UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date: 30-Mar-2010

I, Katherine C Cope , hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Arts in Art History It is entitled: The Kitschiest Gnomes: A Brief Examination of the French Group Présence

Panchounette's Activities, Disdain for Conceptualism, and Implementation of

Gnomes (1969-1990) Student Signature: Katherine C Cope

This work and its defense approved by: Committee Chair: Kimberly Paice, PhD Kimberly Paice, PhD

Kristi Ann Nelson, PhD Kristi Ann Nelson, PhD

Theresa Leininger-Miller, PhD Theresa Leininger-Miller, PhD

5/3/2010 504 The Kitschiest Gnomes: Présence Panchounette's Activities, Disdain for Conceptualism, and Implementation of Gnomes (1969-1990)

A thesis presented to

The Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in the Department of Art History

of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning

by

Katherine C. Cope

B.A. Ohio University

May 2010

Committee Chair: Kimberly Paice, Ph.D.

Abstract

The artist collective Présence Panchounette of Bordeaux, France, made significant contributions to contemporary art in France from 1969 until 1990. Here I examine the history, the ideas, and the works of the group, and argue for Présence Panchounette‘s contribution in making contemporary art more accessible to the general public. Within the last few decades,

French centers for contemporary art have mounted exhibitions that celebrate the works of

Présence Panchounette and its peers, yet little attention has been given to these artists in the

United States. The group was among the forerunners of the appropriation movement in France that aimed to analyze the industrialization and commercialism of the 20th century. The

Situationist International, Dadaists, and other historical avant-gardes influenced Présence

Panchounette‘s interest and participation in the appropriation movement and the group‘s desire to appeal to the proletariat. Présence Panchounette practiced the détournement method of art making, which originated as a Situationist International technique. By the time Présence

Panchounette disbanded, it had left giant plastic dwarves in Paris and Bordeaux, France, readymades such as a taxidermy deer head and weight bench with books, and the ―chounette spirit.‖ This ―chounette spirit‖ revoked any intellectual formulization of art works and led to a more casual and enjoyable art form without specialist meanings. I also examine Présence

Panchounette‘s use of garden gnomes. The group‘s use of gnomes reinforces notions of kitsch and the common man, much like the rest of the group‘s installation works, in order to appeal to an audience not steeped in historical art references. Présence Panchounette‘s success is evident through the popularity of the group‘s work among the common classes.

ii

iii Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I am extremely indebted to the Inter-Library Loan team who tracked down numerous obscure French art catalogues and books for me. Without them I would never have completed this paper. I also wish to thank my wonderful family, especially my husband/editor-in-chief, Russ. A few words of thanks to Dr. Kimberly Paice for allowing me to investigate the little-known French contemporary group of artists and her ability to help me focus my study, and thanks to Dr. who inspired me to go beyond my expectations. Thanks to Dr.

Kathryn Lorenz who helped me to translate some very tricky French theoretical writing. Lastly, thanks to Catherine Millet for taking the time to send me some helpful articles and words of encouragement.

iv Table of Contents

List of Illustrations vi

Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Présence Panchounette‘s Early History and Manifesto 9

Chapter 2: Philosophy, Criticism of Others, and Commentary about 26 the Group

Chapter 3: The Cultural Gnome 39

Conclusion 56

Illustrations 61

List of Exhibitions 89

Bibliography 90

v List of Illustrations

Figure

1. Richard Dumas, Portrait de trois membres de P.P., July 1989, photograph

2. Présence Panchounette, Manifesto, 1969, Présence Panchounette, Présence Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies, Tôme 1. Labège: Centre régional d'art contemporain Midi-Pyrénées, Calais Musée, 1986, 56

3. Présence Panchounette, Installation, 1984, armchair, books, assemblages, paintings, rugs, and other various objects, Galerie Eric Fabre, Paris, France

4. Présence Panchounette (photo: T. Domage), Congo Go!, 1983, grey fan and electric cord

5. Figure 5, Présence Panchounette, À la Penn et à l’honneur, 1983, tennis balls, wedding cake topper, and platter

6. Présence Panchounette, Transition-Valse, 1977, exterior view of gallery installation of wallpaper, Galerie Eric Fabre, Paris France

7. Présence Panchounette, La pression des rêve, 1974, blood pressure monitor, 40 x 91, 5 x 40 cm, Collection du Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris, France, © Présence Panchounette

8. Présence Panchounette, La dégénéresence guette les avant-gardes, 1972 –1986, ironing board, iron, shirt, Galerie de Paris, Paris, France

9. Présence Panchounette, Live at Birdland (photo: Jules), 1979, saxophone, table, magazine, lights

10. Présence Panchounette, sans titre (without title), 1988, engraved metal plaque

11. Présence Panchounette, Meublé, coquet, lumineux (image distorted during publication), 1986, sofa and Pierre Soulages‘s Peinture (1984)

12. Information, Museum of Modern Art, New York, 2 July – 20 September 1970, Photo © 1995 The Museum of Modern Art, New York

13. Figure 13, Joseph Kosuth, Art as Idea as Idea, Nothing, 1967, photostat mounted on cardboard, 120.7 x 120.7 cm., The Panza Collection, © Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York, DACS, London

14. Joseph Kosuth, One and Three Chairs (French to English installation), 1965, chair, photograph, and wall text, 200 x 271 x 44 cm, © Adagp, Paris 2007, Paris 2005

vi 15. Présence Panchounette, Le roi des Rennes (left), 1985, deer head, rubber gloves, and plaque, Remake-up (right), 1986, bicycle seat and handle bars

16. Présence Panchounette, Néo-Senoufo (photo: Jules), 1985, primitive bust and children‘s toy Chieftain and canoe, private collection, Bordeaux, France

17. Présence Panchounette, [Snails in Boxing Ring], ca. 1987, snail sculptures, boxing ring, and paint

18. Présence Panchounette, Dans chien il y a niche, dans homme il y a HLM (exterior and interior views), 1989, kennel, carpet, chandelier, and painted cloth, 90 x 53 x 89 cm, Le Frac-Collection Aquitaine

19. Rien Poortvliet, 1979, book cover, Wil Huygen, Gnomes, New York: A Peacock Press/Bantam Book, 1979

20. Albert Hurter, Gustaf Tenggren, and Ferdinand Hovarth, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937, movie poster, © Walt Disney

21. Roaming Gnome, advertising image, © 1996-2010 Travelocity.com LP

22. Présence Panchounette, Clément Greenberg et Jacques Soulillon [sic] discutant des mérites comparés de peintures contemporaines, 1978, paint, gnome figurines, and various materials, Galerie de Paris, France

23. Présence Panchounette, Wham!, 1987, gnome figurine, cart, canvas, and paint, F.R.A.C. Nord – Pas de Calais, France

24. Louise Lawler, Pollock and Tureen, 1984, silver dye bleach print, 71.1 x 99.1 cm, The Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation Gift through Joyce and Robert Menschel and Jennifer and Joseph Duke Gift, 2000, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000.434, New York, New York, © Louise A. Lawler

25. Présence Panchounette (photo: A. Morain), Tour de Babil, 1985, various materials, gnome figurine, and books

26. Présence Panchounette, The boss 'Dwarf! Dwarf! I, ca. 1980s, painted plastic, 2.3 m high, Collection Ben, ©François Fernandez, 2000

27. Présence Panchounette, Dwarf Dwarf II, 1989, statue of gnome/dwarf

28. Présence Panchounette, Dwarf Dwarf III, ca. 1980s, statue of gnome/dwarf

vii Introduction

Understanding non-traditional artists is important because these outliers to the history of art may add an interesting and expanded view of American art and contemporary art in general.

In my study, I examine one such group from France called Présence Panchounette, which was active from 1969 until 1990. My study focuses on Panchounette‘s satirical installation art, which the members designed to expose the absence of mass-cultural themes in the avant-garde art of the mid-to-late 20th century. By studying Panchounette‘s criticism of conceptualism and the group‘s appeal to a non-specialist audience, I am contributing an alternative view of avant-garde art of the late 20th century.

Panchounette‘s primary objective was to critique contemporary art that did not relate to the general public or to the market place. To achieve its objective, Panchounette created catalogues and installations specifically aimed at the public. I investigate the group‘s attempt to make contemporary art more accessible to the public through its combination of satire and readymades. To illustrate Panchounette‘s desire to appeal to a mass audience, I discuss the significance of Panchounette's use of kitsch garden gnomes in installations. The gnome is a legendary character, which has been embodied into sculptural form for mass consumption.

Panchounette incorporates the gnome figurine into some of its installations to relate to the common consumer and to share a sense of silliness as reported in the group‘s manifesto. The success of Panchounette is attributable to its use of everyday objects in its assemblages and the simplicity of its art works. While this study is not a comprehensive examination of

Panchounette, it is a general overview of Panchounette‘s objectives as a group, works, philosophy, and criticism.

1 The history surrounding Panchounette‘s inception and growth is crucial to understanding the story of Panchounette in France. Events including the events of May 1968 and the formation of the Situationist International took place in France affected the future members of

Panchounette by endearing the members to the concept of the proletariat. The revolutionary events of May 1968 involved numerous students‘ occupations and laborers‘ strikes in response to the government‘s treatment of them.1 Panchounette‘s members participated as students in Les

événements. Around the same time, the Situationist International formed and also took part in

Les événements.

The events related to the institutionalization of Dada and other non-traditional art movements were important to the formation of Panchounette. In her book, Contemporary Art in

France (2004), Catherine Millet summarizes the art events leading up to the public reception of contemporary art in France. Millet observes that from the 1950s through the late 1960s contemporary art began to infiltrate the mass market. The various forms of contemporary art, such as performances, shocked museums into reorganizing their interiors to accommodate contemporary art in all its various forms.2 The public displays of Dada art and Surrealist art led to journals and pamphlet distribution that focused on a wider audience which varied greatly from prior audiences of limited to artists and art critics.3

Specific exhibitions in France hold significance, not only for Panchounette, but also for any contemporary artist of that era. For example, in 1966, Picasso‘s retrospective was held in

Paris. People lined up in excess of 400,000 to see it, attesting to public acceptance and the desire to understand less traditional art.4 The 1966 Dada exhibition at the Musée National d‘Art

1 Catherine Millet, Contemporary Art in France (Paris: Flammarion, 2006), 88. 2 Ibid., 9-29. 3 Ibid., 15. 4 Ibid., 10-11.

2 Moderne shortly followed this exhibition. Notably, this 1966 exhibition called 72, douze ans d’art contemporain en France included Marcel Duchamp‘s Ben (1962), a glass of urine, which caused uproar, and opened the causeways between social institutions and avant-garde artists such as Panchounette.5

Additional phenomena that influenced Panchounette to make art for the public occurred in France toward the end of the 1960s. Contemporary art of that period was being incorporated into industrial products and other merchandise.6 Artists began using manufacturing techniques to produce contemporary art while manufacturers replicated contemporary art in order to sell in the marketplace. Panchounette was among the contemporary artists who made art based upon manufactured products.

Panchounette's installations featured bold colors, garden gnomes, mannequins, costumes, and many other readymade items that the group used symbolically to unconceal the elitism of the avant-garde‘s longstanding opposition to the decorative arts. Adhering to the artistic strategies of détournement, appropriation, and readymade, Panchounette used symbols from everyday life rather than the classic literary, artistic symbols, or vague signs found in most avant-garde art.

The group believed that the public should be able to comprehend art through inclusion of familiar objects and symbols of their lives, many of which were directly related to commercialism and labor issues.

Literature Review

Periodical articles exist concerning the Panchounette and its work, but to date there has been no analysis in English of the French group‘s irreverent philosophy and appeal to the public through use of its garden gnome in works made since the 1960s. I have listed what literature that

5 Ibid., 13. 6 Ibid., 13-14. For example, fashion designer Yves-Saint Laurent incorporated the art of Piet Mondrian and Op Art into his clothing line.

3 I found to be most beneficial in preparing this study about Panchounette and its activities, works, and history. Part of the value of this study is that up until now most of the information about

Panchounette has been in French. Additionally, available commentary about the group‘s exhibitions is limited to mostly post-disbandment shows, thus it is necessary to examine

Panchounette‘s works from a more current viewpoint. Based on the available literature I have included an abbreviated list of the group‘s exhibitions in order to provide additional context for its activities (see p. 89).

Group members have participated in interviews and have authored catalogues, articles, and pamphlets. In fact, much of what is known about Panchounette comes from primary sources. The most informative of the scholarship and interviews include: L’Ordre Total (1989),

Cragg, Boum, Hue! (1983), Le Decoratif (1990), and Présence Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies:

Tôme 1 & 2 (1986).7 These particular texts are much more theoretically comprehensive than the other available writings on the group. Of the texts, L’Ordre Total (1989) and Présence

Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies: Tôme 1 & 2 (1986) are the most useful exhibition catalogues and contain the best information provided directly by the group. To support these texts, the exhibition catalogue Présence Panchounette (1987) from an exhibition in Stuttgart, Germany, is a very valuable resource of images.

Panchounette and Joseph Mouton wrote the first significant text, L’Ordre Total (1989).

This exhibition catalogue is valuable because it contains essays that discuss Panchounette‘s exhibitions, objectives, and social commentary. It also provides philosophical information about

7 Présence Panchounette, L’Ordre Total (Rennes: La Criée, Centre d‘arts Plastiques, 1989). Présence Panchounette, Cragg, Boum, Hue! (Maison de la Culture de Chalon sur Sâone, Paris: Présence Panchounette, les Archives Modernes, and du Centre National des Arts Plastiques, 1983). Jacques Soulillou, Le Décoratif (Paris: Klincksiek, 1990). Présence Panchounette, Présence Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies, Tôme 1 & 2 (Labège: Centre régional d'art contemporain Midi-Pyrénées, Calais Musée, 1986).

4 Panchounette's use of satire and reproductions of some of the group‘s installations.

Panchounette added personal and business letters from various sources to the back of the catalogue that shed interesting light on the individual reactions to Panchounette as a group. This source also lays Panchounette‘s philosophies and its distaste for conceptualism, which I explain in what follows here.

Another key exhibition catalogue, Cragg, Boum, Hue! (1983), was written by Soulillou.

In an interview in said book, Soulillou discusses some of the issues Panchounette has with art critics' analyses of its installation works. The catalogue contains a poorly-translated essay in

English that provides considerable color to the group‘s background and character through the translator‘s use of vernacular. Few images are included in this publication. From this catalogue

I use information pertaining to the members of Panchounette, some philosophical ideas, and

Panchounette‘s criticism of the artist Tony Cragg. Cragg‘s role as scapegoat for the group is important in understanding the art and personality of the group.

Soulillou authored another significant book, Le Decoratif (1990). He attempted to situate the nature of art as decoration as well as the philosophy of art making and art viewing. This book deals with Panchounette‘s art. Yet, because of Soulillou's involvement with Panchounette, it provides an understanding of some of Panchounette's theories of art and Soulillou's personal critique of art during the same years that Panchounette was active.

In addition, Présence Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies, Tôme 1 & 2 (1986), a two-part exhibition catalogue for the Calais Musée, details Panchounette‘s intentions and critical concerns through various letters, prose, and interviews with members of the group. Within this catalogue, scant views of the group‘s installation art appear. In addition, throughout this catalogue,

Panchounette discusses its philosophies and its reactions to other artists and literary figures.

5 These texts and images are intrinsic to my study for analyzing the format of Panchounette's installations and reviewing the group‘s use of symbols and signage in its work.

Présence Panchounette (1987), the catalogue for a solo exhibition of the group‘s work at

Württembergischer Kunstverain in Stuttgart, Germany, contains numerous color images of the group‘s works. The works included in the catalogue span several years and largely follow a chronological order. Titles of the works are listed below each corresponding image. Most of my analysis of Panchounette‘s artwork is based on the artworks contained within Présence

Panchounette (1987).

