Thai Three Sons

a black and white snapshot of two young thai children, a girl with long black hair closer to the camera and slightly out of focus, and a boy with short hair and a t-shirt, wearing handmade clay spock ears that are a bit too tall, so maybe they're actually elf ears or something, but now they're spock ears, we're told. the photo is framed in pale walnut and the etched outlines of indistinct calligraphic letters on the glass. the photo hangs on the white wall of the chantal crousel gallery in paris. by rirkrit tiravanija
Rirkrit Tiravanija, untitled 2025, 2025, photogravure, McNamara walnut frame, engraved glass by Phung Vo, installation photo at Chantal Crousel by Jiayun Deng

In 1968 in Addis Ababa, Rirkrit Tiravanija’s father took a photo of the young artist and his sister. As Christopher Wierling’s press release text explains, Rirkrit Tiravanija has used the photo in his work at least twice: for self-portrait (1993), and untitled 1968 (Mr. Spock) (1968/1998). The latter was actually/also the title of a 2023 exhibition in Hamburg surveying Tiravanija’s long collaboration with Klosterfelde Edition. Of the homemade Spock ears, Wierling writes, “Spock was the only extraterrestrial crew member aboard the Starship USS Enterprise—he is described as half-human, half-Vulcan—and it’s precisely his pointy ears that signify his otherness. The artist would later cheekily refer to those pieces he made from modelling clay at age six or seven, as his first sculpture.”

[Update: There is another. Tiravanija made an edition of the photo as untitled (silver Mr. Spock) (1968) in My Kid Could Do That, a 2017 fundraising exhibit of artists’ childhood work. AND THERE WAS A T-SHIRT.]

a white t-shirt with a large, grainy detail of a snapshot of 7yo rirkrit tiravanija, wearing homemade spock ears that are really quite long and pointy. a benefit t-shirt for projectart by assembly new york
Rirkrit Tiravanija, untitled (silver Mr. Spock) t-shirt, 2017-18, for Assembly NY X ProjectArt via Garmentory

Tiravanija presents the photo again, as untitled 2025 (2025), in his current show at Chantal Crousel in Paris is titled, IN ALIENS WE TRUST. It is a collaboration of sorts with Danh Vo. He “added elements.” Tiravanija’s photogravure is framed in “McNamara walnut wood,” from trees planted by the US Defense Secretary who drove the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara, which Vo obtained from his son Craig McNamara. The glazing is engraved with the show’s title, IN ALIENS WE TRUST, in the calligraphic script of Phung Vo, Danh’s father.

We all try to live in the present, making more or less sense of the world created by those who came before us. But I honestly do not know what to make of this work. Maybe I should have had my dad write this blog post instead.

Green Go Home For The Home

a black and white photo of a young beautiful white eva hesse in a black turtleneck, arms upstretched against two pieces of a sculpture and draped in cellophane, a diaphanous archival image screenprinted in black on a 2-page spread of the ny times from 2015, by tomas vu, with a catchphrase from rirkrit tiravanija, up against the wall mother fuckers, printed over it in silver ink, being sold at rago arts in new jersey in sept 2025
Rirkrit Tiravanija and Tomas Vu, Untitled Green Go Home with Eva Hesse, 2015, 22 x 24 in., screenprint on newspaper, selling at Rago Arts on 30 Sept 2025

Green Go Home is an ongoing collaborative exploration by Rirkrit Tiravanija and Tomas Vu of the origins of the phrase, “Gringo go home!” and all that it implicates. It seems to have started in 2013 as a screenprint collaboration between the two Columbia professors and their students to combine “portraits derived from Google searches with text supplied by Rirkrit on top.”

The presence of each character—from films to music to personalities of resistance—reveals itself to the viewer as addressing the condition of the graffiti text. The figures included vary from country to country, though some figures reappear, as they are, to me, at the crux of this discussion – Ted Kazynski, Alan Turing, Barbarella, Ana Mendieta. The grid holds up the statement and reinforces the layers of interpretation, readings, and misunderstandings. “Green Go Home” is meant to be a wall of resisters, and of resistance.

the wall of a madrid gallery in 2015 covered by a wallpaper of black on white photos of the heads of famous people and artists, including the unabomber and julian assange, and whoever, with prints on newspapers, framed in white, hung on top of it. each newsprint has a different famous person's head, including johnny cash, marcel duchamp, etc., plus a pithy saying of rebellion by rirkrit tiravanija. via nf galeria
Green Go Home, installation view, 2015, NF Galeria

