BEN- GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE
NEGEV
THE FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND
SOCIAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARTS
A POSTMODERN METAMORPHOSIS: THE
PROCESS OF MICHAEL SGAN-COHEN'S RECEPTION
INTO THE ISRAELI ART FIELD
THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE (M.A.)
RUTH RUBENSTEIN
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: DR. MERAV YERUSHALMY
DECEMBER, 2014
Acknowledgments
I would like first and foremost to thank my advisor, Dr. Merav Yerushalmy, for showing me incredible support and enlightening guidance throughout the writing of this thesis.
Leora Laor Sgan-Cohen, Michael Sgan-Cohen's widow, for her inexhaustible willingness to answer endless questions, her kind sharing of written and visual material, and her generosity in opening her home and Michael Sgan- Cohen's archive for research purposes.
Miriam Tuviah-Boneh, curator of Sgan-Cohen's first two solo exhibitions, and Itamar Levi, a key player following Sgan-Cohen's second solo show, as they openhandedly gave their time for a lengthy interview, sharing their knowledge and insights, and filling in historical gaps regarding Sgan-Cohen's exhibitions.
As I am visually impaired, I am so grateful to Alona Tzadik, librarian Ben-Gurion University, and Meir Shapira and Eran Rosenzweig, periodical department, Beit Ariela Library, Tel-Aviv, in going beyond the boundaries of their positions to help me collect written material necessary for this research.
Danny Unger, chairman of the art department, Ben-Gurion University, for his emotional care and encouragement throughout my M.A. studies and Carmelit Manor, administrative director of the arts department, Ben-Gurion University, for her attentive and endless assistance.
And finally, to my dear and beloved partner, Oded Lerman, as his emotional and loving support qualified the space to focus, research, and write this thesis.
I
Abstract
This thesis examines Michael Sgan-Cohen's reception by the Israeli art field over a 25 year time frame. It suggests that while Sgan-Cohen's signature style of referencing and reworking Jewish sources in a conceptual and theoretical manner did not change much throughout this time frame, the Israeli art field did shift in regard to their reception of his work. This move metamorphosed from an unfavorable position in 1978, to a more comprehensive stance 1994, to recognizing Sgan-Cohen as a commendable artist, in 2004.
By employing a historical approach along with a field analysis, this research examined the transformations that had transpired within the Israeli art field, circumscribing Sgan-Cohen's three solo exhibitions. As such, reading critical commentaries discussing the exhibitions and interviewing key characters from within the field, shed light not only on Sgan-Cohen's reception into the
Israeli art field, but also illuminated changes within it. Furthermore, focusing on the emergence of postmodern discourse in Israel's social spaces, and its influence on Israeli art dissertation, while framing these findings within the realm of field theory, provided a context for comprehending this changing field.
Thus, Sgan-Cohen's three solo exhibitions, spanning a two and a half decade period, served as a case study for disclosing some of the fundamental changes within the Israeli art field, as it came face to face with postmodern discourse.
II
Table of Contents
Introduction …………………………………………………………….…… 1
Chapter One: Michael Sgan-Cohen's Transition from Art Theoretician to Artist……...... 11
Introduction………………………………………………………………… 11
The 1978 Exhibition…………………………………………………..……. 12
Critical Commentary…………………………………………….…………. 16
Sgan-Cohen's Move Towards Judaism…………………………..…………. 32
Chapter Two: Pursuing the Process of Michael Sgan-Cohen's Reception: Transformations in the Israeli Art Field………………………...... 36
Introduction………………………………………..…………………… 36
The 1994 Exhibition……………………………………..……………... 37
Critical Commentary………………………………………..…………. 40
Summary…………………………………………………..…………..... 57
Epilogue………………………………………………………….... 59
The 2004 Exhibition…………………………………………………..……. 60
Critical Commentary……………………………………………………..… 61
Summary and Conclusion…………………………………….…………….. 68
Bibliography…………………………………………………….…………… 71
List of Artworks……………………………………………….……………... 78
Appendix A: The 1978 Exhibition……………………………………...…… 85
Appendix B: The 1994 Exhibition……………………………………..…….. 99
Appendix C: Artwork by Other Artists………………………….…………... 118
III
Introduction
,1978 ,(הנני) ,Fig. 1: Hinneni Print and acrylic on paper and black wooden frame, 27x36 cm.
Hinneni (Fig. 1) portrays the word, Hinneni [Hebrew], Here I Am. The letters are printed, while the vowels along with the white mark (or punctum1), seen on the lower left of the image, have been hand painted. This work caught my attention as soon as I saw it, due to its Jewish content employed in a conceptual manner. On the one hand, its minimalistic representation gave me the impression of being rather simple and uncomplicated, yet the more I thought about this piece, and read about it, the more complex it became. That is, "Here I
Am", meaning, "Here I am as an artist?" If so, why are the only physical signs of the artist seen through the hand painted vowels and the white blotch? In addition, as this image is framed in thin black wood, it has an association of an obituary
1 David Heyd, "Between Response and Responsiveness: On Michael Sgan-Cohen's "Hinneni"", ed. R. C. Washton Long, M. Baigell, and M. Heyd, Jewish Dimensions in Modern Visual Culture (Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 2009): 273-284, and Amitai Mendelsohn, "Reflective Painting- A Symposiun." Michael Sgan-Cohen: A Retrospective 1976-1999, ed. T. Michelli, (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 2004) 160-169. 1 notification, as if to say, "Here I am not"2. Furthermore, the concept of Hinneni plays a large role in the biblical story of the Binding of Isaac, and its complicated status is expanded upon by the writing of David Heyd3, a philosopher. And so, this one word conceptual image, with its multiple layers of meaning, led me to further contemplation and fascination with Michael Sgan-Cohen's art. As such, I was somewhat surprised to read the writing of Amitai Mendelsohn, head curator for the Israel Museum, as he described the Israeli art field's initial reaction to
Sgan-Cohen's art:
In 1978…his [Sgan-Cohen's] first solo exhibition opened at
Hakibbutz Gallery in Tel Aviv… these works were received in
Israel "like creatures from another planet who had stumbled into
the country by accident,4" this was due…to their direct
engagement with Judaism, in a Modernist, American,
contemporary style….the Hakibbutz exhibition did not arouse
much critical comment, with the exception of an important article
by art critic Adam Baruch5,who followed Sgan-Cohen's career
and facilitated his acceptance on the Israeli art scene6.
After reading Mendelsohn's comment, I was riddled with questions – why did the
Israeli art field react to Sgan-Cohen's art as foreign objects? How was the practice of conceptual art comprehended (or not) at the time? Why was the referencing of Judaism problematic? And finally, why, and in what way did
2 Mendelsohn, Symposium, 164. 3 Heyd, Response, 273-284. 4 Itamar, Levi, "Painting with Your Hands in Your Pocket," Michael Sgan-Cohen Paintings 1978 - To Date (Tel-Aviv: Museum Ramat Gan,1984) 9. 5 Adam Baruch, "Hayofi Hachadash, V'hacharada Hastuma," [Hebrew], "The New Beauty and the Ambiguous Anxiety," Yediot Achronot 5 Jan. 1979: 7. 6 Amitai Mendelsohn, "The Bible in Primary Colors," Michael Sgan-Cohen: A Retrospective, ed. T. Michelli (Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 2004) 171. 2
Michael Sgan-Cohen need assistance for his work to find its place within the
Israeli art field? The discrepancy between my immediate engagement with Sgan-
Cohen's work, and the field's perception of the same art as, "creatures from another planet", triggered the research presented in this thesis.
Michael Sgan-Cohen (1944 - 1999), was born in Jerusalem, on the outskirts of Rachavia, in Kfar Shmuel/Talbiah, to German-born parents. His father Meir was a renowned doctor and personal physician to the Israeli president
- Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, his mother Ruth was an amateur artist. Rachavia was populated by white collar professionals – doctors and professors of the upper middle class7.
In this reality Michael Sgan-Cohen grew up. He graduated from Leyada – a highly regarded private school in Jerusalem8, and went on to serve as an officer for the Israeli intelligence. After reading art history and philosophy at the
Hebrew University, he moved to California in 1969 to further his education, graduating with an M.A. in art history from UCLA. Relocating to New York,
Sgan-Cohen continued his studies, completing his Ph.D. in art history from
CUNY in 1989 and returned to live in Israel in 1987, two years prior to completing his dissertation.
In parallel to advancing his education, Sgan-Cohen worked in several areas of the art field. He taught at Brooklyn College in New York, Bezalel
College of Art in Jerusalem, and Haifa University. He worked as an art critic for various newspapers and art magazines in Israel and abroad - Ha’aretz, Kav, Art
7 Amnon Ramon, Doctor Mul Doctor Gar, [Hebrew], Doctor Opposite Doctor Lives, (Jerusalem: Yad Yishak Ben Zvi, 1988). 8 "Leyada,"- is a Hebrew University High School, (literally "next to"), a semi-private high school established in 1935 by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 3
Forum, Art in America and Shishi, and served as a curator for several prominent
Israeli artists including Leah Nikel and Yechiel Shemi. And so, whether in the role of art historian, art theoretician, art critic, art teacher or curator, prior to
1978, Michael Sgan-Cohen’s position within the Israeli art field was firmly grounded in the theoretical and discursive realm of the art field.
In 1977, one year preceding his first exhibition, Sgan-Cohen published his now infamous article9, whereby he called for Israeli art to return to its Jewish sources, asserting twelve explicit assumptions as the foundation for such an endeavor. At the time, not many critics within the Israeli art field responded to his call for a Jewish renaissance, however years later, this same text became a profound key for understanding Sgan-Cohen's own artistic practice. In many ways this writing can now be regarded as Sgan-Cohen's artist statement– one which preceded his actual artistic work.
Following the 1978 exhibition, Sgan-Cohen received limited and yet contradictory reviews from the Israeli art field. On the one hand, Adam Baruch
(1945 –2008), a renowned art critic for Yediot Achronot at the time, exalted
Sgan-Cohen’s art10, while Nissim Mevurach (1935-2014), an essayist and art critic for Ha'aretz, described this exhibit as "nonsense"11, and Talia Rappaport, art critic for Davar labeled it as "pretentious"12.
Between 1981 and 1994, Sgan-Cohen participated in 25 group exhibitions, culminating in 1994, with his second solo show mounted in the
9 Michael Sgan-Cohen, "Hanachot Bedavar, Efsharut Leydata Shel Omanut Yehudit- Israelit," [Hebrew], "Propositions Concerning a Possible Birth of Jewish Israeli Art," Ma'asef Jerusalem (1977): 79-88. 10 Baruch, Beauty, 7. 11 Nissim Mevurach, "Shemen Kik," [Hebrew], "Castor Oil," Ha'aretz 12 Jan. 1979: 24. 12 Talia Rappaport, "Obbsesia Ta’nachit," [Hebrew], "Biblical Obsession," Davar 29 Dec. 1978: 21. 4
Ramat Gan Museum for Israeli Art. This exhibition was accompanied by a modest catalogue, and aroused a vast amount of critical interest in comparison to the first show. Two new key players supporting Sgan-Cohen's work surfaced following this exhibit: Itamar Levi– a psychologist, art critic and curator who wrote for Ha'aretz praised Sgan-Cohen's grounding of Jewish texts and the
Hebrew language within contemporary aesthetic practice13; and Chaim Lusky– a philosopher, artist and teacher, suggested that this exhibition may have created a "definitive turning point in the history of local Israeli art14".
Between the years 1994 and 1999, Sgan-Cohen participated in a further
23 group exhibitions as well as two exhibitions with one fellow artist. Following his untimely death in 1999, Sgan-Cohen's work continued to be widely exhibited both in Israel and abroad in numerous institutions. A third solo exhibit - an extensive retrospective was mounted in the Israel Museum in 2004.
The limited academic research investigating Sgan-Cohen's art generally analyzed and interpreted his artwork and personal writing. To the best of my knowledge, no academic inquiry has examined Sgan-Cohen's process of reception into the Israeli art field, as he transitioned from the world of theoretical art discourse into the field of aesthetic practice. Moreover, no research has questioned the transformations that took place in Sgan-Cohen's reception - from an initial marginalization of the artist by the Israeli art world, only later to embrace him. Furthermore, the majority of the writings discussing Sgan-Cohen's artwork were not based on any systematic research but rather provided a more general (and often unsubstantiated) reading of his works.
13 Itamar Levi, "Ha’Mifal Le’Achiyat Ha’Safa,” [Hebrew], “The Factory for Reviving the Language," Ha’aartetz 8 Apr. 1994: 53. 1414 Chaim Lusky, "Olam Associativi," [Hebrew], "Associative World," Yediot Achronot 27 May 1994: 31. 5
As such, it is the intention of this thesis to research and inquire into the progression of Sgan-Cohen’s reception into the Israeli art field, as he transitioned from the world of theoretical art discourse into the field of aesthetic practice. As this endeavor will journey through and around Sgan-Cohen's three solo exhibits, covering a 25 year time frame, the reception of Sgan-Cohen's work will serve as a case study for disclosing some of the changes within the Israeli art field.