Several articles are also significant to understanding Panchounette‘s work, and they provide excellent source material about the group. Most of the articles are from the French publication called Art Press. There are a few exhibition reviews and general commentaries available about the group. An important article published in Art Press by Soulillou is called

―This is the End: Présence Panchounette‖ (1990). Millet conducted this interview with

Soulillou, shortly after the group retired. In the interview, Soulillou offers commentary on the group‘s objectives and divulges some reasons for the group‘s disbandment which helps to illustrate the group‘s overt distaste for traditional or marketability of other artists/groups.

Millet‘s essay, called ―Présence Panchounette: Capri, c‘est fini! Et dire que c‘était la ville de mon premier amour‖ (1989), published in ArtPress, is important because it focuses on

Panchounette‘s approaches and highlights its use of humor in its art.

The most significant texts for contextualizing Panchounette‘s place in history and

Panchounette‘s influences are Catherine Millet‘s Contemporary Art in France (2006) and Julian

Bourg‘s From Revolution to Ethics: May 1968 and Contemporary French Thought (2007).

Millet‘s book focuses on artists, rather than the art movements or the politics surrounding the

6 artists, although these areas are minimally covered. Millet mentions Panchounette in her book‘s section about satirical work and the method of appropriation. Bourg‘s book mostly deals with the revolution of May 1968 in France and some of the philosophical changes occurring during the mid-to-late 1900s.

Chapter Descriptions

In chapter 1, Présence Panchounette‘s Early History and Manifesto, I discuss the manifesto (1969) of Panchounette, what influenced the content, and how it relates to

Panchounette‘s works of art. The primary purpose of this chapter is to describe the manifesto while providing concrete analysis and arguing for Panchounette‘s efficacy in relating to those in its audience who are unfamiliar with artistic symbolism or history. Other information contained in this chapter serves to inform the reader about Panchounette as a group. This information includes the history behind the group‘s name and some information pertaining to the members of the group. To analyze the manifesto, I delve into the early history of the group, its first works of art, its foray into public art-making, and expand the information found in the manifesto. To determine the inspirations for the manifesto, I evaluate the works of several theorists and artists with whom Panchounette came into contact. I also examine and describe Panchounette's installations as tools to connect with the general public and as institutional critiques through the group‘s art-making techniques.

In chapter 2, Philosophy, Criticism of Others, and Review of the Group, I discuss the influences on its body of work. I pull from Panchounette‘s own texts and catalogues detailing its thoughts and goals to analyze its approach. To illustrate the ways different artists and theorists influenced Panchounette, I analyze some of the group‘s works of art and some of its writing. In

7 addition, I include reviews written about Panchounette‘s artworks and exhibitions in order to illustrate the art community‘s reception of the group.

In chapter 3, The Cultural Gnome, I consider Panchounette's use of garden gnomes in its installations. I evaluate the symbolism, depiction, reception, interpretation, and the intended audience of the garden gnome. In addition, I provide a brief history of the gnome, which is important to understanding the gnome‘s appeal to certain audiences and Panchounette‘s choosing the gnome to serve as a connection to the layman as consumer and laborer. Also, because the

20th-century popular garden gnome figure is commonly related to the term ―kitsch,‖ I include a discussion about ―kitsch‖ art and Panchounette's use of kitsch objects. Finally, I examine current popular culture use of garden gnomes, which illustrates the contextual change from special ornamental art to industrial, everyday object.

Through the use of specific texts I argue that Panchounette contributed to the masses‘ understanding of contemporary art in France. Panchounette was an important group to the history of contemporary art because of the group‘s inclination toward revealing the elitist attitude of the avant-garde, particularly conceptualism. Each chapter focuses on a separate yet necessary set of data by which to analyze the group and its effect on its viewers. By examining

Panchounette‘s basic history, manifesto, philosophy, criticism, review, and use of gnome figurines this study provides a comprehensive look into the group‘s artistic use of satire and mockery.

8 Chapter 1

Présence Panchounette’s Early History and Manifesto

―All is like before.‖8

In this chapter, I argue that Présence Panchounette validated its 1969 manifesto with works of art that deliberated to a wide public audience. To support my argument, I will discuss the inception of this French avant-garde group, when its membership was active, the significant members of the group, and ways that the group came together. The focus of this chapter is the group‘s basic composition, manifesto, and works. The manifesto provides insight into this little known French group of artists. As the group explains in this piece of writing, Panchounette was interested in using diverse means to create work without borders to the proletariat. Though few published images of Panchounette‘s artworks exist, I will be analyzing some of the early works in this chapter to clarify the group‘s goals in accordance to its manifesto.

Formation

Panchounette formed as a group in Bordeaux, France, in 1969, and remained active until

1990.9 None of the known members of the group had any formal training in art-making, and prior to working together as a group, they were more interested in the discourse surrounding the decorative arts.10 Miriam Rosen refers to the group up in her review saying that ―as 20-year-old students in the throes of May ‘68, they might just as well have formed a rock band, since their main goal was to escape their working-class condition via fame, fortune, and female adulation…

8 Catherine Millet, ―Présence Panchounette: Capri c‘est fini! Et dire que c‘était la ville de mon premier amour,‖ Art Press n. 134 (1989): 34. ―Tout est comme avant.‖ Panchounette graffiti 1968. Unless otherwise noted all translations are my own. 9 Jacques Soulillou, ―This is the End; Présence Panchounette,‖ Art Press n. 145 (March 1990): 28-30. 10 Présence Panchounette, Cragg, Boum, Hue! (Paris: Présence Panchounette, les Archives Modernes, and du Centre National des Arts Plastiques, 1983), 16.

9 however, they decided to try their hand at Modern art, Situationist-style.‖11 Most if not all of the members were university-age French men, living in Bordeaux, France. In an article for Le

Monde, Panchounette‘s members are described as ―five friends and Bordeaux artists who associate in order to laugh together.‖12 Certain members were described in the following manners: Frédéric Roux was a ―former-boxer-turned-pedicurist,‖ Jean-Yves Gros was a ―still- working journalist for Radio Montecarlo,‖ and Michael Ferrière was a ―former-auto-racer- turned-secondhand-furniture-dealer.‖13 The descriptions of the members demonstrate the unique nature of the group in that the group was comprised of non-traditional artists with assorted working-class backgrounds.

Abbreviated lists of the members of Panchounette existed and named Christian Baillet,

Pierre Cocrelle (life dates unknown), Didier Dumay (life dates unknown), Michael Ferrière (life dates unknown), Jean-Yves Gros, Frédéric Roux (b. 1947), and Jacques Soulillou (b. 1951).14

Panchounette never actually distributed the entire list of members to the press and even said that there was no end to the membership. This was a strategy evokes the media and is still desirable in collectives practicing today. To emphasize the indefinite number of members of

Panchounette, the group stated that ―The day where this anonymity will also become a picture it will be necessary to draw the portrait about 4 metres [sic] by 3 . . .‖15 Further emphasis on the anonymous nature of the group exists in a photograph taken of the group which shows three of

11 Miriam Rosen, ―Présence Panchounette: Galerie de Paris. Galeris de Tugny Lamarre,‖ Artforum International 71 (1990): 170-171. 12 ―L‘art du loufoque avec Présence Panchounette,‖ Le Monde (June 19, 2008), Festival and Visiting Culture. ―cinq copains et artistes bordelais qui s‘associent pour rire ensemble.‖ 13 Jacques Burgier, ―Au grand bric-à-brac surrealist de Blois; Un Manteau d‘Isidore Isou, des cures de Boltanski, une roué de vélo de Duchamp… Inauguration d‘un Musée de l‘objet,‖ Le Monde (Oct. 24, 2003), Culture. 14 Frédéric, Roux, ―Art: Modeste contribution à une theorie de l‘art modeste,‖ http://pagesperso-orange.fr/red- dog/panchounette.html (accessed Oct. 10, 2008). 15 Présence Panchounette, Présence Panchounette: Œuvres Choisises, Tôme 2, (Toulouse/Calais: Centre Régional d‘art contemporain Midi-Pyrénées/Musée des Beaux-Arts, 1986), 28. ―Le jour où cet anonymat deviendra, lui aussi, une image il faudra se faire tirer le portrait en 4 mètres sur 3…‖

10 the members with stockings pulled down over their faces (fig. 1). In addition, curator Anne

Tronche of the Centre National des Arts Plastiques in Paris, France hypothesized about

Panchounette‘s membership numbers saying ―some names seem to have a cinch around them, but around these are not exhausting the count of those that comprise Présence Panchounette.‖16

The group also said ―We say, everybody could call themselves Présence Panchounette, the trademark in itself is meaningless.‖17 From this analysis, it is apparent that the group desired public attention as a group rather than as individual artists/members.

Moniker

The group derived its moniker ―Présence Panchounette‖ from the French word ―choune.‖

The literal translation for ―choune‖ means ―cute‖ in a derogatory fashion. Panchounette discussed its choice of ―choune‖ as a reference to the vulva, saying that, ―The feminine sexual organ is of an aspect more complex, it is decor.‖18 The group does not indicate why it chose a word that could be construed as an insult or degradation toward women, but there is no overt sexism present in the writings of the group, nor in its art. On the contrary, the elevation of the vulva to the decorative arts seems only to have given the group common ground with American artists such as Judy Chicago and Hannah Wilke. The vagina has folds of skin that are not necessary to its function for reproduction or stimulation thereby rendering these extra folds as decoration according to Panchounette.

Panchounette used the self-styled term ―chounette‖ throughout its writing and interviews.

The meanings of chounette are so complicated that Panchounette said, ―chounette is a chounette

16 Anne Tronche, Présence Panchounette (Paris: Centre National des Arts Plastiques, 1988), 2. ―quelques nomes semblent avoir pu être mis sur certains d‘entre eux, mais pour autant ceux-ci n‘épuiseraient pas le dénombrement de ceux qui composent Présence Panchounette.‖ 17 Christian Schlatter, ―Materials Gone Crazy: A new breed of French sculpture works through the transmutation of materials: new forms abound as artistic proliferation takes possession of everything,‖ Flash Art (Italy) (April 1985): 55. 18 Présence Panchounette, L’Ordre Total (Rennes: La Criée, Centre d‘arts Plastiques, 1989), 52. ―L‘organe sexuel féminin est d‘un aspect plus complexe, il est décor.‖

11 word.‖19 However, in Cragg, Boum, Hue! (1983), Soulillou, the group‘s self-styled leader, made it clear that ―chounette‘s‖ meaning was partly derived following Roland Barthes‘s theories of language. Citing Barthes, the noted French semiologist, Panchounette tries ―to articulate in naming it ‗chounette‘ . . . the ‗third Meaning‘ or Blunt meaning, in position over the Obvious sense or ‗Obvie‘ when this latter is motioned by the narra[t]ive thread, consequently blurring the border line between Expression and its disguise.‖20 ―Chounette‖ has a somewhat derogatory and vulgar meaning in French-language usage of the term.

―Chounette‖ also has a sentimental connotation, and it evokes an attitude regarding vernacular usage in general. It signals ―the languages of the super minorities,‖ and it means something similar to kitsch.21 However, Panchounette strongly insisted that kitsch and chounette are separate concepts. Panchounette believed that kitsch was not in touch with society in the way that chounette purports to be. Another way Panchounette described chounette is to say that it is the ―kitschiest of the kitsch.‖22 This somehow allows chounette to signal the kitsch, which separates it from merely being an example of kitsch. The addition of the prefix ―pan‖ meaning in Greek ―total‖ and ―everywhere‖ to ―chounette‖ indicates the complete ―chounetteness‖ of the group. The group states that its ―presence is everywhere… One is never so far away that you can‘t at least glimpse us.‖23 As for the suffix ―ette,‖ it indicates femininity or diminutive in the

French language.

19 Ibid., 1. 20 Cragg, Boum, Hue!, 8. Le triosième sens in Essais Critques III, Le Seuil, 1982. 21 L’Ordre Total, 1. 22 Ibid., 1. 23 Christian Schlatter, ―Materials Gone Crazy: A new breed of French sculpture works through the transmutation of materials: new forms abound as artistic proliferation takes possession of everything,‖ Flash Art (Italy) (April 1985): 55.

12 Panchounette use the term meaning ―présence‖ to indicate French cultural history as stated in L’Ordre Total (1989).24 Panchounette occasionally used other words to precede

―Panchounette‖ such as ―Internationale,‖ ―Permanence,‖ and ―Bauhaus.‖ These other qualifiers correspond to specific theories and artistic concepts related to art-making. Members of the group also signed certain texts ―Internationale Panchounette‖ until 1971 when the group replaced

―Internationale‖ with ―Présence.‖25 In addition, Panchounette called itself ―Bauhaus

Panchounette‖ in a 1973 text from the group‘s exhibition catalogue Présence Panchounette:

Œuvres Choisies, Tôme 2 (1986) that discussed design elements and kitsch, which relates to the

Bauhaus emphasis on design.26 Generally, the other modifiers were used only in signing texts rather than signing works.

Manifesto

Panchounette wrote its manifesto (fig. 2) in 1969, and published it in Présence

Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies, Tôme 1 (1986) an exhibition catalogue for the contemporary arts institute called the Centre Régional d‘art contemporain Midi-Pyrénées/Musée des Beaux-

Arts in Calais, France.27 The works associated with this show included some of Panchounette‘s installations from the 1907s and 1980s. The group published its manifesto in the catalogue, typed on a page and a half with an extensive footnote. The manifesto was written in 1969 and not published until 1986 with this catalogue. The delayed publication of the manifesto indicates a lack of interest in publicity or in marketing Panchounette as a group. The translated version of the manifesto reads as follows:

24 L’Ordre Total, 2. ―Présence Nature, Présence Vauclusienne, Artisanat Présent.‖ 25 Chronologie, par Présence Panchounette, http://lamauvaisereputation.free.fr/article.php3?id_article=224 (accessed Oct. 10, 2008). 26 Présence Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies, Tôme 2, 27. 27 Présence Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies, Tôme 1, 56. The occasion for the catalogue was the presentation of Panchounette‘s work in the Centre Régional D‘Art Contemporain Midi-Pyrénées, held from December 13, 1986 through January 30, 1987. This exhibition traveled to the Musée des Beaux Arts de Calais and was exhibited there from July 18, until September 29, 1987.

13 The Panchounette manifest only contains some primary phrases, the only ones that count, the only ones that one retains. The Panchounette manifest was written at present in the mind image of Georges Bataille his repulsive sleeves of sheen for guillotining Dada from an alone expression: ―not idiotic enough.‖ As for the International Panchounette it yearns for the total stupidity, to be soft like mongolism. The International Panchounette does not have the goal of subversion. In the world where the public who reinforces from the right hand acknowledging the left hand necessitates change, it is only the International who finds that all is well. Of little bearded professor to little bearded professor the electric arc of our relationship comes again to Marcel Vaneigem and lowers again to Maurice Socrate. We are therefore some situationists neo-Platoniciens [sic] and we have found our method: the collision of information. The International Panchounette intrudes from now on in all situations/difficult, situation X difficult, situation, situation – difficult excluded. difficult It being POLITICAL [sic] where we have mislaid some. We hear that way: works aborted, intercourse too brief, headquarters of hairdresser. We have finished right now with the heart, it will achieve there the point where the stomach withdraws. Panchounette would read the critique, at the base, this is nonsense. Rightly, be careful! In the only city in the world which allies silence to beauty, we develop the sense of history which the one of the swastika inverses. It is time for prolonging the equinox of the equivocal. One does not handle any more the filth cup of the t-square in the hand. It is time for giving the hit to the Bedouins of the Conscience. We are the mirrors of waste like you are waste in the mirror. There is between you and us the difference that there is between the lamp petrol and the tail of the tiger that sways in rearview mirrors. Think, we mumble. Write, if we go we wash the bottom. Speak, we stammer. Combing, we let go of the dogs. What is it the International Panchounette? Apart from the despair of the dilettantism, the flower of the vulgarity, a baroque scrawny, a boring florescent, a distinguished denial, an underground provocation? An exaggerated laziness.

