November 8, 2019

Review Panel

Review Panel convened this week to consider Kehinde Wiley, Kameelah Janan Rasheed and the newly renovated MoMA. Editor and creator of the online magazine artcritical David Cohen moderated a panel including Seph Rodney, Sharmistha Ray and Raphael Rubinstein.

Kehinde Wiley's Rumors Of War

An Opening: Kameelah Janan Rasheed

The New MoMA

The fruit of the evening was a comment by Sharmistha Ray, an artist and Critical Studies professor at Parsons NYC:

I grew up in the arts in the early 2000's. Identity Politics was mired in anger. [It appears that] the Millennial position about Identity Politics is [about the] reparative.

Beautiful. I hope she's right about that.

I took notes...





Posted by Dennis at 6:43 AM | Comments (0)

November 7, 2019

Modernity: Acceleration, Velocity and Control


Like a little butterfly, a thought fluttered to me this morning. On my ride to the studio as I was listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, "Supernova in the East" podcast #62 (Carlin's description: "The Asia-Pacific War of 1937-1945 has deep roots. It also involves a Japanese society that's been called one of the most distinctive on Earth. If there was a Japanese version of Captain America, this would be his origin story.") Carlin was describing the speed of modernization after Commodore Perry's Black Ships dropped anchor at the Ryukyu Islands in 1853.

While stopped at a red light at an intersection, listening, I admired an old Victorian building, noticing the date of its construction carved onto its' pediment, 1892, clocking over a hundred years ago. Still listening, my mind wandered in subroutine, recalling the children's song about Columbus, making the easy calculation of 400 years between this building's moment of construction, 500 years to the year after I graduated from Grad school, 39 years after Japan's leap into modernity. It was simultaneously a blink of an eye and a long time ago.

I thought about 500 years into the future and of all the technological innovation that will challenge us. What will happen when CRSPR gene editing goes from important humanitarian applications (Cancer cure? End of heart disease?...) to compelling-yet-trivial desires (Ending baldness, lengthening femurs, ending aging...) to utter ridiculousness (let your mind fly...). Before I recount the next level in the subroutine, here's some background into my ideas about Modernity at its inception and now.

The emergence of Modernity was at first gradual at the beginning of the European Enlightenment and then violent with its complete an undeniable dominance at the end of the 19th century. To allegorize Newtonian mechanics, the presentation of railway to airplane to steam/oil combustion personal and oceanic transportation, of innovations in medicine (germ theory, blood transfusion, etc...), of revolutions in communication, of weapons of war, of these and a multitude of others with the subsequent concatenations and knock on effects... Modernity erupted onto the world stage with a violent acceleration of cultural change. People had to factor in new realities that to say they were astounding is to merely tip toe around its true impact.

Shock of the New, indeed.

But today, culture is moving faster than ever before. If you consider how we adopted the personal computer in the mid-90's and evolved to the brink of bitcoin and self driving cars today, a relatively short span of 25 years, it could be argued that the modernist reformatting of society is more rapid and sweeping than ever before. But we seem not to be impressed. Why is this the case?

In the dawn of Modernity, we experienced a wallop of acceleration. In this latter stage, the sensation of acceleration is mild in comparison but we are surging at an ever greater velocity than ever before. In physics, velocity is the rate of change in position with regard to a frame of reference and acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. Both are functions in time. If the frame of reference is human history and position is some harmonic combination of human flourishing and the capacity of material manipulation, then acceleration is felt impact of how society is reordered by the change induced in modernity.

If we today were to feel the same magnitude of astonishment that our great grandparents felt, say, at the first time they witnessed powered flight or heard voices over wire or out of thin air... we would have to be shaking hands with extraterrestrial aliens, or less extravagantly (but perhaps with much more impact), we could marshal the use of Cold Fusion energy production and end the limits that burning fossil fuels have thus far restrained the ambition of humanity. Until these or other examples of societal surge manifest themselves, we won't feel acceleration in the same degree as in the dawn of the 20th century... even though we are today traveling at a much higher degree of cultural velocity. To bring this home, if you think a little more deeply about the impact of the smartphone in the past twenty five years, just this data point alone, you might begin to acknowledge just how much that handful of tech has radically rearranged our lives. But we don't feel it. We have to focus and dwell on the topic to gauge its impact.

In a previous blogpost, I had anticipated that while the 20th century could be about either/or, the 21st century could be about both/and. Looking at the building's inception date mounted proudly on its pediment, I started to think that the 20th century might be about gaining the ability to control emergent technology. It's imperative that we become a little... a little more cautious and circumspect about what we will do when we can grow custom designed human beings outside of the womb, when we push the power button on real Artificial Intelligence. It's time that we matriculate from the Sorcerer's Apprentice to the status of journeyman.

Posted by Dennis at 3:05 PM | Comments (0)

November 1, 2019



Continue reading "Ahora"
Posted by Dennis at 8:17 PM | Comments (0)

Art World & Art Industry

Diego Rivera's Detroit Industry murals

Where is the love?

