Art Lies, Volume 66, Summer 2010 Page: 23
96 p. : col. ill. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
But when Carpenter paints "Die collector scum!" on a canvas, he is openly
engaging in an onanistic act of impotence (which I agree is full of a kind of
humility) that is predicated on a lack of agency. But perhaps Josh Smith is
a better, if not purer, example. Because in a sense his work obeys an essen-
tial internal impulse to make art, to produce, while at the same time-
given that his subject matter never really changes (or at least didn't for a
few years)-demonstrating that it is useless to produce, indeed that noth-
ing really groundbreaking or revolutionary will come of it.Josh Smith, Untitled, 2007; oil on canvas; 60 x 48 inches; courtesy the artist,
Luhring Augustine, New York, and Galerie Catherine Bastide, Brussels
But more importantly, when I say reactive with regard to my interest
in origins, I mean socially and culturally. Smith's work is obviously respond-
ing to a quasi-pathological sociocultural pressure to produce. That said, I
think it's safe to wonder, at this point, if idiocy isn't a kind of dandyism.
And when I say that, I mean in the most historical sense of the phenom-
enon, in that these are both cultivated postures meant to flaunt indif-
ference and dissimulate anxiety in the face of serious market pressures.
Predictably, perhaps, Benjamin locates the origins of dandyism in the
London Stock Exchange of the nineteenth century. After all, the progeni-
tor of "durr," Marcel Duchamp, could hardly have been more of a dandy,
and what economic pressure would he have been responding to, the econ-
omy of frenetic progress that animated the avant-garde? Which brings thewhole issue back to strategy and, in this case, a strategy of resistance, but
resisting what, exactly? The pressure to produce? By doing what, out-pro-
ducing? So it is better to simply concede? What about Diesel's new ad cam-
paign? "Be stupid." An arch-diabolical tautology, it adds whole new layers
and dimensions to the notion of recuperation, effectively leaving retard art
in the dust.
JL Yes, exactly! It is a form of dandyism. But you left out Picabia! Picabia
seems like a more proper progenitor (through Kippenberger) to Smith
and Carpenter than Duchamp. And even a more proper dandy. Duchamp's
work is incredibly studied. I get the feeling from Duchamp that beneath
the light gesture there is always a mountain of immaterial labor. He masks
the labor, but the work still has a certain heaviness to it. I would say the
same of Manzoni. The heaviness seems to stem from the fact that the work
is finite. The pieces have a beginning, middle and an end. And their proj-
ects as a whole, their individual life's work, are also limited. One can pro-
duce only so many such ruptures. This is very different from the creative
engine developed by Picabia. It is, in its way, limitless. Were he to live for-
ever, he could go on reacting to stimuli in his way, forever. It is difficult to
tell a good Picabia from a bad one. Of course you can say this about Josh
Smith as well. And while his work fits very neatly into the mold of a stra-
tegic response to the pressure to produce, I doubt that this has much to
do with his quasi-pathological behavior. I say this because artists make
art. That is what they do. Josh Smith's weird over-production is a million
miles away from any kind of a real "concession." That is the territory of
artists like Murakami and Hirst. Smith's concession exists only on a stage
of his own making. I myself am also an over-producer. I make much more
art than I can show. And a million things that I wish were art but some-
how don't turn out to be. The Diesel ad campaign is indeed diabolical. I am
not usually bothered by advertising, but after I saw this I was depressed
all day. At first, I thought it was just another version of the constant pres-
sure exerted to be having fun all the time, a platitude analogous to "Don't
Worry." Then I realized there was something else going on. The level at
which the "Be Stupid" functions is really horrible. Not only is it not clever,
it is completely lacking in both spectacle and irony, things we have come
to expect from advertising. The actions by the models have a quotidian
feel that is boring and annoying. They look like stock photos. The slogan,
too, is stock. It is specifically NOT self-reflexive. It is like an unmitigated
command, which we are meant to obey. And it is unrepentant about this
fact. It seems to say, "This is my role as an ad, so I will assume it." It has a
belligerent quality. I can see why you would equate the ads with Smith's
work. All of this makes me feel old. I cannot help but wonder if people
eight or nine years younger than I would have an intuitive understanding
of these ads that I was only able to reach through reflection.23 ART LIES NO. 66
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Gupta, Anjali. Art Lies, Volume 66, Summer 2010, periodical, 2010; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth228031/m1/25/?q=%22Puleo%2C+Risa%22: accessed June 8, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .