi recalls the influence of his first meetings with Buckminster Fuller: “I first met Mr. Fuller, as I used to call him…at Romany Marie’s [a Greenwich Village artists’ hang-out and café] in 1929. Some time later I got an old laundry room on top of a building on Madison Avenue and Twenty-ninth Street with window all around. Under Bucky’s sway, I painted the whole place silver—so that one was almost blinded by the lack of shadows. There I made his portrait in chrome-plated bronze—also form without shadow.”[footnote=2]

    Reading this, one can almost see the chrome-plated head of Fuller dissolving into the silver backdrop of Noguchi’s studio. But even in less blinding circumstances, the Fuller head is almost impossible to see. The streamlined form appears to melt, like liquid, into its own reflective surfaces. (One writer recently likened the portrait to a car bumper.[footnote=3]) In so doing, it embodies the visionary architect’s machine-age aesthetic. In 1929 Fuller had just completed his plans for the metal Dymaxion House and was trying to find a means of having it industrially reproduced. Nochugi’s bust also makes manifest Fuller’s theory of the “fundamental invisibility” of “completely reflective surfaces.” As Fuller later explained it: “This fundamental invisibility was that of utterly still waters whose presence can be approached only when objects surrounding them are reflected in them…. Then only the distortion of familiar shapes in the surrounding environment could be seen by the viewer. In the brains of the viewer there would be induced a composite constellation of pattern information permitting the secondarily derived recognition of the invisible sculpture’s presence and dimensional relationships.”[footnote=4]

    Likewise, in a consideration of Fuller’s career, it’s the invisible impact of his teachings, writings, friendships, and other indeterminates that matter. He himself was completely unfazed when a geodesic dome—bolted together from venetian blind slat—collapse in the midst of a demonstration. Fuller simply dubbed it “the supine dome.”[footnote=5] This experiment was conducted in 1948 at the Black Mountain College, located just outside of Asheville, North Caroline. When it opened in 1933, the college had inadvertently assumed a legacy from the Munich Bauhaus, which had closed that same year after refusing to admit Nazi students, by bringing Joseph and Anni Albers from there to run the art department. Judging from all accounts, the events that occurred outside the Albers rigorous classroom curricula—the parties, lectures, meals, music, and other happenings—were as integral to the experience of Black Mountain as they were to the Bauhaus.

    Among the faculty who participated in the summer term of 1948 were, besides Fuller, Elaine and Willem de Kooning, John Cage, and Merce Cunningham. It was also the first of the three nonconsecutive years that Robert Rauschenberg attended Black Mountain as a student. Since he didn’t show up until the fall term, he missed both Fuller and Willem de Kooning. Rauschenberg says it was de Kooning’s work that inspired him in 1950 to paint the walls of his New York apartment/studio silver. He and Susan Weil, his wife at the time, were living on Ninety-sixth Street. As Rauschenberg told art historian Barbara Rose in a 1987 interview: “Betty [Parsons, the art dealer] came over to see some paintings. There was a man with her, looking very grim. Clyfford Still. She came into my studio with Clyfford Still. He didn’t even look up. We had problems. We had a Scottie that ate goldfish and stole butter. I had painted the house silver. I had noticed at the time Bill de Kooning would paint silver around the edges, the restrictions of an image on canvas. Noticing how well that worked, I had painted my house silver inside, thinking it might improve my own paintings.”[footnote=6]

    As incidental as this story may sound, it is also wildly suggestive. Four years before his first “Combines” upended distinctions between painting and sculpture, Rauschenberg was already thinking outside the frame. Three years before he asked de Kooning to give him a drawing in order to erase it, he was already consigning aspects of abstract expressionism to decor. Rauschenberg’s silver studio was short-lived—perhaps not enduring much past that studio visit, with eventually led to the 1951 gallery show that launched his professional career.

    Rauschenberg’s determination to engage de Kooning seems mirrored, a decade later, by Warhol’s determination to ingratiate himself to Rauschenberg. Let Us Now Praise Famous Men is Warhol’s elegiac 1963 silkscreen portrait of Rauschenberg, based on family photographs Warhol solicited from him. At the time, Warhol had not yet moved into the East Forty-seventh Street space that would become known as the Silver Factory, so-called after his assistant Billy Name covered the interior in silver paint and foil. Warhol had enjoyed the effect when he first saw it while attending one of Name’s home hair-cutting parties.[footnote=7] (Indeed Warhol, a wig-wearer, must have also enjoyed the experience of watching people getting their hair done in this silvery domain, as the party inspired him to make a new film Haircut, starring Name.) In January 1964, he asked Name to decorate the new Factory space just like his apartment, in mirrors and foil.

    The light on the Factory’s aluminum surfaces has a tarnished, campy glow, like burned-out movie screens. It is completely unlike the shiny brilliance of metal (and its promise) at the Bauhaus party, which is, furthermore, unlike the revisionist light of McElheny’s postmodern reconstruction. In short, as this brief metallurgy proves: not all silver studios are created equal! And yet, there they are, a surprising ongoing trope of modernism as reflected in metallic surfaces. What these spaces do seem to share in common, however, is a desire to collapse the distinction between different disciplines—to provide a single foil, if you will, for music, dance, painting, sculpture, haircutting, etc. to occur against. Silvering also speaks of the will to break down basic figure/ground relationships, to create new fields, or contexts, in which to perceive works of art—fields, like parties, where people meet, things happen, and maybe someone goes home and paints the walls silver.

    Acknowledgments.

    I would like to thank Geoffrey Batchen, Susan Davidson, Donna Ghelerter, Brandon Joseph, Walter Hopps, David White, and Matt Wrbican for their insights and interest in this essay.

     

  • “On Collecting.” Pictures, Patents, Monkeys, and More…. New York: Independent Curators International, 2001, pp. 33-41. Excerpt pp. 33-36.

    On Collecting

    Why didn’t she try collecting something?—it didn’t matter what. She would find it gave an interest to life, and there was no end to the little curiosities one could easily pick up.

    —Henry James, The Spoils of Poynton

    I have been accumulating writings on collecting, and the reading is telling. One minute you might be reading about butterflies, for example, or about a person who devotes untold hours of his or her life to getting more butterflies—the next minute you find yourself grappling with questions about history, economy, destiny, science, naming, language, learning, love, immortality. Even the most. ephemeral, least significant writings on collecting somehow induce a bewildering amount of speculation.

    Sample the two modern classics. Walter Benjamin’s 1931 essay Unpacking My Library opens with a charge of the perverse pleasure this Marxist philosopher gets in seeing his private collection of old books emerge from packing crates.[footnote=1] Disheveled/dis-shelved, the unpacked books not only convey but arouse the collector’s passion. At his touch—almost a fondle—each volume relinquishes a “chaos of memories.”[footnote=2] He contrasts to this productive chaos the “mild boredom” of seeing any collection neatly arranged—its disorderly essence (a historic essence) subdued, made static, like facts in a chronology.[footnote=3] The pleasure his collection unleashes has little to do with its contents: the last thing a collector does is read his books![footnote=4] No, the relationship between collector and object is based on memories of a first encounter, a city, a dealer, a transaction, a touch. The essay concludes with Benjamin’s abrupt, yet wistful, prediction that private collecting would someday constitute an obsolete form of ownership. Bruce Chatwin’s short fiction Utz picks up where Benjamin leaves off, investigating the mysterious fate of Baron Utz’s vast collection of Meissen porcelain figurines, in postwar Prague. Utz has struck a deal with the Socialist government, allowing him to keep his acquisitions until his death. He warns: “In any museum the object dies—of suffocation and the public gaze…. Ideally, museums should be looted every fifty years, and their collections returned into circulation.”[footnote=5] And at the old man’s funeral, the entire collection has vanished, without a trace. Perhaps, the narrator speculates, Utz destroyed his aristocratic Harlequins, Columbines, and monkey musicians rather than have them possessed by the State. Or is it possible that after marrying his devoted maid, Marta, Utz no longer relied on the chilly comfort of Rococo porcelain objects, and the aged couple together smashed the lot?

    Turning to more varied sources, one discovers recurrent motives and points of consensus as well as some knotty contradictions. Compulsion, a word that smacks of perversion and illness, commonly describes the collecting impulse (which is also sometimes called a “mania”). As Chicago art collector Frederic Clay Bartlett testified, “l am a collector. It is a habit—a disease with me. I cannot help buying curios, antiquities, and works of art, even when I have no place to put them.”[footnote=6] And yet, this impulse has also been regarded as normal, as something to be cultivated from childhood on. “The tot of two,” a parenting article from 1919 assures us, “when he starts to collect, has entered the first business enterprise of his life.”[footnote=7] Sigmund Freud was deeply inspired by the act of collecting and by the objects in his own collection of some 2,000 (mostly small) antiquities. When the Nazis occupied Vienna, Freud refused to leave until safe passage to London was assured both his family and his collection. And psychoanalytic practice was built on the idea of retrieving things (material) from an individual’s collection of images, thoughts, memories, fragments, dreams, and fears—all of which Freud called the unconscious.[footnote=8]

    Hunting is the great metaphor of collecting, with tracking, the chase, the bluff, capture, the elements of risk and chance all presumed to be more thrilling than the quarry itself. Collectors are frequently likened to “lions,” and in one case to “ferrets”: “The collecting of one type…is bold and voracious; the collecting of men of the type of Balzac’s ‘Cousin Pons’ is artful, cunning, crafty.”[footnote=9] Embedded in the hunting/trophy metaphor is a tradition of collecting as plundering, or acquisition through conquest—to the victor go the spoils. In 67 B.C., for example, Roman emperor Cicero begged his contact in Greece to please send “as many other statues and objects as seem to you appropriate to that place, and to my interests, and to your good taste—above all anything which seems to you suitable for a gymnasium or a running track.”[footnote=10] In a strange twist to this adage, Napoleon, though defeated in battle, sacked Egypt of its treasures and carried them off to France in triumph—a triumph of collecting, that is.

    Love, learning, identity, immortality, and investment are the big motives for collecting. As one commentator observes of the tender ministrations that collectors lavish on their objects: “while love for another person may be spurned, no one was ever jilted by a book mark or a cheese label.”[footnote=11] Alternatively, however, collecting can lead to friendships and build community. Surely the members of MOO: Milk Bottles Only Association find exceptional company in their own midst. Built over time, a collection is a life’s witness. The writer Kenneth Breecher has observed: “There were postcards from every period of my life and they had become my private museum, a cabinet of curiosities, a personal history reflecting large and minute concerns.”[footnote=12] Every collector learns from his or her pursuit, and collections can also teach others. The seventeenth-century genesis of the museum—the curiosity cabinet, or Wunderkammer—was composed equally of natural specimens and cultural artifacts for study and teaching purposes. Joseph Pulitzer said that building his art collection goaded him to constantly rethink his own knowledge and taste: “If I have been troubled or dismayed or shocked or antagonized by a style that suddenly emerges on the scene, I usually take the trouble to find out about it.”[footnote=13] But collecting is not first and foremost about communicating with others, and collectors’ expertise can veer to the sheer arcane and be couched in a language sensible only to other collectors, with their knowledge of rare patterns, maker’s marks, years of manufacture, most desirable colors, and other minutiae. This is the parlance of the marketplace and is not usually relevant to discussions of culture or history at large.