Continue reading "Art World & Art Industry"
Posted by Dennis at 8:12 PM | Comments (0)


A program for the arts from the contemporary to antiquity.
A site that is more than half archeological and a renovated historic building center stage.
The ejaculatory first pass.

Posted by Dennis at 7:47 PM | Comments (0)

October 14, 2019

Temporal and Atemporal...

Temporal and Atemporal, Museums, Pinterest and Cabinets of Curiosities

Much of my anticipation of visiting the newly renovated MoMA was shaped by the debate concerning the curatorial direction of the museum going forward. Peter Plagens wrote in the Wall Street Journal in his article Hanging Editorials on the Walls at MoMA:

...witness the banishment of such well-known indicators as "Abstract Expressionism" from its list of anodyne gallery titles that includes "Building Citizens," "Public Images" and "New Monuments." The museum also wants to remain flexible, almost noncommittal. (The hyper-accessible label "Pop Art" is veritably infantilized into "From Soup Cans to Flying Saucers.")

The words ...anodyne... noncommittal... hang in my mind. Also in the same paper, Eric Gibson wrote under his headline With its Expansion MoMA is Bigger Yet Somehow Smaller: "What's been lost, though, is grandeur." So, I was prompted to expect a travesty of historicism and a devolution into a Pinterest world of triviality. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised to find that historicism was maintained amidst a plethora of curatorial themes, such as (this list is randomly selected from 78 thematic galleries.):
-Inner and Outer Space
-Surface Tension
-Stamp, Savage and Crush
-City as Stage
-Idea Art
-Machines, Mannequins, and Monsters
-Responding to War
-Picturing America
-Paris, 1920's
-From Soup Cans to Flying Saucers

Jerry Saltz's recent piece in Vulture What the Hell was Modernism? sings of modernity, "the King is Dead, long live the King!" Simultaneously, he celebrates and condemns modernism, saying on one hand that it sought to end history and on the other that it perpetuates a history stained with Politically Correct sin.

Before I go on, I should render as a relevant aside, a quick run down of my own perspective concerning this sweeping topic. I've touched on this many times elsewhere in this weblog, so I'll bullet point them:
-To be modern is to reconcile the life one is living with the things one is making.
-Modernism and Postmodernism were born simultaneously at the collapse of Classicism.
-Classical canon crumbled when industry and material innovation went into overdrive.
-Modernists sought to create a new canon.
-Postmodernists didn't believe canons were possible or desirable.
-Modernism crystalized at the high point of NYC AbEx, it was the effort to touch G-d (transcendence) via material means. No one survives contact with G-d.
-Postmodernism's turn at its flowering during the zenith of Modernism was to flip the script: to point to (but not touch) everyday life (not G-d) via conceptual (not material) means.
-Pop pointed to everyday life, but was still ensnarled in the painterly facture of their Modernist antecedents.
-Minimalism turned down the dial of materialism in artwork until the conceptual remained in view.
-Sol LeWitt was the fruit of the Postmodern tree, he clairvoyantly anticipated the information age, focusing on art as a series of instructions.
-Postmodernism continued past its prime, elaborating alternative means of pointing to everyday life: CriticalTheory, Deconstruction, the personal = political...
-As a river begins as condensate in misty mountaintops, it follows as a crisp and cold stream, then widens into a slowing dirty course, eventually fanning into a stinking silted delta... so too Postmodernism.  
-We are living in the delta phase. We can only hope we are the ones evaporating into clouds that will later form dew into new mountaintops.

In Saltz's long article, he lists the exploded assumptions of Modernity indicated by Ann Tempkin. (I've appended my initial reactions -in bold type- to each in train.)


So -- what was assumed? Let's look at five big things.

First, there was Ezra Pound's cri de coeur "Make it new." In modernism, only newness was given value. Everything old was considered passé, inadequate to address the times, which meant modernism claimed not just a monopoly on newness but also on importance. ... It's the same way each generation thinks it has invented sex; newness is as old as time. The modernists were just a lot cockier about saying so.

"Making it new" led to "art is dead"?
If newness is as old as time (clever, that), then it's also enduring.
If the new = the now, then the present also implies the past and future simultaneously. History automatically flows.

