Fingerspuren

fingerspuren_richter_palermo_8364.jpg
Fingerspuren/Finger Marks, with Palermo, 1970, image via gerhard-richter.com
Despite an 11-year difference in their age, Gerhard Richter and Blinky Palermo became fast friends in the early 1960s. Richter’s first wife Ema sewed Palermo’s groundbreaking Stoffbilder/Cloth Pictures starting in 1966, and Palermo influenced Richter’s move towards readymade abstraction with the Color Chart paintings.
In 1970, while Palermo was studiosurfing among his Dusseldorf friends, he painted the first stencil/multiple version of his blue triangle over Richter’s door. And then the two artists collaborated for the first time, on a painting.
Or rather, two paintings: Fingerspuren (Fingermarks) was a grey monochrome diptych, painted by hand, one side by each artist, that formed a 2-meter square whole. Palermo’s canvas is the much busier one on the left.
In Dia’s 2009 book on Palermo’s masterpiece, To the People of New York City, Christine Mehring wrote about Fingerspuren:

It is tempting to see this as a manifestation of what many believe are differences in the artists’ temperaments: Richter’s more calculated, meticulous manner of painting versus Palermo’s more process-oriented practice…It seems more likely that Palermo’s disarrayed, isolated marks are gestures of self-assertion. After all, the gray monochrome was the domain of Palermo’s friend, who furthermore relayed that the diptych originated from his own working on a gray monochrome and asking Palermo to “join in, and make one too.” Fingerspuren remained a merely semi-collaborative beginning to Palermo and Richter’s collaborative period.

This collaborative period was at its peak in 1971, when the duo’s painted wall and sculpture installation was shown at Heiner Friedrich’s gallery in Cologne, and when Fingerspuren was included in Richter’s first major retrospective at the Kunstverein in Dusseldorf.
I haven’t been able to find any info on the when or the how of Fingerspuren‘s subsequent destruction, but maybe its merely “semi-collaborative” nature accounts for some of the why.

Awesome Marijuana Plantation/Land Art

Reuters’ Jorge Duenes’ cropped aerial shot of a 300-acre marijuana plantation “discovered” in Mexico last July that The Atlantic’s InFocus photoblog ran today was dramatic and awesome enough to make me want to see the full thing.
Here it is:
pot01_duenes_reuters.jpg
Stunning, right? Ellsworth Kelly himself couldn’t have done better. But the full caption bears analyzing a little more closely:

An aerial view shows parts of the biggest marijuana plantation ever found in Mexico, in San Quintin, about 350 km (220 mi) away from Tijuana, on July 13, 2011. Mexican soldiers discovered the plantation in a remote desert, a top army officer said on Thursday. Soldiers patrolling the area found 300 acres (120 hectares) of pot plants being tended by dozens of men.

Because I have a hard time seeing how parts of it can be simultaneously true. For the plantation to be in the “remote desert” and in “San Quintin,” for example. Or for it to be in “San Quintin” and “discovered.”
350km from Tijuana does sound remote. But San Quintin turns out to be on the northern part of the Baja Peninsula, the part where the highway runs between the mountains and the sea. On Google Maps, it’s clear the landscape is characterized by agriculture–and airstrips. To still be in San Quintin, the terrain in Duenes’ photos almost certainly has to be just off the main highway, and one of the largest crops of any kind in town. Saying it was discovered, then, implies that its existence was not known beforehand, which, holding other factors constant, seems impossible.
Still, the important thing is, it does look awesome.

Is Shanzhai Still A Thing?

