Edward Winkleman: Gallerist and Haberdasher
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 11:27AM 
With shirts on a rack and John McCracken by the foot, the boundaries between art and fashion are falling away in giddy purveyance at Ed Winkleman’s gallery. Curated by artists Christopher K. Ho and Ivin Ballen, the press release of "The Shallow Curator" states that this is “a summer group exhibition with neither urgency nor depth. The exhibition skims the surface of art-making, buoyed by such concerns as an artist’s sense of style.” Even the word “style” thins away from the consistency and substance of art historical proper names (the clothing is designed by George McKracken, and the John McCracken is a "forgery") and enters the simultaneously more capricious and culturally determined realm of fashion. The shallowness is real - with humor and the guise of sheer laziness there is avoidance of the “seriousness” of a theme. In conversation Ed Winkleman described it as “the smartest, dumbest show ever,” and the artists worried over whether or not a critic could even be interested in this show, laughing at the thought that it might be known in the future as “the show that no critic could review.”
This humorous bemoaning of the absence of critical understanding towards the curatorial project is an art world cliché, and “The Shallow Curator” joins such recent conversations with guffaws. It is still recently that Damien Hirst’s Levi’s line was seen on the Gagosian runway, and that Triple Candie’s exhibition of unauthorized Cady Noland knock-off’s, or the monographic retrospective of a fictitious Lester Hayes, caused a stir. By the time these two extremes - the blatant commercialism of Damien Hirst and Triple Candies’ critique of the object and the role of the nonprofit in the New York art world - reach The Shallow Curator, any dialectic between them has been sapped.
For historical comparison, there is the fictitious John Dogg, allegedly created by gallerist Colin de Land and artist Richard Prince, who in 1986 hung Econoline wheel covers on the wall of Lisa Spellman’s 303 Gallery. Here is Mitchell Algus describing what he valued about the work in 2003:
In blithe retrospect, Dogg's show was casually prescient, anticipating Neo-Geo's evolution into the proactive, materially ascetic mode of institutional critique. This shift in focus— from the accessories of power to the social organization of power—was a moral one. It shed in one shot the congenial complicity of the 80s art world. Dogg's was the smart, "I can live without that," frills-free version. Just right for the then impending bust.
The Shallow Curator is notably without prescience or shift, and avoids altogether the gesture of institutional critique. Gisel Florez’s photographs of vicious dogs ripping apart cheesy but glamorous accessories are made not in order to critique planned obsolescence but to generate more commissions for her work. One can imagine such an image very differently in the hands of Barbara Kruger. Likewise, “The Spirit’s” invocation of John McCracken for “Art Within Reach” is a spoof of the new age nostalgia mystique of Carol Bove. For all it’s shallowness and humor, this show has legible intentions, and the curators conclude, “If there is an argument at all, it is to reconsider the disinterested - or “shallow” - eye of modernism, not in order to critique it but in order to expand it.” 
This disinterested, shallow eye of Modernism occupies a space without concern for either aura or effect, allowing humor to fill in the blank. But The Shallow Curator’s appeal to modernity is also made with an interest in beauty and the quality of the work, frankly understood as high end luxury goods. It is for this reason that I became interested in interviewing Ed Winkleman more specifically about his gallery’s identity, known largely through the unmoderated populism of his blog. With thousands of hits a day, it is not the postings themselves that draw the attention but the heated dialogue that ensues. What can occur is that the gallery’s identity is at once subjected to the vitriolic contempt of those who think they know it, and at the same time become lost in the fray. I felt a need to hear more specifically from Ed about his gallery programming and its success in defining an identity. The exhibition described above provides an interesting context for the following interview with Ed Winkleman:
CS: What is at stake in defining a gallery around "conceptual art," and what are its boundaries as you see them?
EW: I am somewhat hesitant to go into into too much detail on the blog because the blog is somewhat polarized between anti-conceptualist formalist and pro-conceptualist, and I’m going to throw this in here, pro-conceptualist-formalist, because the more I think of it I don’t really have much interest in anti-formalist conceptualism... I myself have seen tons of conceptualist art that hasn’t raised the bar for formalism - there would need to be in my idea of conceptual art that it must be visual, it must be compelling visually. I see what conceptualist artists are doing today as very consciously pushing past what’s been done before. What I mean by that is, and this is true for all the artists I work with, and why a lot of what our program turns out to be is art history...you have to know your art history pretty well.