    Collections establish and reveal identity. Mega-collector and twin Alex Shear has noted that he “didn’t know who [he] was,” until the day he found himself at a flea market, reconstructing the consumer landscape of his past (from bobby pins, to soda cans, to artists’ renderings of never-built cars) and started acquiring these products of his youth en masse. “Is my collection autobiographical?,” he asks; “you’d better believe it. A lot of my life is in that stuff.”[footnote=14] But collections don’t just reflect on a collector’s past, they also look forward to the time of his or her death. On donating his collection of Victorian art to Canada’s National Gallery, Joseph Tannenbaum declared: “There’s something almost immortal about collecting. It’s a heritage you pass on to future generations.”[footnote=15] Even when a collection isn’t fit to enter an institution’s pearly gates, there is a sense of its heft and responsibility anchoring the collector to this world. As a collector friend once said to me, “l can’t die; who will take care of all these things?”

    But collecting is also about investing in the here and now: “Most of us, of course, collect for profit, whether real or imagined.”[footnote=16] And, increasingly, everything seems collectible, and thus valuable. Each episode of the popular television program Antiques Road Show stars ordinary household accumulation that an expert’s word either transforms into a pearl of great price or reduces to trash. With e-bay and on-line auctions taking place virtually every second of the day, collectors are constantly buying and selling, incrementally and exponentially inflating their own economies in Russell Wright-designed dishes, Impressionist paintings, tractor brochures, and so on. Nonetheless, collecting is ultimately about accumulating, not about cashing-in. For what do true collectors do with any financial gains? They buy more stuff.

    Finally, the Golden Rule, encountered again and again throughout the writing on collecting, is that everyone collects something. On a certain level, collecting is naming (you name it and someone collects it…); it is a kind of pointing to the object. And collectors in turn are named: a deltiologist collects postcards, a phillumenist matchbook covers, a vitolphillist cigar rings.”[footnote=17] Snobs might quibble over the difference between dilettante and genuine collecting. “The latter,” one commentator observes, “has stilled once and for all any inhibition against spending money on the inanimate objects of his choice.”[footnote=18] But money isn’t really the issue when you collect, as some do, rubber bands, restaurant doggie bags, string, or other ephemera. We live in a culture so possessed by possessions that a person would almost have to make an effort not to collect. Emerson’s warning, “Things are in the saddle and ride mankind,” receives this update from the editor of The Antique Trader Weekly: “grab as much as you can and store it.”[footnote=19]

    An essential question remains, even after having sifted through my collection of writings on collecting: How and why do people chose what they want to collect? What is it about asphyxiated butterflies that can drive one person to distraction, while others daydream about small antiquities? How thrilling is the pursuit of miniature lamps if one is not already captivated by them? A fine collection of cheese labels may keep emotional entanglements with human beings at bay, but love is there nevertheless. Ultimately, I cannot explain the pleasure that I get from my own modest collection of old travel books—with their exquisite maps, handsome heft, delicate paper, stone-by-stone accounts, and obsolete accommodations—and I do not expect anyone else to fully appreciate or share it. (In fact, I hope you don’t. Like most collectors, I’m a little proprietary when it comes to my object.) This aspect of collecting—the hold certain objects can have on us—seems to lie beyond speculation. The desires and assurances they inspire remain ineffable.

     

    Pictures, Patents, Monkeys, and More

    The three (and more) collections that are the subject of this exhibition are each represented by selected objects and each depict a different kind of collecting: contemporary fine art comes from the Robert J. Shiffler Foundation in Ohio; the sock monkey toys, artifacts of popular culture, come from a private collection; the patent models, an example of a repository of public record, are from the U.S. Patent Office, and are now in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution. In addition, each participating venue has been invited to present a local collection.

    Seeing all of these objects side-by-side gives rise to a variety of questions and comparisons. For example, how are institutional and individual collecting different from one another? Art is generally considered the “big game” of collecting, because of the relatively high cost associated with obtaining and maintaining individual objects, and because of the status they confer. Yet, as expressions of innovation and individuality, are pictures actually unlike patents or sock monkeys? What about the power and significance of the collection itself? How does the fact that an object has been collected transform the regard we have for it? Is there a point when an accumulation becomes a collection? And can a collection itself become a work of art? We also have to pay attention to the context of display: art museums create a privileged form of presentation, which reflects on all the objects on view here. If Marcel Duchamp could, in 1915, turn a shovel into a sculpture just by showing it as such, what does that gesture mean for these monkeys and patents? By extension, is fine art leveled by such associations? I think not: art maintains its cultural position and its specific claims on our attention, though not at the expense of any of the other objects on view here. What attracts you personally is of course a matter of taste. But everything in this show, including the art, gains from the frisson, the excitement the exhibition generates simply by showing it together and making it possible to ask these questions in such a direct and open-ended manner.

     

  • “Rauschenberg’s Photographies.” Afterimage, 25, no. 5 (March/April 1998), p. 15.

    Rauschenberg’s Photographies

    The first work by Robert Rauschenberg to enter a public collection was a pair of black and white photographs purchased by Edward Steichen for the Museum of Modern Art’s photography department. In light of the noisy Pop assemblages for which Rauschenberg is known, these are straightforward pictures—a buggy and a portrait of his artist friend Cy Twombly: classic American silents with a streak of Surrealism. They also speak of the artist’s early ambition. As a student at Black Mountain College in the 1950s, where  Harry Callahan and Aaron Siskind were fellow students, and where Rauschenberg received his first photography instruction from Hazel Larsen Archer, Rauschenberg says he was temporarily tempted to become a photographer. Ultimately he took a less focused course, making art into “the kind of adventure [he] enjoyed, like walking down the street,” often with a camera in hand.

    As benefits its subject—a painter, sculptor, photographer, printmaker, dancer, performance artist, theater set designer, fresco painter, Mud Muse-maker, world traveler, new technologies buff and first postmodernist—Robert Rauschenberg: A Retrospective is a gargantuan show. In New York, it filled both the Guggenheim Museum’s uptown and Soho locations, then spilled over into Ace Gallery, a veritable bunker of commercial gallery space on the fringe of Soho, where The 1/4 Mile or 2 Furlong Piece, a large-scale, Pop-operatic installation that has been unfurling since 1981, was on view. Organized for the museum by Walter Hopps and Susan Davidson of The Menil Collection with an important contribution on Rauschenberg’s performance by the Museum’s own Nancy Spector, the curatorial conceit is distinctly Hopps’s. In the catalog (also mammoth), Hopps compares Rauschenberg, to the artist Charles Willson Peale, who, in a well-known self portrait of 1822, proudly pulls back a curtain to reveal his seemingly endless collection of art and artifacts—the first museum in America. (For which, Peale subsidized the excavation of an entire mastodon skeleton.) The same analogy might be extended to Hopps, who staged the first Rauschenberg survey as a Bicentennial event in 1976 for the Smithsonian, and who once again pulls back the curtain, this time on a presentation composed by a lifetime’s intimacy, enthusiasm and full participation in the artist’s love of the encyclopedic. The exhibition is nearly a catalog raisonné in the round. For the viewer, it’s a lot—really too much—to absorb, and no doubt would be better served by fewer works. But for the Rauschenberg devotee (myself included), this was an opportunity to see the work on its own super-abundant terms and to explore in detail the roles and guises of one of its most consistent means: photography.

    Rauschenberg was introduced to the photogram technique in 1950 by Susan Weil (their collaborative photograms were included in the 1951 MoMA exhibition). In one of these almost life-sized studies, a woman washed in light clutches a cane as if to keep from blowing away in the wind that is billowing her skirts. It’s a ghostly image, fixing in blueprint the shadows that Rauschenberg originally envisioned flitting across his pure white paintings of 1951. (At the Guggenheim the White Paintings were rendered purely conceptual [really defunct] by barriers on the floor that keep viewers and their unruly shadows impossibly at bay.) Altogether these first works—the prints, photograms, white canvases—are emblematic of Rauschenberg’s indexical approach to representation: non-narrative, radically ephemeral and, in that the pictures practically make themselves, almost un-authored. The presence of Marcel Duchamp—who also liked to play with shadows, to casually mark junctures of time and space and who preferred to leave things open in his art—looms large over these first gestures by Rauschenberg.

    What makes Rauschenberg’s work so compelling (and perhaps prolific) is that the opposite impulses—to make pictures, to narrate, to construct allegory, to invent—are equally profound. The critical precedent here—explicitly conjured by early collages and box-like constructions (such as the Scatole Personali of 1952) and later called forth through concert themes—is Joseph Cornell. Both artists create worlds out of ephemera, trash and photography, collected, collated, collages into art. And like Cornell, who compulsively stocked photographs of favorite images, Rauschenberg’s art can also be read in terms of an archive. Over time, images routinely re-appear (the Rokeby Venus, John F. Kennedy, a pail), at first as if through convenience (pictures near at hand), then more rigorously recycled, as if refining the elements in a grand narrative. This has its pragmatic aspect: in 1980 Rauschenberg was sued for copyright infringement. He has since drawn more heavily on his photographs, making the structure of his archive—its limits, its themes—increasingly apparent.

    The two not-necessarily-contradictory side of Rauschenberg’s art (Duchamp and Cornell) are famously married early on in the survey, by the mid-1950s, with the “flatbed picture plane.” This is the term art historian Leo Steinberg coined to mark the inception of postmodernism within Rauschenberg’s Combines. “Neither painting nor sculpture but a combination of the two,” the Combines realize the artist’s expressed desire “to bridge the gap between art and life” by importing wholesale to his art the sights, sounds and stuff of the world. There are pictures of things reproduced in snapshots, book and newspaper pages, and the things themselves: chickens, shoes, mirrors, dirt, paint. This in not art as mirror, but art as an index, a plane upon which things land, adhere and resonate. The triumphal arch of all flatbed pictures Monogram (1955-59), stand about one third of the way up the Guggenheim spiral. For photography, look under the taxidermied Angora goat with a tire around its belly and paint daubed on its face to the canvas laying on the floor encrusted with pigment, old boards, signs and other elements of collage. There is a photograph and, nearby it, a footprint inked on paper. As mundane as these might appear amidst the spectacularly shocking surroundings, it is these two indexical items that segue into the next major phase of Rauschenberg’s art: the silkscreen paintings and transfer drawings.