Its manifestations have been around and obvious for a while, but I can’t quite tell if shanzhai is played out, over, or still a thing. Shanzhai translates as “mountain fortress” when people want to emphasize its unregulated, somewhat pirate nature, but also “cottage,” when they want to highlight its backwoods, make-do lack of refinement.
xiao-wu_robot_rickshaw.jpg
In 2007, Wu Yulu was making awesome homemade robots.
The Wall Street Journal hung its 2009 Shanzhai story on a wedding planner’s homebrewed, online-only sendup of CCTV’s Chinese New Year broadcast extravaganza, but in the context of a larger shanzhai trend that celebrated hacking, ingenuity, parody, and knockoffery:

On China’s Internet, blogs, bulletin boards and news sites carry photos of automobiles jerry-rigged to run on railroad tracks (“shanzhai trains”), fluffy dogs trimmed and dyed to look like the national mascot (“shanzhai pandas”) and models of the Beijing Olympic Games’ National Stadium made out of sticks (“shanzhai Bird’s Nest”).
A property developer in Nanjing, hoping to lure business and buzz, set up storefront facades with logos such as “Haagon-Bozs,” “Pizza Huh,” “Bucksstar Coffee,” “KFG” and “McDnoald’s.” Images of what became known as “Shanzhai Street” spread rapidly online.

The blog chinasmack has been my primary source for shanzhai, both for classic examples of pirated brands and electronics [including shots from that Shanzhai Street], but also for just flatout awesome DIYness like this 2009 video of “Shanzhai Drifter,” a kid who’s making smoke in his tricked out Changan delivery truck. Good times.

In 2010, at what might be the first simultaneous zenith and nadir of the contemporary art world’s engagement with shanzhai, Cai Guo-Qiang curated “Peasant da Vincis,” the inaugural show at the Rockbund Art Museum in Shanghai. The relentlessly corporate slickness of the monumental Shanghai World Expo was certainly ripe for questioning and deflation, if not direct criticism.
On the one hand, there were homemade planes and such. And Tao Xiangli did construct this insanely awesome scrap metal aircraft carrier, with shades of a folk art Serra or Burden. [image via the always comprehensive designboom]
tao_xiangli_designboom.jpg
And sure, it’s good that Cai turned over an entire floor to Wu Yulu’s Robot Factory. But then Cai also commissioned Wu to make robot re-enactors of modern and contemporary artists at work. Like Yves Klein’s Living Brush?

And Jackson Pollock, and seriously, Damien Hirst? Doesn’t having to put a headshot of the artist your robot is mimicking automatically count as a fail?
cai_wu_hirst_designboom.jpg
Designboom says the artworks these robots created were sold as limited editions. Which only exacerbates the apparently complete absence of Jean Tinguely from Cai & Wu’s Peasant da Vinci colabo. No excuse. [Wu Yulu’s status as the Peasant King of Export Shanzhai was cemented by his 2011 profile in Colors Magazine.]
Anyway, I grew concerned because in yesterday’s chinasmack roundup/translation of Hierarchies of Snobbery and Contempt by Chinese Netizens, the shanzhai option is consistently last in every category. Which, in one sense, sure, but in another, isn’t that the entire point?

On The Catalogues Of Giants

weight_of_art_history.jpg
top right is Bonnefoy’s beautiful but otherwise ridiculous Giacometti, and center left is Gober’s Sculptures and Installations, which turned out to be lighter than it looked.
So yeah, hmm, I probably should have glued up the braces on the back of this panel before gessoing it. Well, they’re on there now!
And since they’re set in a bit, my clamps won’t work, and they might mar the surface anyway, so blanket on carpet to cushion the facture, board on glue, the weight of Art History on the board. And I still end up standing on it.
I have to remind myself this is still way more information than I ever got in advance about a painting.
Previous fun with art books: 2002: Rem Koolhaas book under a Wade Guyton table sculpture

Our Man In Venice

I’ve liked this explanation Gerhard Richter gave in 1972 to Rolf Schön about the relationship in his work between photography and painting for a long time, but it’s been particularly awesome lately:

RS: How do you stand in relation to illusion? Is imitating photographs a distancing device, or does it create the appearance of reality?
Illusion in the trompe-l’oeil sense is not one of my techniques, and the effect isn’t illusionistic. I’m not trying to imitate a photograph; I’m trying to make one. And if I disregard the assumption that a photograph is a piece of paper exposed to light, then I am practising photography by other means: I’m not producing paintings that remind you of a photograph but producing photographs. And, seen in this way, those of my paintings that have no photographic source (the abstracts, etc.) are also photographs.
How objective, in the documentary sense, is your photographic painting?
It isn’t. First of all, only photographs can be objective, because they relate to an object without themselves being objects. [hmm, well. -ed.] However, I can also see them as objects and even make them into objects–by painting them, for instance. From that point onwards they cannot be, and art not meant to be, objective any more–nor are they meant to document anything whatever, whether reality or a view of reality. They are the reality, the view, the object. They can only be documented.

Richter’s interview with Schoen was first published under the headline, “Unser Mann in Venedig [Our Man In Venice],” in Deutsche Zeitung, on April 14, 1972, exactly 40 years ago. It was included that summer in the catalogues for both the German Pavilion and the Venice Biennale.
It’s also included in both The Daily Practice of Painting and the reboot edition, Gerhard Richter: Writings 1961 – 2007 [pp. 59-60].

Weiwei’s Red Lantern

An interesting detail from The Economist’s report on Ai Weiwei’s house arrest, and the irony of the police order to stop broadcasting his own webcams:

And he knows of at least 15 police surveillance cameras mounted within 100 metres of his home. Spotting them is easy, as the police have helpfully chosen to decorate each camera with a bright red lantern.

Which can be seen in David Gray’s photo for Reuters, as published on msnbc’s China blog, Behind The Wall:
120404_china_security_cam.380.jpg
One thing, though: this tweet from March 27 seems to indicate that Ai hung the 15 lanterns himself, not that the police did.

In January, when Ai was taken in for questioning and accused of “damaging” the CCTVs trained on his studio, he said that “he had once hung a red lantern under one of the cameras ‘to make them look nicer’.”
And in December,
BusinessWeek reported that only a single CCTV camera, the one in front of Ai’s door, had a red lantern on it, “marking National Day of the People’s Republic of China.” Which would be October 1st.
So did the police let Ai put up 14 more lanterns? Or did they replace Ai’s lanterns with their own? Do we call these lanterns knockoffs?
House Arrest in China: Orwell, Kafka and Ai Weiwei [economist via new-aesthetic]

Opening: ‘Canceled’

As in “Canceled” is opening, not “Opening is canceled.”
Thumbnail image for mondo_yes_rasta2.jpg
I’m very stoked to announce that Canal Zone Richard Prince Yes Rasta: Selected Court Documents from Cariou v. Prince et al… will be included in an exhibition at The Center For Book Arts.
“Canceled: Alternative Manifestations and Productive Failures,” curated by Lauren van Haaften-Schick, opens April 18th and runs through June:

This exhibition presents cancelled or otherwise prohibited exhibitions that now exist as publications or in other formats. These publications document the process and politics of cancellation, exist as an alternative manifestation of the exhibit, act as a critique of the forces that called for its cancellation, or they may be an admission and exposition of an ultimately productive failure. In the context of the Center for Book Arts, Canceled highlights the book form as a crucial means of disseminating documentation and information on a wide and accessible scale, potentially in ways that are more historically stable, and more effective, than the original exhibition would have been. Through utilizing printed matter, these artists and curators have found alternative routes by which the politics surrounding the presentation and creation of art become at least as relevant as the work itself.

Publications, Works, and Documentation: Bas Jan Ader, Greg Allen, Jo Baer, Wallace Berman, Christoph Büchel v. Mass MoCA, Patrick Cariou v. Richard Prince, Dexter Sinister, Exit Art, Brendan Fowler, Guerrilla Girls, Hans Haacke, David Horvitz, Douglas Huebler, Wu Hung, Jill Magid, Rhoda Rosen, Seth Siegelaub, Temporary Services, Lawrence Weiner, Werkplaats Typografie, Anton Vidokle, Marion van Wijk and Koos Dalstra, Amy Wilson, David Wojnarowicz, and others.

