[Art Since 1900: Discussion I (kaleidoscope I)] "Anachronism"
AR: Yes. Thanks. Thank you very much. And thanks obviously to the Tate to Dominc and Thames and Hudson for organizing this important event and to speakers for coming from different parts, well, actually coming from New York in fact. But, coming from different London post coast to participate in this event, since it is more difficult coming from New York as you know in many cases. Boston, I'm sorry. I was actually thought start thinking Thames and Hudson's history but Nichlas talked about it, so well now, I just mention that in 1965 Thames and Hudson published properly reads "The Style of the European art." and, off course, which I was given in a birthday that in year which I read avidly. So this reading of this book is part of a very long time process, if you'd like, the internalization of these extraordinary repositionings of the 20th century and the terms modernism and modernity which, I think, are both in a sense opened up by this book and also to certain extent monumentalized by it. And that's one thing which we want to return to in Foucauldian terms whether this book is fascinating and dense book is a monument or document or whether in a different way both at the same time, and of what? What kind of text is it? What kind of symptom is it? Off course, when we wrote that book, the other books mentioned in the 60's, there was no such things as video art, which is something constantly stuns me when I confront the first year fine arts student. In another point, which I began to teach fine art students was appoint to way make video, you needed kind of huge amount of money from somewhere and huge army of assistance to carry these vast equipment out to somewhere when you could make a fine art video. The simple development of technologies obviously in the last 35 years is something which in a way, I think, this book is very layouted and it's fragmentary at the same time attempting the coherence in some sense represents and recalls as a kind of art history book and participates in. I have to say when it came through my door and arrived with UPS about ten days ago. I cannot pretend a through reading of it yet. I think my first rather spiteful reaction on unwrapping it and putting out on this box was to say, what's missing. You know, not fifteen minutes of reading index, off course, I came up with my list of things which should be there, as well as my list of things which shouldn't be there. I think that's kind of again, you know, has a frivolous reaction. But, it's interesting one in terms of the way one might talk about the book. Because one of our first reactions to it, off course, particularly in terms of one's relationships to the other writings by the four authors is in what way we’ll want to learn from it. And what way we’ll want to teach from it. In what way will students, if you'd like, become the subject to whom this book is addressed. In what way does that transform a teacher’s relationship to the pedagogic process? I think this is extremely important not just on the level of the particular essays, but the level of the particular styles of writing which we involved in the book. If you look very, very hard, on the lists of the each decade, you can actually see the author's initials, something I need to discover today that Rosalind pointed out, which she’s got better reading eye glasses than I had, that's all I can say. I mean hunting for the names anyway, and I found them.
But I think it raises number of important pedagogic issues about address about art histories about the way in which methodology can be both predominant, yet at the same time fragmented the way in which book can be read from different author's points of view in such ways to see, if you'd like, the complex methodologies developed in the last 35 years, both deployed in rather pragmatic way, and I didn't mean pragmatic in full philosophical sense, that will come rather practical hands on way used absorbed criticized rejected and at the same time commented on the fully introductory essays on psychoanalysis, on deconstruction so forth. And the box is included in the pages which deal with major authors, major critiques, major movements, major tendencies whether it's short box on Birmingham cultural studies or quite a long box on Foucault or whatever. So the book mixes, if you'd like, kind of mixtures of styles of both investigation of writing and the representation of the field as it's developed, and does this through the variety of visual forms, which readily cross references through the little triangles, dots and boxes that boxes will tell you where else to go from year to year.
(0:05:00)
So there is a way of reading the book, which I think is specifically modern or very specifically contemporary something to do with the way one works on the internet. I mean, I can immediately think in terms of teaching the way in which it fits into, in fact, fine art studio practice first and foremost the way in which it might be there something through which students to learn. Art historian or visual culture person who is always taught in the studios. I have kind of an answer to the question which our teachers used to play one with. Less or now. Because we share so much more of an education through this process of change. About why don't students know about this or why don't they know about that. And when the result is an open cross reference and available.