To achieve this goal, the present thesis will adopt a historical approach along with a field analysis, in an effort to map the transforming Israeli art discourse. Oral and written history will serve as a foundation for collecting undocumented and documented information. Interviewing Miriam Tuviah-
Boneh, the curator of both the 1978 and 1994 exhibit, as well as talking to Itamar
Levi, will provide as yet un-recorded information relevant to Sgan-Cohen's reception. In addition, analyzing critical commentaries from local newspapers, and catalogue articles from the 1994 and the 2004 exhibitions, will not only address the explicit opinions of key players within the Israeli art field regarding
Sgan-Cohen's work, but will also shed light upon the field's inner working and structuring of the aesthetic practice in Israel.
As Sgan-Cohen's signature style did not change much over the time frame in which he worked as an artist, and as the employment and reworking of Jewish sources in a conceptual and theoretical manner remained a pronounced characteristic of his work, exploring the Israeli art world's position in regard to both Jewish culture and conceptual art is crucial for understanding the progression of Sgan-Cohen's reception. As such, an examination of conceptual art in Israel and elsewhere, as well as the Israeli art field's relationship (or neglect) of Jewish sources will be undertaken here. Along these lines, the
6 writings of Benjamin Buchloh, researcher of modern art, as he debated the legacy of Duchamp, and Dalia Manor, art historian and curator, as well as David
Sperber, art historian and curator, as they discussed the interface of Israeli art and
Judaism, will be employed, amongst others.
Another significant issue prevalent in Sgan-Cohen's reception concerns his transition from theoretician to artist. As such, the writing of Carolyn Jones, professor of art history will be analyzed, as she discussed Greenberg's intervention with the aesthetic practice, along with the work of James Elkins, art historian and critic, as he shed light upon the division between theory and practice, will be employed. As relatively little material has been written about the
Israeli art world's position regarding this topic, some of the key developments outlined by the art historians mentioned above, will assist in examining Sgan-
Cohen's process of reception.
In regard to field analysis, this research will inquire into changes transpiring in the Israeli cultural sphere brought on by the inception of postmodernism in the early 1990s, in particular, the role of Jewish culture within
Israeli society. As follows, the writings of Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, historian, as he explored the concepts upon which Zionism was based- "the negation of exile", and Ella Shohat, professor of cultural studies, in her critique of the Zionist hegemonic narratives, amidst others, will be acknowledged.
Finally, analyzing and expounding upon the gathered material, while framing these findings within the realm of field theory, will provide a context for comprehending and following the changing Israeli art field.
7
The first chapter of this thesis will focus upon the reception of Sgan-
Cohen's first solo exhibition, 1978, and will offer a general description of the show. To the best of my knowledge, there is no visual documentation found regarding this exhibit. However, a detailed sketched floor map, designed by
Sgan-Cohen, will assist this research in reconstructing most of the artwork displayed15, and in this manner will qualify a visual record of Sgan-Cohen's first solo exhibition.
Following the description, this chapter will discuss the three controversial articles found encompassing this exhibition written by Talia Rappaport, Nissim
Mevurach and Adam Baruch. With these pieces reflecting different understandings (or lack of), regarding Sgan-Cohen's art, issues such as the practice of conceptual art, and his transition from theoretician to artist will be conversed. As these articles are the only found writings referencing the 1978 exhibition, they will be supplemented by other relevant texts written by these critics and others. In this manner, light will be shed not only on the critics' personal comprehension of Sgan-Cohen's aesthetic practice, but will also illuminate underlying issues concerning the Israeli art field at the time.
The chapter will end with two more pieces addressing Sgan-Cohen's work, published by Baruch in the early 1980s. As these publications highlight and expound upon Sgan-Cohen's employment of Jewish material, at a time when
Israel's aesthetic practice was predominantly secular, they will offer additional information in regard to Sgan-Cohen's process of reception.
15 Most of the artwork displayed in the 1978 exhibition, may be found in Appendix A. 8
Chapter two will continue to follow Sgan-Cohen's reception, this time in response to his second solo exhibit 1994. The three issues discussed in the first chapter - conceptual art, the transition from theoretician to artist, and the role of
Jewish sources within Israel's art field will be expanded and discussed in this chapter – offering insights into the cultural and historical changes that the Israeli art field had undergone during the decade and a half that had elapsed since Sgan-
Cohen's first exhibition.
The first part of this chapter will focus on Sgan-Cohen's exhibition, with the aid of a video recording filmed by Sgan-Cohen's widow, Leora Laor16, which has not been documented or researched until now. As this recording shows Sgan-
Cohen explaining his exhibit to his art students, it has enabled an almost full reconstruction of the exhibition– allowing for a detailed description and analysis of this show and its artworks, which were only partially documented in the catalogue17.
Following this description, the chapter will examine (the more profuse) critical commentary addressing the exhibition, and analyze once again the underlying issues and frameworks which shape and are being shaped through the reception of Sgan-Cohen's work. As new key characters (as well as older players) surfaced and resurfaced, they offered new understandings and insights regarding
Sgan-Cohen's art, qualifying new methods and tools for interpretation.
In an effort to comprehend the new developments in Sgan-Cohen's reception, the second section of this chapter will explore the inception of Israeli postmodern discourse in the early 1990s. This investigation will highlight the
16 Courtesy of the Israel Museum. 17 The images displayed in the 1994 solo exhibition may be seen in Appendix B. 9 major structural changes transpiring not only in Israeli art discourse and practice, but also further afield, in Israel's culture and society.
The final section of this thesis - an epilogue will briefly look at Sgan-
Cohen's retrospective exhibition, 2004. Focusing on two major articles published in the exhibition's accompanying catalogue, the epilogue will not only provide a full-scale analysis of the exhibition's reception, but will also offer some useful insights for understanding the changes that transpired in regard to Sgan-Cohen's work. Furthermore, these writings will additionally assist in comprehending more general modifications within the Israeli art field that took place between
1994 and 2004, and may also serve as a foundation for further research.
10
Chapter One
Michael Sgan-Cohen's Transition from Art Theoretician to Artist
Introduction
This chapter will focus on the reception of Michael Sgan-Cohen's first solo exhibit in 1978 by the Israeli art field. Prior to this exhibition, Sgan-Cohen was known to the Israeli art field as an art critic, art historian and art teacher.
Following the show, controversy erupted amid the Israeli art critics concerning the legitimacy of Sgan-Cohen's aesthetic practice, and the manner in which he chose to represent his subject matter. As such, the first section of this chapter will describe the 1978 show, while the second part will look at the critical commentary addressing this exhibition. This reading aims to shed light on Sgan-
Cohen's reception as he transitioned from theoretician to artist, in addition to illuminating underlying issues concerning the Israeli art field at the time.
11
The 1978 Exhibition
Sgan-Cohen's first solo exhibit, "Painting and Sculpture" was mounted in the Kibbutz Gallery, December 1978, and was curated by Miriam Tuviah-Boneh
(Fig. 2: Official exhibition announcement).
Fig. 2: The official announcement for the 1978 exhibit, handwritten by Michael Sgan-Cohen18.
This exhibition came about as Sgan-Cohen approached Tuviah-Boneh, seeking her interest in exhibiting his art. In an interview with Tuviah-Boneh conducted last year at her home, Tuviah-Boneh recalled her initial meeting with
Sgan-Cohen, when she curated the exhibition, "Art and Politics" at the Kibbutz
Gallery, in March 1978. Sgan-Cohen had contributed to this exhibition by transcribing the biblical text of Micha 3: 9-12, directly onto the gallery wall.
However, when wrapping up the exhibit and repainting the gallery wall, Tuviah-
Boneh remembered this transcription as refusing to erase itself, "…a mystical text that insisted upon resurfacing in an eerie, uncanny manner"19.
As mentioned above, Sgan-Cohen lived in New York from 1969 to 1987,
18 Courtesy of Leora Laor Sgan-Cohen. 19 Recorded interview between Ruti Rubenstein and Miriam Tuviah-Boneh, March, 2013. 12 but he had returned to Israel for a year in 1977. During this year, he spent many hours "hanging around" the Kibbutz Gallery according to Tuviah-Boneh, which subsequently led to his request that she view his work. Reminiscing Tuviah-
Boneh purported,
I said yes...when viewing his art, it shook my core, “ze asah li
boom”, [Hebrew], I saw an artist whoattempted to create a new
iconography. He took texts from our Bible and Jewish sources,
giving them visual expression... Michael was different in that he
searched to find new options for artistic expression by way of
Jewish texts creating local authentic art...I gave him a stage. I
didn’t research every art piece he exhibited in the gallery, I
trusted him as he was an art historian20.
Affected by his work, and recognizing his intellectual abilities as an academically trained art historian, Tuviah-Boneh set the stage for Sgan-Cohen's first solo exhibition, and thus inaugurated his transition from the world of art discourse into the field of aesthetic practice.
As Tuviah-Boneh had been fired from the Kibbutz Gallery prior to curating this exhibition, Sgan-Cohen stepped in and curated it himself. However, having to return to New York before the mounting of this show, Sgan-Cohen handed over the curatorial reins to his close childhood friend, David
Tartakover21- a graphic designer and curator. Tartakover meticulously followed
Sgan-Cohen's detailed design for the show (Fig. 3) that distinctly marked the location of each piece within the gallery, and in this manner, mounted the exhibition in accordance with Sgan-Cohen's original vision.
20 Interview, Tuviah-Boneh. 21 Telephone interview between Ruti Rubenstein and David Tartakover, 22 Aug. 2013. 13
Fig. 3: Sgan-Cohen's clearly marked floor map of the 1978 exhibition, mounted in the Kibbutz Gallery22.
To the best of my knowledge, very little documentation of this exhibition remains today, rendering this floor map the most detailed source of information available.
Sgan-Cohen's exhibition spread over two large rectangular rooms. The entrance room was 30.70 sq. m in size and the second, central space was 50.20 sq. m. These two spaces were separated by a smaller inner room, creating two narrow passageways, one on either side. In this fashion, the viewer was able to meander between the two larger spaces, by way of either of the two corridors
Fig. 4: General floor map of the Kibbutz Gallery, showing the corridors connecting between the two exhibitory spaces.
22 Courtesy of Leora Laor Sgan-Cohen. 14
The exhibition displayed twenty-seven art pieces, twenty-six of which referenced the Jewish sources. The entrance room was curated more sparsely portraying six works of art - one ready-made, two assemblages, one collage and two text images. The second space was dominated by visual text – the transcribed series of the Biblical Twelve Minor Prophets, and a variety of other biblical transcriptions created in different mediums. Also displayed in this second space was a ready-made Bible, which was placed upon a pedestal in the middle of the room and portrayed as a centerpiece (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5: Torah Prophets Writings ,Felt pen on Bible ,1978 ,(תורה נביאים כתובים) ,(The Hebrew Bible) 15x10x4 cm.
In addition to an abundance of visual Jewish writing, Sgan-Cohen's work was also dominated by its use of primary colors - red, blue and yellow. This was especially noticeable in the larger space, as the primary colored images were juxtaposed against the monochrome Twelve Minor Prophets. A visual exemplification of Sgan-Cohen's juxtaposition may be seen in Fig. 6 and 7, as this demonstration mimics Sgan-Cohen's detailed sketched map23.
23 The juxtaposition of Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 has been reconstructed according to Sgan- Cohen's detailed floor map seen in Fig. 3. 15
,Fig. 7: So Says the Lord ,1978 ,(נחום) ,Fig. 6: Nahum ,1978 ,(כה אמר ה') ,Oil sticks on paper 67x100 cm. Acrylic on paper, 59X45 cm.
Critical Commentary
The 1978 exhibition served not only as Sgan-Cohen's transition from the world of theoretical art discourse into the field of artistic practice, but also launched his reception as an artistW by the Israeli art field. As such, the limited, yet controversial critical commentary circumscribing this show is quite significant. Additionally, the wide differences in the critics’ approach to Sgan-
Cohen's work will be explored, not only for their own sake, but also in order to understand some of the issues underlying the Israeli art world at the time.
The first critical review in regard to this exhibition was published one week after the opening, on the 29th December 1978. This critique titled "Biblical
Obsession" [Hebrew], was written by Talia Rappaport - an art critic writing for the daily newspaper, Davar. In her review, Rappaport separated Sgan-Cohen's work into two aesthetic groups which she referred to as - "Language Art" and
"conceptual art". In her view of the conceptual artworks Rappaport suggested that:
16
The displayed images arouse a sense of riddles and codes that
need to be deciphered. Evidence hinting at political comment
seems prominent within these pieces, but their suggestions in my
opinion lack clarity…for example…the image of Moses…the
golden calf…the medicine cabinet…and the Bible24.
Sgan-Cohen's practice of conceptual art in Rappaport's opinion, was represented by both text and image, as seen in, "the golden calf" and "the image of Moses"
(Appendix A: Fig 15, 25), and by his ready-made objects - "the medicine cabinet", The Ark of the Covenant, 1978 (Appendix A: Fig. 22), "and the Bible" -
Torah Prophets Writings (The Hebrew Bible), 1978 (Fig. 5). According to
Rappaport, as these works did not reveal a clear message but only vaguely alluded to Israel's current affairs, they remained almost indecipherable.