After seeing Patrick from Mondo Blogo’s photo above, Lauren asked for the original hardcover edition, which, right? I love that cover, with the legal exhibit reproducing the covers of both Prince’s and Cariou’s books. I mean, that’s where my title came from. Maybe I’ll have to bring that back on a revised edition.
Canceled: Alternative Manifestations and Productive Failures (April 18, 2012 – June 30, 2012) [centerforbookarts.org]

Carleton Watkins, Ur-Rephotographer

Well this is a rather fascinating piece of information. Looks like I’ll have to buy that awesome, 200-lb Carleton Watkins mammoth plates catalogue after all. [whoa, Tyler got blurbed!]
watkins_stclara_dag.jpg
Carleton Watkins daguerrotype, c.1855-8, image: Santa Clara Univ. Archives via Calisphere
In his historically grounded retort to the very idea of taking umbrage at William Eggleston making newer, bigger, shinier editions of his old images, Tyler Green looks at how pioneering photographer Carleton Watkins did it:

The photograph at the top of this post is in the Santa Clara University Archives. It shows Mission Santa Clara de Asis in Santa Clara County. The picture is a daguerreotype that the university believes that Watkins took around 1855-57, maybe as late as 1858.
The picture to the right of this paragraph [below -ed.] is a 1878-83 Watkins mammoth print — not of Mission Santa Clara, but of the daguerreotype at the top of this post.

watkins_stclara_ucb_mammoth.jpg
Carleton Watkins, mammoth print, c. 1878-83, image: UC Berkeley’s Bancroft Library via Calisphere
In other words, Watkins was rephotographing prints a hundred years before Prince. Tyler has another example of Watkins rephotography, which may even be of someone else’s photo: an appropriation.
If they were doing it all in the 19th century, can we still call it contemporary art?
Putting Sobel v Eggleston suit in 19th century context [modernartnotes]

Google Art Institute Project

gmap_kelly_artic_02.jpg
MoMA’s not the only museum on Google Art Project to show works by artists living–or recently dead. The Art Institute of Chicago’s stunning Sculpture Court is right there, too, with nothing less than Ellsworth Kelly’s Chicago Panels, six monumental, shaped aluminum paintings from 1989-99. And they look fantastic.
gmap_kelly_artic_01.jpg
Their geometric precision makes Kellys almost ideally suited for marking Google’s pano distortions. I love this double Kelly. How would that even exist as an object? Maybe we should get Bob Irwin on the horn.
gmap_kelly_artic_06.jpg
Even when they’re not unevenly stitched, a Kelly in a Google Museum View pano is still distorted. Just tilting around inside a single pano sphere, you can watch the painting’s dimensions pulsate and shift.
gmap_kelly_artic_green2.jpg
On Google, the kind of perceptual, perspectival changes a shaped Kelly goes through as you move around/along/towards/away from it now happen while you’re standing still [sic], or whatever the term is for not warping to the next spot. This is what our art looks like on Google.
gmap_kelly_artic_green1.jpg
And this is what our culture looks like on maximalist copyright. Any questions?
gmap_kelly_artic_05.jpg
Just in these tchotchke-filled vitrines alone, the Art Institute may actually have more blurred out objects and paintings on Museum View than MoMA. Here’s what we cannot see: products, design, ashtrays and pots.
gmap_kelly_artic_04.jpg
For these vitrines, I have to wonder if they just decided that clearing all these doodads from 20+ designers and their estates/mfrs was too much administrative work.
gmap_gok_artic_03.jpg
The spotty blurring in the Georgia O’Keeffe exhibit, though, indicates that something else was clearly afoot. It looks like the museum has repro rights for some works, perhaps those in their own collection, but not for others. Or maybe the Estate didn’t give permission for some subset? Loaned works?
gmap_gok_artic_02.jpg
Including this probable landscape, which, hey, goodlookin’, I’ll be back to paint you up later. [update: it’s Abiquiu Sand Hills and Mesa, 1945. Interestingly, it’s from a 2002 gift–many of the AIC’s O’Keeffe’s came from the artist herself or Stieglitz–and it’s one of two listed online as being “© Georgia O’Keeffe Museum.” With no image, even a thumbnail, on the Museum’s website. I think we have our explanation.]
gmap_gok_artic_01.jpg
Here is a 94-year-old Paul Manship sculpture [and pedestal], now, thanks to Google and the Manship Estate, remade very much for our time.
gmap_manship_artic.jpg
Now you know I love the blur, but even so, this shot actually kind of bummed me out. O’Keeffe hung on until 1986, but every other artist in Gallery 271, the Early 20th Century American gallery, has been dead for more than 40 years. I guess we should be glad Kelly was still alive to give his permission, because it looks like the estates put that kind of thing on lockdown. Or on the meter. [Not you, grandfils de Lachaise!]
gmap_lachaise_artic.jpg
Here’s an awesome but depressing view from Postwar, Gallery 262. I can’t figure out the far left, but there’s Jacob Lawrence, Ilya Bolokowsky, and Beauford Delaney on the wall there.
gmap_noguchi_artic.jpg
The unblurred Lawrence is nicely reflected in the plexi on the–seriously–blurred out Herman Miller table by Isamu Noguchi.
Previously: Blurring of Google Art Project comes as no surprise
Google Art Project v1.0: Les Blurmoiselles d’Avignon [Feb 2011]
Blurmany and the Pixelated Sublime [Nov 2010]