Now, there is precedence for this book which is, I think inspiration for it, and Ros want me to talk about this just a little, which is Denis Hollier's "A new history of French literature", which was published, I think, in 1995, which therefore has been available for a decade. And which as far as I know, was the first book, the first history of disciplinary area to use what I call not chronological approach, because I think which is to crude conceptual list of dates, but the tactic of listing by dates, this one begins in 798 and ends in 1985 and deal with therefore 1200 years of something called French literature. It has something like 204 entries. And there are not many of the authors write more than two entries and probably has, well, over hundred authors, I haven't counted all of them. I certainly recall discussions of some of the authors with the editor while I was being dumb become aware the fact that it looked like rather ritual process. Quit extraordinary complexity because there is always in a sense, your interdiscipline whichever discipline it belong to. But if you start with a date 1878 and 1934, you also belong in the whole history of that discipline. So the very fact that putting things in order 978 to 1985. 1900 to 2000, put you in a position of necessarily being anachronistic, you got to pull yourself in your discipline, and your object that you are looking at into a kind of distorted temple relationship with each other. And this I think is one of the great achievements of Hollier's work which, I think, is you can get in a paperback which, I think, it is one of the masterpiece of the modern academic publishing in particularly language studies and historically language studies and literary studies.
Which I think it is very much present in this work. In my first skim reading through, for example, 1945 is my cut off date, by the way, so if I mention the date after 1945, I'm sure I stop. Because that's for this afternoon. I mean in the second sessions this after noon. And 1945, which is essays on begins with David Smith, and David Smith's sculpture concludes with the discussions of Michael Fried's "Art and Objecthood" and that seems to be one indication one in which this way the list of dates gives rise kind of symptom of structural discipline happens. In stead of being discussed which he wrote "Art and Objecthood", Fried appeared in 1945. If you'd like, the trauma gives rise to "Art and Objecthood" is the point in which it arise for discussion not in proper chronological space and this is very characteristic of the work as a whole. If I can risk going after 1945, just very, very briefly, number of these phenomena also occur in the 1960's. For example, Guggenheim Bilbao occurs in 1976 long before it's built in the context of another theme which runs through this book which structures so called chronology, which is that exhibition displays that kind of display that of, if you'd like, museology as a form of historiography in which, off course, the famous Barr diagram, The Alfred Barr diagram at the museum of modern art back in 1930's and the Greenberg's interaction with it, necessarily form some kind of core some kind of spine.
(0:10:00)
So, I think that's one question which I would like to put to the authors is the question of how do they experiences, if you'd like, of anachronistic procedure? Another question which I'd like to address is the question of writing. Because those pieces, I think, as Nick is indicated the relations to the authors to the last 30 years is there is interesting relation to the critical writing and historical writing here. The piece is all quite short and quite dense. And not ones which you can expand and whole of everything, Rosalind is just talked about writing Surrealism in five pages, you know, you devoted to number of essays and books what you do in five pages. And this necessarily brings up the question of judgment. A question is a relation between esthetic judgment and historical writing and critical writing which is one has to keep being made and re-made, and I think, again, interestingly think about the way in pragmatic sense how do you conclude bring to an end, a volume which is so immensely ambitious which, I think, Yve-Alain mentions many more artist's names any other histories in 20th centuries which is certainly I think immense density compared to someone like Earnest and other blockbuster cause Thames and Hudson put over the years before the public.
So this question of judgment, I think, is very important, indeed. It's probably the area where you start thinking what's missing. I started thinking, where is Helen Chadwick, if Sam Taylor Wood is in. But that's after 1945, so I'll drop it then and leave it as accusation on behalf of the English panthus, OK? You can bring it up after tea, if you'd like.
Another question is off course, that of methodologies. No one in senses is signed up for a single methodology, yet methodology which is haunt of feminist methodology, queer methodology which might be more present again something to discuss. Or Psychoanalytic methodology or social historical methodologies are everywhere. They are in boxes in there, they are in references in there, and they are somewhere in some of pieces. So, I think that's just a way perhaps of opening something of the density of the work, something of the way in which proceed through artist name and subject names and something in the way which, for example, you might have Walter Benjamin chapter and Roll Maobi chapter. What is that mean as the way of structuring system of grouping of art historical knowledge. So, that's quite a lot of issues to raise. I'll stop and maybe would you like to start with pedagogy? Or would you like to start with anachronism or do you want just forget everything.
EB: No, no, no, no.
RK: What do you mean by anachronism?
AR: I mean things occur before the chronological occurrence.
RK: Oh, I see.