Sgan-Cohen's second aesthetic group of artwork, coined by Rappaport as
"Language Art", was confusing, as she described it as more painterly:
In a different artistic series he [Sgan-Cohen] highlights part of
words by way of miniature illustrations in the body of the text
(sun, moon, sword, cloud, heart etc.)...in contrast to his other
works, these pieces do not portray pretentious ideas as they reveal
‘innocent’ aesthetics and sophisticated sketching. The central
[artistic] means - the handwriting itself, demonstrates an
abundance of visual options: the form layout within the frame,
size, direction, density, intensity and the textural rhythm. These
factors characterize the individuality of each piece in a similar
24 Rappaport, Obsession, 21. 17
fashion to the way line and texture function in conventional art. In
this manner, if one makes an effort, one may find even in this
‘avant-garde’ exhibition, traces of good old established
painting25.
Following Rappaport's convoluted terminology it seems "Language Art" was deemed in her review as entirely separate from conceptual art, in stark opposition to the usual links drawn both in artistic practice and theory between the two26. In her view, as this collection was comprised of "miniature illustrations in the body of the text", creating a definite, tautological relationship between the visual image and the written word27, it seems that Rappaport was referring to Sgan-Cohen's biblical series of the Twelve Minor Prophets, as exemplified in Fig. 8 - a detail from Habakkuk, one of the Twelve Minor Prophets, portraying "miniature illustrations in the body of the text (sun, moon, sword…)", adjacent to the words they represented.
sun moon
sword
,1978 ,(חבקוק) Fig 8: Detail from Habakkuk Oil sticks on paper, 2.97 X 0.94 cm.
25 Rappaport, Obsession, 21. 26 Charles Harrison, Conceptual Art and Painting: Further Essays on Art & Language (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001): 35-37. 27 For an in-depth discussion on tautology, see "Conceptual Art and the Reception of Duchamp," Benjamin Buchloh et al. October 70 (Autumn 1994): 135-137. 18
As Rappaport was clear in her favoring the more painterly work over what she saw as overtly theoretical and political work in Sgan Cohen's developing oeuvre, she labeled them as, "sophisticated sketching" and "good old established painting".
As follows, in her role as an art critic, Rappaport it seems, expected to use formalist analysis in order to interpret Sgan-Cohen's work, but as this method of interpretation was not suitable for analyzing conceptual artwork, Rappaport seemed to be lost for words, rendering these works as "pretentious".
In summing up Sgan-Cohen's 1978 exhibition, Rappaport asserted:
In my opinion this exhibit was unsuccessful in portraying its
message as it turns out that most of the public did not comprehend
'what he [Sgan-Cohen] actually wanted to say '28.
Not only did Rappaport have difficulty in comprehending Sgan-Cohen's work, she seemed to detect that the public had a similar struggle. As it is not exactly clear what the public did and did not understand from the exhibition, as will be seen farther along the chapter, Rappaport's projection of her own views onto the public were not entirely mistaken, but were also not entirely correct.
In order to establish a better understanding of Rappaport's position regarding the practice of conceptual art, and her preference for formal analysis, a look at her review of a group exhibition that was held in the Julie M. Gallery,
Tel-Aviv, February 1978, will be explored. In this critique, Rappaport focused on two artists - Smadar Eliasaf and Yael Reshef, both active artists since the 1970s.
Eliasaf worked originally in the medium of photography and later as an abstract
28 Rappaport, Obsession, 21. 19 painter, while Reshef, who also began her career in photography and moved onto painting, has, in recent years, worked mostly in digital art. In her review of
Eliasaf's conceptual mixed media artwork, Rappaport claimed:
In one work, letters were added to words, rendering them
partially unclear...next to them, a sketched chair from an aerial
perspective, and a series of strange photographs that reflected a
frail appearance of the artist standing on her head. If only this
meaningless combination would have been endowed with
impressive visual values, or had managed to weave some kind of
relationship between these two languages - form and verbal...then
maybe it would have worked, but as this was not the case, the
outcome appears to be extremely superficial29.
Describing Eliasaf's conceptual work as, "superficial" underscored Rappaport's ongoing uneasiness with the conceptual art practice. As such, this review enables a better understanding of what Rappaport looked for (and for the most part, did not find in Sgan-Cohen's or in Eliasaf's work), in "good" art: either "impressive visual values", or at least a deep connection between text and image.
In her critique of Reshef's photographs, Rappaport’s text highlighted her preference for formalist aesthetics:
Her [Yael Reshef] compositions are organized aesthetically,
symmetrically and statically, almost classic in their nature...these
photographs are intertwined into a geometric stable
structure...the organized composition is based upon few simple
29 Talia Rappaport, “Nisyonot post musagit,” [Hebrew], “Attempts in Post- Conceptualism,” Davar 17 Feb. 1978: 17. 20
elementary forms…and quiet, “noble” harmonious tones…
rendering the artwork… very pleasing for the eye30.
In her reading of Reshef's photographs, Rappaport focused on their formal elements - composition, form and color, labeling this work as, "harmonious", and
"pleasing to the eye".
In a similar fashion to Rappaport, Nissim Mevurach - artist, art historian and art critic, in his critique of Sgan-Cohen's 1978 exhibition published in
Ha'aretz, also expressed a discomfort with the practice of conceptual art:
Sgan-Cohen's public presence …arouses mixed emotions
of...nausea...and astonishment....nausea - pertaining to the
repulsive manner in which...awkward objects that lacked visual
aesthetic value, saturated with philosophical social political
meaning were presented... this trivial contemplation...could have
been more effective had it received expression in a more
appropriate verbal medium, one more suitable for such
journalistic topic31.
Describing Sgan-Cohen's work as "awkward objects that lacked visual aesthetic value", and labeling his theoretical views as insignificant to his aesthetic practice, attested to Mevurach's formalist understanding of visual art as being entirely separate from text and theory.
Mevurach's comprehension of writing and theory, and their role within the visual arts, can also be seen in his critique regarding the work of Mordechai
30 Rappaport, Attempt, 17. 31 Mevurach, Shemen, 24. 21
Moreh - a surrealistic artist. In his review of Moreh's exhibition in 197932,
Mevurach applauded Moreh’s technical woodcut skills, yet professed to be appalled when he was confronted with what he claimed to be, "worrying signs of texts"33. Mevurach advised Moreh by saying, "…try your [textual] skill at poetry or song, but [to] leave them out of the woodcuts34".
Mevurach’s adversity to the inclusion of writing within Sgan-Cohen's visual art works was compounded by Sgan-Cohen's shift from his role as an art theorist to that of a practicing artist:
[I am] astonished that this presenter [Sgan-Cohen]…who has
been crowned by the academy…could produce such artistic
nonsense35.
As to what exactly Mevurach was proposing by this comment is not entirely clear
- perhaps he expected Sgan-Cohen to be a better artist as he was a "crowned scholar". Maybe Mevurach anticipated that Sgan-Cohen should have known better than to merge theory with praxis, or dare to cross over into the realm of aesthetic practice, as he was a well-educated theoretician. Whatever the cause, it is quite evident that Mevurach was stunned by Sgan-Cohen's artwork, perceiving it as "nonsense".
Discussing the complex relationship between the art critic and the artist was heightened by Carolyn Jones, professor of art history, in "Eyesight Alone", published in 200536. In her book, Jones focused on the shocked reaction of the
32 Museo Ebraico di Venezia, “Animals and Men in the Drawings and Prints of Mordecai Moreh: Esteve Gallery, Paris, 1979. 33 David Raf, "Talush B'Paris," [Hebrew], "Detached in Paris," Ha'artez 26 Sept. 2004. 34 Raf, 2004. 35 Mevurach, Shemen, 24. 36 Caroline A. Jones, Eyesight Alone: Clement Greenberg's Modernism and the Bureaucratization of the Senses (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005): 4-6. 22
American art field towards Clement Greenberg's intervention with the work of the artist. The fact that an art critic dared to strip paint, stretch unstretched canvases, change image orientation, and slice what he thought to be excess canvas, crossed un-crossable lines, even amongst Greenberg's strongest supporters. The appropriate "place" of the critic at the time, according to the
American art field, Jones claimed, was situated firmly on the discursive side of the field, and well separated from the realm of the aesthetic practice - the location of the artist37.
And so, it may be suggested that Mevurach, in his review of Sgan-
Cohen's exhibition, perhaps reflected a similar stance to that of the American art field in regard to the place of the art critic and the artist, in that they should remain in their own separate domains.
In order to uncover Mevurach's underlying conceptions pertaining to the aesthetic practice, another one of his writings will be analyzed, although published much later in 2006 - this essay appears to shed light on Mevurach's belief regarding the nature of "good" art.
In this publication, Mevurach attended to the two most important revolutions in art in his opinion - one favorable, the Renaissance, and the other, unfavorable - the rise of Duchamp. In regard to the Renaissance, Mevurach claimed:
This period is eminent for its unique questioning regarding the
human being...reaching higher levels of representative skill of the
naked body and emotion, especially through oil paint dexterity...at
37 Jones, 4-6. 23
the end of the 16th century38.
In disclosing the rise of Duchamp, Mevurach asserted:
[The second revolution] deserted the discipline of the visual arts,
its underlying foundation is worthless and degrading; its essence
reflects an inadequacy of the necessary basic skill such as,
qualitative sketching, the ability to apply different types of paint in
a harmonious manner, an inability to paint from nature while
attempting to maintain its form, and more...in this manner, these
“creators” are mainly guided by their handicap. Moreover, they
have a strong urge to express thoughts pertaining to social issues,
state, psychology and so forth, through inappropriate tools for
such topics. This fatal process began with the early 20th century
when Marcel Duchamp...displaying his industrial product, the
urinal, as his artistic practice39.
Stated clearly, Mevurach outlined his understanding of art and aesthetics: representative mimetic skills were in his eyes "good" art, while thoughts, philosophical ideas, and the readymade did not belong in the artistic domain.
As such, through this writing, Mevurach's understanding or misunderstanding of Sgan-Cohen's 1978 exhibition were better clarified. That is,
Sgan-Cohen's artwork represented all that Mevurach disapproved of in the aesthetic practice - theory and readymade objects.
Rappaport and Mevurach were not alone in their difficulties with the
38 Nissim Mevurach, "Al Shtey Mahapachot B'omanut Ha'chazutit," [Hebrew], "On Two Revolutions in the Visual Arts," Kaveret 13 (2006): 66-68. 39 Mevurach, Revolution, 67. 24 practice of conceptual art in Israel during the 1970s. In an email correspondence with Sara Breitberg-Semel, former chief curator of the Tel-Aviv Museum last year, she recalled in hindsight her lack of acknowledgement of Michal Na'aman's conceptual art practice:
It is hard for me to remember what I saw then in Michal
Na'aman's work….but I can see from what I wrote that I do not
acknowledge her move towards conceptual and linguistic work, as
I discuss topics such as composition, and the exhibitory space,
and do not relate to Michal's implementation of language40.
It is interesting to note that while conceptual art discourse was not yet commonplace in the Israeli art field in the 1970s, it was already somewhat established in the United States, where Sgan-Cohen studied and worked as an art historian at the time. It seems therefore fair to propose that Sgan-Cohen was probably not only familiar with the principles of conceptual art practice, but was most likely to have been acquainted with its various models.
Reading through the literature on conceptual art practices of American art in the 70s, it is not difficult to see how Sgan-Cohen's work attended to many of the key issues of this aesthetic at the time. Benjamin Buchloh, professor of modern art, in his writing, "Conceptual Art 1962-1969", published in October,
1990, and Liz Kotz, art historian and critic, in her book, "Words to be Looked at:
Language in 1960s Art", published in 2007, both emphasized the use of language in the aesthetic practice. Buchloh shed light on the replacing of the spatial and
40 In an email correspondence between myself and Sara Breitberg-Semel, 2013, I sent Breitberg-Semel a copy of the article she had written for the national newspapers, Davar, "Ten Young Artists," [Hebrew], in an effort to understand her critical commentary referencing Michal Na'aman's work in 1973. 25 perceptual experience of an object with linguistics41, while Kotz focused on the displacement of words, phrases and texts, claiming that this was not a static process, but rather one that occurred in time and space42. These same issues are evident in Sgan-Cohen's work. With the exhibition displaying a dominance of visual text at the end of the 1970s, Sgan-Cohen's art could be described as having replaced the spatial and perceptual experience with linguistics. Furthermore, as
Sgan-Cohen's displacement of ancient Biblical text alluded to Israeli current affairs, it may perhaps point to Sgan-Cohen's jumping from the "big place" - the public and mythical setting, according to the definitions proposed by Zali
Gurevitch and Gideon Aran43, to the "small place" - the home, the environment of the social and the political. In this manner, moving between these two places suggests that Sgan-Cohen's art was grounded in a temporal model.
Being acquainted with the various models of conceptual art may be recognized when comparing Sgan-Cohen's art to the work of the Art & Language group. Although this movement was formed in England during the late 1960s, it soon incorporated American members such as Joseph Kosuth44, Mayo Thompson and Michael Corris, and had a profound influence on the conceptual art practice in America and beyond45.