It has been staged at least twelve times between 2013 and 2022, in formats including wheatpaste posters, made-on-the-spot t-shirts (free and for sale), murals, a plexi and aluminum pavilion, and on framed sheets of newsprint. There is also an ur-artwork, a 30×22 inch, 78-image, screenprinted portfolio in a mirror-finish steel box, in an edition of eight, that does not immediately correlate to anything that’s ever been shown publicly.

a head shot of alan turing silscreened in black ink over a spread from a 2015 spanish newspaper, with the phrase, los dias de esta sociedad son limitados, silkscreened in silver over that, a collaborative print by rirkrit tiravanija and tomas vu, floated in a white frame from its exhibition in madrid, being sold in new jersey at rago arts in sept 2025
Rirkrit Tiravanija and Tomas Vu, Green Go Home with Alan Turing, 2015, 14 3/8 x 22 3/8 in., screenprint on newspaper, selling at Raga Arts on 30 Sept 2025

All of this is to say, four unique prints on newsprint from the 2015 incarnation of Green Go Home at Nieves Fernández in Madrid have appeared at auction in the New York metropolitan area. The first, at Doyle in 2019, let’s say it might still be available. And three more just turned up at Rago Arts in New Jersey. Technically, only two have a Madrid provenance—and Spanish frames. The unframed work up top, with the English phrase, UP AGAINST THE WALL MOTHER FUCKERS, printed on top of Eva Hesse doing her best Fifth of May, just has exquisite Madrid vibes, while resembling the prints shown in Berlin in 2020.

Besides, could anything feel more of the moment than the queer father of artificial intelligence, killed by the state, saying, LOS DÍAS DE ESTA SOCIEDAD SON LIMITADOS? Collect them all for your wall of resistance!

Lawler’s Lichtenstein Christmas

a 6 by 8 inch photo in a 20 x 16 inch frame with a giant white matte is a gift from louise lawler to roy and dorothy lichtenstein. the photo depicts a 1963 drawing in black ink by lichtstenstein of a striped glass christmas bulb, in a black frame, installed on a burlap wall at sotheby's in nyc. a blurry label is pinned next to it, and just around the corner, at an oblique angle, is part of a blue and orange warhol painting of mao. lawler titled the work warhol/lichtenstein when she gave it to them as a christmas gift, but when the edition was sold to the public it was called mao and ornament. this example is being sold at bonhams in july 2025.
Louise Lawler, Untitled (Warhol/Lichtenstein), 1991, 6 x 8 in cibachrome mounted at 20 x 16 inches, ed. 1/100, a holiday treat to “Roy + Dorothy!”, which will be sold at Bonhams

The house of Roy and Dorothy Lichtenstein has been emptied into the online showroom of Bonhams, where everything will sell this month. There are so many things that have a bit of excitement because they were the Lichtensteins’, like some rugs, chairs, dishware, books, but come on.

There is art they collected, nothing major, but still interesting. The drawing of his wife’s and the Lichtensteins’ heads sticking out of the water that Dan Flavin made from the shore in 1970. A photocopy edition? Ellsworth Kelly made about Paul Waldman, the artist husband of his Guggenheim curator Diane, who Roy once bought a house with in Southampton. The “DO NOT EVER WORK” brick Dorothy got from Rirkrit Tiravanija’s Chinese brick mill at the 2015 Venice Biennale, which I thought was an edition of 14,086, not 500. (I cannot tell you how much or why it bugs that no one mentions the Chinese characters are stamped backwards.)

But then there’s their Louise Lawler, a small photo, inscribed on the back: “Roy + Dorothy! M.C. + H.N.Y., L.L.” The edition number is 1/100, and it suddenly made me wish I’d been in the top 100 on Lawler’s Christmas card list in 1991.

According to its entry in the Roy Lichtenstein Catalogue Raisonné, that drawing, Xmas Ornament, 1963, was likely a gift from the artist to Emily & Burton Tremaine. Between 1973 and 1976, it rolled through six dealers, collectors, and auction houses before finding someone who wanted to keep it. Until November 1991, anyway, when Lawler photographed it at Sotheby’s. In those short weeks, did it all just come together with that euphoric satisfaction of finding the perfect gift for someone? Of course, she also did kind of plant a stake by declaring an edition of 100.

But maybe they weren’t all Christmas gifts after all. Marion Lambert’s AP2/10, with a new title, Mao and Ornament, and an impossible date of 1990/91 on the label, came from Metro Pictures. It was sold in 2021 to benefit charity. Ed. 40/100 was acquired from Metro Pictures in 1993. It didn’t sell in 2023 in Cincinnati. So plenty more out there for you, let this one go by, if not unnoticed, at least unbidden. I will take it for $10.