Jennifer Dalton is a good example of this, she has a very firm grasp of art history, her work takes visual achievements of other artists and pushes past them, using their vocabulary in ways that accomplish new things more conceptually. In “This is not news” she was dealing with a topic that she is very well known for which is women and disparity in the arts. It’s very straightforward and clearly referencing Felix Gonzalez Torres, so she’s taking this vocabulary that people know already and what Felix was doing with it was perhaps more poetic than what Jen’s doing, but because it existed as art already she was able to pull it forward.
CS: What’s interesting about it is that when people were first defining themselves as Conceptualists, when Kosuth was first defining what Conceptual Art is he was saying “We are against morphology,” and here you have someone who has this very critical sociological perspective who is reinhabiting this morphology. When people talk about conceptual art sometimes they want to make a boundary, and Alexander Alberro limits Conceptual Art from 1966-1977 and after that refers to it as “post -conceptual.” One of the reasons for at least bracketing off the earlier Conceptual Art off from the present is that they were responding to Modernist art criticism, they were responding to Modern art and we’re no longer responding to Modernism in the way that they were.
EW: I would agree that Conceptual Art has a beginning and ending as a “large C” movement, just as every other 20th century movement did, so I am using small “c” conceptualist. I would also agree with anyone that good formalists are working with interesting concepts - John McCracken is a really good example of a formalist who leans it against the wall and kind of leans into conceptualism. Where I became involved in these definitions through the blog was among the camp who began to argue that “conceptualist” as it was broadly being used is anti-aesthetic, and I don’t think it is. If you look at the progression of formalist art it is often at the edge of an aesthetic that people would call ugly, that people would not have thought at the time were necessarily formalist achievements, even though today we would argue they were, and so my ongoing response to folks who think that the conceptualists are anti-aesthetic is that no, they are pushing the boundaries. The artist is free to say it is art, to define beauty, to define aesthetics. So when contemporary formalists describe the work at our gallery as "anti-formalist" or "anti-aesthetic" my response is to a) feel it’s not their role to define that for other artists and b) conclude that they are perhaps missing something, that they have a closed set of choices or values about art.
CS: Do you feel pigeonholed into defining conceptualism?
EW: No I talk about it all day, but I feel pigeonholed in defending its value in the context of beauty, and again, in coming from Ohio, a rusty bridge to me is stunning, this [pointing to a piece by Ivin Ballen] is actually an exquisitely beautiful piece to me, it’s gorgeously composed, it’s gorgeously painted, and yet it’s referencing graffiti, it’s referencing duct tape, it’s referencing a whole bunch of things that one might not see as beautiful, but this is the Rauschenbergian argument...can you find beauty in everyday objects? Yes you can.
CS: So you also have artists like Jennifer Dalton, Yevgeniy Fiks, and Christopher K. Ho, all people who are doing sort of sociological/ethnographic conceptual work, and some of them, would you say all of them, are engaging in art history?
EW: Yevgeniy is sort of interesting in that he’s not engaging in art history as much as he’s so aware of his art history (he teaches art history) the choices he makes are made very specifically because of that awareness. Here are some paintings where he is positioning them between the Social Realist style and Sots Art, a postmodernist sort of cynical ironic painting, and both of these are sort of kitschy, so he is interested in the middle ground. Painting these portraits could only be done with a full knowledge of the critique of both. Pure formalists will only embrace a movement or rejection of that movement and advance it, he is actually going back in time and situating himself right between two other movements, not because he sees this as an advance, not because he sees it as a matter of rejecting, but because he sees very well what those two movements did politically, and he feels the best way to represent these American communists is to balance these two out.
He’s done something else that I see defining the difference between the formalists and the small ‘c” conceptualist camps which is that he’s not invested in a medium to the point of having to defend it, he’s not a painter, he’s not a photographer, so media serves his ideas - but he is a good painter!
CS: And this is something that the latest conceptual art is now taking full ownership of: a strong return to studio practice. I’m really interested in people like Joy Garnett, I think her paintings are so lusciously beautiful, but that it’s also a conceptual practice that’s holding it together.