In general, the early artwork of Art & Language represented essayistic elements consisting of text on printed paper and various other surfaces. In
41 Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, “Conceptual Art 1962-1969: From the Aesthetic of Administration to the Critique of Institutions,” October 55 (Winter 1990): 107. 42 Liz Kotz, Words to be Looked at: Language in 1960s Art (MA: MIT Press, 2007): 4. 43 Zali Gurevitch, Gideon Aran, "The Land of Israel: Myth and Phenomenon," Studies in Contemporary Jewry 10 (1994): 19S-220. 44 Joseph Kosuth was not only the editor of the Art-Language magazine in America, but furthermore, participated in the show exhibited in Documenta 5 - Anna Bentkowska-Kafel, et al. Digital Visual Culture: Theory and Practice, (Bristol: Intellect Books, 2009): 104. 45 Charles Green, The Third Hand: Collaboration in Art from Conceptualism to Postmodernism (Minnesota: UNSW Press, 2001): 48. 26 addition, the group's work was marked by a tendency to provoke open and reflexive enquiry, and promote a social base in shared conversation46. Looking closer at Sgan-Cohen's art seems to reveal similar tendencies. For instance, in
Hear I Pray You, 1978 (Appendix A: Fig. 20), Sgan-Cohen's handwritten transcribed text depicts accentuated phrases and words within the text in various ways - size, density, direction, rhythm and colors, not unlike Art & Language -
77 Sentences, 1974, and Shouting Men, 1974 (Appendix C: Fig. 2, 3). Although
Hear I Pray You does portray a biblical transcription, its appearance is not far removed from that of an essay. In another example, Ha'aretz, 1978, (Appendix
A: Fig. 27), also depicting a biblical transcription - Book of Numbers 33:1-34:19, was transcribed by Sgan-Cohen onto a blank sheet of Ha'aretz newspaper, as it was published during the printing press strike in 1978. As this text describes the journey of the Israelites from Egypt to the Promised Land, and references the country's borders and their struggles with the local people, it could be said to offer a social base in shared conversation, as well as provoking open and reflexive political questioning.
Comparing Sgan-Cohen's work to that of Joseph Kossuth perhaps offers another conceptual model that Sgan-Cohen may have been familiar with. In this work, Habakkuk, 1978 (exemplified above in Fig. 9), depicting a tautological representation of the words and illustrations of a sun, moon and sword, may conceivably be said to trigger an association with Kosuth's infamous image of
One and Tree Chairs, 1965 (Appendix C: Fig. 1). As Kosuth portrayed a tautological connection between the written and visual representation of a chair, demonstrating how an artwork can maintain its idea despite changes to its
46 Roberta Smith, Conceptual Art: Concepts on Modern Art, ed. Nikos Stangos (New York: Harper and Row, 1981): 264, and Harrison, 53. 27 elements, so perhaps Sgan-Cohen embodied his thoughts, either by transcribing or illustrating them in his biblical series of the Twelve Minor Prophets.
Thus, Sgan-Cohen's conceptual practices, which may have been more easily conceptualized within the art works of the time in America, found in Israel a field of art, which was only just beginning to understand this practice and show an interest in it.
The third and final commentary on Sgan-Cohen’s exhibition came from
Adam Baruch. Baruch was born in Mea Shearim, and had transitioned from the religious world into the secular realm. Graduating in law from the Hebrew
University, Baruch became an art critic and literary essayist, publishing articles in several of Israel's daily newspapers, weekend cultural supplements, and prominent art magazines. Baruch's critical career qualified him recognition as a leading authority in the Israeli art field4748.
In his writing published in Yediot Achronot, two weeks after the opening of the 1978 exhibition, Baruch began his review as follows:
Michael Sgan-Cohen is a Dr. of Art History, he sometimes writes
art critiques for Ha'aretz, he is a lecturer...at Haifa University
and Brooklyn College, he has published articles in Art in
America, Musag, and wrote the opening catalogue article for
47 Joseph Galrom-Goldschlager, “Adam Baruch,” Hebrew Literature: A Bio- Bibliographical Lexicon, 20 Sept. 2011
Pinchas Cohen-Gan’s Tel Aviv Museum exhibit...in other words,
Dr. Sgan-Cohen knows all that there is to know regarding art
theory that has transpired over the last two decades49.
As can be seen, Baruch not only acknowledged but also emphasized Sgan-
Cohen's role as a well-read theoretician, even adding the title of Dr. to his name, although he had not yet completed his Ph.D. dissertation at the time.
Turning his attention to the relationship between Sgan-Cohen's theoretical and aesthetic practice, Baruch asserted:
The truth of the artist Michael Sgan-Cohen…lies in the message,
not in the aesthetic outcome... his use of actual
handwriting...augments the message through its internal
characteristics...by way of varying levels of concentration,
dispersion and highlights...if one has ever opened a book of the
Gemara50...or at least is familiar with the culture of footnotes,
their graphic style, density and highlights...will see that this is one
of the sensations exploited in Sgan-Cohen’s handwriting51.
Labeling Sgan-Cohen as an "artist" in a nonchalant fashion, attested to Baruch's acknowledgement of Sgan-Cohen's transition from theoretician to artist, formulating it as a non-issue, and in direct opposition to Mevurach's position. As he continued, by comparing Sgan-Cohen's aesthetic practice to that of the
Gemara and the culture of footnotes, light was shed not only on Baruch's
49 Baruch, Beauty, 7. 50 The Gemara references teachings by the Rabbis, following the destruction of the Second Temple, and has come to be known as Rabbinical Judaism. "Gemerra" Def. MyJewishLearning. 28 Aug. 2013
Baruch’s understanding of a multi layered system of deductive meanings engaged in Sgan-Cohen's artwork. That is, a complex reading that drew from both Jewish and academic sources, which, at the time, were both frowned upon by the Israeli art world.
Continuing, Baruch focused on Sgan-Cohen's aesthetics, while explicating his own formulations of contemporary aesthetics:
Dr. Sgan-Cohen displays posters and slogans, with a social/or
political message. His means are artistic. In defining “artistic” I
mean; the gallery, the actual objects that have been framed and
hung for display, the sketching, the writing, the compositions,
standard formats, aesthetic care... and hovering above all, “the
result” of the whole exhibit: inevitable and undeniable significant
aesthetics52.
Thus, while Mevurach claimed that Sgan-Cohen’s philosophical ideas hampered his aesthetic practice, and Rappaport rendered Sgan-Cohen's political allusions as pretentious, Baruch exalted both. This concurred well with Baruch's more general approach to the aesthetic practice as explained here concisely – an approach which combined both conceptual art and Greenbergian formalism into one practice, as Baruch's approved list aesthetics included: the gallery, framed objects, style of display, sketching, composition, and so on.
In comparison to Rappaport and Mevurach, Baruch appeared to be more
52 Baruch, Beauty, 7. 30 sympathetic to the nature of conceptual art:
This aesthetic will be translated in this article as “beauty” which
can be defined as “new beauty” seen as part of Modern Art...with
one of its footnotes seen through the elevated artistic value of the
secular object, as was defined by the Dada... the concept of “new
beauty” will be one the principal points of discussion pertaining
to Sgan-Cohen’s art53.
Baruch viewed Sgan-Cohen's practice of conceptual art as a particular version of the conceptual practice - as a footnote of modern art. Baruch, in his reading of
Sgan-Cohen's art, employed the vocabulary of modernism- "beauty", and labeled it as having its own form of beauty, "new beauty". It is interesting to see that while Mevurach perceived Duchamp’s ready-made as marking the end of art,
Baruch saw the Dada movement as having had a positive and fruitful influence on art, believing that its underlying principles, and the employment of the
"secular" object, had had a profound and beneficial influence on Sgan-Cohen's work.
When expounding upon his terminology of "beauty/new-beauty", Baruch disclosed his critical position and perception of the public:
By using the word “beauty”, this concept may be controlled by
placing it at the public’s eye level, where their reaction to,
“beauty”, “non-beauty” is still valid and works with regard to art
that demands former information, while at the same time, it solves
53 Baruch, Beauty, 7. 31
a problem for the need to explain itself54.
The above paragraph attested to Baruch's understanding of his own role as an art critic – a role which he saw as mediating to, and educating the public concerning contemporary art, and in this case, Sgan-Cohen's controversial work. Perhaps by adopting the seemingly self-explanatory concept of "beauty", Baruch assumed that he would make it easier for the public to comprehend Sgan-Cohen's art and exhibition.
Sgan-Cohen's Move Towards Judaism
Two years after Sgan-Cohen's first solo show, Baruch discussed in two separate essays, the artist's "Jewish turn", a topic that had not been discussed in any earlier reviews regarding Sgan-Cohen's art.
In Yediot Achronot, published in 1981, Baruch wrote the following:
Dr. Michael Sgan-Cohen left here [Israel] as a young secular
intellectual, and now he hides in New York as a Jewish artist,
uncovering existential secrets through Jewish sources, without
being religious, in the technical behavioral sense of the concept55.
Baruch, in his description of Sgan-Cohen's transition from theoretician to artist, was firmly couched in his parallel transition from a "secular" persona to a
"Jewish" one.
By focusing upon Sgan-Cohen's secular roots, Baruch disclosed the
54 Baruch, Beauty, 7. 55 Adam Baruch, “V’mi Lo Bah?” [Hebrew], “And Who Did Not Arrive?” Yediot Achronot Jul. 1981: 22. 32 fundamental controversy ever present within Israeli society:
Sgan-Cohen the Yerushalmi, (Jerusalem born and reared), an
army officer, 189 cm, full head of dirty blond hair, he is the
beautiful boy that the new intellectualism dreamt of. Sgan-Cohen
could have been all that Yirmiyahu Yovel56 was and all that
Yirmiyahu Yovel was not57.
Highlighting Sgan-Cohen's habitus, and potential disposition58 as a renowned philosopher – Yirmiyahu Yovel, underlined a predominant tension between the secular Israeli identity and a Jewish one in Israel's social spaces. As Sgan-Cohen embodied the zeitgeist of the first generation Israeli born "New Jew/Tzabar”59 persona, raised by the
Ashkenazi60 elite social and cultural hegemony, he was supposed to remain within the Ashkenazi realm of the secular-intellectual. As this secular domain was recognized as the antithesis of all that Israeli society had attempted to avoid, deny and forget: the Diaspora and all it represented61, Sgan-Cohen's turn towards Jewish sources and breaking with doxa62 was not an expected endeavor.
56 Yirmiyahu Yovel was a distinguished public intellectual and recipient of the 2000 Israel Prize for philosophy, for more information see “Yirmiyahu Yovel,” 2011, vanleer, 30 Dec. 2013
Exposing the Israeli art field's equating of modernism with Zionism and claiming that Israeli art was based upon the negation of exile, only began to be discussed within the Israeli art discourse in 1993 by Sara Chinski (1951-2008), art historian63, and later, by Dalia Manor, art historian, critic and curator in 1998.
Manor, in her writing, highlighted the Israeli art field's lack of reception of artwork created by diaspora Jews, and deemed it as unoriginal and belonging to a declining culture64. With the emergence of the New Horizons movement in
Israeli art in 1948 – the first artistic movement seen as "essentially" Israeli, continued Manor, any notion of Jewish tradition was considered incompatible with the underlying principles for a universal, secular, and modern Israeli art65.
In his second essay, also published in Yediot Achronot, two years later, in
1983, Baruch acknowledged the Israeli art field's difficulty in receiving Sgan-
Cohen’s Jewish sources and references. Baruch offered his insights by claiming:
The Hebrew of the Israeli art critics is written in Israeli and not
Hebrew and in this manner Sgan-Cohen speaks a language that is
not yet understood by Tel Aviv. And because art is a language, he
[Sgan-Cohen] is speaking a different language to their
language66.
Suggesting a plausible explanation as to why the critics’ were unable to grasp
Sgan-Cohen’s work, Baruch employed a play-off between “Hebrew” and
“Israeli”. Whereby "Hebrew"- referred to Jewish based cultural and linguistic
63 Sara Chinski, "The Silence of the Fish: The Local versus the Universal in the Israeli Discourse of Art," [Hebrew], Teoria U-vikoret 4 (1993): 105-12 2. 64 Dalia Manor, "From Rejection to Recognition: Israeli art and the Holocaust," Israel Affairs 4 (1998): 259. 65 Manor, 260. 66 Adam Baruch, "Kutonet Ha’Pasim Ha’achronah B’New York,” [Hebrew], “The Last Coat of Many Colors in New York." Yediot Achronot 30 Dec. 1983: 27. 34 practices, while "Israeli" denoted the “New Jew”- a culture formed in Israel, in direct negation of diaspora Jewish history67.
As follows, Baruch, in his writings it may be argued, opted to mediate not only between Sgan-Cohen's 1978 exhibit and the public, but perhaps also to intercede between Sgan-Cohen's "Jewish" language and the "Israeli" language of the art critics.
In summary, the end of the 1970s and early 1980s, revealed an Israeli art field struggling to comprehend the underlying principles of conceptual art, the merging of theory with practice, and the employment of Jewish sources into the aesthetic practice. With Sgan-Cohen's exhibition embodying these challenging issues, his reception into the Israeli art field at the end of the 1970s was rendered unfavorable and his art somewhat sidelined by the Israeli art canon.