Second, modernism called itself reality. Which meant, perversely, it didn't have to bother to address or depict actual reality -- instead, it offered itself as the only thing that mattered. ... Viewers were expected to look through subject matter. You weren't seeing a landscape; you saw how this artist reinvented the landscape.
Calling itself the ultimate reality (Modernism) meant that reality (the world outside of an art work) was simultaneously denied (Postmodernism). Thus in train (on the tracks towards Paradise), was coupled truth and G-d, and the shared world. Reality, rendered luridly enough, leads to unreality. A disabling surfeit, like snow blindness.
Third, modernism was built on the principle that formal experimentation is the only thing that matters. ... Art had to be seen all at once, not sequentially or with any formal hierarchy. (That meant it couldn't have narrative.) ... Modernism was philosophically colonialist this way and loved declaring everything as its own, all while asserting it was inventing even those things it was stealing.
Formal experimentation = Colonialism? Meaning, it looked for difference outside of Western Civ's context, implying plunder from civilizational contexts other than one's own?
Fourth, there was the principle that modern art would "kill history" -- a hysteria of finality. ... In wanting to destroy the whole history of Western art, modernists were like an aesthetic Taliban. Except for the art they approved of, everything else was deemed bourgeois, Establishment, bad taste, or kitsch... History didn't exist unless you were making it. (It's always the end-times again in modernism.)
The urge to kill history is an eschatological one. History implies a path in time and therefore a destination. "Are we there yet?" Is the child's insistent and obnoxious query. It is also the anxious torque of forward momentum where the vector always points towards the future. Moreover, this urge is also a death drive, (Freud's) Thanatos, and the thrill of seeking to overcome oneself in history.
Fifth, there was modernism's grand teleology -- the whack-rationalist idea that history was to proceed in a predefined order. If you didn't fit, know, or care, or were a visionary, an artist of color, or female, tough luck. Only the things in its timeline were deemed progress. Progress was to be the goal of all art.
Teleology isn't order, it is the assumption of a final purpose, an end goal. There's nothing whacky about seeking order in the phenomenal world. Morning leads to night. Apples fall from trees. These things have nothing to do with skin color or sexuality and only racists would make this argument either on the Right or the Left. The idea that a timeline would be singular and ultimately defining is the Sophist's or hustler's trick. The sequence and summation of time will always be variable, provisional and eligible for contention.


Saltz takes pains to say what is obvious (yes, at least to me) yet lost on many (yes, this probably includes you, dear reader), that Modernism and Postmodernism are complimentary and more than twins in the larger project of the 20th Century. Quoting Saltz again: "What began with Pop and Warhol looked like a break from modernism, but it also extended modernism's fetishizing of novelty and a canon of iconoclasts." But what he seems to miss is that it was at the height of Postmodernism that Francis Fukuyama wrote The End of History and the Last Man precisely at the moment of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. This was the idea that Liberal Democracy had triumphed and no further development of political order was necessary in the world. We have reached the end of history according to this idea, and no other iteration of improvement in civic order was needed or possible. What was left to be done was to spread this order to the parts of the world who have yet to enjoy it. Implicit in this tantalizing thought was the Modernism and Postmodernism that had shaped it in the first place.

The current passion for overcoming the historical narrative in museums is itself another End of History narrative. Laura Hoptman wrote in her introduction to the landmark MoMA show "Forever Now", "What characterizes our cultural moment at the beginning of this new millennium is the inability -or perhaps the refusal- of a great many of our cultural artifacts to define the times in which we live." It is to her credit that it was in her first line that she admitted to the possibility of a willful blindness. I remember conversations in my own art community in the 90's (Los Angeles at the time) where it was considered bad form to mention Postmodernism even in passing, it was considered too "Essentialist" to do so. Time has passed and the need to give a name to our pain remained. Certainly, this is the source of anxiety that the trigger happy critics of the MoMA expansion are preoccupied with.

Let's look again at Saltz and Tempkin's provocative five.
-His fifth charge: the grand teleology. We had arrived at paradise, the only thing left to do was clean up.
-The fourth charge: the death of history. Nothing can be permitted to succeed Postmodernism, else the wrongs it had righted would re-manifest themselves again.
-The third: the folly of experimentation replacing narrative. Postmodernism requires that corrective narratives linger in the spotlight.
-Second, the obnoxious Modernist reality and perverse unreality of Postmodernism. Outside of time, there are only dreams.
-And the final crime of our Modernist father, "making it new". Postmodernism rendered the new into mere novelty and an oppressive one at that. It was because history was over that an artist should not be so foolish as to attempt newness. All that was possible were pale imitations of greatness past.

The 20th century ended in a paroxysm of negations. Titans of Modernism wanted to paint the last painting. Titans of Postmodernism wanted to stomp the compass of essentialism and get lost in the Forest of Signs. G-d was dead, truth was dead, the author was dead, painting was dead. I hope that by now you see and agree, that the central problem is that when history is dead, the only acts of creativity are the ones that are carefully circumscribed, lest you risk spoiling paradise. The book of art is written. Artists can only legitimately create end notes and bibliography. When history is dead, no subsequent chapters can be written. Every subsequent generation of artists are constrained.

When history is dead, art is dead.

To reiterate my take on the newly renovated MoMA, I was pleasantly surprised to fine a good blend of historical succession and what could be referred to as Michel Foucault's Archaeology, an analytical tool for uncovering alternative and disturbed histories of systems of knowledge, an unstructuring of legacy knowledge and categories. The spotlight and the periphery, together. Human sight, after all is a blend of focus and wide angles, a phenomenon not merely retinal, instead richly conceptual and wholly referential to a shared noumenon unobtainable outside of our senses.

It may all boil down to this earnest hope: that IF the 20th Century was about Either-Or, THEN the 21st is about Both-And.


Continue reading "Temporal and Atemporal..."
Posted by Dennis at 2:39 PM | Comments (0)

October 11, 2019

Wellspring: Richard Paris Installation

Here are the installation photos of my solo show at Galerie Richard, Paris. October 5 to November 13, 2019.



Posted by Dennis at 10:21 PM | Comments (0)