AR: Or re-occur long after in a sense, I thought in a way this is more anamorphic than anachronistic. You know, we often feels theoretical model is like a skull in whole rhinos, floating there between spaces. And that's why I say which is Michael Fried's "Art and Objecthood", you know, it doesn't say 1967, and whenever it says that.
YB: You could have said that. It's a very floating structure as you might have noticed for the dates. It’s sometimes date as end of something, beginning of something, you know it's at some point during the writing of the book, the discussion of Magritte was actually only at the time of kind of second wave of reaction against Magritte or maybe it was a 66 from Foucault. I don't quite remember. It changes, it's fluctuating and it's not that we've never had any… On the contrary, we keep it very loose so that on that account so that rigid grid of chronology would not be imposed upon the facts. Because the facts have a different lives. They don't only born at one point. It re-occurs and re-birth and new interpretation you write. So, I think that is true, we never thought... OK. What happened in 1911? What happened in 1902? What happened in 1903? Not at all. We thought what we wanted to talk about. Which date we could've related to in a kind of and the dates were chosen very often by what we want to talk about. By some kind of narrative kick, you know. For example, for the entry that I wrote on, is that the first volume, or second volume? I don't know. I don't remember. On Fautrier, Dubuffet, that could have been 44, that could have been 45, that could have been 46. And it didn't really matter. You know I just chose because in each of the years there could have been an event and a date so I just add something more in 45, 46 anyway. Just wait one. It was more defining event, or something that could be a narrative entry into a problem, and to a set of issues that causes sort of anachronistic arabesque.
AR: The event is already kind of theoretically, methodologically dense thing, in fact.
YB: It's not a fact. It's a significant construct, an event. It's not just a fact because some fact has not to be an event. Many facts have. It's significant construct an event. Some facts has not to be an event. Many facts has not to be an event. What can be used to have entered into the problem?
MN: Also, in a specific example that you mentioned of 1945. To have embedded within that particularly entry at discussion of 1968 means that the relationship between the earlier and later part of the century. In that sort of the notion that we are obeying here, that there was kind of divide at 1945. That's really kind of broken by the particular procedure, because you have to read about 1945 to learn about 1968. So this kind of obedience that we have at the moment chose punctuality in the sense of the particular importance in more recent past is really questioned by your procedure, I think. RK: I wrote 1945 entry and question. I'll say how I got how I felt we have to bring in "Art and Objecthood", and that has to do with the fact that David Smith seems to open the way to Antony Caro and Caro is the great hero of "Art and Objecthood". So it seemed like it was necessary to bring those things together. And therefore off course jumps the gap of the world war II.
AR: In doing that one necessarily comes back to another question which is I just raised which is about judgment, kind of judgment if you like relation between "Art and Objecthood" and art theories. Because Caro being the hero in "Art and Objecthood" necessarily if you'd like entails chronology you've made of and chronology you constructed in terms of kind of relation to critique of Fried's position, perhaps. Does that make sense?
RK: I hope explaining it, I mean, presenting it, the way, you know, we present some of the major theoretical or critical text of the centuries such as Walter Benjamin's "Work of age of mechanical reproduction", Clement Greenberg's modernist paintings. I mean, you know, there is sort of parade of important theoretical text. Am I answering your question what's you are asking?
AR: Yes. Which also belong both at the historical moment and the point of which we discovered them all, they are constantly re-discovered, so the work of art and age of mechanical reproduction both gives rise to a date in 1930's. That's necessarily the date of 1930's which was learned through translations and it's taking up in 1970's.
RK: We have tremendous amount of troubles with placing the presentation of Magritte and Foucault's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" so that we ended up placing all of that at the date of the publication of Foucault. I don't remember what the date is. But that somewhere in 70's, and we didn't meant we didn't discuss Magritte until 70's. Which was ridiculous and then we moved it all back, so you ended up with this very weird problems if you are presenting both the history of art and history of texts.
AR: Would you like to say something about writing of Surrealism in five pages.
(00:20:00)
RK: You know, I really have written on a awful lot about Surrealism, and so when you have that amount of suppose you call it expertise, exhaustion I guess it gets easier to condense sort of figure out what is the key idea and that I would want students to know about this in the introduction to Surrealism. You know, you can kind of really cut to the chase when you have that amount of experience with the subject. So, Yve-Alain had to write about Mondrian in five pages.