67 Manor, 258. 35
Chapter Two
Pursuing the Process of Michael Sgan-Cohen's Reception: Transformations in the Israeli Art Field
Introduction
The end of the previous chapter portrayed an Israeli art field struggling to come to terms with Sgan Cohen's challenging of the boundaries between art practice and theory, between visual imagery and textual representation and between Israel's secular conceptualization of art and the employment of Jewish sources.
These same three challenging issues – the relations between textual and visual representations, the tensions between theory and praxis and the referencing of Jewish content within a supposed secular realm of art - will be explored in this second chapter as it focuses upon the reception of Sgan-Cohen's second solo exhibition in 1994. Although visually different from the 1978 show, in that Sgan-
Cohen presented more figurative imagery as opposed to textual representations, this exhibition maintained Sgan-Cohen's "signature style" of employing Jewish sources in a conceptual practice. The Israeli art field and larger social structures however, had undergone distinct changes between 1978 and 1994. Following the
Yom Kippur War (1973), the fall of the Labor party in 1977, and the Shalom
HaGalil War (1982), issues such as the disintegration of the mythical Tzabar, a questioning of the Zionist hegemony and a querying of Israeli-Jewish identity
(amongst many other issues) surfaced68, as Israel experienced major cultural, political and social upheavals. Examining Sgan-Cohen's 1994 exhibition offers a
68 Uri Ram, “Memory and Identity: The Sociology of the Dispute among Historians in Israel,” [Hebrew], Teoria U'vikoret 8 (1996): 20. 36 glimpse into these changes, as well as a look into Israel's field of art.
The 1994 Exhibition
"Michael Sgan-Cohen: Paintings, 1978-To Date", was the title of Sgan-
Cohen's second solo exhibition and accompanying catalogue. With the displayed artwork dating from 1978 to 1993, it is fair to say that the title of this show represented this exhibition in a straightforward manner. Mounted in the Museum of Israeli Art in Ramat Gan, Sgan-Cohen's second solo exhibition opened in
March 1994, and was again curated by Miriam Tuviah-Boneh, who held the position of director and head curator of the museum at the time.
In the interview with Tuviah-Boneh, noted in the previous chapter, Boneh recalled the mounting of Sgan-Cohen's second exhibition as she chose the artwork for display with her assistant:
We chose the art that had just the most amazing, incredible
iconography: personal iconography on one hand, and a
connection to Judaism on the other. Although he was not a
religious man of course, he did use holy texts found in our
[Jewish] sources and our mysticism, giving them visual shape.
Like in the Renaissance or the Middle -Ages, they used text to
illustrate their iconography. Here, in a similar fashion, Michael
essentially created illustrations according to his personal
inspirations. He gave them meaning, hoisting them to a different
level of visual interpretation. And that attracted me to him69.
69 Interview, Tuviah-Boneh. 37
Further along in the interview, when asked who curated the exhibit,
Tuviah-Boneh answered,
He [Sgan-Cohen] pretty much curated this exhibit. Nobody could
really curate him. As far as he was concerned, this exhibit was an
extension of his art, another art piece. He designed the layout and
hung the images as a reading path. It would have been impossible
to give the curation to anybody else, because then it would have
had a different interpretation. And so, Michael was really the only
candidate for this task. Upon completion, his work could be seen
and read in a fashion that made sense70.
With Tuviah-Boneh holding the position as official curator of this exhibition, she bequeathed Sgan-Cohen the authority to curate his second solo show, and the accompanying catalogue's design and content. Mimicking what had happened in the 1978 show, Sgan-Cohen again curated his solo exhibition, this time however, he had returned to live in Israel, and was therefore physically available to mount the show himself.
The 1994 exhibition was displayed in the Chaim Gamzu Gallery (about
280sq. m in size), located on the first floor of the Ramat Gan Museum. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first full description of the exhibition which has been enabled by way of a video recorded by Leora Laor Sgan-Cohen, Sgan-
Cohen's widow, showing the artist with his students, as he explained his work and the general layout of this exhibition to them71.
70 Interview, Tuviah-Boneh. 71 Information regarding this exhibit was found by way of a digitalized video of Sgan- Cohen explaining his 1994 exhibit to his students from Oranim Art School. This video was displayed in the 2004 Retrospective exhibit and was kindly copied for this present thesis by Yair 38
The gallery was rectangular, and was visually divided in half by four supporting pillars running across the gallery's width. Lighting was provided by ceiling spot lights (Fig.10). Sgan-Cohen's curatorial choices included hanging the extremely large, unframed canvases as close to the floor as possible, enabling the spectator to view them at eye level72 (Fig. 11). Additional curatorial choices included displaying similar genres, themes and motifs in separate groups
(Appendix B: Fig. 1).
Fig. 10: Chaim Gamzu Gallery, Ramat Gan Museum. Fig. 11: The extremely large images of unframed canvases, displayed as close to the floor as possible.
In general, the exhibition encompassed thirty-three art works, thirty of which were paintings. The remaining three pieces were readymade objects.
Compared to the 1978 exhibition where visual text dominated the show, the 1994 exhibition revealed mostly painted imagery and very little text. There was an abundance of self-portraits, many of which were life-size (Appendix B: Fig. 20,
21, 26), map imagery of various sizes, some of which were intertwined with text
(Appendix B: Fig. 9, 31, 32), and a wall of painted TV screen shots (Appendix
B: Fig. 28). Another significant difference between the two exhibitions was
Talmor, courtesy of Amitai Mendelsohn. This video has enabled a reconstruction of most of the artwork displayed in the 1994 exhibition. 72 This information was attained through the courtesy of Leora Leor Sgan-Cohen. 39 image size, as some of Sgan-Cohen's artworks displayed in 1994 were monumental - Leviathan, 1983, was 260 cm in height and 644 in width
(Appendix B: Fig. 5), whereas the largest image in the 1978 show was the biblical transcription- But in the Last Days it Shall Come to Pass, 1978, ranging from 142 cm in height to 210 cm in width (Appendix A: Fig. 19). The artist’s signature style represented similarities between the two exhibitions, as he referenced Jewish material in a conceptual manner: Map, 1982- a text–image,
Covenant of the Word (circumcision) - self-portrait - 1980, and the text- image/self-portrait- Michael (triptych), 1984 (Appendix B: Fig. 8, 12, 18, respectively). Another point of convergence between the shows concerns two readymade objects: Chair with Psalms (A Psalm for Asaph), 1982 (Fig. 21) - as it depicted the one solitary biblical transcription in the exhibition, and the readymade Bible, Torah Prophets Writings (The Hebrew Bible), 1978, (Fig. 5) - the only piece of art shown in both the 1978 and the 1994 exhibition.
Critical Commentary
In comparison to Sgan-Cohen's first solo exhibition that received just three reviews, nine critical commentaries were found addressing the 1994 show.
These essays were published in various national newspapers, weekend cultural supplements, prominent art periodicals, and in the accompanying exhibition catalogue: Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post, Davar, Yediot Achronot, Al Hamishmar,
Shishi Tikshoret, Ha'ir, and Arbah Al Chamesh. The majority of the writers were artists, curators and art critics who focused not only on the exhibition itself but also on the accompanying catalogue. In general, the critics recognized Sgan-
Cohen as an artist and theoretician, they acknowledged his employment of
40
Jewish sources, the grounding of his work in the conceptual practice, and for the most part, declared his art original.
This chapter will focus on four texts discussing this exhibition. Three texts - one by Adam Baruch, another by Chaim Lusky, and the third by Chaim
Maor, as they were published within a two-month time frame, around the exhibition, while the fourth is an interview conducted with Itamar Levi, which was transcribed last year. These chosen texts introduced two new key writers who played a significant role in highlighting issues concerning Sgan-Cohen's process of reception - Lusky and Levi. Additionally, these writings offered new insights and analysis regarding Sgan-Cohen's aesthetic practice, as they merged between his various explorations - conceptual, linguistic, theoretical and Jewish.
And more importantly, these texts illuminated transformations within the Israeli art field - changes that had transpired during the period between Sgan-Cohen's two solo exhibitions.
The first text addressing the second solo show - "Michael Sgan-Cohen
Says…", was written by Adam Baruch and published two weeks prior to the exhibition’s opening, in the weekend supplement magazine, "Shishi Tikshoret"73.
This text was also a part of the accompanying exhibition catalogue, and begins with a general framing of the exhibition:
His [Sgan-Cohen's] exhibition is also called "Remarks on
Culture." Remarks on modernism, and remarks on artistic
discourse...his painting[s]... dialogue with...someone whose
specialty is not art, a conversation on a topic - style, naiveté,
expressionism, memory. And because this is a conversation, the
73 Adam Baruch, “Michael Sgan-Cohen Says...,” Shishi Tikshoret, 11 Mar. 1994: 18-19. 41
title of this article is "Michael Sgan-Cohen Says..."74.
In his interpretation of the exhibition, Baruch viewed this show as an ongoing conversation between the artist and a public who were not necessarily knowledgeable on the subject of art. By labeling the exhibition as, “Remarks on Culture”, and referring to it as a dialogue,
Baruch appeared to frame it as a textual rather than as a visual endeavor.
In his understanding of the connection between Sgan-Cohen's aesthetic and theoretical practice, Baruch claimed:
The culture and the cultural discussion within it are natural
elements for him [Sgan-Cohen] and thus in nearly all his work an
appropriated cultural comment...a conceptual comment ...may be
seen75.
Describing Sgan-Cohen's knowledge of culture and cultural discourse as "natural elements" in his work, Baruch closely linked Sgan-Cohen's theoretical and aesthetic practice. Indeed, Baruch appeared to see a "comment" in almost all of
Sgan-Cohen's art, and even openly stated that, "…he [Sgan-Cohen] actually paints ‘principles’ and 'essences’'"76.
In this same text, Baruch introduced a new key term into the discourse surrounding Sgan-Cohen's work (and into the Israeli art world more generally) -
"The Talmid Chacham77 Chiloni", [Hebrew] "The Secular Learned Scholar":
74 Baruch, Michael, 19. 75 Baruch, Michael, 19. 76 Baruch, Michael, 19. 77 Talmid Chacham- an honorific title given to one well-versed in Jewish law, in effect, a Torah scholar. Baruch has appropriated this term such that it now refers to a secular Torah scholar, "Talmid Chacham Chiloni," Def. webshas, 10.Sept.2014
Sgan-Cohen...grew up in Rechavia...a well turned out child of his
time: home, education...this exquisite pampering should have
spawned a museum director, the cultural editor of a national
newspaper...he should have been a precise reflection the Israeli
zeitgeist... Sgan-Cohen went to the U.S.A. and stayed there over
fifteen years...I would say; painting by this sort of “Talmid
Chacham Chiloni", painting that is a thought about, or a memory
of, or a symbolized symbol of…and there in New York, during all
those years, Sgan-Cohen somehow changed his taste and
preferences. He abandoned his Israeli persona...I will simply say
he became more Jewish, i.e.…in the sense of a greater focus on
text and speech...he became a Jew... that was connected both to
his immediate present and to his Jewish cultural and Israeli
past78.
As in 1978, Baruch again addressed Sgan-Cohen's breaking with doxa, and changing of cultural milieu. Back then however, Baruch suggested that this caused tension between the secular Israeli identity and the Jewish identity in
Israel's social spaces. In this present account, the linking of the two cultural spheres seems more direct, and the Jewish cultural practices appear more dominant. Indeed, Baruch clearly recognized Sgan-Cohen's change in "taste and preferences" and abandonment of "his Israeli persona" as leading to a "more
Jewish" cultural persona.
Thus, as Baruch depicted Sgan-Cohen's artwork as comments on culture, in addition to framing the exhibition as a textural endeavor rather than a visual
78 Baruch, Michael, 18. 43 one, possibly illuminates Baruch's understanding and acceptance of the blurring of boundaries between theory and praxis. This position perhaps also suggests that
Baruch attempted to create a definitive (and even inseparable) bond between the artist's two vocations, echoing in this manner, Sgan-Cohen's embodiment of theoretician and artist.
The second essay to be discussed here was written by Chaim Lusky, philosopher, artist and teacher, "Associative World," [Hebrew], published in
Yediot Achronot, two months after the opening of the 1994 exhibition. In this writing, Lusky described Sgan-Cohen's aesthetic practice in the following manner:
Sgan-Cohen's work is abundant with linguistic sophistication
regarding complex and precise text-image relationships…this
language art... appears here amused and unrestricted...the artist
allows himself a free borderless rein of creativity…wandering,
floating within a personal associative world, jumping from the
general-public to the personal-biographic, as a system without
discernment, rules and order79.
Recognizing Sgan-Cohen's ability to create complex and sophisticated text-image connections revealed Lusky's appreciation of the role language and writing played within the visual practice - a stark opposition to Rappaport's and
Mevurach's position regarding the 1978 exhibition. Moreover, again, as in 1978, an overlapping of terms between conceptual art and language art is noted, although Lusky's perception of the language art practice is quite different from
79 Lusky, 31. 44 that of Rappaport's. Furthermore, acknowledging and receiving Sgan-Cohen's free associative, unrestricted aesthetic world as a creative quality, Lusky labeled
Sgan-Cohen as an "artist".
Lusky also addressed the role of spectator in Sgan-Cohen's work:
It [Sgan-Cohen's art] offers the public a unique linguistic,
philosophical, visual experience... this is a language that declares
and points to spiritual layers hidden within the holy tongue, which
have transpired into a secular language, while remaining rich and
associatively authentic... the spectator is not attacked but rather
encouraged…as the artist includes the viewer in participating in
the delight of deciphering80.