“It’s the Lichtensteins’ Lawler photo of a Lichtenstein, Bonhams. What could it cost? $10.” [update: sold for $4,096][bonhams]

FEAR EATS THE SOUP

“A rotating menu of soups served to Glenstone’s visitors” is a phrase that sticks with me from the text Glenstone director/co-founder Emily Wei Rales contributed to Fear Eats The Soul, a 2023 publication from the private museum in Potomac, Maryland.

In 2011 Rirkrit Tiravanija’s exhibition of the same name at Gavin Brown’s Enterprise did not seem like the type of project to be easily collected. When the whole thing turned up in the older, smaller private museum building at Glenstone in 2019, I had to recognize “easily collected” was relative.

This book is a documentation of Glenstone’s 2019 installation of Fear Eats The Soul, including those elements of it which went unrealized [a performance of Rirkrit breaking through a cinderblock wall to reveal a stripped down Peugeot] due to the early pandemic shutdowns of March 2020. The full-scale plywood recreations of Gavin’s original Broome St. storefront were intact. Rather than leave their Gwathmey building unsecured and open to taggers, like on Greenwich St., the Raleses invited graffiti artists from the DMV to execute work in the space. Rather than sell T-shirts screenprinted to order—with proceeds paying the art students Rirkrit recuited for the show—Glenstone offered T-shirts in exchange for donations to local non-profits.

Continue reading “FEAR EATS THE SOUP”

What’s Cookin’?

Olafur Eliasson, Suncooker, 2005, photographed at Neugerriemschneider by Jens Ziehe, via IG

Yesterday Olafur Eliasson posted a work to Instagram that I hadn’t seen before. It is Suncooker, from 2005. It is a portable solar oven, a parabolic aluminum mirror on an angled steel frame, covered by a large, radiant disc of geometrically cut, multi-colored glass, and with a lamp at the center. It is predictably beautiful, and even though it was only one element of Stockholm Solar Lab, the artist’s installation, it was the main promotional image for the sun-themed group show at magasin 3 during 2005’s darkest winter months.

Olafur Eliasson, Seeing Plants, 2003, solar cookers, silver glazed ceramic pots, cacti, image: Jens Ziehe for OE Studio

Two things came to mind when I saw Suncooker: it looks like the same style of solar cooker that Olafur used in 2003 in his 2003 work called, not Cactuscooker, but Seeing Plants. The description on Olafur’s website reflects [sic] his ongoing interest in the viewer’s awareness of their own perception:

Continue reading “What’s Cookin’?”

Escape And Curry Service

I’ve been wanting to see Rirkrit Tiravanija’s film Lung Neaw Visits His Neighbors since it came out in 2011. I’ve been sleeping on it/booked up with other stuff almost the whole time it’s been on view at the Hirshhorn, along side his curry and protest drawing piece, newly acquired, Who’s afraid of red, yellow, and green? Instead of mosaicing snippets from various visits, I wanted to see the whole thing in one sitting. Yesterday was the second to last day of the show, so I jammed downtown first thing.

Rirkrit and his dealer’s brother shot 16mm a week at a time, here and there, for two years, following the Chiang Mai farmer/laborer on his daily routine. He compared it to portraiture rather than narrative, and so I expected 2.5 hours of fly-on-the-wall footage, minus the walls.

It’s an extremely quiet, unassuming film, especially for a gallery setting. It does not grip or demand attention. So when I sat down on the Hirshhorn’s Miesian daybed in what turned out to be the middle of the film, I expected a bit of endurance and, frankly, escapism. Even a couple of weeks ago, Rirkrit had talked about Lung Neaw as a guy who’d helped build his studio, and who could be seen walking through the forest, foraging for wild eggplants. I imagined a shaman at one with nature who could free (or distract) me from the daily shitshow of the world we’ve created. It did not turn out that way. Continue reading “Escape And Curry Service”

