THE CONCEPTUAL ART FATHER By Matthew Collings |
Robert De Niro |
![]() Still from Brian de Palma's Hi Mom! 1970 |
A large part of Hi, Mom! is devoted to a mock staging of a radical art happening, called "Be Black, Baby!" We see a lot of outrageous violence, including a near rape inflicted on an audience of white honkies by a performance group that appears to be part Living Theater, part Black Panthers. (The honkies, who’ve been forced to wear comic blackface makeup, love the experience.) The movie is silly but also real seeming in that it genuinely captures the emotional texture of the hot art scene of those times, Conceptual art’s mixture of the solemn and the ridiculous, the deeply felt but also the deeply felt for rather a short time (and the utterly engaged politically but only as a prelude to utter egotistical self-indulgence). |
Robert Smithson These meanings signify more to people now than the aesthetic meanings of great paintings. Weightless, fugitive meaning suits us better than the mighty Ten Commandments type, but we still feel rather religious about the situation. The meanings of Lawrence Weiner and Joseph Kosuth seem to blow in the wind, as do the meanings of Robert Smithson and Dan Graham. But we condition ourselves not to laugh or at least not to laugh dismissively. Dan Graham’s writings: What are they? (Everyone knows it’s against the law to fail to revere them.) Kind of diverting: pedantic lists, descriptions, funny little pseudosociological studies, thoughts about rock music and society. Small-time, but we can never say so. Robert Smithson’s commentaries and essays: mildly amusing, with an ironic tone, a bit contemptuous of established figures, bringing art together with popular science. |
![]() Dan Graham |
And that film Dan Graham made where he’s standing in front of a mirror and there’s an audience, and it’s some kind of performance. Maybe it’s a two-way mirror. In any case, what are we seeing? The new Las Meninas, different details but the same utter impact, at least according to orthodox interpretation. We can never question it. |
![]() Robert Smithson's Spiral Jetty |
And Smithson’s Spiral Jetty: we can never hear the end of it, this throwaway event (interesting raw content, banal ultimate form) done for a lark, for the moment, not for the ages, a joke on primitive totemic intensity, which we now have to worship like a pharaoh entombed in a pyramid. |
Al Pacino Huyghe’s work — entitled The Third Memory — really entertained me. I usually can’t care less about photos and texts arranged in grids, or videos, but there was a lot of weird human interest here. The work is about John Wojtowicz, who held up a bank in Brooklyn in 1972 and whose story was the basis for the script of Sidney Lumet’s 1975 movie Dog Day Afternoon. It’s just a collection of documents and films. But they all happen to be riveting, and one of them Huyghe actually made himself: a reenactment of certain scenes from the real robbery. For example, at one point you might be seeing, on one side of a split screen, a very stout, very white-haired Brooklyn-accented oldster performing: that’s actually Wojtowicz, who’s been out of prison for several years now. In a sleazy modern French TV studio, he’s ordering low-rate actors playing bank staff to put their hands up. At the same time, on the other half of the screen, a young Al Pacino orders highly experienced Hollywood actors playing bank staff to do the same thing. |
![]() Pierre Huyghe Third Memory split screen film |
![]() Pierre Huyghe Third Memory split screen film |
![]() Pierre Huyghe Third Memory split screen film |
The title The Third Memory refers to the supposed creation made from two different types of memory — those that are real on the one hand (the robber’s own subjective sense of what happened to him) and fictional on the other (the movie’s construction of events). The result is a third type of memory: cultural-mythic (all of us, kind of — all our heads now accommodating this rich myth of lowlife goings-on in early-’70s New York). Along with the film, there were framed news photos of Wojtowicz telling off the cops outside the bank and being arrested. He looked thin and handsome — in fact, uncannily like the young Al Pacino. |
![]() Pierre Huyghe The Third Memory news cutting — Earnest Aron with cops |
![]() Pierre Huyghe The Third Memory news cutting — Jon Wojtowicz berating cops |