Lusky’s confidence in the ability of the spectator’s role as partaking in the deciphering process of Sgan-Cohen's work directly opposed the 1978 critical reviews. Back then, Rappaport, in her summation of the 1978 show, labeled
Sgan-Cohen's art as incomprehensible, and Mevurach described his art as
"nonsense".
In accordance with Baruch, Lusky also framed this exhibition as a textural endeavor, as Sgan-Cohen's offered "the public a unique linguistic, philosophical...experience." Unlike Baruch though, Lusky viewed Sgan-Cohen's referencing of the Jewish sources as a part of secular Israeli culture, and not in terms of "becoming more Jewish". Describing Sgan-Cohen's art as pointing "to spiritual layers hidden within the holy tongue, which had transpired into a secular language", Lusky, although acknowledging Sgan-Cohen's employment
80 Lusky, 31. 45 of Jewish material, seemed to quickly move on to interpret this endeavor in a secular manner, rather than a Jewish one.
In summing up this exhibition, Lusky revealed his insights regarding the influence Sgan-Cohen's second solo show on the Israeli art field:
This exhibit may be said to be a meaningful turning point in local
art...a possible transformational sign in Israel’s philosophy
regarding artistic spirit; from a historical resistance and
alienation of its traditional foundation, to allowing for its
existence as a spiritual activity. This is a transition from a total
disregard [of the Jewish heritage] that ruled here in the past,
towards an experiential level found in the Hebrew language.
These sources, that have become more and more legitimate within
the local art, surface here potentially enabling a rich source for
original statement81.
Although Lusky noted an increase in the referencing of Jewish material in the aesthetic practice, he perceived this enactment as not only qualifying the Jewish sources a legitimate place within the Israeli pre-dominant secular art field, but he also seemed to recognize this endeavor as part of a larger shift transpiring within
Israel's social spaces - subsequently changing its discourse.
The Israeli art field's response to the referencing of Jewish sources was part of an ongoing debate at the time, and while Lusky suggested that Jewish sources had already been accepted in Israeli art and discourse, Chaim Maor - artist, curator and teacher, in his review of Sgan-Cohen's 1994 exhibition
81 Lusky, 31. 46 published in the daily newspaper, Al Hamishmar, six weeks after the show's opening, thought differently:
It is hard to talk today about a Jewish painting (or Jewish art),
without causing anger and eyebrow raising as this is a
problematic concept that ignites controversy amongst the art
researchers and creates arguments between those who are for and
those who are against some kind of connection between art,
society, religion and state82.
Thus, in contrast to Lusky's view, the employment of Jewish material in the aesthetic practice had not exactly found its legitimate place within the Israeli art field. According to Maor, this issue remained part of an ongoing controversial debate within the field. And so, referencing Jewish content remained somewhat unresolved within the art field - although it was not entirely shelved, neither was it freely acknowledged.
Despite the different views on the role of Jewish sources and practices within the field of Israeli art, these two essays, Baruch and Lusky's, give a sense of a marked shift in some of the key issues regarding Sgan-Cohen's work. The blurring of the boundaries between theory and praxis became an accepted practice for both these key writers and the use of language within visual practice was depicted almost as a non-issue. Furthermore, the employment of Jewish sources, while still heatedly debated, became a part of legitimate discourse.
In order to better understand the major changes evident in Lusky's and
Baruch's texts, a wider context of Israeli art and discourse in the mid-1990s is
82 Chaim Maor, Tfilin, Tfila V'tfliot," [Hebrew], "Tfilin, Prayer & Wonders," Al'Hamishnar 6 May 1994. 47 needed. Although these changes may be traced to various causes, both in the art world and in Israel's cultural and social fields, one of the immediate frameworks relevant for understanding Sgan-Cohen's reception is the predominance of postmodernist discourse at the time.
Seen in the previous chapter with Carolyn Jones, the tension between theory and practice, and more specifically, between theorist and practitioner, which was evident in Sgan-Cohen's 1978 reception, was a dominant feature of the American art field in the1950s and 60s. In the early eighties however, the more avant-garde art practice and discourse in the United States saw a change in the relations of these two spheres, brought about by way of academic and prominent art journal publications, as well as by artists themselves (Judy Chicago and Cindy Sherman). For example, Rosalind Krauss, art critic and theorist, in her article Poststructuralist and the 'Paraliterary', published in 1980, juxtaposed
Jacque Derrida's and Roland Barthes' theories, highlighting in this manner, the blurring of borders between fine literature and art criticism83. A similar line of thought is seen in the essay of literary theorists, Steven Knapp and Walter Benn
Michaels, who published their seminal text, "Against Theory", in 1982. In their writing, Knapp and Michaels held an anti-theoretical position, declaring the goal of their paper as follows: "The object of our critique is not a particular way of doing theory but the idea of doing theory at all84." In their view, theory was a mistaken venture, as it depended upon separating the inseparable - theory and practice85. Writing on the same subject, James Elkins, art historian and critic,
83 Rosalind Krauss, "Poststructuralist and the 'Paraliterary'," October 13 (Summer, 1980): 36-40. 84 Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels, "Against Theory," Critical Inquiry 8, 4 (Summer, 1982): 723. 85 Knapp and Michaels, 723-742. 48 redefined the bond between theory and practice in, "Art History Without Theory”, published in 1988. Rather than asserting an either/or connection between theory and praxis, Elkins repositioned these two elements as co-dependent, each demarcating each other's boundaries within art historical discourse86.
As postmodern discourse gained momentum, so did the role of language within visual culture (prominent within conceptual art) become better understood within art discourse87. For instance, the writing of W. J. T. Mitchel, professor of
English and art history - "Iconography: Image, Text and Ideology", published in
1987, proposed that the obscuring of borders between text and image within art discourse was similar to the eclipsing of the boundaries between theory and practice88. In another example found in the writing of Robert Nelson, professor of fine arts, and Richard Shiff, art historian, in their book, "Critical Terms for Art
History", published in 1996, these writers expounded on the complex relationship between text and image. As their publication aimed to provide an
(almost) definitive elaboration of art history and its key terms, these authors claimed that the connection between word and image was not simply a method for dissolving their borders or for maintaining them as eternally fixed boundaries, but rather viewed the relationship as a relay between aesthetics and social differences. Moreover, the connection between these two terms opened up a space of intellectual struggle and artistic/critical practice89.
86 James Elkins, “Art History Without Theory,” Critical Inquiry 14. 2 (Winter 1988): 357. 87 Louis Torres, and Michelle Marder Kamhi, What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand, (Chicago: Open Court, 2000) 263. 88 W. J. T. Mitchell, Iconography: Image, Text and Ideology, (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1987) 208. 89 Robert Nelson, and Richard Shiff, Critical Terms for Art History. (Chicago: U of Chicago Press 1996): 49-54. 49
With Sgan-Cohen living and studying in America as postmodern discourse became more common, it seems fair to assume that he was probably familiar with and aware of these changing positions, and dissolving borders at the time. Thus, as American postmodernism paved the way for a practice of texts and images, and a blurring of theory and practice, Sgan-Cohen transitioned from theoretician to artist and intertwined his theoretical and philosophical ideas into his aesthetic practice.
The early nineties in Israel revealed a comparable discourse to that of the
American postmodern discourse emerging in the eighties. The growing impact of this shift may be recognized just a few years before the mounting of Sgan-
Cohen's second solo exhibition.
1991 for example, saw the launching of the critical journal, Teoria
U’vikoret, [Hebrew], Theory and Criticism90, which quickly became an influential platform for postmodern discourse. Publications such as: Ella
Shochat, Israeli Cinema: East/West and the Politics of Representation, 1989, co- author, Henriette Dahan Kalev, Gender, Sex, Politics, 1999, and Robert S.
Wistrich and David Ohana, The Shaping of Israeli Identity: Myth, Memory and
Trauma, 199591, additionally enhanced the distribution of Israeli postmodern discussions. And writers such as Uri Ram (1996), offered a highly critical, post- structural account of Israel's sociological discourse, claiming that 1994
90 Theory and Criticism (Teoria U’vikoret) was founded in 1991, a bi-annual, peer- reviewed journal for the critical study of society and culture in Israel, vanleer, 10. Sept. 2014
Many of the texts challenging the Zionist narratives, published as early as
1989, emphasized amongst other aspects, the negation of exile and the secularism of Israel, thus sidelining Jewish culture. For example, the Jewish-Palestinian conflict and its representation over time were acknowledged in Israeli cinema by
Ella Shohat, professor of cultural studies (1989). In her book, Shohat qualified a deconstructionist reading of Zionist discourse, and critiqued its master narrative and Eurocentrism, as she challenged a "taken-for-granted sense of entitlement" by the dominant Ashkenazi elite9495. In this process, Shohat redefined the parameters of legitimate history, as well as the format of legitimate historiography96.
Within this same time frame, and on par with the "new" historians,
Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin published a two-part article on the "Negation of Exile",
92 Ram, 9-10. According to Ram, the writing of the literalist Aharon Megged, in Ha'aretz,, "Yetzer Ha'hitabdut Ha'yisraeli," [Hebrew], "The Israeli Suicidal Drive," 1994, represented the peak of the postmodern discussion in Israel. In this article Megged listed the declarations put forth by the "new" historians as they claimed that the fundamental concepts of Zionism such as melting pot, hard labor, etc. were hypocritical and fake. 93 Joseph Mali, "The Zmanim Era: A Cultural Revolution in Historiography," [Hebrew], Zmanim (Autumn 2007): 126-137. Interview between Jadaliyya and Ella Shohat, Jadoliyya, 7 Apr. 2014
Krakotzkin suggested a rethinking of the terminology upon which Zionism was based, "the negation of exile", thus allowing for a new "Israeli-Jewish" identity to materialize97.
Deliberating concerns similar to those inquired by Shohat and Raz-
Krakotzkin were also conducted by Sara Chinski in her writing, The Silence of the Fish, [Hebrew], published in 1993. Questioning the Israeli art field's creating of art in its own image, and the dominance of Zionist dissertation, ever present in
Israeli art discourse, Chinski argued that while art in general was perceived as undermining societal doxa, the Israeli art field actually participated and even perpetuated it98. Chinski's critical rhetoric analyzed the artwork of Avital Geva's
Greenhouse exhibited in the 1993 Venice Biennale by Gideon Ofrat, curator and art critic99. In her examination, Chinski exposed two profound dominant issues prevalent in Israeli art discourse. The first revealed the binary concepts of "local" and "universal"- the underlying presuppositions upon which the Israeli art discourse rested. The second topic exposed the hegemonic Zionist narrative reiterated - as this art field rejected a display of its past100.
Thus, in this text, Chinski disclosed the upholding of secularism in the
Israeli art field, as it strived for "universalism" and in doing so, denied its past.
97 Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, "Exile within Sovereignty: Toward a Critique of the 'Negation of Exile' in Israeli Culture (Part II)," [Hebrew], Teoria U-vikoret 5 (Fall 1994): 24-118. In his discussion, Raz-Krakotzkin focused on previous critical works dedicated to the subject matter of negation and identity. He also demonstrated the strong commitment demanded by the negation of exile and the function it played in giving meaning and expression to universal moral values. Furthermore, this terminology, according to Raz-Krakotzkin, linked deliberations that at that time were separated; the Jewish-Palestinian conflict and Jewish-Israeli identity 98 Sara Chinski, "The Silence of the Fish: The Local versus the Universal in the Israeli Discourse of Art ", [Hebrew], Teoria U’vikoret 4 (1993): 105-12 2. 99 Gideon Ofrat, "The Greenhouse: Avital Geva, Biennale Venice, 1993”, [Hebrew], Teoria U’vikoret 3 (1993):129-141. 100 Chinski, Fish, 105-122. 52
Although Chinski did not expound upon the meaning of the Israeli art field's
"rejection of its past" in this particular essay, her intention became somewhat more apparent in her later writing, "Eyes Wide Shut", published in 2002. In this text, Chinski addressed the affinity between the Israeli canonical art field and the
Western identity, claiming that the Westernization of the Ashkenazi identity functioned as a "colonizing practice", thus repressing the specific "ethno/cultural
Ashkenazi tradition"101. This perhaps suggests that the field's "rejection of its past" resulted in a sidelining of art referencing issues such as - Jewish content, diaspora, Holocaust and so on, issues that may be categorized under the heading of "ethno/cultural Ashkenazi tradition". In this manner, Chinski's later essay appears to clarify and highlight the influence of the Zionist narrative and its denial of the past, prominently found in the discourse of the Israeli art field.