    Initiated by Dante’s Inferno (1958-60), an ambitious illustrative picture cycle tucked away in a side gallery, these images are certainly less cumbersome and crude than the Combines. Driven almost exclusively by photographic reproductions transferred onto paper and canvas as rubbings and montage, the work of the 1960s might be seen as the platonic union of the index and the construct. However, in her catalog essay (the only one primarily on photography), Rosalind Krauss detects a step away from the non-literal flatbed approach and recourse to old-fashioned allegory with its attendant associations and narratives. The smoking gun is Rauschenberg’s straight photography, which Kraus describes in damning WPA terms (“the frontality, the relentless focus”) thus underscoring what she finds to be the conventionality of his work in general. (“We would sooner expect him to share a sensibility with Robert Frank,” she writes.) Krauss’s essay is compelling reading (moving effortlessly and pointedly from Breton to Richter) and yet, in the end, seems overdetermined, pinning its subject into a tight analytical corner that the work—by way of its generous movement and strong visual intelligence—patently resists.

    Returning to Rauschenberg’s photography one finds more than just refried Walker Evans. Starting in the late ‘40s, and continuing to the present is a body of work that on one hand informs and on the other stands independent of the artist’s assemblage. At The Guggenheim, the photographs were grouped in side galleries along with other works on paper and primarily served the role of fueling the Combines and silkscreens installed out on the ramp with fresh batches of images. But in a concurrent New York exhibition at Pace/Wildenstein/MacGill Gallery, Rauschenberg’s straight photography was allowed to stand on its own. RR Fulton Street Studio, NYC, a studio interior of 1951, is practically a Combine before the fact: fetish-like found objects on a shelf, postcard reproductions and a scrappy fabric curtain come to rest on the plane of the studio wall. Moving out of the studio, recurrent motifs are staircases, hand-painted signs, empty streets and headless bodies. These together, with the kind of strange juxtapositions and framing devices that give rise to a sense of the uncanny in everyday life, evoke Surrealism in general and Henri Cartier-Bresson in particular. Both artists were inveterate travelers, who quested further and further afield to fuel their pictorial appetites. Rauschenberg has spent great portions of the past two decades on extended exotic sojourns—for example, the Rauschenberg Oversees Culture Interchange (or ROCI), the artist’s personally incorporated adventure to encourage international exchange, took him to Tibet, Chile, Russia, among other places—collaborating with local craftsmen, taking pictures and making great souvenirs.

    It’s difficult not to be dismissive of much of the late work—large-scaled and expensive-looking—on view at the Soho Guggenheim. It doesn’t appear to demand the kind of looking (or, for that matter, thinking) required by the earlier work in the retrospective. These are big easy gestures, drawing on familiar photographs, at their best sweepingly cinematic (the tarnished Night Shades, 1991), at the worst simply inflated (the brassy Boreali, 1989). The photographically-minded spectator will want to tap any reserve energy for viewing the artist’s films and performance documents. Early choreography, such as Pelican (1965), shows the artist at his most intense and potent, an innocent and true believer in the power of art to draw participants (viewers, other artists, dogs, chickens…) into life. Something of the reverse is also true, when one starts to measure Rauschenberg’s influence on other artists: Gerhard Richter says he felt permission to paint after seeing Rauschenberg’s contribution to the 1959 Documenta; and, as far as younger generations, there is precedent in Rauschenberg’s work for artists as diverse as Matthew Barney, Jason Rhoades, Jessica Stockholder and Wolfgang Tillmans, to name but a few.

    Given the nearly constant presence of photography and photographic reproduction throughout the 40 years of work on view, one might argue that Rauschenberg never abandoned his initial ambition to be a photographer. (For that matter, the inquisitive and accumulative Rauschenberg seemingly never rejected anything that came his way.) He simply refused photography’s departmentalization, and with it, at times, art’s own marginalized status in society at large. (In 1987 he designed a wine label for Wolfgang Puck’s restaurant Spago, testified against Judge Bork’s Supreme Court nomination, and initiated a new body of work when he discovered a new technique for bleaching photographs.) In the work of Rauschenberg, a consummate sampler, photography gives way to photographies: what better means of fulfilling the desire to make art that is simultaneously abstract and allegorical, autobiographical and global, archival and indexical, in the museum and of the media, enduring and ephemeral, actual and fictitious. What better way to do all this and walk down the street at the same time?

     

  • “A Short History of the blp.” Parkett, 46 (1996), pp. 26-33+.

    A Short History of the blp

    To the extent that the blp epitomizes Richard Artschwager’s art, it also stands firmly on its own, an independent phenomenon, a little to the left of the artist’s painting and sculpture, on whatever ground it finds itself located by whomever has chosen to place it there. Stenciled or stuck anywhere by anyone, these lozenge-shaped marks create a juncture of ever-changing coordinates, admitting asides from such disparate realms as typography, poetry, music, even radar, as they gather their own context round them.[footnote=1] The following is a brief account—according to the artist, archival documents, and anterior association—of the blp.[footnote=2]

    The blp was born in the winter of 1967-1968, while Artschwager was teaching a term at the University of California at Davis. It arose out of a combination of graphic impulses, perhaps the result of the artist being cut off from the routines of his New York studio:

    At Davis I know I did two things: I graffiti-ed into magazines with a felt tip, blacking out eyes, etc. in somewhat the manner of Duchamp’s mustache on the Mona Lisa. Then I was also working in notebooks as usual and therein tried to pick apart my painting to see if I could take it somewhere else. There were dashes, Y-shapes and hooks, with pen or pencil. So out of this I decided to bring the elements into the space by making them bigger and more substantive…[footnote=3]

    The blps, evolved as a lozenge, “more effective than a dot,” were first shown as painted wooden cut-outs grouped in clusters at the university gallery. The original idea was to arrange them into illusional figures, which would disintegrate into abstraction upon approach.[footnote=4] This proved dissatisfying and Artschwager promptly began winnowing. Switching to singles, he found himself moving out of the gallery space, putting blps in the hallway, onto the ceiling, and so on.

    Thus liberated, the blps fueled Artschwager’s trip back to New York in the spring of 1968 in his Studebaker Lark with “a bushel basket of blps” in the trunk. By the time he got to Detroit, he had used up the last blp. In the course of the journey, it seems the blp had changed character, from a diverting pastime outside the studio, into an aggressive means of establishing identity and controlling space. In June, Artschwager made his debut at the Galerie Konrad Fischer in Düsseldorf, not with “signature” paintings and sculptures, but with blps, covering the interior, including the windows, in a blight of black spots.

    Back in New York, Richard Bellamy included the blps in one of his serial abstraction shows, “From Arp to Artschwager III” and parleyed for their inclusion in the 1968 Whitney Annual devoted to contemporary sculpture. Installed throughout the museum’s stairwells, galleries, elevators, and offices, the blps, now made of wood, hair, and plastic, were collectively titled 100 LOCATIONS. Cheap, nonretinal, unruly and invasive, they were singled out by a critic as “[p]erhaps the most significant contribution to the entire Annual.”[footnote=5] (Artschwager remembers Eva Hesse’s compliment during the installation: “I used to think you were really dumb.”) Indeed as blps actively broke with conventions of consumption and containability, they were confluent with a range of conceptual strategies from, say, Dan Flavin’s fluorescent sculptures, which fill the air with ephemeral, industrial radiance, to Vito Acconci’s guerrilla-style “blink” photographs, snapped in the streets at each bat of the eye.[footnote=6] Artschwager himself refers to them in “environmental” terms, revealing in his notes that the genesis of the hair blps stemmed from a desire to “make one which doesn’t look like a keypunch hole in space, but like a soft spot in the diamond hardness of the air.” Perhaps less evident is how the blps might relate to sound and film.

    In a 1968 lecture at Milton College, which began with the query, “What does it feel like to look?” Artschwager said, “Seeing is confined to what is in front of us, and to an area shaped something like a Zeppelin or blimp. Or…a cinemascope screen with all four corners lopped off.” Accordingly, the blp becomes a miniature movie screen, a portable field of vision. It is also filled with motion, as Artschwager originally opted for the lozenge over the dot for its streamlined zip. The soft edges of the hair blps actually enhance this effect with a blurriness that signifies movement in photography. The cinematic potential of the blp is presented in Artschwager’s project for Sonsbeek 1971 with a series of blps located throughout the nearby city of Utrecht.[footnote=7] A publication devoted entirely to blps documents the various sites, from flower stands to fields (where blps perch on little sticks), with full-page photographs that read like a film montage of a day in the utopian life of a blp.[footnote=8] In one sequence a blp on the back of a car travels down a street, growing tinier in the distance. Adding another ambient layer, or soundtrack, is a record tucked in the book’s back cover. One side plays the continuous ticking of a windup clock; the other the pinging sound of the same when muffled.

    If Utrecht was an idyllic departure into a panoramic blp Sensurround, blps were more generally experienced by the public as incidental stop-motion, doubletakes, if they were seen at all. Simultaneous to the official installation at the Whitney in 1968, Artschwager (helped by friends Gary Bauer and John Torreano) located blps around Manhattan. The cadre worked under cover of darkness, spray-painting blps outside the major museums as well as at less distinguished locales. A blp on a wall of graffiti suggests a comparative study. Like graffiti, blps are anyone’s mark. For a l978 exhibition, entitled “Detective Show,” held at Gorman Park in Queens, organizer/artist John Fekner informed the absent Artschwager, “Your piece was executed by a couple of fifteen-year-old girls with my supervision of course.” For even at its most surreptitious and streetwise, the blp must be correct, making it ultimately unsuited to expressive defiance and public defacement. Its true precincts are visibility and memory. Like a pointer that indicates “look here,” the blp calls attention to its surroundings which, no matter how raucous or sedate, seamy or banal, suddenly find themselves the subject of a second glance, and possibly even worth remembering.

    At the same time Artschwager was working the galleries and streets plying relatively small blps, he was also envisioning more ambitious venues. Photographic maquettes proposed monumental blps on the sides of brutalist bunkers in Hamburg, on a nineteenth-century row house on Wells Street in Chicago, and in the Telegraph Hill district in San Francisco. A forty-foot tall white blp was painted on a black smokestack of the Turtle Bay Steam Plant, located in Lower Manhattan. This was an inside job, arranged for by the artist with a Con Edison employee “long since retired.” After some twenty years of humming quietly above the F.D.R. Drive, the blp recently disappeared from the spot.

