onKawaraUpdate(V2)

onKawaraUpdate (V2) is a new internet-based artwork by the MTAA guys (M. River & T. Whid). Here's what they say about the piece

This art work updates and automates (via software) the process-oriented nature of On Kawara's date paintings. The artist's labor is essential to process-oriented art. What happens when that labor is removed?

If this web site is visited by anyone on a particular day, a date page is created. If no one visits on a particular day, no date page is created. Click the large date for news clips from that day. Click the 'more' link for archives.

Derivations

Last summer Artbash, a New Zealand art blog, had a posting about the similarity between Rama Port's "Pull" (2007) and Mona Hatoum's "Pull" (1995). Hatoum version is on top and Port's second.
















My comment on the posting was this:

The reactions of the various parties (artist, director, academic) has a "circle the wagons" defensive feel. I don't think it's reasonable to expect even an art-educated person to catch the reference and it is pretty standard for artists to include "after X" when referencing even much more well-known and seminal works (e.g., Sherrie Levine's "Fountain after Marcel Duchamp"). Since Port has already renamed the work once (from "Hair Pull" to "Pull"), it seems reasonable for her to rename it again, acknowledging the borrowing.

This next thought comes with the caveat that I haven't seen either work in person, so I may be off base.

One thing that strikes me is that Hatoum's piece is richer in terms of content [what appears to be a monitor is Hatoum herself, so unbeknownst to the gallery-goer, pulling the braid actually pulls Hatoum's hair]. If Hatoum was the artist doing the appropriating, I would think, "Hmm... well she has really taken it to another level with the performative aspect and the exploration of simulation vs. reality." Port's version doesn't seem to add anything, but rather lessen it and not take it anywhere new.

So imagine my surprise when I was flipping through the Tinguely Museum's catalog for "Bewegliche Teile: Formen des Kinetischen" ("Moving Parts: Forms of the Kinetic") and I came across Günther Uecker's "Sandspirale" (1970). It has a very striking similarity to Hatoum's "+ and -" (1994). Uecker sculpture is on top and Hatoum's second (you can click on the images to see a larger version).

Hatoum's "+ and -" is a gallery-sized version of her tabletop "Self-Erasing Drawing" (1979). Hatoum and Uecker are both well enough known artists that I'm sure I'm not the first to notice this, so there's probably nothing amiss. I am curious, though, what is the relationship between the two artworks. Does Hatoum acknowledge Uecker's influence on her sculpture? Have they ever discussed it? Does she recall seeing "Sandspirale" before creating "+ and -"?

The sculptures have their differences... Uecker's chains cause more organic and meandering lines, whereas Hatoum's sculpture includes the concept of endless erasing. Still, the similarities are more striking than the differences.

My position on originality is that it's over-rated... anything worth doing is worth doing more than once. If an idea is so fragile it loses its specialness upon being explored more than once, then it really is just a shallow novelty. That being said, I'd be pretty uncomfortable if I were the maker of "+ and -." At the very least, I'd want to acknowledge Uecker in the title (unless there's some understanding with him to the contrary) and would seriously consider scrapping my version altogether simply to avoid the appearance of plagiarism.

Academic Art

Pretty regularly I hear comments about art today being academic. Here's one from a commenter (Bob) at Edward Winkleman's blog:

We live in an age where art is highly academic and therefore exclusive to that audience.

Using the term "academic art" this way feels a bit like how terms are used in politics--where the terms you choose are highly-charged in their implications and are really intended to be salvo in a political battle.

"Academic" seems to be a complaint against MFA graduate programs. But this usage is taking one's opponent's terms and twisting them against him (a bit like how "liberal" has come to be a criticism and a word that even liberal democrats avoid). MFA programs sprung from a reaction against academic art (art academies that taught their students formulaic, 19th century style painting and sculpting). There is nothing that professors teaching in graduate school would like more than for their students to have unique and personal artistic voices.

It seems like everyone likes to bash MFA programs. I believe the "academic" slur comes from those who dislike conceptual art... because it is true that graduate students are pushed to have a conceptual underpinnings to what they do. That isn't the same as pushing them to do conceptual art, it's really more about steering students towards deeper water and away from doing decorative art. Perhaps for people who dislike conceptualism, taking a stand against MFA programs is a bit like the NRA fighting a ban on teflon bullets--it's pretty far away from their core concern, but they don't want to give an inch

In a way it seems like it's in everyone's self-interest to bash MFA programs... (Disclosure, I teach in an MFA program, so it's in my self-interest to defend them). Artists who didn't get a graduate degree can imply that their art is more real because they weren't infected by the academy. Those who did go to graduate school can (and often do) that it was a waste of time and they didn't learn anything (i.e., their art is wholly theirs and owes nothing to anyone else).

Quick notes

The last week has been busy, busy with end-of-semester duties (I'm an art professor at City College of NY), so just a quick note.

The Leonardo Music Journal just came out and has an interesting topic this year , "My Favorite Things--The Joy of the Gizmo." It's about music-making machines... which happens to be what my next series of sculptures will focus on.

In other news, I'm contributing a chapter on "Chance, Randomness, & Art" to a book entitled "Handbook of Research on Computational Arts and Creative Informatics." Should be fun!

Noon Ebe Longs Her Emor Ethan You

One of the great things about being late to the blogging-game is that I have a huge backlog of things I think are cool to write about.

My dad once told me about a reporter who got the plum job of being a columnist. For the first six months he wrote about all the bees in his bonnet. Eventually he ran through all his backlog of ideas, rants, etc. and was coming up empty as he faced his next deadline. The columnist went to his editor and said, "Jeez... I've sorta ran through all my material," to which the editor replied, "Yup, now you begin to work."

Included in my backlog of cool stuff to blog about is Miranda July's promotional website for Noon Ebe Longs Her Emor Ethan You (or perhaps that's supposed to be No One Belongs Here More Than You, not sure) a book that came out last year.

Because my art often involves technology, there is a danger of it devolving into gee-whiz demos. With that concern in mind, I have a real appreciation for Miranda's site... there's something very striking about subverting the web's glossy conventions with a low-tech, DYI development technique.