Upon this discursive postmodern backdrop Sgan-Cohen's 1994 exhibition was mounted and with this, the descriptive words of Itamar Levi - a psychologist, art critic and curator, "I don’t think the exhibit itself created a turning point but its timing was good"102. As this exhibition was displayed in 1994, the peak of post-structural debate according to Ram, its timing may indeed be said to have been "good". With the Israeli art field positioned such that it could comprehend and accept the role of language within visual culture, and the merging of theory with praxis; issues that proved to be controversial back in 1978. In addition, the field was becoming more open to re-analyzing its denial of the past and the role of Jewish culture within it103. As such, the Israeli art world by the mid-1990s was
101 Sara Chinski, "Eyes Wide Shut: the Acquired Albino Syndrome of the Israeli Art Field," [Hebrew], Teoria U’vikoret 20 (2002): 57-86. 102 Interview, Levi. 103 The move towards an implication of Jewish sources, especially when traced back to the period of Sgan-Cohen's first solo exhibit, may also be framed within the changed political 53 equipped with the appropriate tools for receiving and comprehending Sgan-
Cohen's second solo exhibition.
Returning to Baruch's description of the 1994 exhibition as, "remarks on culture", and Lusky's claim that this show enabled a "linguistic, philosophical visual experience", as well as being "abundant with linguistic sophistication regarding complex and precise text-image relationships", may perhaps be contextualized within Israeli postmodern discourse. With the blurring of borders between theory, praxis/text and image, the issue of Sgan-Cohen's conceptual art practice as he interlaced language, writing and ideas into this artwork, seemed to be somewhat resolved within the art field, following the 1994 exhibition.
Moreover, as Lusky labeled Sgan-Cohen as an "artist", his transition from theoretician to practicing artist, also appeared to be a non-issue.
So far in this thesis, it has been shown that a changed comprehension pertaining to theory, practice and text and image, had taken place within the field of art, initially seen in America during the eighties, and later in Israel during the nineties. Furthermore, this thesis has also addressed a shift in the nineties towards Jewish culture, an issue not well understood or received by the Israeli art field in the late 1970s and early 1980s. While this subject became part of a more general postmodern discussion within Israeli culture, the employment of Jewish sources, it was shown, still remained somewhat controversial within the Israeli art field.
map of Israel. These transformations revealed themselves as they moved from a strong tendency to the left -linked to the secular, to that of the right - associated with traditionalism. Writings pertaining to these issues are found by way of the political scientist, Yehuda Shenhav, “Is There Such a Thing as Secular Jewish Culture,” [Hebrew], Ha'aretz 2007, and sociologist, Ya'akov Yidgar, Beyond Secularization, [Hebrew], 2012, and David Sperber, "Israeli Discourse and the Jewish Voice", Images 4, 1 (2010): 129. Such a discussion however is beyond the scope of this present research. 54
A different response to the 1994 exhibition may be seen through an interview conducted last year with Itamar Levi, as he joined between two strands
- the Jewish and the conceptual:
Michael connected Jewish sources to conceptual art. This is
abstract and difficult to comprehend… it is not easy to convince
the public that a painting is a thought, and a conversation piece…
conceptual art was secular, or political. It was not connected to
Jewish thought... Michael dealt with the [Jewish] sources in a
manner that was unfamiliar to the secular Israeli…it was an
interesting development, Jewish illustration combined with
conceptual illustration… if he had done this less religiously, then
he would have had more in common with Michal Na’aman104.
By combining Sgan-Cohen's employment of conceptual art - a secular practice, with the realm of Jewish culture - a realm based on words rather than imagery,
Levi recognized the uniqueness of Sgan-Cohen's aesthetic practice.
When comparing Michal Na'aman's referencing of the Jewish sources to that of Sgan-Cohen's, Levi said the following:
Michal Na’aman…was absorbed with the secular, not the Jewish.
Furthermore, she had sudden epiphanies, whereas Michael’s
insights emerged from deep within an entirety; stemming from the
rules of the Hebrew language, like an entirety of the Midrash105,
104 Interview, Levi. 105 Midrash is a set of Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew Scriptures compiled between 400 and 1200 C.E., and based on exegesis, parable, and haggadic legend. "Midrash," Def. TheFreeDictionary, 2 Jun. 2013
the Talmud106107.
Although both artists employed Jewish material in their aesthetic practice, Levi interpreted Na'aman's work as a secular enactment, as opposed to Sgan-Cohen exploration of this same endeavor as having a strong affinity to the realm of the
Jewish. Moreover, in accordance Baruch's "Secular Learned Scholar", Levi perhaps also perceived Sgan-Cohen as moving towards a more Jewish stance.
It is interesting to note Levi's comparison of Sgan-Cohen's employment of Jewish material to that of Moshe Gershuni's:
Michael’s artistic proposal was unclear. His use of Jewish
sources was rendered suspicious. Gershuni… was easier to
understand because he projected emotional ambiguity towards
this subject. Generally it is easier to identify and understand
emotions...Gershuni's Jewish art focused on familiar topics such
as the Holocaust or jealousy, but Michael dealt with the sources
in manner that was unfamiliar to the secular Israeli108.
Gershuni's emotional exploration of the Jewish sources was easier for the Israeli art field to identify with and comprehend, for it was more affective than Sgan-
Cohen's intellectual approach.
And so, with Sgan-Cohen's referencing of Jewish sources, in a manner that had a strong affinity with the Jewish, rather than with the secular and the emotional, the Israeli art field, as suggested by Levi, did not always understand
106 Talmud- a collection of ancient rabbinic writings consisting of the Mishnah and the Gemara, constituting the basis of religious authority in Orthodox Judaism. "Talmud," Def. TheFreeDictionary, 2 Jun. 2013
Michael showed me his work in the mid-80s. I was impressed; it
was very different to Israeli art of that time. Although I did not
believe in his ideology, I could see that his work was productive
and his art original...he was most definitely one of the most
original, and the most Jewish artist that worked in the country109.
While impressed with Sgan-Cohen's originality and the uniqueness of his work,
Breitberg-Semel remained unswayed by "his ideology" – a term left vague in her writing, referring perhaps to his ideology regarding Jewish culture, as she mentioned this issue towards the end of her reply. Despite her disbelief in Sgan-
Cohen's (possibly Jewish) ideology, Breitberg-Semel comes quite close here to
Baruch's and Levi's comprehension of Sgan-Cohen's artwork, as she referred to him (favorably or critically) as "the most Jewish artist" in Israel.
Summary
On the whole, it seems fair to say that Sgan-Cohen's second solo exhibition in 1994 was more favorably received by the Israeli art field, in comparison to the 1978 show, and with this, Sgan-Cohen received recognition as an artist and of his work as original. As the present chapter has shown, while the
Israeli art field at the end of the 1970s was not in a position to offer an understanding of Sgan-Cohen's art, the 1990s revealed a changed Israeli art field.
With the emergence of postmodern discourse in Israel, key issues addressed in
109 Email, Breitberg-Semel. 57 the previous chapter - the conceptual art practice, transitioning to artist and the utilization of Jewish content - appears in this chapter to be better resolved.
Moreover, with postmodern dissertation merging between theory and practice, as well as text and image, so the Israeli art field was enabled the appropriate tools to comprehend and accept Sgan-Cohen's employment of language in his aesthetic practice, and his transitioning to practicing artist. Furthermore, as this discourse also ignited a reanalysis of master narratives, resulting in a reevaluation of
Zionism and the concepts upon which it was based, issues such as referencing
Jewish sources into the aesthetic practice became somewhat more mainstreamed.
Yet, with this said, it was shown that controversy still prevailed within the Israeli art field in regard to this issue.
The following section, an epilogue, will briefly look at the reception of
Sgan-Cohen's third solo exhibit, 2004, held in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. As an in-depth discussion and analysis of this show, although interesting, is beyond the scope of this present thesis, the 2004 exhibition will serves as a mini case study for any further transformations within the Israeli art field that may have transpired between 1994 and 2004.
58
Epilogue
On the backdrop of Sgan-Cohen's two solo exhibitions, 1978 and 1994, the present thesis has followed the progression of Sgan-Cohen's reception into the Israeli art field. Through a reading of the critical commentaries addressing the shows, three central issues within the field became apparent; the employment of language within visual art, the merging of theory with practice and the referencing of Jewish content. These three challenging topics were examined separately in regard to the reception of each of the exhibitions, and served as the criteria for following the changes within the Israeli art field that transpired between the years 1978 and 1994.
The analysis of Sgan-Cohen's first solo exhibition revealed an unfavorable reception by the Israeli art field. This reception showed the Israeli art discourse lagging behind the practicing conceptual artists, the art field's insistence on separating theory and praxis, and the marginalizing of art that employed Jewish sources.
With the growing impact of postmodernist discourse in Israel during the
1990s, major shifts occurred within Israeli art discourse, which had a direct effect on the reception of Sgan-Cohen's second solo exhibition. With the now accepted merging of theory and praxis/text and image, Sgan-Cohen's transitioning between practices and his grounding of language in his imagery became unchallenged, he was now clearly perceived as an artist, and his work deemed as unique, rather than incomprehensible. As postmodern discourse also questioned the Zionist master narratives, and the denial of its Jewish past and diaspora, the referencing
59 of Jewish culture became more mainstreamed. Out of the three issues examined here, this topic remained the most disputed within the local art world and beyond.
The present section of this thesis, the epilogue, will briefly look at the reception of Sgan Cohen's third solo exhibition, a retrospective, held in the Israel
Museum, Jerusalem, 2004. Once again, as seen in the previous two chapters, the three central issues - employment of language in the visual arts, transition to practicing artist, and the referencing of Jewish sources - all of which continued to figure prominently in Sgan-Cohen's work and reception, will again be explored.
Like the previous exhibitions, and even more so, the extensive 2004 exhibition and its equally widespread reception deserves a detailed examination and analysis. Due to the limited scope of this thesis, this cannot be accomplished here. To provide a suitable framework for this thesis however, this section will focus on two central readings of the exhibition, written by Yigal Zalmona and
Amitai Mendelsohn, found in the show's accompanying catalogue. As these writings reflect different interpretative opinions of two central agents from within the Israel Museum, they will serve as a mini case study for following the reception of this third exhibition. These writings will also assist in highlighting additional transformations within the Israeli art field in the decade succeeding the previous 1994 show.
The 2004 Exhibition
The concept for a third solo exhibition, a retrospective, was established towards the end of Sgan-Cohen's life in 1998. This exhibition came about through the efforts of Leora Laor Sgan-Cohen, Sgan-Cohen's widow, but also
60 from the Israel Museum itself, which had already been contemplating such a show, prior to Laor Sgan-Cohen’s proposal.
This exhibition was titled, "Michael Sgan-Cohen: A Retrospective", and displayed over 60 pieces of Sgan-Cohen's artwork. Most of these pieces had been shown in the first two shows- 1978 and 1994. The artworks created after 1994, although few in number, were also included in this show. These works continued
Sgan-Cohen's signature style of referencing Jewish sources in a conceptual manner, and his key themes, transcription, self-portraiture, map imagery and the ready-made. In his later years, Sgan-Cohen added a new medium to his oeuvre – watercolor paintings. In contrast to his earlier shows, this exhibition also displayed a few of Sgan-Cohen's sketchbooks, shedding light on his thought processes and creative methods (Fig. 17, 18).
:Fig. 18 ,(דגל) ,Fig. 17: Flag 1996,Acrylic on plywood and Sketchbook 49, 1996. broomstick, 120x98 cm.
Critical Commentary
One of the major texts included in the exhibition catalogue was written by
Yigal Zalmona, chief curator of the Israel Museum. In this article Zalmona claimed:
61
It is safe to say that Sgan-Cohen will have left his deepest mark on
the Israeli cultural consciousness specifically as an artist…this
work drew on his academic inquiries…and his studies in the fields
of Jewish thought, and sacred Jewish texts…Sgan-Cohen's art and
life span all of the intellectual junctures and theoretical contexts
that circumscribe the map of Israeli culture during the past two
decades: Israeli and Jewish identity, text and image, figuration
and abstraction, secularism and religion, Jerusalem and New
York, the spirit of the times and a return to cultural sources110.
Interpreting Sgan-Cohen's art as embodying the many changes that had transpired in the Israeli art field and Israeli culture during the previous two decades, underscored Zalmona's admiration for Sgan-Cohen's work. Issues such as Sgan-Cohen's transition from theoretician to artist, which had previously been considered as challenging and had even rejected, registered now in Zalmona's eyes as a non-issue in 2004, as he recognized Sgan-Cohen, first and foremost, as an artist. Furthermore, Zalmona exalted the profound input Sgan-Cohen's intellectual ability and employment of texts and language had had on his aesthetic practice.
On the issue of exploring Jewish sources, Zalmona professed:
Michael Sgan-Cohen was a secular Jewish scholar, one of a
generation of Jewish, Israeli, Zionist intellectuals searching for
meaning, an alert thinker and artist in whose eyes the world was a
text that needs interpreting111.
110 Yigal Zalmona, "The Desire to Observe," Michael Sgan-Cohen: A Retrospective, ed. T. Michelli (Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 2004) 182. 111 Zalmona, 182. 62
In a nonchalant manner, again regarding this fraught subject, as if a non-issue,
Zalmona described Sgan-Cohen as a "secular Jewish scholar", without any hesitation, question or difficulty. Back in 1994, Baruch had worked hard to explain his coined hybrid, "Secular Learned Scholar", as he pointed towards
Sgan-Cohen becoming more Jewish. Ten years later, using the same terminology, it seems Zalmona – a key player in the Israeli art field - had accepted Sgan-
Cohen's 'Jewish' stance as an issue that was not considered to be out of the ordinary.