EW: Can I say that Joy is a really good example in that where - and I haven’t been able to say this on my blog, only because when I do people take it personally and that kind of disintegrates into bickering and unpleasantness - but Joy is a wonderful example of an artist who is painting because it’s one really solid way to explore what she’s interested in, not because she’s invested in it, she’s invested in ideas, the difference goes back to dumb like a painter, she’s not dumb like a painter she’s a scientist. The difference in my mind between the formalists and the conceptualists is that the formalists are - I’m going to really regret saying this - but they are still stuck in Modernism, stuck in the essence of their media, and the folks who have rejected that and see media as a tool for their ideas are more interesting to me, because I reject the essentialism of modernism, the question stopped being what is the essence of art and became what is art, and that’s the more interesting question.
CS: Marian Goodman started with Broodthaers, but I don’t know that you could say she had a program, and that you could say this about many of the older gallerists, that they kind of just went intuitively for who they liked and lined them up. Do you think it’s different now, at a time of branding and corporate identity, that being known as a gallery that specializes in conceptual art is of an historical necessity bound to a gallery system that has changed?
EW: There’s actually three ideas in that question, one is that the model that Marian Goodman is known for is not being rejected by every dealer, I would say that Zach Feuer is following that, he talks about his gallery as having evolved in the same way, these are the artists he thinks are important and interesting, however I think we are at this point trained in terms of thinking of a program, becoming specialists, and that probably is just a sign of the times, having a specialty is expected in any field, but it’s also a response to an overwhelming amount of information, to have the faith in your own eye, that Marian Goodman, or Zach Feuer just down the street is rare, because it is demonstrating an amazing amount of faith in what you are doing.
Why did programs become popular in the first place? About 35 years ago there were people who began to specialize, Edith Halpert, for example, specifically American Art, but now we are seeing that dealers can write with incredible precision about the artists they are working with, so what led to that are two things: one, they are starting to see themselves in more creative terms, and I think that stems from the fact that a lot of artists, art historians, or critics became dealers, with creative visions, and the number of people who can live as working artists has exploded, and so like every other field when you have that much to process, to organize, specialization becomes really attractive, and so I have admiration for Marian and for Zach. When I began noticing that Marian and Zach were not following that program model it started to make me wonder whether that was a better path, and I don’t know, I think I’ve somewhat been pigeonholed as a conceptualist dealer, and I don’t mind that because I love conceptualist work, and yet I have a few artists who I don’t think of that way and I love working with them, Christopher Johnson is a really good example.
CS: I’m using the words branding and corporate identity because not too long ago there was a posting on your blog about how you used to have this other gallery, and what this gallery was going to be and that you were refining your vision, and you used the word branding,it came up in your writing.
EW: I do discuss it in those corporate terms. But the idea of assessing a gallery as a brand is at first to recognize that each of the artists you carry is themselves a brand, and so your umbrella brand had better never compete with or undercut or interfere with your individual product brands, so it is an awareness that you have an umbrella brand. Of even Gagosian, even Zach or even Marian Goodman, you would say whether Marylyn Minter either belongs or doesn’t belong with those galleries, even if you don’t think they have a specialized brand they do, there is a loose brand that definitely has a place to be discussed as such.
CS: So to be clear, you don’t want your gallery to be identified purely with conceptual art?
EW: I do want my gallery to be identified with conceptual art, I don’t want my gallery to be identified exclusively as a conceptualist gallery. I strongly believe in conceptualism, at the point where we are a lot of the most interesting art that’s happening right now is conceptualist, but knowing that the spiral will continue around, and knowing that artists who have a conceptualist practice at the moment may veer into a more formalist mode, these are artists that I want to keep working with. And the reason I want to work with conceptualist artists is that I come out of their studio visits with my head just throbbing with new ideas and I love that, and I don’t get that anywhere else, this is the most intense education I can get, and it’s not from a book, this is as living, breathing, of-a-second kind of education that I can get, and that’s incredible, that’s the real thrill of working with living artists.