    According to Artschwager the first blps came out of drawings that were about painting. Closely scrutinized, there is something of the blp (along with “hooks” and “ys”) slipping around, paramecium-like, in the pools of black-and-white acrylic medium that ride and rise over the irregular celotex surfaces of Artschwager’s photographic imagery. One might even come to think of blps as Artschwager’s Benday dot—mechanical reproduction’s least common denominator that had gained such high visibility within the work of his Pop peers. Inasmuch as the blps managed to encapsulate the essence of Artschwager’s painting, they also may have precipitated a crisis. A 1968 notebook entry determining to quash such qualms reads, “Doing both is best way to say Fuck You Clement Greenberg.” Any real dilemma is startlingly enclosed in TINTORETTO’S RESCUE OF THE BODY OF SAINT MARK (l969), a long view down a barrel vault where a fragmentary icon of the Renaissance painting (St. Mark’s hand) floats alongside Artschwager’s own blps.

    Boundaries exist to be trespassed, exceeded, blurred in Artschwager’s art. The painting, sculpture, multiples, blps are all contiguous upon one another, working in concert to make art seemingly ordinary enough to pass into everyday experience. A function of the punctuation pieces that first appeared in 1966 was to frame space in the same way an Exclamation Point or Quotation Marks frames speech.[footnote=9] Similar attempts to disrupt patterns of seeing and reading occurred throughout the sixties as exemplified by the contemporary renaissance of concrete poetry, and the publication of Notations (1968), a collection edited by John Cage of new music notation which ranged from erratic angles, to creepy drips to simple language. (“Bloop. Blip./Bloop. Zeep,” Ken Friedman’s composition begins.[footnote=10]) But while Artschwager’s punctuation pieces performed a rhetoric of seeing using familiar grammar, turning their surroundings into floating concrete poems, if you will, the blps eschewed all references to reading by marking a site for just plain “useless” looking. For Artschwager, this is one of the blps’ most important features:

    First the blp. It is a mindless invasion of the social space by a logo-like, totally useless art element. It is small, has high visibility, relentlessly refuses to give up its uselessness. It is an instrument for useless looking. Being of small size and high visibility it converts the immediate surround over to The Useless. That is its “function.” It gets about as close to pure art as one can get.[footnote=11]

    When Artschwager clipped the “i” from “blip,” he snatched his invention from the dictionary and any direct associations with 1) a short crisp sound, 2) radar or 3) censorship in order to strengthen its purely abstract and aural impact. As much as the blp is a gestalt of vision (a blp is what it feels like to see), it also sums up the ever-critical Artschwagerian concept of “preliterate experience.”[footnote=12] He once told an interviewer, a blp “is one of those things you can’t drop into a verbal conversation.”[footnote=13] This notion was elaborated upon in the most recent large-scale blp installation held at the Clock Tower in 1978. Besides the usual assortment lurking around, up in the tower, and on all four faces of the clock—note that Artschwager had wired the hands of the clock to “race around (one set backward) at alarming speed, visible from the ground, but experienced in the tower only as eerie shadows”[footnote=14]—were a series of wall-sized blps encircling the gallery, like a blockade or a deafening tattoo. These passed through two passages of relatively unassuming wall installations: the first, a perspectival study, such as appears in the painting BUSHES (1970), of pencil lines all rushing to meet a central point on the wall that in turn establishes a rudimentary landscape beyond the phalanx of blps. The second, a representation of a piano keyboard, upon which the blps land like giant touch. In short, what wells up behind these seemingly stolid mute marks are all the unspeakable pleasures of music and pictorial illusion.

    Blps continue to appear. Most recently a mirror multiple was made in the shape of one and there’s some talk of making a giant blp out of bristle. But there are also a box of blp decals and a handful of stencils in different sizes lying around the studio, just in case…

  • “Apres Exquis” The Return of the Cadavre Exquis, ed. Jane Philbrick. New York: The Drawing Center, 1993, pp. 43-71.

    Apres Exquis

    Walter Benjamin, a connoisseur of radical montage, wrote, “The father of surrealism was dada; its mother was an arcade.”[footnote=1] Seen in this light the cadavre exquis, surrealism’s abject offspring is a visual department store disgorged of its goods, an assembly line of absurd–at times, sublime–expressions. So how, one may well ask, do we read it?

    One heeds in the interpretation of original cadavre exquis drawings a caution against too singular a reading, a caution which the works themselves support. With only a few important exceptions, historic cadavre exquis have been exhibited as secondary works, treated within the larger context of surrealist games and automatism.[footnote=2] Much has been written on technique. Famous sessions have been documented, but there is very little in print about individual cadavres. [footnote=3] For the most part, these works exist as uninterpreted records, novel apparitions of point sublime, that spot on the distant horizon where everything–rational and irrational, conscious and unconscious, abstract and concrete–converge.

    One of the first guides to this surrealist arcadia was Julien Levy’s book Surrealism, published in 1936 by the legendary Black Sun Press. Bound with jacket covers by Joseph Cornell, and printed on a rainbow of colored paper, this book sings like a synthetic scrapbook of surrealist precepts and personages. It contains, under headings such as CINEMA, FETICHISM, and BEHAVIOR, everything from the screenplay for the Luis Buñuel/Salvador Dalí film, Un Chien Andalou, to a passage from Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams, from pictures of work by Max Ernst to poems by Paul Eluard. For surveying the aftermath of “The Return of the Cadavre Exquis,” Levy’s approach seems a ready model. Allow the fragments to take issue, to form, and fall as they will, although today these fragments do not coalesce at point sublime.

     

    Surrealism

    In 1916 Guillaume Apollinaire named a poetic spirit adrift throughout the ages “surrealism.”[footnote=4] By its first historical account, recorded in Levy’s books, surrealism claimed amongst its forebears the Marquis de Sade ”in sadism,” Edgar Allen Poe “in adventure,” Rimbaud “in life and elsewhere.”[footnote=5] Others include the satiric illustrator de Granville, the symbolist writer Isidore Ducasse (a.k.a., compte de Lautréamont), the photographer of Paris Atget. Those ordained: the Marx Brothers, and Frida Kahlo, who coyly commented upon her own induction, “I never knew I was a surrealist till André “ Breton came to Mexico and told me I was.”[footnote=6] Working outside Breton’s jurisprudence, David Lynch’s ant’s-eye-view, Angela Carter’s violet pornography, Bob Dylan’s tombstone blues, and virtual reality could also be called surrealist.

    As called forth by “The Return of the Cadavre Exquis,” surrealism’s essence, a montage of irresolute fragments, appears impossible to contain. Teased by Linda Herritt, surrealism’s coif, stiff as shellacked drapery, tumbles down in the luxuriant fall of Millie Wilson’s hairpiece. Its head is buried alive by Jim Shaw under a mound of delicately rendered octopi. (The image of an octopus recurs as legs in a photogram by Kunie Sugiura.) Drawn by Lawrence Gipe  (p.42), the face of a freight train comes to light, only to be extinguished by Lawrence Weiner, who attributes to surrealism no feature at all. Sporting a dirty velvet cumberbund, courtesy Maurizio Pellegrin, with Kavin Buck’s body of text, surrealism’s sex in indeterminate, but–as Don Ed Hardy would have it–voracious, or, even–according to John Wesley (p. 49)–orgiastic. Standing back for the panoramic view, surrealism’s style is both elegantly calligraphic and compulsively blunt. Language colloquial. Surrealism is humorous, certainly sports a tattoo, may have served time in prison, frequently stalks on animal legs.

     

    Surrealisms

    Author of the movement’s polemics, André Breton was surrealism’s inspired leader and tyrannical prince. It’s ironic and indicative of surrealist spirit that Breton, who attempted to encode it, define it, even determine its politics, was ultimately eluded by it Enervated by Salvador Dali’s remarkable imagery and exasperated by his behavior, Breton dispelled Dali from the ranks of the surrealists in 1934. And yet in the popular mind it’s Dali who is most closely linked with historic surrealism. In retrospect and of late, Georges Bataille, now seen as surrealism’s critical author, has similarly displaced Breton.[footnote=7]

    Whereas Breton’s surrealism distills itself into objects–a bowler hat, a biscuit, a woman’s glove–Bataille envisions it as an image of diffusion, an excess of energy that obscures containment. He called this the “informe,” and ascribed it with the “job” of rendering the formed object, idea, emotion or sign into a state of formlessness.

    Formless is thus not merely an adjective with such and such a meaning but a term for lowering status with its implied requirements that everything have form. Whatever it (formless) designates lacks entitlement in every sense and is crushed on the spot, like a spider or an earthworm.[footnote=8]

    The surrealist movement governed by Breton tends to reside resonantly in particulars–clocks, dolls, and found objects–which are themselves dated in appearance. However, as conjured by Bataille, surrealism is transgressive. It exceeds the parameters of time, the strictures of space, and is thereby elusive.

    Both surrealisms have come into play during the course of this game. Sometimes as direct bodily evocations. After Man Ray’s famous photographic portrait comes a drawing Breton’s by Steve Wolfe of André Breton’s head. Cindy Bernard uses the text of Bataille’s “Big Toe,” which declares this appendage to be the most human part of the body.

    Other times, these two surrealists appear as oblique points of reference: Bretonian collage, displacement, found objects are drawn together with Bataille’s tattoos, scars, animism, diaspora, and pictures of spiritual ecstasy. The former is captured in a drawing, rich with nostalgia, by starts with a poem and ends with collage on little cat feet. Elements of the latter surrealism are lodged in the hectic, scribbled drawing which hovers over an image of mannequin legs akimbo in the cadavre by Alan Turner, Carroll Dunham, and Laurie Simmons.

    At its most poetic, this game remains as Breton intended it–and Bataille may have played it–with critical spirits expelled on holiday, an informal evocation of surreal transforms Bretons game of cadavre exquis into a post-modern possibility.

     

    Games

    Play might be considered the discipline of this century. Voicing every thought that came to mind, Sigmund Freud played by the rules of free-association to enter into the realm of his own unconscious and thereby formulate a modern picture of the mind. Likening their exhilarating progress to mountain picture of the mind. Likening their exhilarating progress to mountain climbing and aviation, Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso worked closely and competitively to invent Cubism, opening pictorial space up to radical speculation and abstraction. Albert Einstein called it relativity. Accomplishing a similar feat in the field of linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure–himself an avid anagram player–re-envisioned the structure of language after the game of chess by equating words with game pieces, each dependent on the play of context for meanings mutable and strategic. For Foucault, this notion of language as an object of knowledge open to historical change and arbitrary deformation marks the inception of the modern era.