The ‘Latest In Murals’

murals_equip_46_1.jpg
I hate when I lose the context of something, it’s like I”m no better than a tumblr around here, minus even the traffic.
Anyway, this image of The Latest Photo Mural Equipment is from somewhere and some time in the past. The image of the back of this photo had a caption scrawled on it, “Photography Equipment
An emulsion, melted,
brushed on wall,
latest in murals.”
Also a note that it was to run across two columns. So it is from a magazine. In any case, the idea seems to have been to paint the emulsion, then project an enlargement of a negative on it, exposing and developing it right on a wall surface. Which seems amazing, and also right tight with my theory [sic] about a connection between photomurals and large-scale, postwar painting.
Oh, there’s a datestamp: Jan. 29, 1946.

North Korea Shows Its Big Board

northkorea_bigboard.jpg
The Japanese blog Itai [Painful] News has a nice photo roundup showing how North Korea’s missile rocket control room compares to those of other spacefaring countries. I think it’s safe to say that Japan is cowering in fear at North Korea’s state-of-the-art powerstrip technology.
痛いニュース | 北朝鮮、発射施設公開 コントロールルームがひどすぎると話題に/ On The Subject of North Korea’s Ridiculous Launch Control Room [dqnplus via @camcavers]

Andy Warhol Painting His BMW Art Car


At first I was thinking this is odd seeing Warhol himself going at something with a big ol’ brush. But then I figured the bloctchy paint scheme for the 1979 BMW M1 was similar to the underpaintings on his portraits, and to the Shadows paintings from the same time, so maybe it wasn’t that unusual after all. At least for him.
Though it was for BMW. Warhol was the first artist to paint directly on his art car rather than have the company execute his maquette, which according to Art Car Project responsable Herve Poulain, was done with “exaggerated gestures, like a dancer.” Combine that with his signature pit crew jumpsuit, and all the cameras, and it seems clear that Warhol was performing.
warhol_bmw_m1.jpg
Poulain describes Warhol’s concept as camouflage, and a critique of the “war-like” aspect of racing, a reference neither he nor BMW apparently cared for.
commentary-free version of Warhol painting a BMW M1 [via warholstars]
Chattier, bouncier, talking head version of the making of Warhol’s BMW Art Car [via bmwdrives.com]