![]() Pierre Huyghe The Third Memory news cutting — Jon Wojtowicz arrested |
There were also news photos of Wojtowicz’s real male wife, looking strikingly pretty, like his impersonator in the movie, Chris Sarandon (first husband of Susan), and Wojtowicz’s female wife, looking pretty fat, like the fat actress who played her (if you haven’t seen the film, one of the twists in it is that the hero has two wives: one male, from those days’ version of a civil ceremony, and one female). We are also treated to the whole of an episode of a 1978 Jeanne Parr TV show, where Parr interviews Wojtowicz in prison. He is chubby and plain, in sharp contrast to his haunted good looks a few years previously. (He tells Parr: "If you’re a man, you take responsibility for your actions.") Parr also interviews Wojtowicz’s male wife, who’s now become a woman and makes a living as a prostitute. (Q: "Do they know you used to be a man?" A: "No!") |
![]() Pierre Huyghe The Third Memory video showing Jeanne Parr show with Debbie Aron |
![]() Pierre Huyghe The Third Memory video showing Jon Wojtowicz in jail with inset image of Debbie Aron |
I didn’t learn anything or feel different about anything, but I found everyone’s changing appearance and their accounts of their desperate actions compelling and moving. I have two angles on this work. It doesn’t make anyone 'think' in the way that In Cold Blood or even Dog Day Afternoon does. Sidney Lumet’s film is fabulously rich in emotion, full of tenderness, violence, love, tears, loss — and all this is imbued in the very texture of the film. While Huyghe’s artwork is as numb and blank as any bit of conceptual art always is, just because of the deliberate limitations of the form. And I’m slightly depressed by the exploitation by an excruciating French relational aesthetics man-boy (you can see Huyghe being interviewed on YouTube) of a sad real guy and his loser life story. Hollywood certainly exploited him too: Lumet’s movie distorted his experience, and he was paid very little. Pierre Huyghe allows him to say what he wants, and yet where the movie has genuine richness and impact on every level, Huyghe’s installation is shallow: all it does is line up untransformed documentary content: newspaper photos, headlines, TV shows, plus short bursts of the movie. The split-screen film that Huyghe made himself is far too desultory to ever require another viewing (desultoriness being deliberately built-in for pious or intellectual reasons is still desultory). But I can honestly say that I was drawn in. | Sad ending It’s possible to make fun of the limitations and absurdities of conceptual art, but one has to admit that the problems it deals with are real. They are about present-day life and how art can hope to process it. The art of the past is great. We want to stare. There’s nothing so powerful as a little Bonnard of a lady having a wash. Or a Matisse of some purple trees. Or a 1950s abstract painting of a void. Gorky, Still, Rothko, Picasso, Matisse, Bonnard — I loved the paintings in SF MoMA’s permanent collection. |
![]() People looking at a Bonnard at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art |
![]() Bonnard detail |
But what that stuff doesn’t have is contemporaneity. It can’t answer our need for a type of art that reflects our own everyday experience. We want art to be alert to change, tuned in to how we live now. The whole conceptual tradition, including Pierre Huyghe, offers exactly that. It’s not that Matisse and Gorky, etc., can tell us only about 1917 or 1939. They offer magnificent lookatability, not just beauty but beauty full of mind and feeling — emotion that transcends its own moment. But we are frankly baffled by the tradition of aestheticism that Matisse represents. At least, we can only appreciate it from a distance. We can’t join in. We can’t do it anymore. Society just isn’t set up in the same way. In terms of immediate everydayness, such heights of art have become meaningless. Conceptual art hits the spot instead. (There’s something sad about it. It’s about new freedom, but it’s also basically about giving credence to impotence.) We have this itch for the present that conceptual art answers. It doesn’t have anything worth looking at. Plus its 'think-about-it' content isn’t worth thinking about for long. So there’s a loss along with the gain. But that’s the way it is. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||