For the dogs, A fart on the spade.

For the stuck-up, A fart on the [pimbot].28

28 Présence Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies, Tôme 1, 56. Typed here in the manner of the original. See fig. H for original French text. No commentary on the manifesto discovered, likely because of the limited reputation of Panchounette.

14 While not a precise translation (some nuances are missed because of language barriers), this translation does provide some sense of how disjunctively formulated the manifesto is. The text reads in stanzas of one to two sentences, which gives the overall text poetic sensibility.

Throughout, Panchounette uses idioms and colloquialisms in its text, reminding readers that its manifesto is not an academic or highbrow document. At the beginning of the text is a disclaimer, which states the ―[manifesto] only contains some primary phrases, the only ones that count, the only ones that one retains.‖29 By its conclusion, the group uses lots of slang and the word ―farts,‖ a ―classical‖ signal of the group‘s lack of seriousness. In the group‘s self- generated chronology, Panchounette states that its manifesto ―hesitates between student provocation and what one has the habit of qualifying to best authorize from: ‗pro- situationism.‘‖30 In other words, the group is evoking the student uprisings of May 1968.

Overall, the manifesto gives insight into the style of Panchounette‘s work, but does not clearly impart the group‘s mission or critique.

In the manifesto, Panchounette mentions several individuals who were important to the group. In the text, the group no attempt is made to differentiate between most of the names in the layout of the text (fig. 2). Panchounette likely meant to mock the institution of academicism when using the phrase ―bearded professors,‖ while also acknowledging idiosyncratic and revolutionary intellectuals such as Georges Bataille, Marcel [Duchamp], Vaneigem, Maurice

[Clavel], and Socrate[s]. After his death in 1962, Bataille (1897 – 1962), dissident, surrealist, and medievalist, became known as a leader in the field of philosophy throughout Europe and the

United States. Bataille advocated for ―base materialism‖ using art to ―confront the most bestial

29 Ibid., 56. ―Le manifeste panchounette ne comporte que des premières phrases, les seules qui comptent, les seules que l‘on retienne.‖ 30 Chronologie, par Présence Panchounette, http://lamauvaisereputation.free.fr/article.php3?id_article=224 (accessed Oct. 10, 2008). ―hésite entre la provocation estudiantine et ce que l‘on a coutume de qualifier dans les milieux autorisés de : ‗pro situationnisme.‘‖

15 and lowest of aspects of mankind.‖ 31 In the manifesto ―Marcel‖ refers to the artist Marcel

Duchamp (1887 –1968) whom the group frequently mentioned in its writings. Duchamp, a leader in the Dada circles in New York was a quite popular figure in France. Also listed in the manifesto is Raoul Vaneigem (b. 1934), author of articles of the revolution of everyday life and the Situationist International. In a separate text, L‘Ordre Totale (1989), Panchounette discusses

Vaneigem in terms of Carrefour and its ―generic products.‖ 32 Maurice Clavel (1920 –1979), also named in the manifesto, was a French journalist, playwright, philosopher, and leader of the New

Philosophy that began with a shift away from Marxism in the 1950s in France.33 Socrates, refers to the famous Greek philosopher whose thoughts and ideologies came back into vogue in the context of the New Philosophy also known as continental philosophy of the 1950s –1990s when such thinkers as Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida were popular.34

The purpose of Panchounette‘s manifesto is to emphasize the values not of reason and enlightenment but of creating senseless and irrational work. The group states that it ―aspires to total idiocracy,‖ and ―mongolism.‖35 Panchounette also cites Bataille‘s infamous comment that

Dadaism is ―not stupid enough,‖ while explaining Surrealism is be too conceptual.36 As if in agreement with Bataille‘s assessment of Dada, and perhaps most exquisitely with the gnomes which I explain in chapter 3, Panchounette commands even more nonsense in its works that are modeled on Dada strategies of readymade. Panchounette was much more interested in creating

31 David Hopkins, Dada and Surrealism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 20. 32 L’Ordre Total, 45. Carrefour is a French hypermarket chain much like the American Costco equivalent in France. ―Produits libres‖ is a term used to indicate goods sold in white packaging with non-descript images. http://mypbrand.com/2009/04/26/carrefour-introduces-new-private-brand/ (accessed Jan. 5, 2010). 33 Julian Bourg, From Revolution to Ethics: May 1968 and Contemporary French Thought (London: McGill- Queen‘s University Press, 2007), 261-262. 34 Bourg., 274. 35 Présence Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies, Tôme 1, 56. ―aspire à l‘idiotie totale, à tender meme au mongolism.‖ Mongolism had a different connotation in France than in the United States; it was not meant derogatorily, but rather a person with Down syndrome. ―Mongolism‖ was actually coined by a French physician in 1959 on the basis of the facial features of children with Down syndrome. 36 Gilles Mayné, Eroticism in Georges Bataille and Henry Miller (France: Summa Publications, 1993), 46. ―pas assez idiot. ‖

16 Dada works than in producing excessively conceptual, thoughtful works similar to the Surrealists dedication to the unconscious mind. The concepts of stupidity and of obviousness appealed to

Panchounette in a way that led the group to take up methods of appropriation and détournement in its own practice. These methods allowed the group to make references to historical artworks and re-purpose objects by situating them in scenarios. In sum, the 1969 manifesto boldly values the facetious works that were to come from the group.

The language used in the manifesto is littered with puns, including ―[w]e are the mirrors of waste like you are the waste in the mirror.‖37 Since the statements reinforce Panchounette‘s notion of overturning commonly-held assumptions about art, specifically of the notion of following a formula for art-making. The manifesto‘s colloquial tone supports Panchounette‘s non-academic styling. However, even with the informal text, the influences on the group‘s objectives are discernable.

Technique

Panchounette‘s works typically consist in installation works that are displayed inside galleries or in publicly-accessible parks. These installations are often over-sized to allow the viewers to walk around them. This manner of display allows for an in-depth interaction with works, as opposed to a frontal dialogue of viewers with paintings on walls. The themes of

Panchounette‘s works include African objects, fanciful characters, words/signs, and everyday goods. A thread of satire, stupidity, and simplicity, linked all of Panchounette‘s works together.

As for the artistic materials, Panchounette found inspiration in the decorative arts, the plastic arts, and industrial products. Panchounette also employed multiple strategies of art

37 Présence Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies, Tôme 1, 56. ―Nous sommes les miroirs du déchet comme vous êtes les déchets du miroir. ‖

17 making in order to create its unique installations. Such strategies included bricolage, détournement, appropriation, and readymades.

Bricolage is a postmodern tactic of placing an assortment of manufactured goods and other everyday items together in an assemblage. The word bricolage comes from the French verb ―bricoler,‖ which means to ―throw together‖ and is the English equivalent of DIY (do-it- yourself). Bricolage also encompasses the action of taking an everyday object and giving it a subversive meaning. In 1988, Anne Tronche, curator of one of the group‘s exhibitions in the

Centre National des Arts Plastiques in France discussed the artistic methods of Panchounette‘s assemblages. She stated that Panchounette ―[advocated] the virtues of bricolage as the antidote to intellectual obesity.‖38 Speaking of ―intellectual obesity‖ the group apparently referred to other artists‘ use of dense systems of meanings and overloaded symbolism in art. In contrast, the use of bricolage allowed Panchounette to appropriate items easily so they might be grasped quickly and understood without elaborate explanation by the artists. The following description of Panchounette‘s art emphasizes the variety of materials it used and Panchounette‘s foundation in the decorative arts. ―The famous used tyres-made [sic] well, an easy ready-made, the well- known wallpaper imitating a stone-wall, in fact a void All-over [sic], then all that suburban cheap stuff, somewhat nauseous, constituted in their time, the [algorithms] supporting the thesis: the decorative environment is the inhibited background of [t]aste.‖39 Panchounette maintained simplicity in its works by choosing to incorporate everyday readymade art into its œuvre.

Artistically, appropriation refers to the act of taking elements, usually those that are man- made and part of society and industry to create new works of art. Panchounette anticipated this strategy. Through most of its works during the 1970s and beyond, the group practiced

38 Anne Tronche, Présence Panchounette, 3. ―[advocated] les vertus du bricolage comme antidote de l‘obésité intellectuelle.‖ 39 Cragg, Boum, Hue!, 16.

18 appropriation, as depicted in a photograph of Panchounette‘s installations in the small avant- garde gallery in Paris, France called the Galerie Eric Fabre in 1984 (fig. 3). The group used an armchair, tennis balls, books, and various other items to create its individual works in the gallery.

By placing such everyday items into the context of art gallery and re-purposing them as art objects instead as utilitarian items or decorations, Panchounette activated appropriation in its works. In an interview recorded in L’Ordre Total (1989), Panchounette told Patrick Durrieux that ―it happens to us to [detourn] the détournement, to contort it, too.‖40 This means that the group was interested in taking the intended purpose of an object or concept and completely changing it to mean something opposite or disjointed. The group is also quoted as saying that

―yes‖ Panchounette does misappropriate, but in a manner more direct ―rather than to maintain the distant analogies…‖41 Panchounette not only alters the meaning of the appropriated objects, but also warps the object‘s meaning through title and context. Appropriation and détournement are not interchangeable terms yet they do share some similar inherent qualities, including reference to taking an object and using it in a way other than its intended use. The Situationist

Internationale described ―Détournement‖ in 1959 as:

[T]he reuse of preexisting artistic elements in a new ensemble, … The two fundamental laws of détournement are the loss of importance of each detourned autonomous element — which may go so far as to completely lose its original sense — and at the same time the organization of another meaningful ensemble that confers … its new scope and effect.42

Intrinsic to the strategies of détournement and appropriation is the use of readymades or found objects. Marcel Duchamp strongly influenced Panchounette with his soliloquy on the readymade. In ―Apropos to the Readymades,‖ Duchamp outlined the process by which he

40 L’Ordre Total, 23. ―ça nous arrive aussi de détourner le détournement, de le contourner, aussi.‖ This interview was originally published in part in Axe-Sud n. 14 (1985). 41 Ibid., 23. ―précisons les differences plutôt que d‘affirmer de lointaines analogies.‖ 42 The Situationist International, ―Détournement as Negation and Prelude,‖ 1959, http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/315 (accessed April 13, 2010).

19 created his readymades.43 There Duchamp observed that he chose or found an object then labeled it according to what he felt altered best the object‘s intended meaning.44 Panchounette would, in the same manner as Duchamp, alter items only slightly and usually only through contextualization. An example of Panchounette‘s alteration of a single object in the same manner as Duchamp is Panchounette‘s Congo Go! (1983) (fig. 4). This installation includes of a gray fan sitting on a museum pedestal and has not been altered, only displayed as art rather than used. Panchounette altered the meaning of the fan by, first, using a fan with the brand name of

Congo, then, by placing the fan in a gallery in similar fashion to a primitive object on display.

Panchounette alludes to the heat of Africa by using the fan and calling it Congo Go!. The use of titles and alternative contexts for art works served to create new versions of the object through generated context. However, Panchounette was mostly inclined toward bricolage, the combination of multiple objects, rather than Duchamp‘s singular style of readymade use.

Illustrating the group‘s use of bricolage is its work called A la Penn et à l’honneur (1983) (fig.

5). This work is a combination of tennis balls stacked in a pyramid form and a wedding cake topper as the pinnacle. Both types of objects in this assemblage represent everyday items. The title relates to the company Penn, which makes tennis balls, and ―l‘honneur‖ evokes wedding vows. Adopting the method of readymade art from Duchamp allowed Panchounette to focus on creating new contexts for everyday objects and to best incorporate manufactured goods.

Artworks

A review of some of the earliest artworks by Panchounette serves to illuminate the group‘s goal of providing comprehensible art to the public. The majority of Panchounette‘s documented artworks are from the 1980s. Panchounette‘s earlier works were not as

43 Marcel Duchamp, ―Apropos to the Readymades,‖ Art and Artists 1 n. 4 (July 1966): 47. 44 Ibid.

20 comprehensively recorded. The group uses even its early work to engage in mockery. Over time, the style and techniques used by the group varied little, and because of this, Panchounette demonstrated a relatively fixed way of working. The group consistently displayed its works in institutions interested in showing contemporary artworks and artworks that defied the traditional plastic arts. I have analyzed a number of its installation pieces to best exemplify the limited style of works by Panchounette shown by art institutions.

Galerie Eric Fabre in Paris, France, was the first official art institution to display

Panchounette‘s works doing so in 1977 with an exhibition called Transition-valse. The group continued to show works at the gallery with another exhibition in 1979 and then another exhibition in 1984 called The Worst of Présence Panchounette. The gallery was a small venue known for showing contemporary artists such as Joseph Kosuth who was exhibited there on multiple occasions between 1976 and 1983. For its first exhibitions at the gallery, Panchounette hung patterned paper down the originally white walls of the gallery. Débuting wallpaper as its first gallery work had a lasting effect on the reputation of Panchounette. Patrick Venries in his review of Panchounette for an exhibition of the group‘s work in the Centre Régional d‘Art

Contemporarin de Labèrge-Innopôle in Toulouse, France, a contemporary arts venue in 1987 claimed that the group was ―number one… of wallpaper for fifteen years.‖45 This work remained without title, but it was a site-specific installation that was comprised of chevron-striped wallpaper (fig. 6), and was reminiscent of works by Daniel Buren and of American Kenneth

Noland, who made his famed chevron paintings during the 1960s until the 1990s. Panchounette

45 Patrick Venries, ―Présence Panchounette Centre Régional d‘Art Contemporain de laBèrge-Innopôle, Art Press n. 111 (Feb. 1987).

21 described its use of wallpaper as a ―[thing] one could lose oneself in.‖46 Panchounette demonstrated from a strong interest in the decorative arts by utilizing the wallpaper as an art object, but still hanging it in a traditional manner without alteration. The change in venue for wallpaper from ―parlor‖ to gallery also demonstrates Panchounette‘s use of détournement. The group subverted the original intent of wallpaper from aesthetic everyday decoration to avant- garde art.

Some other early works exhibited at Kunstverein Württembergischer in Stuttgart,

Germany in 1987 among other various locations include The pressure of dreams (1974),

Degeneration threatens the avant-gardes (1972), and Live at Birdland (1979).47 These works exemplify the artistic techniques that remained stable throughout the group‘s active years.

Panchounette‘s works represent its mission of stupidity, satire, and Dada.

The pressure of dreams (1974) is a blood-pressure monitor connected to an airbed (fig.

7). It does not appear to have been altered in any way, only re-named to suggest a different purpose. This work is a prime example of Panchounette‘s strategic use of appropriation. By not altering the object‘s substance, Panchounette has incorporated the idea of the readymade or the found object into its œuvre. The purpose of this work is likely to evoke the French museums exhibiting Surrealist works (in the 1960s and 1970s) as modern and contemporary even though at that time Surrealism was decades old. The use of a blood pressure monitor alludes to the concept of measuring dreams for the masses. This device is familiar to the public as a tool to measure for healthy blood flow. The consequences of extreme blood pressure are also easily understood to mean danger and may be analogized to nightmares (hypertension) or the lack of dreaming

46 Christian Schlatter, ―Materials Gone Crazy: A new breed of French sculpture works through the transmutation of materials: new forms abound as artistic proliferation takes possession of everything,‖ Flash Art (Italy) (April 1985): 54. 47 ―La pression des rêves (1974), La dégénérescence guette les avant-gardes (1972), et Live at Birdland (1979).‖

22 (hypotension). The pressure of dreams (1974) is a three-dimensional, unchanged-object symbolic of everyday life meant to mock the seriousness of Surrealists‘ intention to portray their subconsciousness in artworks. Anne Tronche in her catalogue essay for Présence Panchounette at the Center des Arts Plastiques explains that through the work the group ―speculates on the nature of codes and some aesthetic rule, continuing in indifference to look into the accidents of language…‖48 She is addressing the use of physical objects to convey the words that mean something different than the objects themselves. ―Pressure of dreams‖ does not literally mean to measure using a device, and the blood pressure monitor does not actually measure the dreams coming from the sleeper formally on the bed.

The assemblage called Degeneration threatens the avant-gardes (1972) (fig. 8) includes an ironing board, an iron, and a garment similar to a shirt or jacket. The garment is covered in writing, reminiscent of graffiti, but the words are indecipherable. According to Venries, who reviewed Panchounette‘s 1987 exhibition as mentioned earlier, the garment hanging off of the ironing board is a ―disproportionately cheap piece of rubbish from Kilimanjaro.‖49 The techniques employed by Panchounette for this assemblage include appropriation, readymade, and bricolage. The use of the ironing board speaks directly to Duchamp‘s writing ―Apropos of

Readymades‖ (1966) where he stated that he ―imagined a ‗Reciprocal Readymade‘: use a

Rembrandt as an ironing board!‖50 Duchamp illustrated how to deconstruct the cannon of art history through the use of the readymade. Panchounette adopted the role of deconstructor and then used the ironing board in a more literal sense by including clothing for ironing and an iron.

48 Anne Tronche, Présence Panchounette (Paris: Centre National des Arts Plastiques, 1988), 4. ―que de spéculer sur la nature des codes et des régles en matière d‘esthétique, it continua dans l‘indifférence à se pencher sure s accrocs du langage, sur les analogies formelles…‖ 49 Patrick Venries, ―Présence Panchounette Centre Régional d‘Art Contemporain de Labèrge-Innopôle,‖ Art Press n. 111 (Feb. 1987). 50 ―Apropos to the Readymades,‖ 47.

23 The group appropriated the ironing board from everyday culture and used it as a readymade by not altering it. Then, by adding the garment to the assemblage, the group engaged in a bricolage.

In part, the work signals a connection between avant-garde and manufacturing of everyday goods. Here ―avant-garde‖ is understood as what art that is supposed to be unique and bourgeois, while manufactured goods are mass-produced for the proletariat consumer. This assemblage indicates that Panchounette felt that avant-garde was ―degenerating‖ into a manufactured good for everyday use like the ironing board. The garment directly relates to avant-gardism through its graffiti pattern because of the growing popularity of graffiti and Pop art during the mid-to-late 1900s. Additionally, the act of ironing is something done by many people in a domestic setting. Ironing is an activity that is easily understood by the layman.

Toward the end of the 1970s, Panchounette created Live at Birdland (1979) (fig. 9). Live at Birdland (1979) was an installation piece comprised of a lantern, a saxophone, holiday lights, a table with magazine rack, and a magazine. The magazine is called Match!, which is a Parisian magazine dedicated to news and entertainment. The word ―Birdland‖ refers to a jazz club in

New York, New York owned by Charlie Parker, noted jazz musician.51 Musician, Joe Zawinul composed a jazz piece called ―Birdland‖ (1977) as tribute to Parker whose nickname was ―Bird.‖

The saxophone and decorative lights relate directly to the jazz club and items that would have been seen there by customers and performers. The magazine also reinforces the theme of the jazz club because it would have reported notable events at the club. Panchounette‘s assemblage is an ode to the jazz club, and the group emphasized the importance or the unique quality of the club by showing it in a setting reserved for fine art. Jazz as a music genre is not necessarily associated with fine art. For the group to incorporate such a club into the sphere of plastic arts speaks to the group‘s efforts to connect the avant-garde to everyday life. Panchounette uses its

51 Charlie Parker founded Birdland in 1949. In 1965 Birdland closed its doors; reopening in a new location in 1986.

24 favorite techniques of art-making in this assemblage. Most significantly, the group employs détournement by placing the jazz club, a loud, dirty, dark, wild place, in the context of a quiet, clean, reserved, well-lit, art institution. The nuances of the art institution are shown in contrast to those of a jazz club. The dichotomy allows someone without specialized knowledge in art history to comprehend and relate to fine art in a museum setting.

Summary

Between Panchounette‘s moniker, manifesto, and early works, the group clearly devoted itself to satire and mockery. Panchounette‘s manifesto not only reflects the satirical nature of the group, but also poetically alludes to Panchounette‘s Situationist International tendencies and interest in Dada. To achieve its goals of subversion in this context, Panchounette employed a variety of materials in its works demonstrating intuition of the coming art movement dubbed appropriation. The group also successfully implemented artistic strategies of détournement, bricolage, and the readymade. The nature of the group‘s early works supports its mission of satire and its inclusion of everyday life through the incorporation of non-specialist objects in assemblages.

25 Chapter 2

Philosophy, Criticism of Others, and Commentary about the Group

―We await the rest and profit from the privileged moment where the contradictions are at the height for rapidly examining three particular aspects of [Panchounette‘s] production, the excess, the treatment of the object and the social critique.‖52

―If you make a dirty work, do it badly.‖53

This chapter focuses on the philosophies and art movements that influenced Présence

Panchounette‘s critique of certain historical avant-garde movements. I argue that the strongest influences on Panchounette‘s work and theories were a small number of artists and groups such as Marcel Duchamp and the Situationist International. There are a number of reviews and commentaries about Panchounette‘s work. These I discuss in order to better demonstrate outside opinion of the group. According to the introduction in the group‘s exhibition catalogue for its exhibition at the arts center, Centre d‘Arts Plastiques in La Criée, France called L’Ordre Total

(1998), Panchounette considers its program of art and critique to be apocalyptic.54

―Apocalyptic‖ is a term used frequently to mean revelation or prophecy, and it can also refer to an event that brings an era to a close. ―The apocalyptic program of the panchounette does not predict redemption and it is thus that it shows itself equal of the ‗world such as it is.‘‖55

52 Dominique Casteran, ―Une Aberration Raisonnante (March 1985), Présence Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies, Tome 1, (Toulouse/Calais: Centre Régional d‘art contemporain Midi-Pyrénées/Musée des Beaux-Arts, 1986), 19. ―Attendons la suite et profitons du moment privilégié où les contradictions sont à leur comble pour examiner rapidement trios aspects particuliers de leur production, le débordment, le traitement de l‘object et la critique sociale.‖ 53 Présence Panchounette, L’Ordre Total (Rennes, La Criée: Centre d‘arts Plastiques, 1989), 9. ―Si tu fais unsale boulot, fais-le salement. ‖ 54 L’Ordre Total, 5. 55 Ibid., 1. ―Le programme apocalyptique du panchounette ne prévoit pas de redémption et c‘est ainsi qu‘il se montre l‘égal du ‗monde tel qu‘il est.‘‖

26 Panchounette‘s use of the term ―apocalyptic‖ accommodates the group‘s objective of acting in opposition to mainstream art in France.

Influences

The Situationist International was a strong source of inspiration for Panchounette. It created the technique of détournement to bring the division of class in society to light.

Panchounette wished to achieve a link between the classes through its art and writing, specifically to allow the proletariat greater access to art. Panchounette‘s roots in Dada and

Surrealism engendered the group to the Situationists. Politically, Panchounette was also interested in socialism. Situationists and socialists based their philosophies in class struggle, especially around the proletariat. In addition, Panchounette drew from inspiration from other sources including the decorative arts to create its tongue-in-cheek works.56

In 1957, Guy Debord, originally of the Lettrist Society, founded and led the

Situationists.57 The Situationists formed themselves of painters, writers, and architects, from

Europe who wrote about class struggle especially the plight of the proletariat and the marketplace.58 The Situationists‘ role in France began in full-fervor with their assumed involvement in Les événements (May 1968), thus partaking in the events that spawned

Panchounette‘s inception.59 The Situationists created cinematic films and brought into fashion the method of détournement, which Panchounette employed in its crafting of art works.

Panchounette directly cited the Situationists in the form of the group‘s title. ―Présence‖ was originally ―International,‖ like the Situationist ―International.‖ This lasted only a few years into

56 Frédéric, Roux, ―Art: Modeste contribution à une theorie de l‘art modeste,‖ http://pagesperso-orange.fr/red- dog/panchounette.html (accessed Oct. 10, 2008). 57 Greil Marcus, ―The Long Walk of the Situationist International,‖ ed. Tom McDonough, Guy Debord and the Situationist International (Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2002), 18. The Lettrist Society was a group of intellectuals interested in poetry, words, and sounds; they eventually broke up when political differences arose. 58 Ibid., 18. 59 Ibid., 1.

27 Panchounette‘s activities. Panchounette adopted the Situationist standpoint: that society limits the proletariat‘s impact on its production of goods and the value of those goods in the market place. Accordingly, Panchounette believed that the bourgeois used the market place to dictate art trade, thereby limiting proletariat input. Using art to appeal to the mass-market consumer, the proletariat, Panchounette incorporated imagery and objects that appealed to and were understood by audiences without any special learning or familiarity with fine art.

While in strong agreement with Debord and the Situationist theories, Panchounette felt that the group was never able to accomplish Situationist ideals. In fact, Panchounette recognized that Debord might have easily targeted Panchounette as a tool of the market: ―the word of

Debord… aims as well at Présence Panchounette.‖60 Panchounette used galleries and art institutes to display its works, which may denote the group as a tool of the market. Panchounette said also that it ―holds a grudge against Debord because they are in agreement with him – this is to say, because they are unable to be it.‖61 Again, Panchounette demonstrates its frustration with the group‘s inability to adhere to the standard ideology of Situationism.

Further illustration of Panchounette‘s conflicted relationship with the Situationism comes from an interview with Catherine Millet about the group‘s disbandment. There, Panchounette denies involvement with the Situationist International, and indicates that it aligns itself more closely to Dadaism and Surrealism than to conceptualism, art nouveau, or pop art.62 In another text about the group‘s disbandment, ―This is the end: Présence Panchounette‖ (1990), Soulillou outlines some of the political standing and theoretical beliefs of Panchounette. Most repetitious in the commentary is class struggle, specifically about the proletariat, which relates back to

60 L’Ordre Total, 5. 61 Ibid., 5. 62 Catherine Millet, ―Présence Panchounette: Capri c‘est fini! Et dire que c‘était la ville de mon premier amour,‖ Art Press n. 134 (1989): 33-36.

28 Situationism. Panchounette‘s work could have been interpreted as solely for the masses, for the proletariat, but for its insatiable satire.63 The satire of Panchounette‘s work directly critiques contemporary artists, ancestral artists, and Panchounette‘s critics. Meaning to address the upper classes or the ―grande-classe,‖ Panchounette refers to itself as the ―Master,‖ stating that it is ―the

Master, the Law, the art, the big art, some non-art which could be from some non-art, from the derision that one could comprehend it.‖64 Throughout the article, Soulillou continues to provoke and mock the upper classes.

Artistically, the Situationist influence was visible in the artworks of Panchounette. One such exhibition was held in Paris, France, called Unexplored Nature: Honor and Park of the

Prefecture of the Nièvre (1988).65 The exhibition took place in a government park, a public venue, which was an appropriate setting for Panchounette and the other artists to provide social criticism. The group contributed metal signs with statements engraved on them. The signs were then nailed to trees within the park. 66 The signs read, ―I am hungry‖ (see fig. 10), ―I come from the hospital I have no money thank you,‖ ―In order to eat accept work thank you,‖ and a few other signs reflecting social criticism.67 Miriam Rosen reviewed these signs in the setting of the group‘s 1990 farewell shows at the Galerie de Paris and the Galerie de Tugny Lamarre not the original context of public park. According to Rosen, the plaques are of the type typically ―posted at the entrances of fancy buildings to remind visitors not to bypass the doormat…‖68 The group created the signs through a mix of détournement and manufacturing techniques. The use of a

63 Jacques Soulillou, ―This is the End; Présence Panchounette,‖ Art Press n. 145 (March 1990): 29. 64 Ibid., 30. ―le Maître, le Loi, l‘art, le grand art, du non-art qui soit du non-art, de le dérision que l‘on comprenne.‖ 65 Association for the Diffusion of Contemporary Art, Nature Inconnue: Cour d’Honneur et Parc de la Préfecture de la Niève, (Paris: Nevers, 1988), Présence Panchounette. Other participants contributed contemporary prose and artworks. 66 Nature Inconnue. 67 Original French: ―J‘ai faim,‖ ―Je sort de l‘hopital je n‘ai pas d‘arrgent merci,‖ and ―Pour manger accepte travaux merci,‖ (1988). 68 Miriam Rosen, ―Présence Panchounette: Galerie de Paris. Galeris de Tugny Lamarre,‖ Artforum International 71 (1990): 170-171.

29 standard style of sign to convey its message is a loose form of appropriation. Panchounette made signage associated with the homeless by reversing the principal understanding of the brass signs as apartment housing warnings. Through panhandler phrases, these signs alluded to the proletariat and the impoverished classes of society who understood the feelings of hunger and of empty pockets.

Further enunciating the concept of class distinction, Panchounette discusses socialists,

François Mitterrand and Georges Marchais, in L’Ordre Total (1989). The socialistic elements to

Panchounette‘s mission concern the bourgeois control of art and the market demands on art.

Preferring to control its own art making and artistic commentary, Panchounette criticizes the bourgeois and market demand on the art world. Panchounette facetiously claims its style to be

―the style flushed with toilet water, it is the style without class.‖69 Panchounette discusses the mechanism of taste and how it determines good art from bad art. Taste is not meant as an artistic delegator, and certainly not meant to be from the perspective of one class of people (the bourgeois in this case).

Throughout L’Ordre Total, Panchounette continues to explain its opinion about class division and what art means to the group. For Panchounette, art is meant to promote socialistic qualities of personal ownership of work and the negative effects of concentrated wealth in a society. Panchounette finds culture to be an exclusionary mechanism, which it wishes to challenge. ―Those that culture constantly threatens with expropriation, those which foresee that in its world they will never be clever find a connivance in the smile of the Panchounette and the promise of vengeance.‖70 Panchounette is the avenger of those expelled by culture. Illustrating this power of Panchounette as avenger is the statement that ―when Panchounette breaks the

69 Ibid., 3. ―c‘est le style jeté avec l‘eau du bain, c‘est le style sans classe.‖ 70 Ibid., 4. ―Ceux que la culture menace constamment d‘expropriation, ceux qui pressentent que dans sone monde ils ne seront jamais malins trouvent une connivence dans le sourire des Panchounette et la promesse d‘une vengeance.‖

30 taboos of what one can show, they understand art as a mechanism of social ascension which condemns its beneficiaries to a formal silence.‖71 To shatter formal restraints on art,

Panchounette uses iconography of the masses to confront class divisionism in the institutions of art.

Panchounette‘s interest in the decorative arts contributes to its ability to communicate to the masses. The decorative arts are available to every class and are not based on art-specific knowledge. Various exhibitions and texts support Panchounette‘s association with the decorative arts. One such exhibition in France significantly illustrates the decorative arts influence on Panchounette. The group acted as curators for a FRAC72 show in Albi, France, in

1986 at the Centre Culturel de l‘Albigeois.73 There, Panchounette arranged paintings and works of art alongside furniture and other decorative objects to give the impression of personalized space for the individual art works. One example of Panchounette‘s arrangements was the combination of an over 7 ft. long black monochrome painting by Pierre Soulages (b. 1919), called Peinture (1984), which was displayed above a black sofa (see fig. 11).74 In her critique, art historian and critic, Millet described the exhibition stating that,

this mise-en-scène was hardly any more ridiculous than the ones organized by those curators who liked to personalize their hangings; a work of art, however abstract, will always produce a decorative effect when integrated into a living space; and, finally, a work belonging to a public collection belongs to the public, and therefore to that public‘s interpretations and misinterpretations, its good taste and its bad.75

Panchounette‘s objective in this show was to provide a direct commentary on the false nature of art institutions that display art in a manner not reflective of how art is truly experienced when

71 Ibid., 6. ―Quand les Panchounette transgressent sociale qui condamnerait ses beneficiaries à un silence guindé.‖ 72 ―From 1991, the Regional Contemporary Art Collection (FRAC) of the Centre Region, based at Orléans in France, has been putting together a collection focusing on the relationship between art and architecture.‖ http://www.frac-centre.fr/public/collecti/ftcl01en.htm (accessed Jan. 2010). 73 Catherine Millet, Contemporary Art in France (Paris: Flammarion, 2006), 249. 74 Ibid., 249. 75 Ibid.

31 owned or situated in the context of a non-art institution. Further evidence of the group‘s leanings toward the decorative arts is in its catalogue Cragg, Boum, Hue! (1983). In an interview in the catalogue, the group states, ―We were artless! None of us has got an artistical [sic] education…

We were keen on History, Urbanism, Design, Sofas; then, little by little, we got some interest for what was clung above a sofa, later on we dealt with the relations existing between them both.‖76

Millet‘s observations and the Panchounette‘s own assertions indicate that it was clearly interested in the juxtaposition of avant-garde art and decorative art.

Artists

The differences between certain artists and Panchounette helps create a better understanding of what the group thought art should be, art as an object not as a formulation.

Panchounette critiqued artists such as Jeff Koons and Joseph Kosuth. Some artists inspired criticism, particularly conceptualists like Kosuth. Panchounette, in its writing, clearly denotes the group‘s hatred toward conceptualists. According to Soulillou in an interview, Panchounette has its function as recluse while Koons and Kosuth fit into their own models of functionality, which are ―the monk-soldier, the rocker, the stock-trader, the political commissioner, the saint.‖77 Throughout much of its texts, Panchounette discusses the pros and cons of various artists and their art works. Panchounette also discusses its connections to other artists, such as

Tony Cragg, and how these connections are visible through artworks.

Panchounette critiqued contemporary artist Koons (1955–), who creates large sculptural pieces, and is known for practicing appropriation. Panchounette used Koons to illustrate that, in terms of public reception, certain artists receive more attention than others and that this attention

76 Présence Panchounette, Cragg, Boum, Hue! (Paris: Présence Panchounette, les Archives Modernes, and du Centre National des Arts Plastiques, 1983), 16. Published with a translation. Grammar and syntax left intact by author. 77 Jacques Soulillou, ―This is the End; Présence Panchounette,‖ Art Press n. 145 (March 1990): 29. ―le moine-soldat, le rocker, le boursicoteur, le commissaire politique, le saint, . . .‖

32 affects the artists‘ relationship, with the market/public. According to Panchounette, when asked

―about the effects of the market [Koons] denies simply that there was an effect: the strongest artists have some important supporters and this is normal.‖78 Koons had lots of public support as evidenced by the profitability of his works. Panchounette did not appreciate Koons‘ profitability and commented on this in an interview, implying that Koons‘s ability to make meaningful art is compromised by the marketplace. In the interview, Panchounette stated that ―The new, they do not comprehend . . . Koons above all . . . what is it? More empty than empty, more null than null and have you seen the price?‖79 Furthermore, Panchounette states that, although not jealous, the group is embittered presumably by Koons‘s success.80

Another artist who received Panchounette‘s scornful review was Tony Cragg (b. 1949), artist and sculptor. However, the relationship was complicated as exemplified by the group‘s comment to Millet in an exit interview. There the group claimed friendly rapport Cragg, which was a reversal of Panchounette‘s strong criticism of Cragg in its other texts.81 In 1977, Cragg began showing his works throughout Europe.82 He began his career using cast-off industrial items and materials such as plastics, which is somewhat similar in nature to Panchounette‘s

œuvre from the 1970s. Panchounette insists that it began using plastic cast-offs years before

Cragg‘s first exhibition, and the group implies that its work may have influenced Cragg‘s work.83

Panchounette‘s work in the 1970s and Cragg‘s work of the mid-1980s shared a similar technique

78 L’Ordre Total, 8. ―les artistes les plus forts ont des cotes importantes et c‘est normal.‖ 79 ―This is the end: Présence Panchounette,‖ 30. ―Les nouveaux, ils ne comprennent pas. . . Koons surtout. . . qu‘est- ce que c‘est ? Plus vide que vide, plus nul que nul et vous avaez vu les prix ?‖ 80 Ibid., 30. 81 Catherine Millet, ―Présence Panchounette: Capri c‘est fini! Et dire que c‘était la ville de mon premier amour,‖ Art Press n. 134 (1989): 33-36. 82 tony-cragg.com (accessed Jan. 5, 2010). 83 Cragg, Boum, Hue!, 13-14.

33 of reuse or recycling of industrial products.84 Cragg‘s works of plastic color-coded piles of industrial cast-offs are examples of the appropriation movement already in motion at that time.

Soulillou claims that Panchounette anticipated ―the spectacularly upsetting of the exchange standards of Art…‖85 Panchounette‘s actions and objects of art preceded the appropriation movement in France.

Panchounette and Cragg were consecutively shown at the Maison de la Culture de

Chalon Sur Sâone in 1983. There, for its exhibition, Cragg, Boum, Hue!,86 Panchounette placed enlarged articles written about Cragg throughout the space in the manner of conceptual artists, some of whom were known for enlarging newspaper articles and pasting them to the walls of exhibitions.87 The group‘s works included blown-up posters of newspapers and reviews regarding Cragg‘s artworks and were done in the manner of conceptualists.88 Some conceptualists such as Hans Haacke, Dan Graham, and Joseph Kosuth were known for inclusion of newspaper articles and dictionary definitions in their conceptual art exhibitions (see fig. 12 and 13). Panchounette chose to display information about Cragg because the group was frustrated with art critics‘ comparison of Panchounette‘s art with Cragg‘s art. Additionally,

Panchounette sought to ally Cragg with the conceptualists in order to further separate

Panchounette‘s art from Cragg‘s art.

Another artist who received criticism from Panchounette was Kosuth (b. 1945), who was a leader of conceptualism in the United States. Kosuth did not have the ―chounette spirit.‖

84 Présence Panchounette, Cragg, Boum, Hue! (Paris: Présence Panchounette, les Archives Modernes, and du Centre National des Arts Plastiques, 1983), 7-8. 85 Ibid., 8. 86 Panchounette intentionally included Cragg‘s name as part of the title for its exhibition. 87 Ibid., 13. 88 Cragg, Boum, Hue!, 13

34 Consequently, Panchounette used him as an example of what being ―chounette‖ is not. In

Cragg, Boum, Hue! (1983), Soulillou states that to be chounette is

to follow the runway track along which the too-neutral-to-be-naïve chair of Kosuth stands like an exceptional game, no more surprising than a provocative proposition consisting in exhibiting a Manilla rattan-made seat or an approximative [sic] Victorian chair from Sear‘s. Who would really think, hereafter, that a plain desk chair is the only representative sample of the concept of chair under the pretense of its tasteless neutrality?89

Here, Soulillou refers to Kosuth‘s conceptual work, One and Three Chairs (1965) (see fig. 14).

This particular work of Kosuth (with a few variations) is an extension of the readymade, as

Kosuth himself has emphasized. It was a tripartite creation of chair as linguistic, object, and sign.90 In order to illustrate the three meanings of ―chair,‖ Kosuth installed an actual chair next to a photograph of that same chair, with a large-type definition of chair on the other side that defined the meaning of chair in French.91 Panchounette disliked Kosuth‘s attempt to display a chair as an object meant to invoke thoughts from the viewer of semiology, realism, and other artistic nuances. In contrast, when Panchounette displayed its works of art, the works tended toward simpler motifs of the everyday and inherently conveyed humor or some emotion easily understood by the uneducated viewer. Rosen, in reviewing one of Panchounette‘s farewell shows, commented on the group‘s allusion to Kosuth‘s chairs. There, she said that ―it‘s clear that somebody in the group enjoys parodying the sacred cows of contemporary art (e.g., a

89 Cragg, Boum, Hue!, 9. Here the translation was completed by Jacques Soulillou in Cragg, Boum, Hue! ―C‘est trouver en définitive la ligne de fuite le long de laquelle la chaise, trop neuter pour être honnête d‘un Kosuth, apparaîtra comme un choix inouï et ausi singulier que le choix provocateur qui eut consisté à expose rune chaise en rotin de Manille ou une bergère Louis XV de chez Conforma. Qui pourrait croire après Présence Panchounette que la simple chaise de bureau présente mieux l‘idée de ‗chair‘ sous prétexte de sa neutralité sans gout[.]‖ Punctuational differences are left unedited.‖ 90 Hal Foster et al., Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism: 1945 to present (New York: Thames and Hudson, 2004), 533. 91 One and Three Chairs (1965) discussed here is the French version, which had French text and the French definition of chair unlike Kosuth‘s American version.

35 pseudo-Kosuth definition of ―chair,‖ in French)…‖92 Rosen‘s comment acknowledges the tendency for Panchounette to evoke other artistic works in its own works in a mocking manner.

Commentary

Panchounette was known for its often successful attempts at creating facetious or tongue- in-cheek works. Without a record of public criticism, it is left to the art critic to judge

Panchounette based on its art and its theoretical discourses. An art curator, Tronche, made observations about a 1988 exhibition of Panchounette‘s work. Art critic, Millet provided much insight into the work of Panchounette through her continued involvement in the group‘s art and publicity. Other critics reviewed Panchounette‘s works declaring that Panchounette achieved its goal of humor and derision.

In the exhibition catalogue, Présence Panchounette (Centre National des Arts Plastiques,

1988), curator Tronche states that ―[i]n the game of points of view, Présence Panchounette likes to adopt a perpetual reversal of values.‖93 Tronche‘s statement reflects earlier commentary made by an interviewer in Cragg, Boum, Hue! (1983). The interviewer asked Panchounette if it ―tried to invent a new form of distinction by putting upside down the standard images of the artist…‖94

Both comments directly reflect upon Panchounette‘s unusual or backward way of portraying objects.

In her essay, Tronche describes one Panchounette assemblage as ignoring the ―cock and bull visuals,‖ and ignoring ―the formal anagrams‖ unlike the work that inspired it.95

Panchounette‘s assemblage called Le Roi des Rennes (1985) was the combination of a

92 Miriam Rosen, ―Présence Panchounette: Galerie de Paris, Galerie de Tugny Lamarre,‖ Artforum International 71 (1983): 170. 93 Tronche, Présence Panchounette, 2. ―Au jeu des points de vue, Présence Panchounette se plait à adopter un perpétual renversement des valeurs.‖ 94 Cragg, Boum, Hue!, 16. 95 Tronche, Présence Panchounette, 6.

36 taxidermied doe‘s head with rubber gloves hanging adjacent to its ears, with the whole head mounted like a trophy on the wall (see fig. 15). Le Roi des Rennes (1985) directly refers to Pablo

Picasso‘s famous Bull’s Head (1924), which is an example of a formal anagram. Picasso assembled Bull’s Head (1924) from a bicycle seat and handle bars in order to make it call to mind to a bull with horns. Panchounette‘s version was a play on the fact that the doe is an animal similar to a bull and, when paired with gloves, it appears more like a bull-deer while

Picasso‘s bicycle parts remain inanimate even in their symbolic bullness.

Another important discourse is Millet‘s critique of Panchounette in her book,

Contemporary Art in France (2006). Millet questions Panchounette‘s role as artist although she readily concedes the group‘s role as ethnologists because of its assemblages of primitive African objects.96 An example of the types of ethnic assemblages by the group is called Néo-Senoufo

(1985) (see fig. 16).97 In this work, the group has topped a primitive African bust with a colorful plastic Indian Chieftain toy in a canoe. In sum, these type of works by Panchounette are meant to ―remind the French of the results of their civilizing mission…‖98 Millet questions the artistic intentions of artists such as Panchounette, who are of the ―cuckoo variety who need to take over people‘s work temporarily as a nest for their own inventions.‖99 However, Millet also describes

Panchounette as practicing the Situationist method of détournement.100 Panchounette practiced détournement by appropriating other works of art and pre-fabricated objects. Panchounette‘s use of unorthodox items, such as giant dwarves and brick-patterned wallpapers, illustrates

Panchounette‘s successful employment of appropriation.

96 Contemporary Art in France, 250. 97 Senoufo is an African tribe living in Mali. 98 Miriam Rosen, ―Présence Panchounette: Galerie de Paris. Galeris de Tugny Lamarre,‖ Artforum International 71 (1990): 171. 99 Contemporary Art in France, 250. 100 Ibid., 249.

37 In the French journal ArtPress, art critic Corinne Pencenat wrote about Panchounette‘s exposition at the Musée des Beaux-Arts held in 1987 in Calais, France. In her review, Pencenat describes Panchounette‘s exposition as having primitive art, paintings, and noise. According to

Pencenat, humor is Panchounette‘s strength. In addition, she says that, for Panchounette, strength is as important to the artistic environment as it is to the sports world.101 Pencenat describes one of Panchounette‘s works as being some brown snails in a boxing ring (see fig. 17).

The boxing ring alludes to former member, Frédéric Roux‘s history as a boxer. She states that the snails create a slimy Jackson Pollock-esque work. This review expresses some of

Panchounette‘s strategies, the use of readymades, primitive art, and Panchounette‘s acknowledgement through ―[t]ribute and derision‖ to other artists.102 Panchounette imitates

Pollock‘s drip paintings in its other works, such as In dog there is kennel, in man there is HLM

(housing at moderated rents) (1989) (see fig. 18).103 In dog there is kennel, in man there is HLM is a doghouse-type structure with a chandelier hung inside. On the walls are miniature paintings that resemble Pollock‘s drip-paintings.

Summary

Through its criticism of conceptualism, Panchounette discovered interesting ways to connect traditional art with the decorative arts. Dada and Surrealism influenced Panchounette‘s technical output through the readymade and dream-like inspiration. The Situationist‘s critique of the market place influenced Panchounette‘s work and theoretical discourse. Socialist critique of class division also inspired much of the group‘s artworks. Breaking into the art market was never a goal of Panchounette; the group wished only to make stupid works of art to counteract the over-intellectualism that it felt had overtaken conceptualism.

101 Corinne Pencenat, ―Les Ravissments de Présence Panchounette,‖ ArtPress (Oct. 1987). 102 Ibid. 103 ―Dans chien il y a niche, dans homme il y a HLM.‖ Literal translation.

38 Chapter 3

The Cultural Gnome

―At the base, Présence Panchounette does not move in the terrain of art but in the one of culture.‖104

In this chapter, I consider the impact of industry, art, and history, on the development of the figurine105 in American and European society. I explain that Présence Panchounette used gnome figurines in its installation works of the 1970s and 1980s to elicit the attention and understanding of a broad rather than socially exclusive viewing public. Gnomes are legendary creatures resembling tiny men reimagined in various kinds of lore and pop culture motifs. Here,

I also discuss how for the group, the gnome figurine is generally representative of the working class and may be interpreted as a symbol of everyday life. Panchounette took the gnome concept and used it to create its gnome figurines. In particular, the gnome‘s role as decorative, everyday object reinforces the shifting of attention from art to everyday life that the group hopes to affect with its works.

The gnome figurine emerged as a key theme in Panchounette‘s works. Panchounette used gnome figurines in many of its installations throughout France and Germany from approximately 1969 until 1990. Numerous manifestations of gnomes are included in

Panchounette's œuvre, from tiny dwarf-sized gnomes to monumentally large gnomes accessorized with sunglasses. The significance of Panchounette‘s inclusion of gnomes in its assemblages is a means of acknowledging and addressing general audience who immediately recognize the gnome, regardless of their class or educational background. Specifically,

104 Présence Panchounette, L’Ordre Total (Rennes: La Criée, Centre d‘arts Plastiques, 1989), 2. “Au fond, Présence Panchounette ne se meut pas sur le terrain de l‘art mais sur celui de la culture.‖ 105 The term ―gnome‖ when used throughout this study refers specifically to the garden variety and all its incarnations. Some are sculptural and some pictorial, and some verbal description.