‘Think Of It, Ye Millionaires Of Many Markets’

joseph_h_choate_metmuseum.jpgJoseph H. Choate, a civic-minded attorney and member of the Provisional Committee which, under William Cullen Bryant, undertook the creation of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, spoke for the Trustees at the dedication of the Museum’s first building on March 30, 1880.
There are many quotes in circulation since then, which variously generate feelings of awesome prescience, inspiration, bemusement, and Bizzaro world dissonance. But so far Mr. Choate’s speech appears not to have been published in its entirety, at least in any form that has reached the web. The most complete version I can find is from the June 1917 Bulletin of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, in memory of Choate’s passing and his decades-long service to the Museum.
Here are the full paragraphs around a couple of oft-used quotes [in bold], which I’ve broken up because, hoy, who reads paragraphs that long online?

The erection of this building at the expense of the public treasury for the uses of an art museum was an act of signal forethought and wisdom on the part of the Legislature. A few reluctant taxpayers have grumbled at it as beyond the legitimate objects of government, and if art were still, as it once was, the mere plaything of courts and palaces, ministering to the pride and the luxury of the rich and the voluptuous there might be some force in the objection.
But now that art belongs to the people, and has become their best resource and most efficient educator, if it be within the real objects of government to promote the general welfare, to make education practical, to foster commerce, to instruct and encourage the trades, and to enable the industries of our people to keep pace with instead of falling hopelessly behind those of other States and other Nations, then no expenditure could be more wise, more profitable, more truly republican.
It is this same old fashioned and exploded idea, which regards all that relates to art as the idle pastime of the favored few, and not, as it really is, as the vital and practical interest of the working millions, that has so long retarded its progress among us.

Let me briefly state to you their [the trustees’] purposes. They believed that that the diffusion of a knowledge of art in its higher forms of beauty would tend directly to humanize, to educate and refine a practical and laborious people; that through the great masterpieces of painting and sculpture which have commanded the reverence and admiration of mankind, and satisfied the yearnings of the human mind for perfection in form and color, which have served for the delight and the refinement of educated men and women in all countries, and inspired and kept alive the genius of successive ages, could never be within their reach, yet it might be possible in the progress of time to gather a collection of works of merit, which should impart some knowledge of art and its history to a people who were yet to take almost their first lessons int hat department of knowledge.
Their plan was not to establish a mere cabinet of curiosities which should serve to kill time for the idle, but gradually to gather together a more or less complete collection of objects illustrative of the history of art in all its branches, from the earliest beginnings to the present time, which should serve not only for the instruction and entertainment of the people, but also show to the students and artisans of every branch of industry, in the high and acknowledged standards of form and color, what the past has accomplished for them to imitate and excel.

But the 1917 memorial version curiously leaves out what may be the best part: The Ask.
limo_row_met_nymag.jpg
“Limousine Row at the Met”, image via nymag
Near as I can tell, the Met’s founding fundraising pitch first resurfaced in Calvin Tomkins’ 1970 history of the museum, Merchants and Masterpieces, and then again in 1989, at the zenith/nadir of the museum’s “Club Met” private party rental era, asbreathlessly, chronicled in New York Magazine by John Taylor. It really is awesome, and should be carved in stone on the Grand Staircase:

Think of it, ye millionaires of many markets–what glory may yet be yours, if you only listen to our advice, to convert pork into porcelain, grain and produce in to priceless pottery, the rude ore of commerce into sculptured marble, and railroad shares and mining stocks–things which perish without the using, and which in the next financial panic shall surely shrivel like parched scrolls–into the glorified canvas of the world’s masters, that shall adorn these walls for centuries. The race of Wall Street is to hunt the philosopher’s stone, to convert all baser things into gold, which is but dross; but ours is the higher ambition to convert your useless gold into things of living beauty that shall be a joy to a whole people for a thousand years.