By Catherine Spaeth
Image credits: George McKracken, 2009 Spring line, Available at Bergdorf Goodman and other fine stores, Installation view; Gisel Florez, Exquisite Taste (Olive), 2007,Archival Inkjet Print, 21” x 28”, Edition of 10; The Spirit, John McCracken, 2008, Aquaresin, fiberglass, 39 x 14 x 3, Available in any finish; Jennifer Dalton, This Is Not News, 2006, 5 strings of 100 light bulbs, ink on colored paper, string, Dimensions variable (each string 101 feet), Edition of 10; John McCracken, Gold, 2006, Resin, fiberglass, plywood, 93 x 16 x 3 1/2 inches, 236.2 x 40.6 x 8.9 cm, Courtesy the artist and David Zwirner, New York; Ivin Ballen, HEAVEN, 2008, Fiberglass, aquaresin, acrylic, absorbent ground, gouche, 39” x 29” x 6”; Yevgeniy Fiks, Portrait of Jarvis Tyner (Communist Party USA), 2007,Oil on canvas, 36" x 48"; Joy Garnett, Noon, 2007, Oil on canvas, 54" x 60"; Kevin Zucker, The Shallow Painting (conceptual drawing of actual painting...don't have good image of work yet), 2008,Pencil, watercolor, silkscreen and inkjet on canvas,76.5" x 52.5", Courtesy the artist and Greenberg Van Doren Gallery; Ivin Ballen, Speakers (2-Way), 2007, Fiberglass, Aquaresin, absorbent ground, acrylic, gouache, oil, stereo components, Dimensions variable.
Reader Comments (105)
Great interview. I'm continuously impressed by Ed: his broader readings and ideas, and the care he takes when engaging with them and his artists.
nice. Its interesting how well his approach (more explicitly expressed here) comes across both on his blog and the gallery program.
I have been on a Johanna Drucker kick this summer and it seems some of the gallery's programing, and this recent exhibit more specifically, parallels her description of complicity, codependence and re-familiarization.
Thinking only of Drucker’s Sweet Dreams, my first response is that I see little resonance with the work she is comfortable with, such as Yuskavage and Rhoades, for ex., and what I see here - which is not carrying excess in Drucker’s sense. It’s more reductive, really. Notice how Christopher K.Ho, the true conceptualist of the group, has vanished into administration. “Disinterestedness” here is a kind of degree zero, people used to write about disinterestedness as a form of “radical passivity” - but they weren’t selling shirts to BG.
I like the way the interview folded back over the shallow curator, as though via Kevin Zucker’s shelving unit (signed by Zucker, Ballen and Ho) the Shallow Curator were devising an umbrella brand of his own.
The word complicity carries a burden from the history of criticism before Drucker - the burden of a crime, and this crime was a contempt for art and collectors alike. But these artists apparently like to buy their shirts at BG, and who doesn’t covet John McCracken? In their shallowness, “complicity” might just be too interested a word for them.
However, while the aim of The Shallow Curator is to withdraw any gesture that would lend itself to synthesis or theme, one could also say that this is a shallow grave, and that the intentional object here is its corpse. Drucker’s words sound broadly diagnostic, and the invitation is open to play out the analysis.
Now that Ed has condescendingly closed comments with a sweeping generalization, based on a self fulfilling prophecy...
I don't think there are very many self described "modernists" alive today certainly none under the age of 40? Will someone do a poll?
"Joy is a wonderful example of an artist who is painting because it’s one really solid way to explore what she’s interested in, not because she’s invested in it, she’s invested in ideas, the difference goes back to dumb like a painter, she’s not dumb like a painter she’s a scientist."
As far as painters using paint to think - well that's kind of the point isn't it?
Using objects as symbolic chess pieces seems a bit dry and dull (scientific/mathematical to me). Once it's codified it's over. Like Apple vs. Windows. What a choice.
That's why I don't trust people who know what their work is about.
It's about the way Dalton - and by extension YOU - think(s) - that's what Dalton's work is about, I think. Is that what she was thinking?
You do the math.
“I don't think there are very many self described "modernists" alive today certainly none under the age of 40?”
This is probably true, but at the same time, I don’t think anyone could say Modernism is over, even if every one over 40 kicks the bucket.
I like your comment about moving chess pieces, and while this is “only a summer show,” and was intended to be taken lightly, it does have the feeling of the chess game. The chess game is a history of art, and sometimes that history accelerates to the point where the game is over and its moves are the winks at the after-party - this is more of The Shallow Curator’s (who is beginning to sound like a comic book character!) tone.