    Consider the knight in chess. Is the piece by itself an element of the game? Certainly not. For as a material object separated from its square on the board and the other conditions of play, it is of no significance for the player. It becomes a real, concrete element only when it takes on or becomes identified with its value in the game.

    -Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (1906-11)

    Play is the essence of abstract thinking and creative invention, a form of behavior with no anticipated goals or results other than pleasure itself. In the wild, young animals frisk about as a way of learning how to behave. For almost the exact opposite reason, we humans continue to romp as adults in order to refresh our minds and bodies from the restrictions of routine approaches and activities. As an alternative to the conduct that led a world to war, dada gambled on misbehavior in order to transgress all etiquette and establish a new cultural (dis)order.

    With the [surrealist] movement firmly entrenched, we met nearly every day at each other’s homes or in cafés chosen in the least artistic or bohemian quarters of Paris, to discuss future activities and publications…There were questionnaires on various subjects: sex, love, what was the most fateful encounter in one’s life, etc. Sometimes a poet would go into a trance and write automatically, producing astonishing phrases full of anagrams and puns. Or we would simply play games, everyone participating. – Man Ray, Self Portrait, 1963

    Applying themselves more systematically to this project, the surrealists adopted games as a form of experimentation. They played hard at scores of word and picture games in order to escape what they knew and discover what could be imagined.[footnote=9] Making art in this vein, Alberto Giacometti constructed his series of sculptural game boards in the thirties. Max Ernst’s late sculptures are iconic chessboard figures. Disciples of the European avant-garde, the American abstract expressionists also dutifully played surrealist games.

    Not exactly a team player, Marcel Duchamp allegedly abandoned art–with all its knowable forms–for chess. It is interesting to note that in formulating a theory of games, the mathematician John Neumann discounted chess. As it relies on tactics that are short term “if” actions, with calculable results, it doesn’t resemble those real games we constantly play in life, which are based on strategies or more open-ended “what-if” abstractions.[footnote=10] Though very few people play chess these days, such enigmatic strategies have endured. Aleatoric, what-if abstractions structured art of the sixties and seventies, making it spontaneous and lifelike. Daring silence, John Cage invited chance to play in the midst of his piano performances. Jean Tingley’s self destructive sculptures played themselves to death. Games such as these moved art into real time and space.  

    [During the Twenties] There was a great vogue for games of all sorts…crossword puzzles, mahjongg, and innumerable card games. There was also a vogue for “tests.” One of the most popular of these consisted of turning up a woman’s handbag and describing her personality from the heterogeneous contents. -Armand Lanoux, Paris in the Twenties, 1960

    As so evidently portrayed here, the artworld’s facture has grown increasingly dispersed, its community decentralized and insular. As we so well discovered during the process of this project, ferreting artists out of their studios all over the world, there are no cafe-headquarters. In turn, the nature of play has changed. Presaged by such (surrealist) examples as Claude Cahun’s gender-bending photographs and Leonor Fini’s performance-art approach to life, these games seem based more on role-playing and autobiography than on movements and conquest The big games are now, in fact, small ones, inspired by those private (often childish) forms of amusement one tends to pursue alone, like dress-up, dolls, and make-believe. Forfeiting the utopian, or merely grouped-minded, aspects of earlier pursuits, players today scrimmage, not by prescribed rules, but according to personal whim and individual preference.

    L’huitre du sénégal mangera le pain tricolore. The Senegalese oyster will eat the tricolor bread. –cadavre exquis

    So why, less than ten years short of the new millennium, do we reenact this early twentieth-century game? In retrospect of “The Return of the Cadavre Exquis,” experimental intentions come forward, but initially we played in pious keeping with orthodox surrealism. Because it’s fun.

    If there is one activity in Surrealism which has most invited the derision of imbeciles, it is our playing of games…Although as a defensive measure we sometimes described such activity as “experimental” we were looking to it primarily for entertainment, and those rewarding discoveries it yielded in relation to knowledge only came later. — André Breton, 1954[footnote=11]

     

    Collaboration

    “All our collaborators must be handsome so we can publish their portraits.” –Réné Magritte[footnote=12]

    As a joint venture, collaboration defies logic: the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. The total picture stands to topple over if the cadavre exquis is all earrings or individual organs fail to communicate. Rather, collaboration is a dialectical process. What is shared counts as much as that which has been withheld? The creative outcome of a successful collaboration is a new work, independent of any single contribution. In a collaboration by Christian Marclay, Olivier Mosset, and Alix Lambert, a pair of sutured lips, two green stripes, and a pair of legs cemented into one clay foot yields an image of thwarted expression, an evocation of censorship not one of its parts belie (p. 55).

    So good-natured by name, collaboration is not entirely generous in spirit.[footnote=13] Like Lex Luther, it calls for the death of the artist-superman. Listening for the collective voice, collaboration reproduces the interpretive and communicative aspects of art at the very level of its creation. Authenticity also takes a flying leap. Trespassing time and authorship, Marcel Duchamp drew a moustache on the Mona Lisa, making Leonardo da Vinci an unwitting accomplice to this collaborative work of art. Here we find Aubrey Beardsley, Constantin Brancusi, Gustave Courbet, Ezra Pound, and unknown Rajasthani artist as well as Duchamp himself, among the many drawn into cahoots with the creators of contemporary cadavres exquis.

    Bypassing the author can create quite a snarl. The challenge in collaboration is striking that delicate balance between retaining containment and relinquishing control. Ironically, the mechanism which seems to keep collaboration healthy is competition. It is, in part self-conscious measure that accounts for the metamorphosis of the surrealist cadavres exquis from the pure noodlings that first appeared in the October 1927 issue of la Révolution surréaliste into the considerably more engaging works of art that these collaborations eventually produced.[footnote=14]

     

    Collage

    Collage was the surrealists’ umbrella aesthetic, sheltering a diversity of practices, from painting and poetry to the cadavre exquis. As a collection of things jumbled and juxtaposed, collage captured the experience of an aimless wander through crowded city streets and desolate alley ways. But collage was not about getting lost. Rather, it was a practice that required the purposeful selection, arrangement, and affixing of images. Collage-making was about looking, about locating the dream-image in the everyday.

    Although faithful in spirit to the principle of collage, the surrealists often bypassed the process of affixing images for the seamless effects achieved through photography, either in-camera or during the printing process. Compositions of trimmed snips of paper, whose cut edges openly displayed the marks of their making, were more expressive of the cacophony of dada. The surrealist, on the other hand, effectively subsumed collage within the technology of photography. As the given automatic eye, the camera offered a range of techniques through which an image could be altered, for example, by doubling, flipping, and solarizing the negative. While the dadaists were indifferent to the power of photography’s apparent objectivity, the surrealists were seduced by the uncanny “realness” generated by the manipulated photography.

    Le vapeur ailée séduit l’oiseau fermé a clé. Winged steam seduced the locked up bird. – cadavre exquis

    Relegated to the periphery, hands-on collage nonetheless remained a central and reigning principle of surrealist practice. It became integral to the popular surrealist diversion cadavre exquis. Early examples of the game, composed entirely of drawing, were superseded by more elaborate works augmented by the addition of bits of paper and ephemera clipped from magazines, catalogues, and photographs. Cadavre exquis was a curiosity to the surrealists precisely because it laid bare the workings of collage. In the preface to an exhibition catalogue of Max Ernst’s photo collages, Breton described the process of making collage as “attaining two widely separate realities without departing from the realm of our experience, of bringing them together and drawing a spark from their contact.”[footnote=15]

    Governed by chance, cadavre exquis playfully tested collage, fanning a gentle breeze to the match struck between images. Failures were as instructive and as pleasurable as successes.

    Although not a technique commonly practiced in contemporary art, with this most recent round of cadavre exquis, collage has returned with a vengeance. To appreciate this recourse to collage, it is helpful to consider cadavre exquis, collage has returned with a vengeance. To appreciate this recourse to collage, it is helpful to consider cadavre exquis’ origin as a word game. Read top to bottom, some of the drawings suggest the completion and closure of sentences. Such is the case with a drawing by Julie Ault, Cindy Sherman, and Marc Tauss, where the composed of a snapshot of a rocket, grows the body of a sinuous card-playing nude. To this body, ready to test the winds of fate, is grafted a pair of ponderous go-nowhere feet. More often, the drawings are open-ended, as in the cadavre by Curtis Anderson, Joseph Nechvatal, and Rosemarie Trockel. Unified by a common media, –nineteenth-century scientific illustrations and maps–meaning here resides in the loose, rhyming association of the combined parts.

    Interestingly, the technology of photography, the linchpin of the surrealist collage aesthetic, remains ever present in the contemporary game. Despite the advent of the computer, it is the technology of the camera that still dominates. Noted additions to the camera’s repertoire include Xeroxes, both color and black and white. In fact, photocopies have overtaken the collaged clippings of the past-pieces of yellowed newspapers and magazines have given way to the mundane shadow of the Xerox image. But like the surrealists’ embrace of photography, contemporary artists have been quick to make use of the potential of new technologies. In the drawing by the Critical Art Ensemble and Faith Wilding, a computer-generated head and torso is attached to collaged Xeroxes of repeating legs of armor. Processes common to surrealist photography, such as doubling, are now easily obtained through the use of the photocopier or the computer.

    These contemporary works, however, rarely engage the everyday urban detritus that so fascinated the surrealists. Rather, present day cadavres exquis logically quote a range of styles characteristics of contemporary art. Today artists caught playing a game which in all probability is not central to their practice, reach for a bit of he familiar. Still, others responded by suspending their usual practice. Many of the collage images they created are consciously dated, depicting outmoded machines and ghostlike grainy images from the past. Although the surrealists themselves were attracted to the forgotten and slightly out of fashion, contemporary artists have resorted to the past out of nostalgia. Whether seamless printouts or elbow-deep in clippings and glue, these images pay homage to the surrealist collage aesthetic.

    -Elizabeth Finch

    Grotesque

    This is the other art history. Accompanied by Boschian bagpipes, the Grotesque tracks a bloody footprint on the road to Calvary, farts, eats off Archimbaldo’s plate, burps, drinks from Meret Oppenheim’s tea cup, shits, dances to Goya’s capriccios, fucks and sleeps to dreams of H.C.Westermann’s death ship. Shock and schism are its means, rupture its golden rule. The cadavre exquis, playing on all of the Grotesque’s styles and strategies, is its Adonis, Venus, Marilyn, and Mickey.