Superflex SUPERCOPY SUPERCOPY SUPERCOPY Silkscreen Kit

LandFoundation_Superflex_Supercopy_Screen_paddle8.jpg
Here is a silkscreen by the Danish collaborative SUPERFLEX that will enable you to print their SUPERCOPY logo on any and everything you like. So you can make SUPERCOPY merch and swag for yourself. Or so you can make SUPERCOPY brand awareness for them, it’s win-win.
And since it’s being sold to benefit Rirkrit’s The Land Foundation, I suppose it’s
WIN
WIN
WIN.
Superflex Supercopy /Logo, est $6,000, opening bid $3,000, ends Mar. 23, 2016 for The Land Foundation [paddle8 via rirkrit]
Previously, related:
Transactional Aesthetics, or the Highly Collectable Rirkrit Tiravanija
Superflex Haacke Tack
I copy, therefore I am Superflex
Faux Sol Mio: Superflex / Free Sol Lewitt
Shanzhai van Abbemuseum by Li Mu

The Social Mirror, Recycled (2015)

recycled_model_2.jpg
study for The Social Mirror, Recycled, 2015
Recently I entered an open call for a public art commission. It was sponsored by the District of Columbia’s Department of Public Works, which was looking for designs in which to vinyl wrap DC’s single-stream recycling trucks.
I was compelled to enter for several reasons. One is my own long-standing interest in the highly under-utilized medium of vinyl wrapping vehicles. The other is a strong sense of responsibility and history surrounding any artistic endeavor involving garbage trucks.
social_mirror_armory_feldmangallery.jpg
The Social Mirror, 1983, Mierle Laderman Ukeles, image: feldmangallery.com
The examples shown in the RFP of vinyl wrapped garbage trucks in other cities were, to put it mildly, atrocious. Maybe underwhelming is more politic. Whatever, it turns out there are jurisdictions in this country who have been putting art on garbage trucks without the slightest apparent regard for the alpha and omega of garbage truck art: Mierle Laderman Ukeles’ 1983 The Social Mirror. It just didn’t seem right. It didn’t seem possible.

Continue reading “The Social Mirror, Recycled (2015)”

Felix Gonzalez-Torres, Café, Society

kosuth_ratti_fndn_lavoro_spine.jpg
Sometimes it takes a little while to piece things together. I just opened a book for the first time which I bought in 1997: Lavoro Localizzata/Located Work, the 2-volume publication that accompanied Joseph Kosuth’s July 1995 graduate workshop for the Fondazione Antonio Ratti. Kosuth’s project was to have students write out 1-page instructions for an artwork which would be realized by another student. The resulting show was both the instructions and their realizations, and the objectives were primarily related to upsetting ideas of process and authorship. Alas, none of the instructions in the otherwise bilingual catalogue are translated, so who knows how the images relate. What interested me were the conference essays by eminences like Iwona Blazwick, Francesco Bonami and Nicholas Bourriaud, who graciously made the trek to Lake Como. They’re almost nowhere online, only in an archive here on undo.net.
Bourriaud’s quite explicit on the exhibition, not the artwork, as the relevant unit of art production. I am a bit more sanguine about this quote now that its date is fixed to 1995, and not 1997:

While interactivity has, of course, become something of a buzzword, my concept of interactivity goes beyond gadgetry such as the internet. Interactivity begins with a handshake which is, in a way, much more interesting than all the interactive technical devices on offer. As regards my interest in interactivity, I would like to give the following definition of artistic activity: the artist invents relations between people with the aid of signs, forms, actions or gestures. My first point is that I firmly believe it is difficult, nowadays, to represent reality. In a way, I think we are through with the representation of reality. These are times when we should be producing reality.

Bourriaud’s talk feels like a time capsule, just opened to reveal the important ideas and artifacts of the day, preserved untouched by editing or the passage of time:

In my opinion, the most important process to come about since the beginning of Modern Art has been the transformation of the artwork from a monument into an event. An event is something we have to share if we are ever to understand it; nobody understands an event by himself; it calls for discussion, and an attempt to establish an exchange with the participants or other viewers. Another notion worthy of note is conviviality, particularly important over the last few years. Rirkrit Tiravanija, for instance, at ‘Aperto 93’, installed an area where the viewers could partake of instant soup and noodles. Elsewhere, Angela Bulloch has worked extensively on the idea of putting people together, as has Andrea Fraser with his [sic] lectures held in museums. Felix Gonzalez-Torres, too, has insisted on the same issue with his work regarding cafés, including a recent Grenoble outing. If we look slightly further back in time, Gordon Matta-Clark set up a restaurant in 1971, Daniel Spoerri was wont to organize meals in the 60’s, and Robert Filliou and George Brecht had a shop together near Nice in the late 60’s. The point I wish to make, however, is that while conviviality or the production of relationships between people was, for artists in the 60’s and 70’s, an objective, it is now a starting point for artists.