If you go to any good retrospective exhibit of art in the early ‘70s, you can hear from its walls the dialogue going between one gallery space and another in a matter of weeks, one artist’s work speaking to the next inside of the history they know they are writing. It’s fun, I enjoy it, it made John Baldessari’s career, but the art historical gaming can get out of hand at times. Here though, it’s a lightehearted view of the “actually lived conditions” of the contemporary art world scene, and while no insitutional critique, it is incisive.
hmm, is the show against interpretation via humor?
Humor is reserved for the ruling classes. All others must use the side door.
Thank you both! That's a fascinating turn, here is the essay: Susan Sontag's http://www.cis.vt.edu/modernworld/d/sontag.html" REL="nofollow">"Against Interpretation," (1966).
Writing from the position of the '60s, her history of what interpretation is feels a little outdated. With regard to the shallow curator, what might be important is exactly Zipthwung's worry about the chess game. Here is Sontag on what interpretation does to art: "In most modern instances, interpretation amounts to the philistine refusal to leave the work of art alone. Real art has the capacity to make us nervous. By reducing the work of art to its content and then interpreting that, one tames the world of art. Interpretation makes art manageable, comfortable."
What if interpretation today is mainly a matter of deploying an art historical narrative? And that there is such a thing as "real art" and "not so real art" in such a context? That is, that art aligns itself with language to the extent that it can be either "quoting" from art history or writing it.
Here is Sontag's ideal work of art: "Ideally, it is possible to elude the interpreters in another way, by making works of art whose surface is so unified and clean, whose momentum is so rapid, whose address is so direct that the work can be...just what it is."
Mark, the shift form erotics to humor is really interesting! The "erotics" was all that phenomenological stuff that I love, let's install John McCracken there.
And zipthwung, thanks for bringing your marbles. Class is very appropriate to think about here, although no one class has ownership of humor. The problem that I (and others) see for the recent emphasis on art historical narrative in contemporary art is that for an emerging collector base with little prior knowledge of art and its difficulties, art historical gaming becomes a form of class identification and sport.
Now that Ed has condescendingly closed comments with a sweeping generalization, based on a self fulfilling prophecy... I don't think there are very many self described "modernists" alive today certainly none under the age of 40?
I was going to stay off this, but the above bit of spittle obliges me to point out that, one, Ed closed the thread because a slew of anonymous twerps showed up and started insulting you, Ed, and me; and two, I am a self-described modernist (no scare quotes) under the age of 40. So while Zipthwung hardly ever knows what he's talking about, the above is a full-blown cranial-rectal insertion.
Most of that interview was nonsense, but explaining why requires that converse with people who are working day and night to turn art into the poorest branch of philosophy.
Franklin, please refrain from insulting zipthwung, who has been my secret crush for months now, or anyone else, if you want to show up here. I have seen how you treat others who do not "stay off" your blog, and find your stated reasons for being here empty, to say the least.
As to the poorest branch of philosophy, as a Modernist you think Susan Sontag's "Against Interpretation" is irrelevant to contemporary art in 2008? Or maybe you would like to say more about why "dumb as a painter" is degrading to your own practice, without resorting to personal insults and historical inaccuracies? What would your teacher Darby Bannard have said, and why should we still care? I come to you with real questions, I don't take them lightly and neither should anyone else.
So let's give it a whirl, shall we?
If those are your real questions, I'd hate to see the fake ones.
I've already pointed out the circularity and self-cancellation of Ed's statements on the thread he shut down. Those criticisms still stand. Perhaps you'd like to argue against them.
You are a fake, Franklin. Question #2 is addressing exactly what you posted on Ed's blog, and relevant to your "response" to Zip. All you are doing here is spewing your usual bad energy, not a drop of substance.
For anyone who cares, here is Bannard's "The War Against the Good in Art," from Franklin's site. Note the title - the sense of being under siege, and the with the salvation of all humanity at stake. The last two paragraphs:
"It all seems like anarchy, but it isn't. The forms are new but the dynamics are old. As always, there is only one real difference, the difference of quality, the difference between good and bad. That is the way it always has been, is now and always will be. There is no way around. Quality in visual art has belonged to painting and sculpture for hundreds of years. Despite a thousand new materials and methods it still does, because painting on a rectangular canvas and the organizing of a static, three-dimensional object still keep our best talent busy.