    Traditionally, the Grotesque appears heaped to either side of the Renaissance, in its overwrought aspirant–the Gothic–and aftermath–the Baroque. In style and content, both canons are highly visible here. With a medievalist’s eye for the minute, Meg Belichick lifts images of potato eye and astral bodies for a torso made using found printer’s plates (p.38). Her partner, Joanne Brockley, depicts the sacred “temple of the mind” as a ruin of industrial architecture. A horny male dog’s haunches, drawn by Peter Cain, completes this Boschian hybrid on a low, animalistic note. Conflating human attributes and natural imagery is a device of the gothic grotesque brought up to date by Hachivi Edgar Heap of Birds, Claire Pentecost, and Eve Andree Laramee. The tension between the head’s explosive burst of color and the body’s shackled cornstalk is poised–like Baba Yaga’s house–on a giant pair of chicken legs, collaged from road maps. This image suggests that, at its best, nature’s meeting with culture is an ambivalent one.

    On the march with Brockley’s automaton, a proliferation of cadavres exquis have been scrapped together by idolatrous engineers, who gleefully tinker with the machine of human anatomy. A drawing (p. 17) by Tony Oursler, James Casebere–both corroborating with mechanical modes of reproduction–and Charles Golden, recasts the model of classical perfection into a dehumanized pile a junk. Oursler’s photograph of a television antenna mounted atop Casebere’s image of a prison-cell toilet, set on Golden’s biomorph of fabric flocking, portrays the body as a dubious technological wonder.

    Matching the standards of postmodern culture, manufacture has taken on grotesque possibilities. Today, we all stand ready to be made into Exquisite Corpses. Pump it up. Suck it off. Tear it out. Reconstruct. Be all you can be, with the help of plastics, polymers, personal training, and, of course, the knife. Because the body is yours for the making. Constructing its destiny cell by cell, the Exquisite Corpse realizes the ultimate, post-human fantasy of the flesh.

    By giving way to grotesque displays of feeling, the corpse often upsets the equilibrium of emotions held in check by intellectual control. An agitated cadavre headed by Dottie Attie shouts and twists itself into a dramatic contrapposto, rendered by Mark Tansey, so that legs, by Steve Mendelson, seem to buckle under the impact. Conflating spiritual to be the ephemeral contents of a mind swirl above collage contributions by James Elaine and Peter Gilmore of a martyred Saint Sebastian set above a miasma of organic matter. Emotionally acute, humanly critical, heaven-kissing and ground-hugging, the cadavre exquis cultivates its energy and imagery from outside the classic mainstream of art history to encompass the often otherwise inexplicable excesses and margins of existence.

    Indeed, the grotesque corpse seems patterned in direct opposition to what Alberti, “the very founder of the theory of art, called convenienza or conformita.” As Erwin Panofsky elaborated, “It would be absurd if Milo the athlete were to be represented with frail hips of Ganymede with limbs of a porter, and ‘if the hands of Helen of Iphigenia were aged and knotty.’”[footnote=16]  This kind of physical comedy is the very meat of the cadavre exquis, just as mockery and satire present grotesque standards upon which the cadavre visibly thrives.

    A traditional underpinning of painting, the cartoon has long since slid out on its own subversive mission. This might be simply comic–like the (tee-hee) he-man by underground comic artists, Mark Beyer and Charles Burns, with artist Peter Saul (p. 63). Or given more pointed caricature, a lampoon attack. In a cadavre (p. 62) concocted during the 1992 election campaign, Robin Tewes turns the Republican ticket (Misters Bush and Quayle) into a two-headed hydra, which Megan Williams endows with a whirling dervish of breasts. Gary Panter adds a fecund female body, which Elliott Green finally carries away on a pair of fishy wet feet. Laughing itself to hysterical tears, a cadavre exquis by Jim Shaw, Sue Williams, and Nicole Eisenmann (p. 61) amplifies satire to a level of such ridiculous absurdity it verges on tragedy. Shaw’s caricature of one of the kings of comedy, Jerry Lewis, emits a gaseous cloud drawn by Williams, which erupts over a field of destruction, landscaped by Eisenman.

    Aching with the absurd, the Grotesque rips a hole in the sides of both conventional and conventional response, through which the Exquisite Corpse easily passes. The corpse emerges on the other side as a transcendent being, whose body performs the rituals of life–including death–with vigorous regularity.

     

    Sex

    Biomorphic, polymorphic, hermaphroditic, transsexual, homosexual, heterosexual–the cadavre is well-sexed. Perhaps it was simply the circumstances–a group creative effort–which started these juices flowing. Or else it was the perspective of surrealism–whose environs are the uninhibited unconscious mind–which elicited such licentious responses. Erotic energy courses through the collaboration of Bay Area artists, Brett Reichman, Caitlin Mitchell-Dayton and Peter Mitchell-Dayton (p. 67). A writhing bulb of gothic ornament, dripping with the oily patina of temps perdu, precipitates over the ample, bending, body of a late Marilyn, who, in white bikini, hands on hips, steps out of a bed shared with Betty at an orgy with other Archy comics, and even with just regular folks. Jughead’s crown is on the bedpost.

     

    The Corpse

    Leveling humanity to its organic essentials, flesh, excrement, and organs prove all equal in the eyes of the coroner. A veritable morgue, “The Return of the Cadavre Exquis” details an autopsy of spilt blood and gore. In a cadavre by Chicago based artists Story Mann, Mary Lou Zelazny and Roderigo Avila, a portrait image of Abraham Lincoln is abolished to a slurry of guts and animal matter. In adjacent operating room, Annette Lemieux performs an ink transfer upon an anatomical study of a head. This is joined to a photo-based image, by Doug and Mike Starn, of the body of Christ (certainly the most famous cadavre exquis), and blasphemously polished off by Timothy Greenfield-Sander’s photographic fashion-plate.

    I opened my bedroom closet. A half-dressed feminine corpse sagged into my arms..It’s a damned screwy feeling to reach for pajamas and find a cadaver instead. – Spicy Detective, July 1937

    There are also plenty of skeletons filling the ranks of the cadavre exquis and even a couple of x-rays. With death so near at hand, in both the name of the game and the images the game evoked, it is interesting to note that these spectators are patently metaphoric. The plagues inflicted by the AIDS virus and breast cancer, which constitute such an urgent component of today’s cultural politics are–almost without exception–not named here. Such omission sheds light on the true nature of the cadavre exquis as a cathartic being, whose imagery and activity envelopes the particular into a raucous, transcendental body.

     

    Time and the Body

    In the two years that have elapsed during the course of this game, the Exquisite Corpse marked time. Imagery based on the 1992 presidential election has already been mentioned in regards to the Grotesque. As if in response to the campaign button which read, “Elect Hillary’s Husband,” Bill Clinton does not appear here, though his wife, in a collage contribution from Laura Fields. The national hoopla celebrating Christopher Columbus’ arrival in America some five hundred years ago is quietly noted in the margins of a drawing by Moyo Coyatzin. (Marching backwards in history, this cadavre’s torso by Douglas McClellan is a collage homage to Chairman Mao’s colon.) “The Return of the Cadavre Exquis” also straddles the American Year of the woman. Coincidentally her body is here–with and without precedent–one of surrealism’s most graphic physical sites.

    Piquant femme-enfant, man-eating sphinx–surrealism appears obsessed with fantastic images of women. Equating sexual and creative freedom, the surrealists subscribed wholeheartedly to the psychoanalytic concepts of eros and the libido as liberating life-forces. Arousing muses of (heterosexual) love, women stood as communicating vessels between men and the marvelous. Yet there was very little place accorded her in the movement’s everyday membership, despite the participation of girlfriends and wives in cadavre exquis. [footnote=17]

    This unique woman, at once carnal and artificial, natural and human, casts the same spell as the equivocal objects dear to Surrealists: she is the spoon-shoe, the table-wolf, the marble-sugar that the poet finds at the flea market or invents in dream…

    -Simone de Beauvoir The Second Sex, 1949

    Here, with the cadavre’s return, women artists play in near equal numbers to men. Her body moves outside the bounds of a privileged male gaze, into the realm of a desiring or defiant female subject. Pantyhose legs contributed by Maureen Connor run to exhaustion and snarl with rebellious savagery. A simple slit cut through a torso-section by Siobhan Liddell turns up the acme fetish of castrating female. And there are abundant snippets from stories of “O,” among them David Humphrey’s girlish inquiry (p.42). On the other hand, many depictions comply with a traditional feminine cast. Within the framework of cadavre exquis,  these old parts were often handled to critical or comic effect. In a drawing by artists Bradley Rubenstein, Andrea Champlin, and Daniel Wasserman, a sinuously turning odalisque spins to a halt between her blandly bisexual head and jerry-rigged spring base.

    Sex, difference, death, beauty, birth, and ugliness, are embodied by this grotesquely gorgeous being whose vertiginous flip-flops between male and female, animal and object, culture and nature, sensual and cerebral, confound readings based on reason. Leading well beyond the point sublime, or bypassing it entirely, there is no svelte zeitgeist lurking within “The Return of the Cadavre Exquis,” though there are plenty of demons. Preying on the bugbears of an exclusive and synthetic approach to art, this inclusive body of work culminates in the antithesis of modernist principles. Collective and complicated, as opposed to singular and reductive, the cadavre exquis transgresses against the traditionally masculine construct of modernism and listens for a postmodern feminine ideal.

     

  • “In Advance of The Return of the Cadavre Exquis” The Return of the Cadavre Exquis, ed. Jane Philbrick. New York: The Drawing Center, 1993, pp. 15-23.

    In Advance of The Return of the Cadavre Exquis

     

    Le Cadavre exquis a                                            The Exquisite Corpse has 
    l’honneur de vous fair part                                the honor of inviting you
    de la réouverture de la                                       to the reopening of
    Galerie surréaliste                                               la Galerie surréaliste
    16, rue Jacques-Callot                                        at 16, rue Jaques-Callot
    qui aura lieu                                                         taking place
    le lundi 10 Octobre 1927                                    Monday, October 10, 1927
    à 3 heures de l’aprés-midi.                                at 3 o’clock in the afternoon.[footnote=1]

    Making one of his first appearances, le cadavre exquis was the subject of the reopening exhibition of la Galerie surréaliste, in Paris in 1927.[footnote=2] Had we attended this event, we would have experienced the surrealist movement in its heyday and found le cadavre exquis in his prime. An honored guest at any gathering, the Exquisite Corpse was the enfant terrible of surrealist games: a metamorphic being, cropping up not only at exhibitions but at café tables, in hotel rooms, even once strolling the Ramblas in Barcelona, where, artist Marcel Jean recollects, “crowds filled the café terraces until late at night, clapping hands to call the waiters so that we imagined that they were cheering us as we passed by.”[footnote=3]

    SURREALISM, n: Pure psychic automatism by whose means it is intended to express verbally, or in writing, or in any other manner, the actual functioning of thought. Dictation of thought, in the absence of all control by reason and outside of all aesthetic or moral preoccupations. -André Breton, Manifeste du surréalisme, 1924[footnote=4]

    Exquisite Corpse, among the most widely enjoyed of the surrealists’ many games, sought to unleash the unconscious in a merry chase of the imagination. Realized through automatic drawing, a technique–nearly synonymous with surrealism–which charted the irrational, unstoppable flow of words and images that channels through thought without conscious reflection, and assembled by chance, there is not a rational bone in le cadavre exquis. Culled from the minds of more than one individual, he emerged as though from a dream. Indeed the Corpse’s generally grotesque appearances bespoke an alternate beauty, of a harmony in rupture. As a figure of revolt that drew the surrealists together through collaboration, le cadavre exquis provided the common ground upon which these artists waged their assault on sobriety and logic.