Art as event. The freshness of instant noodles. We now know more how these have panned out. But what is this about a Felix Gonzalez-Torres café? I was drawing a blank, even though I thought I was pretty familiar with Felix’s work–and more relevant here, perhaps, with his non-work. Maybe Bourriaud’s reference was to a project that had been edited out of Felix’s body of work.
So I looked through the documentation and publications of Felix’s work. The only exhibition in Grenoble he’s listed in was “I, Myself and Others: a place to come to” a group show curated by Thierry Ollatt, the director of Le Magasin, which ran from July – Oct. 1992. The show also included Andrea Fisher, Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster, Sean Landers, Philippe Parreno, Philippe Perrin, and Joe Scanlan. The show seems to have been about the title, autobiography.
But the Gonzalez-Torres catalogue raisonné doesn’t list any works as having been shown in Grenoble. There are several go-go boy dance platforms from 1992 listed in the “Registered Non-Works” section, but none have any obvious connection to Grenoble. Seems like a dead end.
Then as I tried digging up installation shots, or any discussion of the show, I tried looking in the Magasin’s file directory:
magasin_myself_dir.jpg
It’s a good day for random corners on servers. Here’s magasin03.jpg, an installation shot with Scanlan’s bookcases.
magasin_myself03.jpg
And here’s magasin02.jpg, the archival image of “Untitled” (USA Today), 1990, Felix’s third corner pour, but the first shown in a museum.
magasin_myself02.jpg
Maybe it’s better to say it’s the first mature corner candy piece. “Untitled” (Fortune Cookie Corner) and “Untitled” (A Corner of Baci) both came before it, but the former is defined by the number of unwrapped [and therefore increasingly gross] cookies, and the latter is small (ideal wt: 42lbs) and pricey to replenish. So “Untitled” (USA Today), ideal wt. 300 lbs, which was shown at the New Museum at the end of 1990, has a symbolic weight and title, and has the take-one-and-replenish dynamic figured out. It also turns out that “Untitled” (USA Today) was originally exhibited with the title “Untitled” (Mirage). The work was shown in at the same time, December 1990, in Berlin, and in 1991 in Kassel, in a two-person show with Cady Noland. [Gotta look that one up next.]
I guess what interests me is not the evidence of shapeshifting and mutability in Felix’s work, which is normal for an artist as he goes along, but which is also a specific characteristic of Felix’s work in its public and posthumous incarnations. It’s how foreign Bourriaud’s brief mention felt to me, how unrecognizable, how far from the way Felix’s work–and particularly the candy pieces–has come to be perceived and discussed. I think the conviviality thing is still valid, so maybe it’s not so far, but I just can’t imagine ever describing his work in terms of a café. Rather than frag Bourriaud, though, it makes me think how prone we are to settling into our experiences with art, and how the present inevitably overwrites not the past, but our memory of it. I know people who know what was in this show, but it never occurred to me to ask, because I never realized I didn’t know.