39 Panchounette used the gnome to revalue kitsch within the field of contemporary art.106 The purpose of Panchounette‘s inclusion of the gnome in its installation work was to tie the group‘s goal of embracing lower-class aesthetics with the notion of being kitsch artisans who facilitate discussion of ―culture‖ outside of the avant-garde world of art.

Lore

Much folklore, oral history, literature, and visual culture in European countries features the gnome. These stories are still passed on today. In folklore, the gnome is believed to protect gardens and other areas of nature through its knowledge of herbology. Lore about the gnome is thought to emphasize its ability to help humans successfully protect their homes and grow bountiful gardens. Additionally the gnome is said to live in caves and other natural niches, inhabiting places where people live. Wil Huygen, author of Gnomes (1976) listed six various types of gnomes based upon habitat – ―woodland gnomes, dune gnomes, garden gnomes, house gnomes, farm gnomes, and Siberian gnomes.‖107 Location is important to the lore of the gnome because it denotes not only its residence but also its daily tasks. The gnome symbolizes hard work, and may be construed as a mascot to ―blue-collar‖ working people.

In many folktales and sculptures in Europe and elsewhere throughout the world,108 the ancestral gnome has had many different names including ―dwarf‖ and ―bargegazi.‖109

―Bargegazi‖ is an early common French term for gnome, which literally means ―frozen beard‖ and the use of this word, is a nod to the French belief that the gnome originated in a Siberian landscape of ice and snow. Another common, albeit more modern, term for gnome in French is

"nain" which translates as ―dwarf,‖ referring to the small stature of the gnome and is typically

106 Judicaël Lavrador, ―Sculpture Underground,‖ BAM 242 (July, 2004): 76. 107 Wil Huygen, Gnomes (New York, N.Y.: Peacock Press/Bantam Book, 1979), ―Types of Gnomes.‖ This book has no page numbers, titles of sections are given instead. 108 Ibid., Introduction. 109 Ibid., ―Geographical Range.‖

40 used as part of the phrase ―nain du jardin‖ when referring to garden sculpture gnomes. The gnome‘s cross-cultural recognition, though based upon imagination, is underscored by the emergence and existence of various words meaning ―gnome‖ in different European countries.

Although characteristics of the gnome as a creature vary widely according to culture and history, there are some characteristics persistently are associated with the gnome. These include the presence of a beard, the sense of the gnome‘s placement in nature and domesticated settings, and the notion that gnomes live extremely long lives (almost 400 years).110 Another key characteristic is the gnome‘s hat as seen on the cover of Huygen‘s book Gnomes (1979) (see fig.

19). Huygen says that, like a helmet, the gnome‘s hat is solid and is used primarily as protection.111 One theory of the origins of the gnome figurine‘s hat is that it ties the gnome to the miners of southern Germany, who, many centuries, ago wore padded red hats to protect themselves from falling debris and allowed them to be spotted easily in the dark recesses of caves.112 This teleology of the hat also links the gnome to laboring classes in France and elsewhere. Additional characteristics of the gnome include the belief that the gnome is a mythical and sexless being, stagnant in time, never growing. This absence and avoidance of sexuality among the gnomes indicates that the gnome is not human even though traditionally the gnome has been anthropomorphically modeled on the human physique and with human personalities.

History

According to Gunter Griebel, a gnome collector in Germany, ―When you look today at the old-fashioned gnomes and compare them to modern gnomes, there is

110 Ibid.,―Transport of the Injured.‖ 111 Ibid., ―The Cap.‖ 112 Margaret Egleton, Gnomeland: An Introduction to the Little People (Buffalo, N.Y.: Firefly Books, 2008), 10.

41 a big difference . . . In the beginning, they made old men with gray beards. Today, it has been perverted to more or less a child with a beard.‖113

The evolution of the gnome from ―sculptural‖ art form into popular kitschy souvenir demonstrates the marketplace‘s control over art through its ability to transform former art objects into souvenirs though pricing and manufacturing tactics. Tracing the history of the gnome helps to illustrate the effect of publicity and bourgeois opinion on everyday objects. The gnome figurines created prior to the late 19th century vary distinctly from those made closer to the beginning of the 20th century in Europe for garden and household décor. In this section of text I will discuss the 20th-century gnome as the ―modern gnome‖ and the pre-20th century gnome form as the ―ancestral gnome.‖ Using the phrase ―modern gnome‖' is appropriate because numerous non-traditional and neo-traditional gnomes appeared during and after World War II.

Ancestral gnomes appeared in manicured gardens and upper-class homes, and were carefully handcrafted as decorative sculpture. The gnome was much thinner and not as charming or pleasant in appearance as the contemporary, kitschy incarnations like the modern gnome. The older versions of the gnome appealed to affluent collectors who would place the gnome not only in their gardens but also in their homes as decorative figurines.114 The first known Englishman to display a gnome in his garden was Sir Charles Isham; he did so in 1849.115 Sometime in the late 19th century the gnome lost popularity with the upper class and was adopted by the lower- class consumer to become a knick-knack and a popular decorative sculpture.

The modern gnome figure that is most familiar to the contemporary public was born in the early 1900s. Manufacturing of the modern gnome began in 1872 in Gräfenroda, a town in

113 Anne Ross, Folklore of the Scottish Highlands (London: Tempus, 2000), 26. Quoted in Jeannie B. Thomas, Naked Barbies, Warrior Joes, and Other Forms of Visible Gender (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2003), 87. 114 Egleton, 12. 115 Ibid., 2.

42 the state of Thuringia, Germany under the direction and innovation of Philip Griebel (birth date unknown - 1893) and August Heissner (life dates unknown).116 The two men, through their manufacture of the gnome, made the gnome more widely available to the public. Griebel is commonly credited with the conception and physical manifestation of the first commercially manufactured gnomes sold to the general public. He depicted his gnome statues busily working, with small stature and smiling faces. Soon, other producers of gnomes manufactured these figurines, and artisans began to create and distribute their own versions of the popular gnome.

Production of the gnome figurine was split between sculptors and industrial molding.

New media versions of the gnome, such as movie characters, cartoon characters, and advertising trademarks, led the modern gnome to adopt endearing and adorable characteristics and also made it consumer good. The Walt Disney Company is partially responsible for the softening of the gnome‘s once severe appearance with its animated film Snow White and the

Seven Dwarves (1937). 117 The movie poster associated with the original release of the film illustrates the change in appearance (see fig. 20). Dwarves and gnomes are frequently categorized together. The Disney manifestation of the dwarf or gnome had a stout form, short body, red cheeks, and a highly personable disposition. The storyline of Snow White and the

Seven Dwarves (1937) also reinforces the notion of working-class with the dwarves‘ daily physical efforts to extract gems from a quarry. After the movie's release in 1937, appearances of gnomes wearing red hats and having rosy cheeks, rotund bodies, and short stature showed up in gardens and homes.

Another factor in the new design of cartoon-like image of gnomes had to do with the post-World War II atmosphere of economic optimism. Moreover, the public was much more

116 Ibid., 12. 117 Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1937, 1938 in U.S.) is based on a German fairytale reiterated by Brothers Grimm, and made into a screenplay by the Walt Disney Company.

43 inclined to purchase a happy and chubby gnome than as opposed to the more somber ancestral gnome. Within the same year as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves another media outlet aided in the popularization of the gnome and featured the gnome in a similar world. The publication of the book The Hobbit (1937)118 by J. R. Tolkien placed the gnome character in a woodland world of fantasy and emphasized the hard-working nature of the gnome by the depicting gnomes doing manual labor much like the dwarves of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1937), directly appealing to the working classes.

Then, in 1960, the Zeho Plastic Company began production of plastic gnomes in

Germany.119 Developed in Spain, the animated television series called The World of David the

Gnome120 aired in the 1980s and popularized the Rien Poorvliet (1932-1995)121 concept of gnome, which borrowed from his drawings of red-capped, blue-shirted, pipe-smoking gnomes living in nature. All of these media entities and goods originated in the European market place, before heading to the United States.

Pop Culture

The physical appearance of the gnome has changed dramatically over the last half- century because of industrial plastic manufacture and electronic depiction by companies such as the Walt Disney Company and Travelocity. Media in the 2000s uses the gnome image to convey the concepts of travel, liberation, and working classes of people. The plastics industry took hold of the gnome in the 1960s, adding to the ease of gnome production and reduced cost. Variations of the gnome increased as production became simpler. Currently gnomes with cell phones,

118 J. R. R., The Hobbit (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1937). 119 Egleton, 15. 120 The World of David the Gnome, Claudio Biern Boyd created the show and BRB International, Spain aired it in1985. 121 Rien Poorvliet is the illustrator credited in Gnomes. It is likely that he created his version of the gnome in the 1950s.

44 bikinis, sunglasses, costumes, and other modern or quirky accessories are available to the consumer.

A popular example of the gnome in contemporary advertisement is by Travelocity. Their gnome resembles other popular gnomes with its red hat and white beard (see fig. 21).122 Since

2004, Travelocity has campaigned for airline, hotel, and car rental customers by using a gnome which is shown set in different places of interest. Through the use of television commercials, online adveristing, and paper products, Travelocity‘s traveling gnome has become widely recognizable.

Another recognizable brand that advertises by using gnome-like figures is Kellogg‘s for their Rice Krispies cereal and treats. The Rice Krispies‘ three elves have very simlar physical traits to the modern Disneyfied gnome. The same red cheeks and tapered hats appear on the elves as on the modern gnome. The setting of the elves is also conducive to known gnome culuture. Like some gnomes, the Kellogg‘s elves live and work in a tree.

Not all people embrace the gnome, nor do they find it harmless. The largest public denouncement of gnomes comes from the Chelsea Show, a flower exhibition held annually that specifically forbids the inclusion of the gnome because the board finds the gnome to be too kitschy.123 Groups such as the Garden Gnome Liberation Front (GGLF)124 wish to protect the gnome from harm or captivity. To do this, the members remove gnomes from gardens and set them free in the world. From time to time the ―liberator‖ sends a photograph to the gnome‘s owner that shows the gnome in some faraway place. In some cases, the gnomes are returned to the owners. Certain outdoor exhibitions or garden shows, not of the Chelsea variety, have held

122 Travelocity, http://i.travelpn.com.edgesuite.net/images/graphics_prod/other/Media_Kit_Combined_2008.pdf, January 2004, Travelocity and its ad agency McKinney-Silver launched the nationwide Roaming Gnome advertising campaign. 123 Egleton, 12. 124 In France, hundreds of gnomes have been stolen or rather rescued by the GGLF since the late 1990s.

45 gnome-themed shows. In Paris, September 2000, Bagatelle Park held a show of nearly 2,000 gnomes. The GGLF attended in secret and stole around twenty gnomes.125

The gnome has also appeared in contemporary films such as The Full Monty (1997)126 and Amélie (2001).127 In each film, gnomes play key roles in the stories following working-class characters on the road to self-fulfillment. The multiple uses of the gnome within European popular cutlure demonstrate its versatility and its appeal to vast audiences. These audiences may not know all of the nuances behind the the gnome, but they certainly understand its history as a garden ornament and as a character in folklore, legends, and fairytales. The gnome is, for the audience, an easily understood symbol that does not exclude its viewers through references to subjects not generally known to the working classes. Between the gnome's appearance and its personality, the gnome is greatly useful to the installations of Panchounette, helping them appeal to a wider audience outside traditionals institutions of art.

Kitschy

When defining ―kitsch,‖ it is necessary to discuss taste and class. The term ―kitsch‖ is inherently tied to these two concepts. Tracey Potts of the University of Nottingham states that

cultural class is hard to pin down and is expert at escaping common and academic attention; . . . to risk bad taste in talking about bad taste and to attend to the detail of the existing taste situation. Instead of being bedizened into thinking that class no longer figures in taste formation, joining in with the misrecognitions taking place in received ideas around taste, it is crucial to trace the intricate trajectories of kitsch as it makes its way across contemporary aesthetic terrain.128

125 CNN, ―Garden Gnome Liberation Front Strikes Paris Show,‖ April 13, 2000, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/STYLE/arts/04/12/france.gnomes.reut/ (accessed Aug. 8, 2009) 126 Simon Beaufoy, The Full Monty, directed by Peter Cattaneo (London: Fox Searchlight Pictures, 1997). According to Laura Miller in her salon.com 1997 review of the movie: "The story of six laid-off steel workers in Northern England who put together an unlikely male stripper act..." There is a scene in which one of the characters is distracted by a gnome puppet fight, and throughout the film there are other appearances by a garden gnome. 127 Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Amélie, DVD, directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet (France: Miramax Films, 2001). The film Amélie (2001) is a quirky romantic comedy set in France. The gnome in the film is a sculpture in Amélie‘s father‘s garden, that she steals and sends around the world, eventually returning it and inspiring her father to travel. 128 Tracey Potts, ―‗Walking the Line‘: Kitsch, Class and the Morphing Subject of Value,‖ Nottingham Modern Languages Publications Archive (Nottingham, U.K.: University of Nottingham, 2007): 6.

46

Potts analysis of taste‘s role in the formation of kitsch culture emphasizes the relevance of class discussion when examining kitsch objects, such as the gnome.

In today‘s culture the gnome seems to embody both what is wrong with kitsch and what is pleasurable in kitsch. The term ―kitsch‖ has German origins, possibly derived from a word formerly used to describe sketches that were sold in open-air markets as souvenirs.129 ―Kitsch‖ may be used to designate mass-produced imitation goods rather than fine art enjoyed by the middle to lower class.130 Souvenirs meet this definition. The bourgeois did not generally consider decorative arts as fine art. The decorative arts include the culture of kitsch. Possibly the demotion of gnome from artistic object to kitschy mass-market good came about through the advertisement of the gnome in magazines and newspapers in the late 19th century and the 20th century in combination with the trend of art critics disliking painted sculpture.

One art critic, Clement Greenberg (1909–1994), has argued vehemently that avant-garde art and kitsch are antithetical products of culture. Kitsch has historically been used in a derogatory manner to describe art or objects with directed commentary to the common public.

Greenberg wrote that

Kitsch, using for raw material the debased and academicized [sic] simulacra of genuine culture, welcomes and cultivates this insensibility. It is the source of its profits. Kitsch is mechanical and operates by formulas. Kitsch is vicarious experience and faked sensations. Kitsch changes according to style, but remains always the same. Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in the life of our times. Kitsch pretends to demand nothing of its customers except their money -- not even their time.131

129 Matei Calinescu, Five Faces of Modernity (Durham: Duke University Press, 1987), 234. 130 Hermann Broch, ―Notes of the Problem of Kitsch,‖ (1950) Kitsch (New York, N.Y.: Bell Publishing Company, 1969), 49, 62-64. 131 Clement Greenberg, ―Avant-Garde and Kitsch,‖ Art in Theory; 1900-2000 (Boston, M.A.: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 543. Originally published in the Partisan Review (1939).

47 Greenberg makes it clear that the term ―kitsch‖ refers to objects that can be understood by the lower-class public and people who lack knowledge of art or literary matters, while the ―avant- garde‖ things can be understood by educated people of upper-classes.

In ―Kitsch is Dead – Long Live Garden Gnomes‖ (2006), Eva Londos claims that the

‗[gnome's] mocking character has always caused feelings of uncertainty about whether he is serious or a joke.‖132 During her extensive research, completed primarily in England, Londos found that unlike other common garden features, such as water-filled apparatuses or babbling brook-like waterways, the gnome retains a kitsch characteristic regardless of location or accessories. Londos reinforces the notion of a class distinction of kitsch and taste after describing her visit to the famous Chelsea Flower Show.133 This show takes place in London and employs strict limitations on items placed among the plants, i.e., no garden gnomes are allowed.134 The exclusive parameters demonstrate an elite nature that is dismissive of kitsch objects.

Londos concluded that the term ―kitsch‖ is outdated because ―influences rush in all directions and between different levels, crossing borders without passports, and paying no consideration to origin or copyright‖ between classes.135 Furthermore, Londos states that George

Dicke's institutional definition of postmodernism implies that ―art is whatever the art world conceives as art. Consequently, kitsch should be what the elite conceive as kitsch.‖136 These two statements taken together form the idea that how the ―elite‖ class designates an object‘s categorization in the art world, not that the object provides its own merit on which to be judged.

132 Eva Londos, ―Kitsch is Dead--Long Live Garden Gnomes,‖ Home Cultures 3 n. 3 (Nov., 2006): 295. 133 Held annually since 1913, hosted by the Royal Horticultural Society. 134 Londos, 294. 135 Ibid., 299. 136 Ibid.

48 Installation

One of the last resurgences of the popularity of gnomes began in the 1980s near the time of some of Panchounette's gnome installations. One of the group‘s most notable installation of gnomes was the very popular Dwarf Dwarf (1980s) series of three, leisure-related super-sized, plastic, outdoor, gnome statues that were placed in publically accessible parks such as Bagatelle

Parc in Paris, France. The group‘s Dwarf Dwarf series was still being shown in public through the year 2008.

Panchounette used signage to mimic popular commercial objects and share art with its audience. By creating this kind of dialogue Panchounette was able to embrace the decorative arts and make modern and postmodern art accessible to the non-art public. Panchounette used the gnome as a means to directly refer to its audience, who were familiar to the art objects seen among the decorative arts such as the gnome. Also, the gnome is devoid of religious connotations 137 thereby making it more appealing to a wider audience, which can then easily identify itself with the gnome. When asked about the presence of gnomes in their work

Panchounette replied that ―[a] minimum of sincerity is necessary, we love false stones, glitter, and popular songs on the radio.‖138 This statement reiterates the group‘s desire to incorporate everyday objects into art to keep its art light and relevant to a wide audience.

By situating the everyday figurine in its artistic installations, Panchounette engaged in the practice of détournement by Debord. The gnome has not been found outside popular culture or outside the blue-collar workforce lawns until the last decade or so. Placing the gnome into a more or less private world of fine art does not necessarily elevate the garden gnome to avant-

137 Specifically, ―religions‖ refers to Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, and other traditional religions, not those such as Wiccan or Anima. 138 Christian Schlatter, ―Materials Gone Crazy: A new breed of French sculpture works through the transmutation of materials: new forms abound as artistic proliferation takes possession of everything,‖ Flash Art (Italy) (April 1985): 54.

49 garde, even when considering the novelty it provides the art world. Panchounette used the gnome in a manner that altered its meaning/symbolism from a lower-class object to an upper- class art object. The act of showing the gnome in a museum for the world and not only for the neighbors turns the gnome onto its proverbial side.

Panchounette presented the gnome in several of its installations including some that were a part of an exhibition that was held at Kunstverein Württembergischer in Stuttgart, Germany, in

1987. Three instances of Panchounette's use of the gnome from the Stuttgart exhibition are

Clement Greenberg and Jacques Soulillou Discuss some Comparable Merits of Contemporary

Paintings (1978), Wham! (1982), and The Tower of Babel (1985).139 All three used a similarly dressed gnome with red hat, blue shirt, and dark pants. In addition, the gnomes that

Panchounette used are those that mimic the Disney model of gnome. Red chubby cheeks, smiling round eyes, pudgy bodies, and bright paint all characterize the gnome manufactured to look like Walt Disney's Seven Dwarves of 1937. All the Stuttgart gnomes were shown inside an art institution and were of small stature. Conversely, Panchounette also made three gigantic dwarves called Dwarf Dwarf I, Dwarf Dwarf II (1989), and Dwarf Dwarf III.140 These dwarves were shown at an outdoor exhibition at Bagatelle Park, Paris, France held in 2000 (long after disbandment). At the exhibition, the dwarves were respectively situated on a balcony, near steps to the garden‘s building, and out on the lawn of the building.

Clement Greenberg and Jacques Soulillou Discuss some Comparable Merits of

Contemporary Paintings (1978) (see fig. 22) includes two small gnomes on a shelf-structure.

The gnomes are dressed in red hats: one with a blue shirt and the other with a yellow shirt. Both

139 Uta Nusser, Tilman Osterwold, and Présence Panchounette, Présence Panchounette (Stuttgart: Der Kunstverein, 1987). ―Clément Greenberg et Jacques Soulillon [sic] Discotant des Mérites Comparés de Peintures Comtemporaines (1978), Wham! (1982), et La Tour de Babil (1985).‖ 140 Dates unknown, circa mid-to-late 1980s.

50 sport grey pants and wooden clogs. Each is holding a golf club casually at his side. The iconography of the accessories indicates leisure. Specifically, the golf clubs point to a common activity of leisure time usually associated with the bourgeois. The clothing, however, appears to be typical garb for gnomes according to folkloric imagery. Facing each other, the gnomes appear to be having a conversation about the images behind them. These images are framed to look like paintings. The composition on the left is completely black while the other looks like imitation brickwork. It is probable that Greenberg is the gnome standing in front of the black painting while Soulillou stands in front of the bricks. Greenberg is considered the champion creator of the Modern art movement. Conversely, Soulillou argued for higher appreciation for the decorative arts, which Greenberg did not include in his discourses about art. A black or other solid color painting is consistent with minimalism, the kind with which Greenberg would be familiar and have praised. Panchounette is also known for its use of patterned wallpapers, often brick pattern like the painting hung behind one of the gnomes. Again Panchounette created a reference to the hard-working nature of the gnome by including bricks, instruments of the blue- collar masons, even though this contradicts the golf clubs. The gnome character as Soulillou would have defended using commonly recognized materials and the craft of brick-making to be fine art and not just decorative art. Art curator, Anne Tronche surmised that the black painting is

―a monochrome which, through successive deductions, is able to be strongly attributed to Ad

Reinhardt and the paper mural ‗false brick‘ style indicates not only a solid resistance to the metaphysic but a very profound aptitude toward frivolity.‖141 She likens this frivolity to the work of Marcel Duchamp, who in Chapter 1 is discussed as a strong influence on the group.

141 Anne Tronche, Présence Panchounette (Paris: Centre National des Arts Plastiques, 1988), 3. ―un monochrome qui, par deductions successives, pourrait fort bien être attribué à Ad Reinhardt et un papier mural façon ‗fausse briques‘ indique non seulement une solider résistance à la métaphysique mais une très profonde aptitude à la frivolité.‖

51 Specifically, Tronche makes the analogy that placing the monochrome in the context of gnomes and brick-pattern wallpaper is the same as painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa as done by

Duchamp for his work L.H.O.O.Q. (1919).

In Wham! (1982) (see fig. 23), Panchounette used an audience-facing, smiling gnome holding a pushcart, in front of an unframed, painted canvas. On the canvas is the word ―Wham!‖ written in graffiti-like black letters on a yellow background with a black border and splatters of orange and light green. The painting is reminiscent of Jackson Pollock‘s drip paintings of the

1940s and 1950s combined with Roy Lichtenstein‘s pop art of the 1960s. The depiction of the gnome holding a pushcart relates directly to the gnome‘s natural setting of the outdoors, and of the hard-working nature of the gnome. However, the graphic nature of the canvas places the gnome into an artistic institutional setting displacing it from its standard environment of the outdoors. The viewer is dealt an image of laborer in the sphere of bourgeois art-appreciation.

Another interpretation is that the gnome is placed in front of an artwork (the graffiti‘d canvas) much like a homeowner might place a decorative object in front of artwork hung on their wall.

This particular installation foreshadows Louise Lawler‘s Pollock and Soup Tureen (1984) (see fig. 24).142

Panchounette's installation, La Tour de Babil (1985) (see fig. 25), employs a plastic gnome who is reading a book while perched atop a tower of hardbound books, a few of which have Masonic temple emblems on their covers. The gnome is wearing glasses that are askew, likely having been added by Panchounette as an afterthought and not molded to the gnome during its production. On top of the gnome‘s red pointy cap is a fixture painted to look like a toadstool. The gnome sits reading intently, oblivious to any audience. This is strange because,

142 Louise Lawler (b. 1947) is a postmodernist artist who produced a series of photographs combining notable works of art situated with decorative elements in the manner of an interior design magazine image.

52 in folklore, gnomes are not readily seen in public because of their small stature and desire to hide from people. The fact that the gnome is reading is also contrary to folkloric gnome culture.

Panchounette ignores this common conception in order to allow its audience a peek into the taboo or fairytale. Folklore does not portray gnomes as literary enthusiasts; and so by portraying one as such, Panchounette signals a more human quality. The viewer role changes to that of the voyeur, like the gnome in folklore who hides in gardens. In explaining the meaning behind the piece, Panchounette states that La Tour de Babil (1985) is not only about a gnome ―trickster,‖ but that it also relates to the invention of electricity and to the Yoruba people of west Africa.

The sitting figure of the gnome also alludes to the Yoruba practice of ―complex sculpture of little people,‖ and ritualistic activities.143 This assemblage is loaded with both cultural and artistic allusions that the viewer may or may not understand.

Panchounette created three larger than human-size gnomes as part of its Dwarf Dwarf series, I, II, and III (1980s). Each gnome follows a theme of leisure as evidenced by its individual accessories. Dwarf Dwarf I is standing barefoot with no shirt on, wearing sunglasses, bright yellow beach shorts, and a towel draped over his shoulders while smoking a cigar (see fig.

26). The gnome looks prepared for the beach, not for standing guard in a garden or for any kind of labor-intensive work. Panchounette included some standard features of gnome characters including a red conical hat and long white beard. In Dwarf Dwarf II (1989), the gnome is shirtless with blue and white striped shorts and white sandals, standing over a sand castle while waving (see fig. 27). Again, the general gnome accessories of beard and red hat are present. For

Dwarf Dwarf III, Panchounette created a gnome seated on some sort of playground toy with a device strapped to its head (see fig. 28). The gnome is smiling and waving with red hat and

143 Jacques Soulillou, Présence Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies, Tôme 2 (Toulouse/Calais, France: Centre Régional d‘art contemporain Midi-Pyrénées/Musée des Beaux-Arts, 1986), 18.

53 beard. It is difficult to determine whether or not the gnome is shirtless as well as the toy‘s identification as animal or fantasy creature. Each of these enormous gnomes is featured in leisure activities, contrasting the folkloric hard-working nature of gnomes. Depiction of leisure activities also relates to bourgeois control of those activities as suggested by the Situationist

International. Panchounette directly alludes to the proletariat and the concept of kitsch consumerism by employing gnomes that are dressed in leisure fashion. Gnomes are inherently linked to the consumer because of their kitschy use in homes and gardens.

In the three installations by Panchounette at Stuttgart, the group depicted the gnome in a way that mocked historical avant-garde art, specifically conceptualism, speaking directly to the non-bourgeois viewer. An audience without certain knowledge of fine art or political jargon, may not understand all the nuances of the installation. However, the only necessary concept to understand is the facetiousness that Panchounette brings to the avant-garde. In addition, the

Dwarf Dwarf series illustrates leisure activities understood by all and does not allude to numerous conceptual or otherwise art historical nuances. The mocking tone of Panchounette is clear through its use of the gnome, a somewhat funny creature itself. Panchounette‘s installations allow for more of the public to enjoy its art by incorporating an icon that is well known throughout society.

Summary

The use of gnomes in Panchounette's installations added a dimension that appealed to more than just those audiences with knowledge of art. The gnome as a sculpture has become a traditionally acceptable everyday object defined as kitschy. Within folklore, gnomes continue to be described as a helpful, cheery, simple folk who enjoy working and focusing on domesticity

54 (20th century) much like the stereotypical middle-class or the lower-class laborer living in Europe in the late-20th century.

The words kitsch and common, red and green, fat and friendly, all accurately describe the contemporary, post-World War II, ceramic garden gnome. A variety of people understand and identify with gnomes because of gnomes‘ anthropomorphic personality traits. These traits include a hard working nature, self-sufficiency, a simple demeanor, and an occasional penchant for mischief. Popular culture has added a new milieu for the gnome by placing it in advertisements, films, and other non-traditional mediums of depiction. This uprooting of the gnome figure from its origins is not necessarily evident in Panchounette's installations because

Panchounette used gnomes in a more recognized fashion, i.e. as decorative statues, albeit with the addition of overtures corresponding to Panchounette‘s philosophies. By examining

Panchounette‘s nuances found surrounding its use of the gnome, the displacement of the traditional gnome not only becomes apparent but also especially meaningful. This is because of the manner in which the group opposes the gnome‘s use in popular culture and mimics a more traditional use of the gnome as decor. Panchounette spoke to a larger and more varied audience by using gnomes in its installations. The gnome has not gained a place along the walls of traditional museums and is not a frequent subject in modern galleries; it remains in the world of kitsch. Panchounette blurred the lines between fine art and decorative art, and between elitist audiences and working-class audiences.

55 Conclusion

Several significant events led up to the formation of Présence Panchounette each of which contributed to the group‘s objectives and activities. As a forerunner of avant-garde art in

France, Panchounette joined together on behalf of the proletariat when the events of the revolution in May 1968, triggered strong proletariat sympathy throughout urban France.

Traditional French art institutions also contributed to Panchounette‘s formation by mounting exhibitions of avant-garde contemporary art including Marcel Duchamp‘s infamous urine in a glass jar, called Ben (1962).144 Inspired by the words of Georges Bataille that Dadaism was ―not stupid enough,‖ Panchounette wrote about and created not only satirical but also idiotic elements and signs in the course of its extensive discourse on the topic of conceptualism.145 Extreme facetiousness was a goal of Panchounette, and the group incorporated many everyday objects, such as the gnome, into its arrangements of art in order to achieve this goal.

Panchounette‘s manifesto is intrinsic to understanding the group‘s inspirations and influences. Panchounette composed its manifesto in order to provide some of its intentions as an artistic group. The manifesto reflects the satirical nature of the group and poetically alludes to

Panchounette‘s Situationist International tendencies and interest in Dadaism. Panchounette also lists several leading thinkers of past eras. This list gives insight into the historical influences on

Panchounette, which includes Marcel Duchamp, noted leader of Dada, among others.

In its texts, Panchounette discussed the group‘s detestation of conceptual art through its criticism of Joseph Kosuth. Panchounette accused Kosuth of formulating art to appeal to specialist audiences, neglecting to create simpler art using the readymade technique, and

144 Catherine Millet, Contemporary Art in France (Paris: Flammarion, 2006), 13. 145 Gilles Mayné, Eroticism in Georges Bataille and Henry Miller (France: Summa Publications, 1993), 46. ―pas assez idiot.‖

56 neglecting to refer to the decorative arts. Another artist who received open criticism from

Panchounette was Tony Cragg. Cragg‘s art, as opposed to Kosuth‘s art, which is similar to

Panchounette‘s art because Cragg focused on re-purposing, appropriating, and recycling manufactured goods. Additionally, Panchounette resented that Cragg received publicity for his art when Panchounette believed itself to have devised the style of recycling goods into assemblages.

Politically, Panchounette adopted the Situationist International standpoint: that society limits the proletariat‘s impact on its production of goods and the value of those goods in the market place. Accordingly, Panchounette believed that the bourgeois used the market place to dictate art trade, thereby limiting proletariat input. Using art to appeal to the mass-market consumer, the proletariat, Panchounette incorporated imagery and objects that appealed to and were understood by audiences without any special learning or familiarity with fine art.

Moreover, Panchounette‘s interest in the proletariat and its desire for its art to appeal to the proletariat led Panchounette to incorporate objects of an everyday character. One of the objects that Panchounette used repeatedly throughout its œuvre was the gnome figurine traditionally displayed in gardens, as souvenirs, and in mass-media culture. Panchounette successfully portrayed the gnome in a manner mocking fine art and engaging the public.

Panchounette incorporated the gnome into its installations by including statuettes of gnomes and placing these gnomes in various settings. Some of the contexts used by Panchounette included outdoor gardens such as in Dwarf, Dwarf II (1989). Panchounette also used a gnome to represent a member of the group arguing with famous art critic Clement Greenberg in Clement Greenberg and Jacques Soulillou Discuss some Comparable Merits of Contemporary Paintings (1978). In terms of actual art production, Panchounette followed strategies such as détournement,

57 bricolage, installation, and assemblage. Panchounette discovered the method of détournement through its study of Situationism.

In my first chapter, I reported some general knowledge about Panchounette and its activities. The general knowledge about Panchounette included the members, the meaning of

―chounette,‖ early works, and manifesto. The term ―chounette‖ is intrinsic to Panchounette‘s role as an artistic group in that it symbolizes the silliness and derogatory meanings found in

Panchounette‘s art works. The group‘s early works were made up almost entirely of installations of everyday objects. These works consistently demonstrated the group‘s objective of evoking everyday life in order to appeal to a wide-audience. Panchounette‘s manifesto also reinforces the group‘s desire for satire and gives examples of the types of influences that affected the group such as the Dada movement and Duchamp.

In the second chapter of this study, I analyzed philosophy and artists that influenced

Panchounette and its œuvre. I also reviewed commentary about the group. The group attempted to adhere to the Situationist ideology of anti-elitism, but self-admittedly fell short likely because the group began exhibiting in art institutes in the 1980s; art institutes typically pander to an elite audience. Socialism also helped to form some of the group‘s philosophy about the aim of art- making and exhibition. One major area of discourse for the group was conceptualism and its inability to appeal to the public at large. This was unacceptable to Panchounette, who strived to integrate everyday concepts and items into its art in order to appeal to the wider public.

Commentary about the group also reinforces the notion of successful debauchery.

In chapter three, I described the gnome and its symbolism, history, and purpose in

Panchounette‘s œuvre. Panchounette‘s insertion of gnome figurines into its art assemblages supports the concept of art for the proletariat. Lower classes are recognized for their

58 incorporation of souvenir or kitschy items into their everyday life, which includes the gnome.

By using gnomes in its art, Panchounette spoke directly to the proletariat and not to the art critics or other specialist art enthusiasts. Kitsch is an important concept to Panchounette because of the iconography associated with it. When one thinks of kitsch, one thinks of domestic, decorative objects.

The importance of this study is that, although a modest and limited study, my analysis of

Panchounette‘s exhibitions, objectives, and use of gnome figurines gives needed insight into a group of artists creating art available to the public, not just art critics, art historians, and other art specialists. I found that Panchounette's use of exhibitions as satirical criticism of certain avant- garde art, as well as Panchounette's use of public spaces, successfully appealed to the working- class. My examination of Panchounette also provided some insight to the use of the garden gnome statuary in contemporary art and how using commercially available items encourages a wider audience.

Future researchers have numerous avenues to follow regarding Panchounette. There are many letters to examine and an entire œuvre available for formal art analysis. More translations of catalogues are needed as well as an examination of joint exhibitions and an analysis of the relationships between Panchounette and other artists such as Daniel Buren and Jackson Pollock.

The influence on Panchounette by French philosophers such as Pierre Bourdieau and Jean

Baudrillard needs studied. There is also the impact Panchounette may have had on American art to be studied. Some other ways to examine Panchounette include the group‘s strong criticism of other art movements such as Minimalism and Pop Art. In addition, Panchounette‘s place in the non-Art movement and possible role as a nouveau realism group is also available for study.

59 Panchounette commenced as a vehicle for commentary and critique of certain Modern art movements. Panchounette‘s success in creating accessible art for the blue-collar public is apparent through its installation art found in outdoor displays and in exhibitions throughout

France and parts of Germany. The group‘s critique of mass commercialism and consumption includes a strong dose of humor and understanding of its audience. Preferring stupidity to excessively thoughtful, intelligent art, Panchounette stood out from the Conceptual artists.

Panchounette never planned to exist for long, only long enough to debunk and mock certain

Modernistic tendencies as well as to critique particular social systems and habits.

60 Illustrations

Figure 1, Richard Dumas, Portrait de trois membres de P.P., July 1989, photograph

61

Figure 2, Présence Panchounette, Manifesto, 1969, text, Présence Panchounette, Présence Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies, Tôme 1, Labège: Centre régional d'art contemporain Midi- Pyrénées, Calais Musée, 1986, 56

62

Figure 3, Présence Panchounette, Installation, 1984, armchair, books, assemblages, paintings, rugs, and other various objects, Galerie Eric Fabre, Paris, France

63

Figure 4, Présence Panchounette (photo: T. Domage), Congo Go!, 1983, grey fan and electric cord

64

Figure 5, Présence Panchounette, A la Penn et à l’honneur, 1983, tennis balls, wedding cake topper, and platter

65

Figure 6, Présence Panchounette, Transition-Valse, 1977, exterior view of gallery installation of wallpaper, Galerie Eric Fabre, Paris France

66

Figure 7, Présence Panchounette, La pression des rêve, 1974, blood pressure monitor, 40 x 91, 5 x 40 cm, Collection du Musée National d'Art Moderne, Paris, France, © Présence Panchounette

67 Figure 8, Présence Panchounette, La dégénéresence guette les avant-gardes, 1972 –1986, ironing board, iron, shirt, Galerie de Paris, Paris, France

68

Figure 9, Présence Panchounette, Live at Birdland (photo: Jules), 1979, saxophone, table, magazine, lights

69

Figure 10, Présence Panchounette, sans titre (without title), 1988, engraved metal plaque

70

Figure 11, Présence Panchounette, Meublé, coquet, lumineux (image distorted during publication), 1986, sofa and Pierre Soulages‘s Peinture (1984)

71

Figure 12, Information, Museum of Modern Art, New York, 2 July – 20 September 1970, Photo © 1995 The Museum of Modern Art, New York

72

Figure 13, Joseph Kosuth, Art as Idea as Idea, Nothing, 1967, photostat mounted on cardboard, 120.7 x 120.7 cm., The Panza Collection, © Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York, DACS, London

73

Figure 14, Joseph Kosuth, One and Three Chairs (French to English installation), 1965, chair, photograph, and wall text, 200 x 271 x 44 cm, © Adagp, Paris 2007, Paris 2005

74

Figure 15, Présence Panchounette, Le roi des Rennes (left), 1985, deer head, rubber gloves, and plaque, Remake-up (right), 1986, bicycle seat and handle bars

75

Figure 16, Présence Panchounette, Néo-Senoufo (photo: Jules), 1985, primitive bust and children‘s toy Chieftain and canoe, private collection, Bordeaux, France

76

Figure 17, Présence Panchounette, [Snails in Boxing Ring], ca. 1987, snail sculptures, boxing ring, and paint

77

Figure 18, Présence Panchounette, Dans chien il y a niche, dans homme il y a HLM (exterior and interior views), 1989, kennel, carpet, chandelier, and painted cloth, 90 x 53 x 89 cm, Le Frac- Collection Aquitaine

78

Figure 19, Rien Poortvliet, 1979, book cover, Wil Huygen, Gnomes, New York: A Peacock Press/Bantam Book, 1979

79

Figure 20, Albert Hurter, Gustaf Tenggren, and Ferdinand Hovarth, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937, movie poster, © Walt Disney

80

Figure 21, Roaming Gnome, advertising image, © 1996-2010 Travelocity.com LP

81

Figure 22, Présence Panchounette, Clément Greenberg et Jacques Soulillon [sic] discutant des mérites comparés de peintures contemporaines, 1978, paint, gnome figurines, and various materials, Galerie de Paris, France

82

Figure 23, Présence Panchounette, Wham!, 1987, gnome figurine, cart, canvas, and paint, F.R.A.C. Nord – Pas de Calais, France

83

Figure 24, Louise Lawler, Pollock and Tureen, 1984, silver dye bleach print, 71.1 x 99.1 cm, The Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation Gift through Joyce and Robert Menschel and Jennifer and Joseph Duke Gift, 2000, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000.434, New York, New York, © Louise A. Lawler

84

Figure 25, Présence Panchounette (photo: A. Morain), Tour de Babil, 1985, various materials, gnome figurine, and books

85

Figure 26, Présence Panchounette, The boss 'Dwarf! Dwarf! I, ca. 1980s, painted plastic, 2.3 m high, Collection Ben, ©François Fernandez, 2000

86

Figure 27, Présence Panchounette, Dwarf Dwarf II, 1989, statue of gnome/dwarf

87

Figure 28, Présence Panchounette, Dwarf Dwarf III, ca. 1980s, statue of gnome/dwarf

88 List of Selected Exhibitions146

1969 Birth in Bordeaux of Présence Panchounette.

1972 Individual exhibition in Studio F4 in Bordeaux.

1977 Individual exhibition in the Eric Fabre Gallery in Paris called Transition-valse.

1978 Individual exhibition in the Donguy Gallery in Paris.

1979 Individual exhibition in the Eric Fabre Gallery in Paris.

1980 Exhibition in the Jacques Donguy Gallery in Bordeaux.

1983 Exhibition in the Petit-Sparta Gallery in Chagny and in the Eric Fabre Gallery in Paris. Exhibition in the Maison de la Culture de Châlon in Sâone called Cragg, Boum, Hue!.

1984 The worst of Présence Panchounette at the Galerie Eric Fabre in Paris.

1985 Métronóm in Barcelona. Exhibition in the Frederick S. Wright Art Gallery, UCLA, Los Angeles, California called Manipulated Reality: Object and Image in New French Sculpture.

1986 Exhibition in the Center of Contemporary Art of Labèrge called Présence Panchounette (L’Ordre Total).

1987 Exhibition in the Paris Gallery in Paris, in the Arson Villa in Nice and in the Württenbergischer Kunstverein in Stuttgart, Germany called Présence Panchounette. Exhibition in the Musée des Beaux-Arts.

1988 Exhibition in the Centre National des Arts Plastiques called Présence Panchounette. Exhibition in a government park called Nature Inconnue: Cour d’Honneur et Parc de la Préfecture de la Niève.

Post-Disbandment

1991 Exhibition in the Rotonda della Besana in Milan, Italy called L’Objet de la Sculpture.

2008 Exhibition for the Centre d‘Art Plastiques Contemporains (CAPC) in Bordeaux, France called Less is less, more is more, that’s all.

146 ―Présence Panchounette,‖ Beaux Arts (1987): 82. Edith A. Tonelli, Manipulated Reality: Object and Image in New French Sculpture, (Los Angeles, California: Frederick S. Wright Art Gallery, UCLA, 1985), ―Présence Panchounette.‖ Amended and revised by author.

89 Selected Bibliography

Books/Catalogues

Bourg, Julian. From Revolution to Ethics: May 1968 and Contemporary French Thought. London: McGill-Queen‘s University Press, 2007.

Dorfles, Gillo. Kitsch: the World of Bad Taste. New York: Bell Publishing Company 1969.

Egleton, Margaret. Gnomeland: An Introduction to the Little People. Buffalo, New York: Firefly Books, 2008.

Huygen, Wil. Gnomes. New York: Peacock Press/Bantam Book, 1979.

McDonough, Tom. Guy Debord and the Situationist International: Texts and Documents. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2004.

Mayné, Gilles. Eroticism in Georges Bataille and Henry Miller. France: Summa Publications, 1993.

Millet, Catherine. Contemporary Art in France. Paris: Flammarion, 2006.

Nusser, Uta, Tilman Osterwold, and Présence Panchounette. Présence Panchounette. Stuttgart: Der Kunstverein, 1987.

Présence Panchounette. Cragg, Boum, Hue! Maison de la Culture de Chalon sur Sâone. Paris: Présence Panchounette, les Archives Modernes, and du Centre National des Arts Plastiques, 1983.

______. Présence Panchounette: Œuvres Choisies, Tôme 1 & 2. Labège: Centre régional d'art contemporain Midi-Pyrénées, Calais Musée, 1986.

______. L’Ordre Total. Rennes: La Criée, Centre d‘arts Plastiques, 1989.

______and Jacques Soulillou. Transition/Valse. Paris: Galerie Eric Fabre, 1977.

Rotonda di via Besana, and Association française d'action artistique. L' Objet de la Sculpture - chas, Skall, Jean-Luc Vilmouth: 26 septembre-27 octobre 1991, Rotonda della Besana, Milan. Paris: Association fra , 1991.

Sanouillet, Michel. Dada in Paris. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2009.

Skeggs, Beverly. Class, Self, Culture. London: Routledge, 2004.

90

Soulillou, Jacques. Le Décoratif. Paris: Klincksiek, 1990.

Tonelli, Edith A. Manipulated Reality: Object and Image in New French Sculpture. Los Angeles, California: Frederick S. Wright Art Gallery, UCLA, 1985.

Tronche, Anne. Présence Panchounette. Paris: Centre National des Arts Plastiques, 1988.

Articles/Periodicals

B.M. ―Réponse d‘un collectif d‘artistes à un autre.‖ Sud Ouest (Jan. 15, 2003).

Courtois, Claudia. ―L‘exposition Présence Panchounette Chautée à Bordeaux.‖ Le Monde (Aug. 28, 2008): 18.

Lavrador, Judicäel. ―Sculpture underground.‖ Beaux Arts Magazine 242 (July 2004): 76-83.

Londos, Eva. ―Kitsch is Dead--Long Live Garden Gnomes.‖ Home Cultures 3 n. 3 (2006): 293- 306.

Millet, Catherine. ―Présence Panchounette: Capri c‘est fini! Et dire que c‘était la ville de mon premier amour.‖ Art Press n. 134 (1989): 33-36.

______. ―Le Ready Made Colle.‖ Art Press n. 145 (March 1990): 31-33.

Pelenc, Arielle. ―Expositions paradoxales.‖ Artefactum 4 (Sept. 1987): 8-11.

Pencenat, Corinne. ―Les Ravissements de Présence Panchounette.‖ Art Press n. 118 (Oct. 1987).

Potts, Tracey. ―Walking the Line‘: Kitsch, Class and the Morphing Subject of Value.‖ Nottingham Modern Languages Publications Archive. Nottingham, U.K.: University of Nottingham, 2007.

Rosen, Miriam. ―Galerie de Paris; Galerie de Tugny Lamarre.‖ Artforum International 29 (1990): 170-171.

Schlatter, Christian. ―Materials Gone Crazy: A new breed of French sculpture works through the transmutation of materials: new forms abound as artistic proliferation takes possession of everything.‖ Flash Art (Italy) (April 1985): 52-55.

Soulillou, Jacques. ―This is the End; Présence Panchounette.‖ Art Press n. 145 (March 1990): 28-30.

Viau, René. ―Impressions d‘Afrique.‖ Parachute n. 49 (Dec.1987): 16-21.

91

Internet Publication

Roux, Frédéric. ―Art: Modeste contribution à une theorie de l‘art modeste.‖ http://pagesperso- orange.fr/red-dog/panchounette.html (accessed Oct. 10, 2008).

Vaneigem, Raoul. ―Banalités de base‖ Part 1 originally appeared in Internationale Situationniste #7 (Paris, April 1962). This translation by Ken Knabb is from the Situationist International Anthology (revised and expanded ed., 2006). http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/7.basic1.htm (accessed Jan. 5, 2010).

For further research or amusement:

Map of Présence Panchounette‘s works throughout Bordeaux, France for the CAPC 2008 exhibition, Less is Less, More is More, That’s All. http://maps.google.fr/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid =118180147783861639090.00044f11d2e2c39cb2a4e

Frédéric Roux‘s personal website/blog. http://pagesperso-orange.fr/Red-Dog/

92