    Since those youthful salad days, the Exquisite Corpse has retired to a relatively reclusive life amongst artist-friends and children-until April 1991 and “The Return of the Cadavre Exquis.” Opening this current round, The Drawing Center invited artists from all conceptual orientations, at all points in their careers, from all over the world to join in the game. As word the project spread, foundling corpses began to appear on The drawing Center’s doorstep. To date, the initial list of some two hundred participating artists now counts at least twelve hundred players, and their drawings number more than six hundred.

    Poetry must be made by all, not one. – compte de Lautréamont, Poesies [footnote=5]

    The cadavre is a single sheet of paper, divided according to the number of players into segments that roughly correspond to the human body, i.e. head/torso/legs for three players, or head/chest/trunk/legs for four players. Many artists introduced their own variations. Ellsworth Kelly (who first played cadavre exquis as a young artists knocking around Paris with the surrealists) and Win Knowlton made a four-part cadavre by playing two rounds each. Another tiny corpse was carved into ten small but satisfying portions. As the game is played, each artists, working in turns, completes a section and conceals the work before passing it on to the next artists. When all the sections are finished, the drawing is unfolded and the Exquisite Corpse is born.

    The cords that bind this present-day manifestation to the original Exquisite Corpse are only loosely in the hands of its originator, André Breton. The element of automatism–so critical to the original players and impossible to reproduce in any pure sense–is almost entirely absent today. Equally indistinct are surrealism’s claims to marry everyday reality and dreams, although the imagination still reigns supreme. Exerting their considerable presence on this most recent round are Marcel, Duchamp, with his conceptual approach to game-playing and object-making, and Georges Bataille, with his energetic aberrance for rules and taboos. Add to this skein of historical influences the contemporary threads of psychoanalysis, deconstruction, and anthropology–all closely bound to surrealist practice and worked into the complex analytical fabric of postmodernism.

    Art movements are simply not recursive. These new cadavres were not cultivated through cryogenics. Contemporary artists with their own inventive insights have participated to create a body of work which is vigorous and intuitive precisely because it is not corseted by the past. In lieu of the mainstays of Breton’s game comes an unprecedented expansion of the definition of drawing itself, a practice that now appears to encompass everything from pricking to poetry. What remains essential, because it can be replayed, is the game. Precisely because of its value as play, Exquisite Corpse continues to offer a means of sidestepping reason and foresight to move towards chance and unpredictability. Ultimately, as a collective revelation of artistics imagination, “The Return of the Cadavre Exquis” still answers André Breton’s eternal appeal to artists: “Speak according to the madness that has seduced you.”[footnote=6]

    Players of the contemporary game were at liberty to paint, paste, clip, jot, scribble, and sculpt according to their own predilections on paper.The were also encouraged to consider the “body” as a metamorphic point of departure. In Exquisite Landscape, a variation of cadavre exquis the surrealists took similar license.[footnote=7] Here, players contributed to a horizontal floe of objections and images that unfolded like a map onto psychic space or dream reality. Playing the game in 1975 with colleagues Anna Boetti and Roberto Lupo, Meret Oppenheim adapted the anatomy of the body (head/trunk/legs) to the structure of a chair (back/seat/legs) to create a series of unusual cadavre exquis.[footnote=8] Nevertheless, most of the contemporary cadavres exquis adhere to the conventional structure of the human body.

    As postmodernism’s most prevalent subject and site, the body has been used by contemporary artists to explore issues of identity and gender, public health and private pleasure. It is complicate realm, inscribed with sexual and cultural codes that catalogue human difference as opposed to universal experience. The body can no longer be mirrored in an impervious white model handed down from antiquity, nor in the hirsute primitive archetype called forth by modernity. Sweeping these old ideals aside, the Exquisite Corpse, with his collective and composite physique, flaunts a relevant contemporary image of the body.

    The cadavre is also an appealingly social creature. His appearance in the wake of recent political events stands to link members of a cultural community still reeling from battles over censorship and support. The conservative backlash against government aid for the arts–a curious election-time diversion from real moral and economic crisises–has left artists and the public each wary of the other’s capacity to appreciate or simply enjoy art. As he engages the art world at large in constructive creative act, the cadavre is a Pollyanna assembled by Dr. Frankenstein advocating the primacy of visual practice, however conceptual, in art.

    …(we studied) Mystery, Ancient and Modern, Seography, and the Drawling–The Drawling Master was an old conger eel that used to come in once a week: he taught us Drawling, Stretching and Fainting in coils. –”The Mock Turtle,” Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

    Participating artists were given the choice of either selecting their own partners or allowing The Drawing Center to choose for them. While the first option more closely matches the surrealist practice of sitting around a table with like-minded colleagues and passing round the cadavre exquis, the latter invites a further element of chance. Apparently some of the more intimate sessions really took off, as we received entire sheaves of cadavre exquis from some self-made groups. A number of artists played with their assistants, casting at least one studio into an uproar of anxiety until the game turned from an employee’s nightmare into an impromptu part. Approximately half of the players allowed The Drawing Center to select their partners for them. In general we aimed to create unified bodies, however discordant the parts.

    To facilitate the project, we created a Drawing Kit with a set of rules instructing artists how to play the game. Seemingly antithetical to artistic practice, rules can actually clear the way for chance and liberate the imagination. Playing within prescribed parameters, one surrenders the pull of reason to the pleasure of adhering to (and breaking) rules. Not surprising, we learned from some honestly dishonest players that many of the visual coincidences which occur in these drawings were not the outcome of what Breton divided to be “tacit communication–merely by waves–among the players.”[footnote=9] The riddles of concurrence are often signs of cheating. However, as Mary Ann Caws and Charles Simic each suggest in the essays which follow, bending the rules of chance is also part of the tradition of surrealist games.

    Included in the kit was a paper sleeve (printed with abridged guidelines) that concealed the nascent cadavre while disclosing a slender reveal. This edge, a perceptual point of orientation, served as a prompt or segue into the players’ unconscious. Two differently sized sheets of paper were provided, although artists could and did use their own supports. In one case this was sandpaper and in another a string of nineteenth-century maps. Drawing materials were even more various, including everything from lipstick to operative light-bulbs, from pot holders to x-rays. Likewise, applications coursed from stitchery to photography, from slashiing to burning. Several cadavres were machined with the aid of computers. And still, many unexpected images came by the traditional (graphic) route of pencil on paper.

    In New York, all the works generated by the “Cadavre Exquis” were exhibited at The Drawing Center and nearby gallery space. In addition, a selection of historic cadavre exquis were on view at The Drawing Center, including drawings by original players, Valentine Hugo, Marcel Jean, and Yves Tanguy. Latter-day cadavres by Joseph Beuys, Lucienne Bloch, Ted Joans, Frida Kahlo, Konrad Klapheck, Wifredo Lam, Roberto Matta, and Gerhard Richter, among others, attested to continuing vitality of the Exquisite Corpse.[footnote=10]

    Certainly, not all collaborations work. Simone Collinet wrote of the literary version of cadavre exquis that: “Some sentences took an aggressive. Let us not forget it.”[footnote=11] At The Drawing Center, this editorial apparatus did not come into play. Even with overwhelmingly exquisite results, the degrees of and reasons for the success of these collaborations are as diverse as any other aspect of the project. Some drawings are cursive and comic, other are rendered and wry, with the bizarre, horrifying, overwrought, satiric, disgusting, beautiful, fragile, boisterous, delicate, goofy, brutal feminist, misogynist, political, precious, and poignant all putting in appearances. As spectators, may we be ravished by the pleasures of looking at so many ways of seeing. Or, at least, mindful of André Breton’s charge, “Beauty will be CONVULSIVE or will not be at all.”[footnote=12]

  • “Snow White in the Wrong Story: Paintings and Drawings by Marlene Dumas.” Arts Magazine, March 1991, pp. 59-63.

    Snow White in the Wrong Story: Paintings and Drawings by Marlene Dumas

     

    I am the place in which something has occurred.  —Claude Lévi-Strauss

    Like fairy tales before they’ve been bowdlerized, Marlene Dumas’s paintings and drawings are not pretty pictures. As the Brothers Grimm wrote it, the wicked queen’s demise was far from Disneyesque; she was forced to wear red-hot iron shoes at Snow White’s wedding and dance until she dropped down dead. For Dumas Snow White is no innocent girl: she’s a naked woman strapped to a table in a clinic. And where are her loyal dwarfs? Replaced by a juvenile tribunal of not-very-nice-looking private school boys, scrowling and staring at this vulnerable female spectacle.

    The camera she’s clutching and the flurry of Polaroids beneath her cold bier incriminated Dumas’s Snow White and the Broken Arm (1988) for snapping one too many: a paparazzi crime of which the artist herself might be guilty, since her figurative paintings all originate in the myriads of pictures she takes. And though this isn’t a portrait likeness, Dumas can be further identified with the princess in the tale and its tellers.

    Marlene Dumas was born in Capetown in 1953; she received her bachelor’s degree in fine arts from the local university in 1975. Seeking a less provincial environment for her art, she left her homeland for Holland to participate in Ateliers ’63 at Haarlem in 1976. Though her years in South Africa may not have been the most culturally stimulated, the country’s political realities gave rise to a dilemma that remains central to her art:

    The fact that I realized that because I was white in South Africa I was one of teh oppressors greatly confused me. I personally don’t see myself as a real oppressor, but I am a part of the oppression nevertheless…It can never really be resolved. You have an individual feeling about yourself, but if you then see yourself as a part of something else you can reach an entirely different conclusion about yourself. The one is no more, or less, truthful than the other.[footnote=1]

    For Dumas, discovering the dubiousness of being “fairest in the land” of South Africa entailed a loss of innocence. Her complicated self-image is reflected in a 1984 portrait where she appears looking altogether like the sweet young girl she once was, framed in radiant fall of glowing blonde hair.[footnote=2] The title of the painting, Evil Is Banal, sheds a different light on her identity; in the cracked mirror, Snow White saw that she herself was the wicked queen. Or, to quote another of the artist’s works, Dumas discovered herself to be Snow White in the Wrong Story.

