Via MTAA comes the news that Harlem gallery Triple Candie is doing a Cady Noland survey show, consisting of re-creations of her past artworks based on the Internet and other documentary sources. The re-creations are not approved by Noland, who "dropped out" of the art world in the mid '90s but "tightly controls" her work; this is not to say she disapproves--according to the press release she simply "was not consulted or notified."
Noland is a proto-slacker, neo-scatter artist whose themes are consumerism, nihilism, and politics as refracted through tabloid media; she achieved instant notoriety in the late '80s/early '90s with installations of beer cans, machine parts, and other urban or post-industrial detritus. Triple Candie sees her as an influence on a large range of current artists, including Wade Guyton, Sarah Lucas, and Banks Violette.
I'm curious what Noland's reaction to this will be. The press release says she "haunts the art world like a ghost" while scrupulously limiting the exhibition and publication of her work. This project is kind of fascinating coming so soon after Jack Pierson pitched a fit over the sign letter sculptures at Barneys that resemble his conceptualist/assemblage works. Pierson followed Noland in the art world's every-couple-of-years "new car rollout" hype cycle (both showed at the influential American Fine Arts gallery), but he stayed in the game and became a successful market entity. Does she care that Triple Candie is doing this? Would she have the clout or stamina to stop faithful re-creations of her work (as opposed to a mere window-dresser's homage)?
And finally, doesn't Elaine Sturtevant's inclusion in the current Whitney Biennial, showing exacting Duchamp knockoffs, legitimize this project (and delegitimize Pierson's huffing and puffing)? Some interesting questions here.
Very interesting. I wonder if the recreation of performance pieces by Marina Abramovich at the Guggenheim was maybe viewed as some sort of greenlight for projects such as this. Like, "If that sh*t will fly, maybe recreating installations will", sort of thing? Tom, your blog may be the only thing that will pull me out of my current disinterest with the art world. Thanks.
I'm not sure if looking at Sturtevant to "legitimize" the triple candie project is the right way to approach the situation, as there's plenty of other material to give support to an appropriation strategy such as this. Hell, isn't there supposed to be capital letters for Appropriation Art?
But that sort of linear pedigree isn't the sort of legitimacy I'm looking for.
I think some interesting factors to consider are that this project was orchestrated by a not-for-profit gallery in Harlem, and that the people making the work were a mix of the gallery's proprietors, named artists, and unnamed collaborators. The motives behind the project therefore aren't fueled by monetary reward, and they're not guided by a desire for notoreity. Though the press release isn't the clearest manifesto for the show, from it I can gather one thing. And this thing is an answer to one question:
This project is legitimized by the ideas it contains, and the questions it raises.
I find the press release very inspiring and was surprised those media mavens had the opposite response.
I mention Sturtevant because she trod a similar path in the '60s and the '70s and got similar reactions. Some artists were "livid" (as Saltz claims Hammons was) that she would presume to copy their work. She did ask before making a "Sturtevant"--I've heard that Warhol thought it was cool and Oldenburg said "no way."
The irony to me was the art world has always treated her as a marginal character. Here she was finally getting her due with some Whitney props and the cycle repeated itself further uptown.
A big difference: she didn't have "approximating" as a goal--she meant to make the best facsimiles she could even to the point of consulting artists about what paint and canvas they used.
|
Via MTAA comes the news that Harlem gallery Triple Candie is doing a Cady Noland survey show, consisting of re-creations of her past artworks based on the Internet and other documentary sources. The re-creations are not approved by Noland, who "dropped out" of the art world in the mid '90s but "tightly controls" her work; this is not to say she disapproves--according to the press release she simply "was not consulted or notified."
Noland is a proto-slacker, neo-scatter artist whose themes are consumerism, nihilism, and politics as refracted through tabloid media; she achieved instant notoriety in the late '80s/early '90s with installations of beer cans, machine parts, and other urban or post-industrial detritus. Triple Candie sees her as an influence on a large range of current artists, including Wade Guyton, Sarah Lucas, and Banks Violette.
I'm curious what Noland's reaction to this will be. The press release says she "haunts the art world like a ghost" while scrupulously limiting the exhibition and publication of her work. This project is kind of fascinating coming so soon after Jack Pierson pitched a fit over the sign letter sculptures at Barneys that resemble his conceptualist/assemblage works. Pierson followed Noland in the art world's every-couple-of-years "new car rollout" hype cycle (both showed at the influential American Fine Arts gallery), but he stayed in the game and became a successful market entity. Does she care that Triple Candie is doing this? Would she have the clout or stamina to stop faithful re-creations of her work (as opposed to a mere window-dresser's homage)?
And finally, doesn't Elaine Sturtevant's inclusion in the current Whitney Biennial, showing exacting Duchamp knockoffs, legitimize this project (and delegitimize Pierson's huffing and puffing)? Some interesting questions here.
- tom moody 4-19-2006 7:59 pm
Very interesting. I wonder if the recreation of performance pieces by Marina Abramovich at the Guggenheim was maybe viewed as some sort of greenlight for projects such as this. Like, "If that sh*t will fly, maybe recreating installations will", sort of thing? Tom, your blog may be the only thing that will pull me out of my current disinterest with the art world. Thanks.
- RobertHuffmann (guest) 4-25-2006 10:19 pm
I'm not sure if looking at Sturtevant to "legitimize" the triple candie project is the right way to approach the situation, as there's plenty of other material to give support to an appropriation strategy such as this. Hell, isn't there supposed to be capital letters for Appropriation Art?
But that sort of linear pedigree isn't the sort of legitimacy I'm looking for.
I think some interesting factors to consider are that this project was orchestrated by a not-for-profit gallery in Harlem, and that the people making the work were a mix of the gallery's proprietors, named artists, and unnamed collaborators. The motives behind the project therefore aren't fueled by monetary reward, and they're not guided by a desire for notoreity. Though the press release isn't the clearest manifesto for the show, from it I can gather one thing. And this thing is an answer to one question:
This project is legitimized by the ideas it contains, and the questions it raises.
- Amory Blaine 6-01-2006 1:52 am
I find the press release very inspiring and was surprised those media mavens had the opposite response.
I mention Sturtevant because she trod a similar path in the '60s and the '70s and got similar reactions. Some artists were "livid" (as Saltz claims Hammons was) that she would presume to copy their work. She did ask before making a "Sturtevant"--I've heard that Warhol thought it was cool and Oldenburg said "no way."
The irony to me was the art world has always treated her as a marginal character. Here she was finally getting her due with some Whitney props and the cycle repeated itself further uptown.
A big difference: she didn't have "approximating" as a goal--she meant to make the best facsimiles she could even to the point of consulting artists about what paint and canvas they used.
- tom moody 6-01-2006 2:11 am