YB: Unlike you, I didn't find easy to write to be short on things that I've written a lot on things that I've written a lot. I found, as you know, it's difficult what I think all of us tried to do in different ways, in this books are we have several cases, there is a case where you have to write something on which you have written a lot. That's your so-called “specialty”. We all have that quite a few so called “specialty”, so it's quite natural that you are the designated author to write that entry. But there are also cases where you didn't know anything and no one knew anything really, so we have to learn about those thing. And it was very interesting. In fact, I've much prefer to do those kinds, but then you really have to learn quite an accelerated pace to be able to distill what is essential for something.
And I think all of us have to do not that many entries where we didn't know anything about it, but a few. I thought it was very interesting exercise. Given no knowledge at all, acquire that pile of knowledge and be able to condense them and… It was really interesting race and I found it very amusing exercise in some ways but we always tried, as I said before, to find a kind of narrative trick that would make the entry interesting for ourself first of all, and we'll also be synthesizer or simplificater, although wheels are not right, kind of condensater of all kinds of problematics that would make it eventually, you know, the book is not a page turner, I'm sure it's not. Book is kind of more, you know, very heavy. So, you have to be able to read this a little bit as closed little essays which off course as you mentioned before, constantly refer to others. But you can't, you know, it's not an obligation. The idea is having kind of little nucleus presented with narrative structure was, I think, what a guide at least to me, but all of us, we tried to write it in a way that could trigger some sense the problem is as frame but now it can disorder all kind of directions. That's I think we've tried.
AF: Would you say that in doing that anyway guide how the book is eventually look in terms of visual argument, in terms of I think about 1916 and 19 which Rosalind write about Paul Strand and in 1917, assumes you are writing about Mondrian. There is kind of a strange mapping of early forms of interpretation of both of grids and grids of light and in the photography and beginnings of grids of Mondrian, there is a strange almost uncanny visual coherence or relation between those two chapters which begins to do what Nick was just talking about, which was inserting photography into history of art, which is not history of photography.
EB: No, we actually, we chose, the model given by Denis Hollier in his book a lot of advantages, one of them are no footnotes, another we have to choose very small bibliography for each texts and the one which is not in Denis’ but transformation of his model, each has to chose between 4 or 6 illustrations. We did not really consult, I mean, I chose illustration as we wrote and it’s only later that we saw this kind of amusing juxtaposition, sometimes we change a little bit, because to avoid redundancy, things like that, but it was very interesting discovery of having those parallelism in the illustration.
(0:25:00)
It was more coincidental than any other things. It was very good, actually. It was good kind of proof that it was kind of logical argument. But and elementary proof.
AF: And on the question of the photography, its relation to the broader field which Nick raised in introduction, is that again that's something you forethoughts the project or would it something emerged as a...
RK: The sort of person who really wanted to insert the history of photography was Benjamin Buchloh. And his commitment to photography is probably greater than any of ours. Although my particular take on Duchamp, I must say, is large glass of kind of huge photograph. And so, photography for me is very important to insert into various figures or areas that generally not discussed in relation to photography. I also feel the surrealism has to be discussed from the point of view of photography. So, am I answering your question? I don't know.
AR: Maybe that was a question Benjamin would like to come back to afterwards. I was thinking about the way in which in a sense photography becomes different medium from chapter to chapter. That when one wants to say looking at your chapter on Strand and later on that which I have not mentioned which is a chapter on Becca's one season substantially different from itself deeply occurrences. And that struck me being one of the achievements of all which displaces something which one might call medium or technique or something which could be hung separately in the museum, or intersection the Biennale or MoMA, again now to displace itself to own its definition into a different set of, if you'd like, theoretical and practical approach to history of art in relation to the social and relation to the aesthetic relation to Greenberg's paradigms, or whatever. So there is plays in between the earlier emergence of the photography as fine art form and this occurrence kind of militant form later on, let’s say, sequenal with Rebecca's. It seems to me to be something which pedagogically interesting in the book.
YB: Going back to your idea of anachronism, indexical character of photography is only discovered kind of late and well, not discovered, theorized late, it's theory travels late and artists get to work on that through the intimidate role of Duchamp, you know, it's, we have been trying to consider photography, I have never been writing any entries about photography, I don't think, I don't remember any but I think the idea is the role of the photography in shaping some artistic questions through the century is pervasive through the book, as an actor, not only as a medium but as an actor, or agent.
[Art Since 1900: Discussion I (kaleidoscope)]