    Dumas currently lives and works in Amsterdam. Her earliest Dutch art is an explorative mixture of drawing and collage, probing problems of artistic representation by adopting different approaches, one “no more, or less truthful, than the other.” In a note scribbled in the wings of one such untitled work, dated 1977, Dumas prescribes for herself: “The problems of interpreting circular forms” with their challenging circumferences traveling “Between the Zen circle + the traffic circel [sic].” A newspaper picture of an infant inching towards a rolling ring-toy crowns the top of a stack of pictorial solutions, which read vertically, like Chinese characters, in standing script. Below, circled and printed in red, is another photo showing an “unknown political prisoner,” bound and blindfolded. The shape of his bellowing mouth is echoed by the first letter ONBEKENDE POLITIEKE GEVANGENEN. Dumas punctuates the list with the final image, in her own hand: a lushly brushed circle of black ink.

    Dumas’s solutions to the problem of circular forms also take up the three predominant modes of address in contemporary art of the eighties. Reviewing the collage, again from the top, we see appropriation’s decontextualized imagery, current political art’s graphic explications, and Neo-Expressionism’s egocentric hand. Another line of text in the drawing, ALLES WAT ROOD IS, IS NEIT BLOED (All that’s red, in not blood) adds a note of ironic uncertainty to the act of interpretation, which is certainly in keeping with the times. But from this point, Dumas hones her fluency in these strategies, so does she subordinate them, sometimes even in the same brushstroke.

    In 1983 Dumas started painting assiduously in oil, beginning with a series of large portraits, followed by paintings of nudes, school children, pregnant women. The subjects were all close at hand, part of Dumas’s environment or condition. The birth of her daughter in 1987 inspired her ongoing work about infants, including The First People of 1990. But no matter how familiar, Dumas never paints from life, she states as if confessing to a crime:

    My people were all shot by a camera, framed before I painted them. They didn’t know that I’d do this to them.[footnote=3]

    Owning up to the act of violation implicit in taking pictures, Dumas is equally candid about preserving the perversities of her source, using an episcope projector to translate her images onto canvas. Her painting compositions often emulate Polaroids with their closely framed subjects pressed forward against unnaturally glowing grounds, while the paint itself follows the photo from areas of high resolution into slippery pools of unfocussed light. But as Dumas intimates, her truth to photography has a dark purpose. The Polaroid’s grease and glare act as a scrim, behind which Dumas strips her subjects, throwing away their unique identities; she has use only for their hides. Via the episcope, the artist’s own child ends up robbed of any claim to her mother’s sympathy and is transformed into a powerfully writhing cipher: one of The First People, full of unknown potential.

    In a text to accompany her exhibition The Private versus the Public, Dumas railed against the current “cynicism towards representation.”[footnote=4] Particularly in a postmodern period, when all kinds of representation are possible, art in which “everything is used and nothing is related,” “where (for example) nudes become signs and not ‘erotic presences,’ strikes her as disaffected and irresponsible. In a group of works whose subjects are nudes, Dumas challenges structuralism’s inability to make meaning, while demonstrating her power to create significant images.

    The pair of paintings Waiting (for Meaning) and Losing (Her Meaning) (1988) each depict a nude woman bent over in a pose that obscures her face and makes her body prone to penetration. The waiting woman is bent backwards, with her legs dangling over the side of what appears to be a coffin (Snow White’s perhaps?), while her sister lies, Ophelia-like, facing downward in oily dark water. Contrary to appearance, these images are not open-ended. They are “erotic presences” offering no reprieve in the form of popular theory to regard them as “empty signs.” The paintings’ titles fully incriminate the viewer as a voyeur, whose lascivious gaze makes the recumbent nude into a signifier of very particular meaning.

    In an inscription on one of her drawings, Dumas can be heard muttering ALWAYS THE FEMALE BODY, ALWAYS. This note of disappointment is amplified and clarified in a statement, “I am against…the nude.”[footnote=5] But her intolerance doesn’t prevent her from taking pleasure in depicting flesh and eroitc rapture. Indeed, she even considered it an especially delectable challenge to depict “without hatred, distrust, disgust or blame” a nude man.[footnote=6] The corresponding painting, The Particularity of Nakedness (1987), shows him stretched, supine, with his head resting on one extended arm, his face turned full to the viewer. The title announces what’s essential to the painting’s success in meeting the artist’s criteria. His body is not idealized brawn (in fact he’s rather skinny), nor is it formalized porn. He is, as naked people often are, vulnerable and sexual, with a gaze turned steadily on the viewer, acknowledging that his is an arousing presence. Dumas responds to these particulars with her explicitly sensual representation of his face, his flesh, his languorous pose. And though his forthright sexuality could inhabit the boudoir next door to Manet’s undressed Olympia, it actually comes from the tomb.

    In a sheet of notes with the heading, “Thinking about PAINTINGS of the human Figure,” Dumas identifies the source of the painting’s composition and the figure’s sexuality in The Particularity of Nakedness as Holbein’s Dead Christ.[footnote=7] These notes read, in part, like someone’s little black book, providing a list of names and what the book’s owner figures she stands to get by them: from Nolde, the glow—from Lucien Freud, the ordinary—from Alex Katz, the flatness of modernism. Other contacts are Diane Arbus, Eric Fischl, whose portrayals of “sexual guilt” are “better to read about than to see,” Philip Guston, Frida Kahlo, Stephen McKenna, Jackson Pollock, and Vermeer. There’s also a bit of the secret diary, confessing to cast-off affairs with de Kooning, whose Women she eventually found “too elegant,” and Clemente; “too sweet.” Notes of admiration are made for Alice Neel’s “beautiful portrait of Andy Warhol”; Baselitz, “My favorite painting of a foot,” and Beuys, “A Big Man” who made “tender + frail drawings.”

    These remarks, which turn Dumas’s private-sounding opinions and liaisons into public knowledge, are not an isolated peep through a pinhole. Dumas repeatedly comments on her art; exhibitions of her work always include her own blunt assessments. Aimed at personal demystification, this information prevents any speculation over her intentions, sources, and meaning. Within the context of postwar figure painting, Dumas assesses her own work as being an attempt to avoid representing “men as monsters,” while admitting to the difficulty of the task. She addresses things directly, without resorting to stylization, in order to arouse “an experience of empathy with my subject matter” in both her viewer and herself.[footnote=8]

    Beyond artist’s statements, writing is indispensable to Dumas’s work. Within the art itself, words are as essential as brushstrokes, particularly to the drawings. A sketch of a bespectacled gentleman bears the observation that WEARING GLASSES MAKES MEN AGGRESSIVE; beneath a drawing of an unbeautiful infant, Dumas declares, THE START OF IT ALL: OTHER PEOPLE’S BABIES, and she teases a naive-looking blonde to SAY SOMETHING ABOUT SOUTH AFRICA.[footnote=9] Such broad declarations render one unsure of the artist’s true position. Is Dumas actually of the opinion that “A weeping woman is disgusting”? Or are these statements meant to read like in a way that is comparable to Jenny Holzer’s texts? As if trying them on for effect, each artist vocalizes a spectrum of viewpoints, whose range encompasses a complicated state of moral ambiguity. When Dumas and Holzer mimic voices of authority, they are also recording the seductive sounds of oppression.

    Dumas’s drawings, which also come primarily from photographs, are more lifelike than her paintings. They seem to represent the moment when the shutter flashes open and shut, rather than including the processes of development and reproduction that are so much a part of the paintings. Coincidentally, several drawings show men with cameras, like Good Shot and Record secret sources. It’s also in Dumas’s quick-handed drawings that one finds the most explicit references to sexual and apartheid politics: there are images of police activities, torture, sexual aggression, and sexual politicking: a drawing of a man mounted atop a naked woman, who seems to be THE EAGER YOUNG ARTIST DISCOVER(ING) PROFESSIONALISM referred to in the inscription. The man’s ogling eyes are the same pair planted in the head of one of Snow White and the Broken Arm’s schoolboys, as if we were seeing the character in the drawing as a juvenile gaining youthful bad habits from a woman who is no fairy princess.

    Though moral ambiguity may not seem to be one of their chief characteristics, fairytales are always cruel stories, with punishment served up in excess for both good and bad behavior. Even though “the good” live happily ever after, it’s only on the condition that “the bad” are banished, burned, beheaded, or otherwise damned: misery becomes a requisite for happiness, which, though lifelife, hardly seems all good. As the Grimms put it in the preface to their Nursery and Household Tales:

    …we are not aiming at the kind of innocence achieved by timidly exercising whatever refers to certain situations and relations that take place every day and that simply cannot be kept hidden. In doing that you fool yourself into thinking that what can be removed from a book can be removed from life.

    Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm’s collection of folk stories began as an attempt to preserve a vanishing vernacular tradition. In the preface to the first edition of Nursery and Household Tales (published in 1812), they emphasized the anthropological nature of their original work, describing how they traveled throughout Germany, recording as accurately as possible the tales they heard told by each village storyteller. However, as their project continued, their objectives changed. They came to recognize that what sounded like an infinite number was actually only a handful of stories, endlessly embellished in place after place. Adapting these for the second and third editions of their book, the Grimms sought to strip away local variations in order to recount the essential story, making fairytales into literature.

    In a similar way, Marlene Dumas’s art repeatedly recounts what was, for her, the essential experience of learning first-hand what it means to be white under apartheid in South Africa. Except for Dumas, South Africa isn’t the place in which something has occurred; she is that place. At the risk of soiling her snow-white reputation, she disarms her alter-ego, a woman equipped to make pictures, and renders her the victim of a somewhat sinister voyeuristic scene. Dangerous tension between positions of power and vulnerability coexist throughout Dumas’s work. The nude levels a challenging gaze, seducing the viewer with his erotic presence at the same time that he is the subject of pornographic exposure. In another double-take, in a self-portrait image, the artist depicts herself as an apparition of blonde loveliness, in whom she also sees responsibility for enacting oppression.

    The portraits, nudes, and modern-day depictions of fairytale scenes that Dumas paints push her loss of innocence outside of a local situation into a cultural realm. They present a picture of reality complicated by conflicted points of view, aggressive sexuality, seditious words, and inexplicable acts. Central to each of these pictures, however, is expressed in her art a moral dilemma. She instills in her work all the imperative of a physical situation, in order to goad, seduce, wheedle and compel the viewer into a like struggle. And while these pictures do not provide tidy, or even grim resolutions to the questions they communicate, Dumas’s art actively investigates ambiguities of existence central to to cultural and political experience.