Archival Coconut Milk

moma_gmap_rirkrit.jpg
Untitled (Still/Free), 1992/1994/2007/2011, installation shot at MoMA via Google Art Project
Seeing Rirkrit Tiravanija’s work Untitled (Free/Still) in MoMA’s Google Art Project space reminded me that I’ve been meaning to write about it for a while now. I revisited it a few of times after writing about Rirkrit’s awesome, blingy, highly collectable objects last fall. I ended by noting that as “MoMA’s acquisition of the 2007 redo of the 1992 curry piece betray, Rirkrit’s objects are often vestiges of the previous experiential pieces.”
Which remains largely true.
But I didn’t quite expect the objects in Untitled (Free/Still) to be such literal artifacts.
MoMA’s replication of 303 Gallery’s space in ply & stud didn’t bother me at all; it’s classic Rirkrit. And for a while, I didn’t mind the cases of ingredients stacked up around the installation; even though they felt a little like set dressing, they were also obviously part of the provisional space and the ad hoc dining experience.
rirkrit_stillfree_cmoa.jpg
Until I gave up my table one time to some older ladies, and moved over next to these boxes of coconut milk or whatever which–hello–have “Carnegie Museum of Art” written on them.
rirkrit_stillfree_leibowitz.jpg
And then I head over to the beat-to-hell fridge and see Cary Leibowitz’s Candyass sticker for Bob Shiffler on the door. Shiffler, an Ohio-based collector, was the original buyer of Untitled (Free).
rirkrit_stillfree_fridge_dz.jpg
And sure enough, here are some registrar stickers from the Carnegie, which borrowed the piece, and there’s another shipping label, “11 of 14,” for “DZWIRNER,” who exhibited Untitled (Free) as Untitled (Still/Free) in 2007. So this fridge has been around, along with 13 other pieces or crates. An archival fridge.
So there was a certain explicit strategy to objecthood even at the formative beginning of Rirkrit’s most important practice. What’s going on here?
I finally asked MoMA curator Laura Hoptman, a friend from way back, who’s been working with Rirkrit even longer. She explained that Rirkrit identified certain elements, like the fridge and the rice cooker, as permanent parts of the work. And they would be joined by some of the remnants of its installation, incuding leftover ingredients, and even trash. Some of those elements have accreted at each installation of the work [this was the fourth], and MoMA would add something to it, too. They become part of the history of the piece.
Which, OK. But Hoptman also reminded me of the historical context–and by historical, I’m afraid I mean 1994, which I was around for–of Rirkrit’s work, and how almost desperately unsellable it was. And I guess I had forgotten that, that no, most collectors didn’t jump at the chance to buy installations, much less artists’ old appliances, in the mid-1990s. Even I kind of turned up my nose at the chance to buy a steamer full of old mussel shells back then, even though they were already in plexi! So the fact that Shiffler bought anything at all is sort of amazing.
Hoptman also spoke of Rirkrit’s Buddhism, and related it a bit to how he perceived objects, as well as the generosity of the experience his work fostered. But that only made me think of that fridge and the Dalai Lama, who talked about the problems of becoming too attached to his watch. We talked about how Rirkrit certainly has an awareness of the art object paradox inherent in selling his social/experiential work, and that the shift to chrome probably includes a level of critique, or caricature, even, of the desire for bright, shiny things.
I came away reassured, I guess, that I’m not wandering lost in my interpretation of Rirkrit’s work. But also kind of wary of how easily even our own histories and memories of art can be altered by the intervening present. Basically, because of the last decade-plus of market frenzy, I’d forgotten the 90s, when there was still a paradigm that art was being made for other reasons than to sell it.

Rirkrit Passed The Shark On The Autobahn

rirkrit_neuger_artforumberlin.jpeg
image via artreview
Oh, man, oh, man. I think this clears up a lot. Finally, here is a quote that gives some insight on Rirkrit Tiravanija’s approach to art objects and object-making. The artist is discussing the making of Untitled 2010 (All the days on the Autobahn), 2010, which was purchased by the Foundation for the Association of Friends of the National Gallery Berlin for Contemporary Art:

untitled 2010 (all the days on the autobahn), is a work extending from a series that I have been working on over the past ten years. It is biographical and also a documentation of the artist and art in action, where the boundaries of life and art merge into one becoming indistinguishable from each other. The artist in his daily life; his movement through time and space becomes his practice. In response to the quotation above which I said many many years ago, the question for me as an artist is how does one continue to make art after Duchamp’s readymade? In some ways I found art to be defined by the action taken upon the object, the use of the object when one lives with it; with action and usage one is asked to form meaning. The Peugeot 205 was a car I drove while living in Berlin, it was an economical and efficient utility vehicle – it took me to many places where I had to travel for work, and a so I formed a deep relationship with it. Over time and with all my other concerns, the car became redundant and I placed it aside, and with this work, I encased it and returned it to its original state — as the readymade. On its heel (rear left wheel) a riddle can be found written on a crushed up coffee cup that states, “is this all there is to life”. [emphasis added]

rirkrit_autobahn_neuger_vfn.jpg
So the functional objects of the artist’s daily life/practice become redundant [in the US or the British sense? I don’t know], and then convert–or revert–to readymade status. It’s the ultimate upcycling. But that doesn’t quite explain the mirrored steel & Perspex vitrine; can a readymade exist within a custommade?
I can’t think; I’m too distracted by the chrome Autoprogettazione bookcase in the back there, part of neugerrimscheider’s vast, shiny booth at last year’s Artforum Berlin. Do want.
#70 Rirkrit Tiravanija | untitled 2010 (all the days on the autobahn), 2010 [vfn-stiftung.org]
Previously: Transactional Aesthetics, or the highly collectable Rirkrit Tiravanija
howtospendit.com +rirkrit
There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