If the long-predicted death of painting and sculpture ever comes, it will be because the serious tough-minded artist has abandoned them, and for no other reason. Materials are only vehicles, inspiration is deeply human and ever persistent. It will always come up in the "wrong" place, and it will always be resisted and misunderstood. Great art, new or old, will not compromise, but it is always there, waiting for us to come to it. It is the flower of our civilization and, ultimately, its salvation."
I didn't get to post on Ed's blog, basically refraining because the ideas were too poor. However. I was interested in what other people had to say. Sad it was cut short.
Well, let Catherine and Franklin argue who the real fake is. Neither are I'm sure! I usually don't figure Zip has much knowledge about the stuff that gets shown in galleries, though he has a certain directness when it comes to local cultural awareness, kind of from the street level beat--car factory background sensibility, no doubt. Never figured he needed protecting!
The exhibition you have reviewed by all fathom is a harbinger. Zip said chess, I say checkers--loaded beads that are generally cued to appropriation much less concept-based work that is interesting at this moment. This absence of visual 'displeasure' or 'pleasure', or a conceptual rigor, with a reliance on a bygone era without any sense or try of the unweaving doesn't even register 'light' or 'playful', or 'ridiculous'. Simply, I read presenting a safe game, earnestly so. What sells this even deeper into the quaint is the overtly dull and calculated feel I'm getting, coupled with the almost nonsensical blur from Ed, who is usually extremely articulate.
Ok, this comes from someone who fucks with concept and reduction. There is a death of history to play with, though if you want to get all scientific about it first and foremost doubt. Without doubt, simply no get. I think that is how history gets laid.
c.p.
Question #2 doesn't address the circularity and self-cancellation of Ed's statements, but rather demands that I explain why being called "dumb" is an insult, as if that were some kind of mystery. Excerpting Darby's writing does not answer those criticisms. (You pointedly provided no http://wdbannard.org/?mode=by&id=22" REL="nofollow">link.) Calling me fake does not answer those criticisms, although it does provide insight into the self-flattering attitude in play here: you accuse me of being fake and lacking in substance while cozying up to a pseudonym that can't keep basic facts straight. The vector isn't bad energy, but disagreement. This is the primary feature of the postmodernist mind: no testing of assertions for truth or rationality are permitted, and attempts to do so sanction every nasty tactic of argumentation in the book, no matter how low or dishonest.
In Barbara Rose's book from 1967"American Art Since 1900: A critical history" she points out "the Dada belief that art is art by virtue of its context and not of its inherent value" (p.235). "The Shallow Curator" seems to deal with various notions of context as does much contemporary conceptual art. Obviously the context of the art gallery is often examined in these conceptual art works, but other contexts, such as the mass media, also come into play. Would you share some of your ideas about the importance of context in contemporary conceptual art practice?
Gladly, Eric. As always, however, in order to avoid platitudes I need to stick carefully to the object, and will start by saying that to locate this as a Dada belief is off base, and that Giotto, for one, might have as much or more to say. So, here are some words from John McCracken:
“...relative importance is what I’m not sure of. Or perhaps it’s a matter of relative function, with the environment included. And with history included, too.” - 1965
“Everything has a stance. Everything has at least that, and then it can have a lot of other attributes up to an including intelligence. And beyond intelligence, too.” - July, 1968
“In the several pieces I have done recently which consist of entire rooms more or less filled with certain configurations of plywood columns, it has been a pretty simple thing that I was trying to do. I wanted to deal with or construct a whole space, to do a show which would be one specific thing, simply a show rather than a show of of a number of separate things, or to put it more completely, rather than a show of anything else at all. This was my general initial attitude as far as I can really talk about it as yet; to say more gets complex, difficult and confusing and, it seems to me, possibly destructive of one’s effort to simply and clearly see the whole piece, the show itself.” - December, 1968
From “John McCracken, Sculpture 1965-1969, and a Special Installation,” Art Gallery of Ontario, Feb. 8th-March 9th, 1969
"it has been a pretty simple thing that I was trying to do. I wanted to deal with or construct a whole space, to do a show which would be one specific thing..."
I have always related his room installations to 'all-over' painting for this reason, but beyond that he seems interested in removing the frame or finite border implicit in all hung two dimensional work and all stand-alone three dimensional work so that the spaces around the work of art are subsumed into the art object and the art object is in turn swallowed by or integrated into the spaces around it.