howtospendit.com +rirkrit

Thanks to Awl for reminding me that not everyone is not talking about Rirkrit Tiravanija’s sexy, blingy objects. I’d found this last week, but it was crashing my browser, and it may do the same to yours, probably because it’s designed for folks who trade up their computers with the same frequency Steve Jobs traded his AMG SL65.
The Financial Times’ luxury lifestyle magazine supplement How To Spend It loves Rirkrit’s work.
rirkrit_nada_ping-pong.jpg
In “Art Works: Spectacular Sculptures – with a purpose,” Helen Chislet delivers servicey with a smile by revealing the “spectacular and tremendous fun” that can result “when artists are asked to design functional outdoor objects.” Objects like Rirkrit’s “ping-pong table of flawless mirror-polished stainless steel in an edition of ten–a piece of perfectly executed workmanship that carries a price tag of $55,000.” [no correction to my original price mention; if you want to pay 10% more that’s your business -ed.] Objects which are still likely to appeal to the FT’s ideal UK-centered international demo, typified by one garden folly maker’s client base as “City workers relocating to the country, but now includes European royalty and “extraordinary people.”
And the Palm Pavilion at Inhotim gets a starring role in “Artward Bound,” Pernilla Holmes’s round-up of far-flung private art parks, which, I love this:

“So much contemporary art is commodified,” says [Doug] Aitken. “A place such as Inhotim works against that. It empowers the artist rather than curating the artist. It’s a phenomenal template for a modern museum.” Unlimited by budget constraints, bureaucracy, timescales and space, such privately owned modern museums are popping up in spectacular, middle-of-dowhere locations around the globe as moneyed art collectros turn the traditional museum model on its head. Each is as unique as the personality of the person who dreamt it up.

Aitken really does have his finger on the pulse of these things.
previously: relational aesthetics for the rich
the gala-as-art movement [vimeo]

Transactional Aesthetics, Or The Highly Collectable Rirkrit Tiravanija

I’ve been writing this post in my head for months, years, even, but so many pieces have piled up in my browser tabs, it’s slowing my computer down. And plus, this weekend MoMA announced that they acquired and will exhibit Untitled (Free/Still), the original [sic] free-Thai-curry-in-a-gallery work, so it’s time to step back and look more closely at Rirkrit Tiravanija’s art practice. First, by starting with what we are fed. Here is a small sampling platter of familiar statements by and about the artist and his work:

“It’s part of what has been called ‘relational aesthetics,’ ” said Ann Temkin, chief curator in MoMA’s department of painting and sculpture. “Joseph Beuys created social sculpture; it’s the act of doing things together, where you, the viewer, can be part of the experience.”

That’s from MoMA’s press release in the NY Times.

You could say his art is all about building “chaotic structures.” Then again, it’s about lots of things; his work is so open-ended and departs so radically from the art market’s orientation toward precious objects, that it’s earned many labels, many – like utopian or chaotic – that only tell part of the story. But one that’s stuck, for better or worse, is French theorist-critic Nicholas Bourriaud’s “relational aesthetics,” the idea of judging the social relationships sparked by an artwork instead of merely considering the object.

That’s Paul Schmelzer, now/again of the Walker Art Center, an early and frequent supporter of Rikrit’s work, writing in 2006.
rirkrit_caravan_musac.jpg

Tiravanija’s art is free. You only need the experience. In fact, the essence of his work resides in the community, their interrelationships, and chance. Make art without objects, their purpose is a complaint against the possession and accumulation.

The Museo de Arte Contemporáneo de Castilla y León, which owns Untitled (Caravan), a 1999 plywood model of a camping trailer, with kitchen, above.
Rirkrit as quoted by Bruce Hainley in Artforum, 1996:

“Basically I started to make things so that people would have to use them,” he has said, “which means if you [collectors, museum curators, anyone in these roles] want to buy something then you have to use it. . . . It’s not meant to be put out with other sculpture or like another relic and looked at, but you have to use it. I found that was the best solution to my contradiction in terms of making things and not making things. Or trying to make less things, but more useful things or more useful relationships. My feeling has always been that everyone makes a work – including the people who . . . re-use it. When I say re-use it, I just mean use it. You don’t have to make it look exactly how it was. It’s more a matter of spirit.”

rirkrit_print_aia.jpg
And here’s Faye Hirsch in Art in America this summer, perfectly teeing up her making-of story for Untitled (the map of the land of feeling), [above] an extraordinary 84-foot-long print edition Rirkrit has worked on for the last three years with students and staff at Columbia’s Leroy Neiman Center for Print Studies:

Rirkrit Tiravanija has never been known as a maker of elaborate objects. In a market-riven art world, he has remained, since the early ’90s, a steadfast conceptualist whose immaterial projects, enmeshing daily life and creative practice, have earned him a key role in the development of relational art. At galleries and museums around the world, he has prepared meals and fed visitors, broadcast live radio programs, installed social spaces for instruction and discussion, set up apartments–where he or visitors might live for the duration of a show–and dismantled doors and windows, leaning them against walls. At two of the three venues for his 2004 retrospective, the “display” consisted of a sequence of empty rooms referencing (in their proportions and an accompanying audio) his selected exhibitions over the years.
When Tiravanija does make objects, they are generally of a modest nature–most often multiples and ephemera connected with exhibitions. At his show this spring at Gavin Brown’s Enterprise in New York, for example, he set up a room where an assistant screenprinted white T-shirts with his signature terse, block-print headlines, ranging in tone from vaguely political (LESS OIL MORE COURAGE) to hospitably absurd (I HAVE DOUGHNUTS AT HOME). They cost $20 apiece.

Ah yes, the t-shirts. Not sure if I ended up being the only one, but I was apparently the first to order a complete set of all 24 shirts. So there’s that.
rirkrit_playtime_gavin-thumb.jpg
I have been an admirer and follower of Rirkrit’s work since his earliest shows at Gavin’s, and Untitled (Playtime), the awesome, ply&plexi, kid-sized replica of Philip Johnson’s Glass House he built in MoMA’s sculpture garden in 1997 [above] bought him at least a decade of good karma in my book.
And so it’s only very recently that I’ve started to watch and wonder if I’m the only one who– See, this is why Faye Hirsch’s quote is so perfect: because it encapsulates exactly how people talk and write and think about Rirkrit’s work, and it’s perfectly and exactly wrong.
I’m sorry, that’s the overdramatic hook in this post. What I really mean is, as his social, experiential, ephemeral practice, his “art without objects” has taken off, Rirkrit has also been making some of the blingiest, sexy-shiniest, most ridiculously commodified luxury objects around. I love them. Why can we not talk about them more?

Continue reading “Transactional Aesthetics, Or The Highly Collectable Rirkrit Tiravanija”

‘Rirkrit Tiravanija’s Favorite Farmer’


Chiang Mai farmer/laborer Lung Neaw has worked with RIrkrit Tiravanija for several years now. He helped build the artist’s house. Tiravanija’s footage of him has appeared in various gallery and museum installations.
And Saturday, Tiravanija’s film, Lung Neaw Visits His Neighbors, will have its world premiere at the Venice Film Festival. Maybe there should be a spoiler alert somewhere, because from the synopsis, the title pretty much gives the entire 2.5 hour movie away.
In a Q&A on the Lung Neaw website the artist says he sees the film not as “a documentary and not a narrative, perhaps it’s more of a portraiture.”
He and his longtime Mexico City dealer’s brother Christian Manzutto shot a week or so at a time:

So we shot over a period of two years and another to edit and postproduction, the film was really made very simply and with very little by way of crew and equipment, in that relationship for me very much like a documentary but also very much like how an artist would approach the production, also with very small but cost-effective budget. We shot in film (super 16mm) so rather small and light unit but with frames and quality which was not video.

An interesting choice, and an interesting approach. Two of his galleries, kurimanzutto and Gavin Brown’s Enterprise, have associate producer credit.
See the Lung Neaw Visits His Neighbours trailer [vimeo]
Thai media article on the project: Lung Neaw goes to Venice [nationmultimedia.com]

Enzo Mari X Rirkrit Tiravanija

rirkrit_autoprojettazione.jpg
Untitled (Autoprojettazione, 1123 xE/1123 xR), 2004
courtesy kurimanzutto
As I’ve said before, the first Enzo Mari autoprogettazione furniture I ever saw was by Rirkrit Tiravanija. He had tables and chairs fabricated from polished stainless steel, which his gallery from Mexico City, kurimanzutto, showed at Basel and a couple of other fairs a few years ago.
They weighed a ton and cost a fortune–as furniture, anyway; as sculpture, they seemed like a bargain–but they looked spectacular.
Rirkrit hit a zone in his work then where he was re-creating various examples of modernistic furniture and architecture in mirrored stainless steel; there was a ping pong table; several corner assemblages using three Smithson-esque, non-site mirrors; and an entire chrome pavilion in Bilbao. The effect was to simultaneously aestheticize the original and dematerialize the substantial object on display, turn them into non-objects. Which is kind of ironic, since they’re among the most atypically beautiful works the supposedly non-object-oriented [heh] artist has made.
See another picture at kurimanzutto, slide 4 [kurimanzutto.com, image above, too]