I think he is expressing an interest in the coherence and integrity of a single image or single experience and doing away with not so much the typical object/subject split that typically exists between a work of art and a viewer, but wants to integrate the object with space and the environment in such a way that the viewer's alienation from world in general is alleviated. I feel like a lot of conceptual art tries to do this, not so much working in the space between art and life, but attempting to eliminate it, remove the knowing wink to art history, and reenchant the everyday world. Of course many conceptual artists are also interested in recontextualizing this or that aspect of art history in terms of subject matter or formal invention.
"I feel like a lot of conceptual art tries to do this, not so much working in the space between art and life, but attempting to eliminate it, remove the knowing wink to art history, and reenchant the everyday world."
That whole thing was lovely, and especially this sentence - but what "lot of conceptual art" is this? I'm trying to get there...just need a little more help, like a proper name or two? You left me hanging in the "I want to believe" zone!
Sorry some final thoughts about McCracken. I think he completely escapes from Fried's critique of Minimalism, its theatricality etc., because of his completely enchanting use of color and the fact that his works lean against the wall rather than stand upright in a monolithic fashion. By leaning the colored slabs against the wall it is impossible to separate the display space from the object displayed in it.
Hopefully my review of this http://artcritical.com/gelber/EGShaver.htm" REL="nofollow">Nancy Shaver exhibition will satisfy your request. Not all of her works of art deal with this elimination of the line between art and life but I believe a number of them in the exhibition do, or at least tried to. I would also take into consideration not only the work that ends up on display in the gallery but the entire cycle or process that is enacted when objects travel from her shop to the gallery and back again. An aesthetics of recycling takes place.
With McCracken, I agree with you for the most part ("theatricality" is such a tricky word!). The planks, like the one pictured here, emphasize placement and this is not theatrical to my mind. Maybe closer to utterance and tact than to the extortion of complicity in Fried's sense.
Your review of Nancy Shaver weds very nicely to the sentence I plucked out, that was perfect, thanks.
Eric, just for the record, Mccracken does stand alone monoliths, as you call them. He also does things on plinths, a whole range. Theatricality, props, we don't know. They are things that fit in space and perhaps have a dialog. He's into sci-fi too, so there's a connect. More, UFO, I guess. There was a thing in AiA years ago about it, I think. Talks about 2001 too, you know, the monolith.
The Fried thing is kind of interesting, the rack of shirts paired with the Mccracken 'readily made stock', 'tailored and ordered' is something very much on the curatorial plate. It comes up in the image labels, if you notice. I don't know why Ed didn't address that, it's far more interesting, even if it does undermine the whole commercial viability thing. Then Joy starts to make sense, she stores images taken from the internet. Gets this prestige thing called a canvas, already loaded to the hilt, and whips up a product, she admits, in 30 minutes. There is no formal God here. No conceptual twist. We are talking product placement, or its displacement. Another interesting thing, but it didn't come up.
But generally this all leans towards 'strategy', idling on the history of luxury goods that we have come to label as art. God concept us!
c.p.
Thanks for pointing out McCracken's monoliths C.P. You hit on why they are not blunt objects whose intent is to eliminate metaphor, symbolism, interpretation, and whatever else the Minimalist's were allegedly up to (according to critics but not the artists). The reflective surfaces of McCracken's monoliths make them weirdly 'other', as does the weirdly ritualistic placement of them within the gallery space, and the shiny surfaces of Judd's boxes in Marfa generate a hallucinatory experience, via reflection, distortion, and the intensifying and redirecting of light sources. These guys are interested in beauty.
McKracken's "Spring Line" obviously mocks the whole exchange system of the gallery, the display of merch, the creation of an environment where wealthy people will feel good about the merch they are buying. It also acts as a model of the real in the sense that it emulates a certain arrangment of objects in space that everyone is familiar with. It mimics the shopping spaces we all worship or do irrational things within.
Ignore Franklin. He has all the signs of being a troll.
What I found interesting about your interview was the assumed distinction between 'formalism' and 'conceptualism'.
It strikes me as a very arbitrary and limited distinction. Sure, the extension of each term is so wide as to make them almost meaningless, but isn't there a danger in positing things in such binary terms? How useful is it? Apart from extremes, all art is both.
I like Ed's blog and Art Fag City. I'll be checking this one out as well. :) As for the petty anonymous comments, moderate people, moderate.