The writing of Amitai Mendelsohn, head curator of the Israeli art department and curator of Sgan-Cohen's retrospective exhibition, was also included in the catalogue. His piece disclosed both similar and differing discernments on the same issues. Like Zalmona, Mendelsohn saw Sgan-Cohen's various roles within the art world as contributing rather than deterring from his work, and professed Sgan-Cohen's aesthetic practice to be his most significant endeavor:
Michael Sgan-Cohen was a person of many interests: artist, art
critic, art historian, curator and man of letters with a deep
interest in Jewish texts and specifically in the Bible. Each of these
pursuits left its imprint on his other endeavors, but Sgan-Cohen's
most significant undertaking was his work as an artist, and it was
in this sphere that his other interests merged112.
In contrast to Zalmona, Mendelsohn did not view Sgan-Cohen's art as being embedded in Jewish culture, but rather gave a more complex interpretation, in which Jewish sources were intertwined with art historical practices and
112 Mendelsohn, Bible, 181. 63 childish playfulness:
As for Sgan-Cohen, his exposure to both sources - ancient Jewish
and contemporary American - gave rise to a unique personal
blend of conceptualism and Judaism. Thus, his work Ha'or Roeh
(a 1998 version of a 1978 painting), (Fig. xx), is a crossword of
colored squares reminiscent of the colorful grid paintings of Paul
Klee…beside the fact that the two words constitute a
palindrome…the transition from an attitude of profound and
religious pathos to a (word) game expressed with almost childish
carelessness is at the heart of Sgan-Cohen's work113.
Fig. 19. Ha'or Roeh, ,Acrylic on canvas ,1998 ,(האו רואה) 40X40 cm.
In this manner, on the surface of discursive analysis addressing Sgan-
Cohen's work, it appeared that both Zalmona and Mendelsohn perceived the referencing of Jewish material in Sgan-Cohen's aesthetic practice (and beyond) as a resolved issue in 2004. While Zalmona agreed with Baruch that Sgan-Cohen was indeed a 'secular Jewish scholar', Mendelsohn did not view this undertaking as simply a move towards the realm of the 'Jewish', but rather as belonging to the
113 Mendelsohn, Bible, 178. 64 domain of the secular. For both writers it appeared as though the employment of
Jewish material in the aesthetic practice had become a non-issue.
Changes in associations between Jewish culture and Israeli art explored in relation to Sgan-Cohen's work may be seen in the writing of art historian and curator David Sperber's reflective analysis on this issue, "Israeli Discourse and the Jewish Voice", published in 2010. In this essay, Sperber discussed the Israeli art world's relationship with the referencing of Jewish material in the aesthetic practice. In doing so, Sperber borrowed the concept of-"hybridization"114. In explaining this term, Sperber contextualized it within the Zionist national enterprise, claiming that the intention of hybridization was to blend between old and new - a hybrid that intended to create an impression of continuity between the religious past and the secular present115. Consequently, by noting the employment of Jewish material and thus acknowledging the religious past, the
Israeli art field had freed itself from engaging in a religious analysis, and could quickly move on to interpret this endeavor in a secular manner.
This tendency was noted in the previous chapter through the writing of
Lusky, following the 1994 exhibition, as he read Sgan-Cohen's Jewish referencing as "…a language that…points to… the holy tongue, which has transpired into a secular language"116. Although Lusky did recognize Sgan-
Cohen's employment of the Jewish sources, he did not participate in a religious interpretation, but rather quickly moved on, contextualizing this endeavor as having "transpired into a secular language".
114 Yehuda Shenhav, “Is There Such a Thing as Secular Jewish Culture,” [Hebrew], Ha’aretz 11 Sept. 2007. 115 David Sperber, "Israeli Discourse and the Jewish Voice." Images 4, 1 (2010): 109. 116 Lusky, 31. 65
This same inclination appears to be prevalent here, seen by way of
Mendelsohn's interpretation of Haor-Roeh. Although Mendelsohn confessed to
Sgan-Cohen's employment of a religious sentiment in this work, he rapidly continued to analyze this Jewish enactment as a secular word-game, inspired by secular sources, art historical practices and Paul Klee.
Thus, the secular reading of the employment of Jewish sources seems to suggest that this exploration had become a resolved issue, and more so, a non- issue. Yet if this statement is in fact true, it fails to explain why so many of Sgan-
Cohen's works have been ignored by the Israeli art critics.
Generally speaking, the tendency within the Israeli art field appeared to interpret Jewish sources in a secular manner when confronted with Jewish content. The complexity of this subject is highlighted by Sperber's findings, and may assist in explaining some of the difficulties aroused by Sgan-Cohen's artworks in the Israeli art field. Exemplifying this issue is offered by a comparison between two ready-made pieces - Sitting/ Settlement, 1992 (Fig. 20), and Chair with Psalms, (A Psalm for Asaph), 1982 (Fig. 21).
Fig. 20: Sitting/Settlement, Fig. 21: Chair with Psalms (A Psalm for 1992, Acrylic on wood, 83x44x40 Asaph), 1982, Acrylic on canvas and chair, cm. 94x57.5x77 cm.
66
These two pieces of art were created in 1982, they are both found chair objects, and both works were displayed in the 1994 and 2004 exhibitions. Yet, Sitting/
Settlement, 1992, has received multiple interpretations found in a variety of publications117, while Chair with Psalms, (A Psalm for Asaph), 1982, to the best of my knowledge, has yet to be addressed by the Israeli art field. Sitting/
Settlement- portraying a chair with the map of Israel on its seat, and a clear blue sky with a lone cloud on its back, alludes to Israeli politics, amongst other secular topics, according to the Israeli art critics118. Chair with Psalms, depicting a psalm’s transcription on the back of the chair, may be said to point towards the religious and the 'Jewish'. In adopting Sperber's terminology, it seems fair to argue that Sitting/ Settlement was deemed a secular analysis, thus enabling the critics an enactment of hybridization. Chair with Psalms, as it perhaps alluded only to the religious and the ‘Jewish’, continues to be marginalized and ignored by the field, as it fails to ignite a secular reading.
As many of Sgan-Cohen's works have not yet been acknowledged and interpreted by the Israeli art field, Sperber's claims could help to explain the reasons behind this phenomenon. That is, if Sgan-Cohen's artwork referencing
Jewish material cannot be read by the Israeli art field in a secular manner, they are simply sidelined and ignored. Thus, although at first glance, the issue of employing Jewish content in the aesthetic practice appears to be resolved within the Israeli art field, on closer inspection, it seems fair to argue that this topic
117 Yael, Guilat "Between Painting and Poetry, Sacred and Secular Realms: A Reading of the Works of Yehuda Amitail and Michael Sgan-Cohen." Pictorial Languages and Thier Meanings: Liber amicorum in Honor of Nurith Kenaan-Keder, ed. Chistine.B. Verzar, and Gil Fishof (Tel- Aviv: TAU, 2006) 295-304, Mendelsohn, Symposiun, Zali Gorevich, "Michael Sgan-Cohen: An Aleph-Bet Painter," [Hebrew], Studio 92 (1998): 39-50, David Heyd, "I Have Caused You to See it With Your Eyes," [Hebrew], Studio 92 (1998): 20-25. 118 The many interpretations of Sitting/Settlement, are found referenced in detail, in the above footnote 130. 67 perhaps, still remains an issue with the field of Israeli art.
Summary and Conclusion
With Sgan-Cohen's art spanning a 25 year period, it has been shown that his signature style throughout this time frame did not alter, while the Israeli art field did shift in regard to their reception of his work. This change metamorphosed from an unfavorable position in 1978, to a more comprehensive stance in 1994, to recognizing Sgan-Cohen as a commendable artist in 2004.
With this said however, Sgan-Cohen's reception seems to be conditional upon the
Israeli art field's ability to interpret his art in a secular fashion. Thus, the findings disclosed in this research I hope, will assist the field in acknowledging that the issue of employing Jewish sources in the aesthetic practice is still somewhat controversial and unresolved. Moreover, if a resolution concerning this topic could be found, it perhaps would open doors for an expansion of the Israeli art canon, as discussed both by Ariela Azoulay119 and by Sperber120. Furthermore, resolving this issue could additionally increase and deepen the reception of Sgan-
Cohen's art, in that the many artworks that have been pushed aside would come into focus, which in turn, could conceivably ignite new ideas for future exhibitions.
In this manner, it seems reasonable to conclude that Sgan-Cohen's transitioning from art theoretician to artist, and his employment of language in
119 Ariela Azoulay, "Critical Art in Israel," [Hebrew], Teoria U'vikoret 2 (1992): 89-118, in this writing, Azoulay discusses the lack of critical conversations within the Israeli art field, and inquired into the possibility for, and situation of, critical art in Israel. 120 Sperber discusses the marginalization of religious artists from the Israeli art field, proposing that the field find a way to incorporate these artists and their art into the field, such that an expansion of the canon will be enabled, along with the possibility for engaging in critical art discourse that puts an end to producing more of the same kind of art. Sperber, 123-132. 68 his conceptual art practice, have not only completely resolved issues within the
Israeli art field, but more so, they have actually metamorphosed into becoming assets for incorporating his work into the Israeli art canon.
The topic of the "Secular Jewish Scholar" however, does not seem to have been fully resolved within the Israeli art world, and still remains somewhat of an issue, true to present day. It is interesting though to note that while the criterion for reception differs between the Israeli educative structure and the
Israeli art field, Sgan-Cohen's art has been integrated into the matriculation program of art history in Israel. This course is comprised of three alternative paths: chronological, modern and religious; Sgan-Cohen's work has been incorporated into the religious section. Moreover, within this unit, Sgan-Cohen's art has been situated under the subunit labeled "The Jewish Identity in
Contemporary Modern Israeli Art". At this point in time, Sgan-Cohen is the sole artist in this subunit121. In this fashion, the Israeli education system may be said to perceive the artwork of an Ashkenazi, secular "Tzabar", as the sole artist whose artwork embodies and personifies, "The Jewish Identity". And so, the employment of Jewish sources in the aesthetic practice seems to be provocative not only within the Israeli art field, but also between the different departments of art within Israel's social structures.
In a final comment, the present research I hope, has shed light on Sgan-
Cohen's reception into the Israeli art field, and in doing so, has illuminated some underlying issues within the Israeli art field, a topic that up until now has not been investigated, to the best of my knowledge. Moreover, as no visual documentation of the 1978 and 1994 exhibition prior to this thesis was found, nor
121 "Digital Learning Material," [Hebrew], amalnet, 17 Sept. 2014,
Cohen's work. And finally, I hope that my work has managed to expose Sgan-
Cohen as a distinctive and innovative artist, who created art in a fashion that was well ahead of its time, and in some respects, maybe still is.
70
Bibliography
אזולאי, אריאלה. "על אפשרות קיומה של אמנות ביקורתית בישראל ועל מצבה." תאוריה וביקורת 2 )1992(: 89-118.
בריטברג-סמל, שרה. "עשרה אמנים צעירים." דבר 12 ינואר 1973: 24.
בן-שאול, משה. "אחרי הכל." מעריב 3 אוקטובר 1986: 105.
ברוך, אדם. "היופי החדש והחרדה הסתומה." ידיעות אחרונות 5 ינואר 1979: 7.
—. "כתונת הפסים האחרונה בניו-יורק .” ידיעות אחרונות 7 ימים 30 דצמבר 1983: 27.
—. "ומי לא בא? מיכאל." ידיעות אחרונות 7 ימים יולי 1981: 22.
—. "מיכאל סגן-כהן היה אומר...". שישי תקשורת 11 במארס 1994: 19-18.
גורביץ, זלי. “מיכאל סגן-כהן: צייר אלף-בית.” סטודיו 92 )1998(: 39-50.
גילעת, יעל. "שנות השמונים: פרידה כהיגיון תרבותי." צק פוסט, שנות השמונים באמנות
ישראל. חיפה: מוזיאון חיפה, 2008. 19-22.
דהאן-כלב, ואחרים. מין מגדר פוליטיקה. ת"א: הקיבוץ המאוחד, 1999.
הד, דוד. "הראיתיך בעיניך." סטודיו 99 )1998/99(: 20-25.
הדר, אלון. "על מגזין או סטודיו: על התערוכה: "מהדורה אחרונה." nrg. 27 אוגוסט 2013
.
"חומר לימוד דיגיטלי." עמלנט. 17 ספטמבר 2014
zuv/TocnyotLimudim/Mavo.htm>. חינסקי, שרה. "עיניים עצומות לרווחה": על תסמונת הלבקנות הנרכשת בשדה האמנות הישראלית." תאוריה וביקורת 20 )2002(: 57-86. 71 __. "שתיקת הדגים מקומי ואוניברסלי בשיח האמנות הישראלי." תאוריה וביקורת 4 )1993(: 105-122ץ טייכר, אלי. "דבר אותה." דבר 20 פברואר 1981: 35. ידגר, יעקב. מעבר לחילון: מסורתיות וביקורת החילון בישראל. ירושלים: מכון וון-ליר והוצאת הקיבוץ המאוחד, 2012. לוי, איתמר. "המפעל להחייאת השפה." מוסף הארץ 8 באפריל 1994: 53. —. "ציור עם ידים בכיסים." מיכאל סגן-כהן: צירוים 1978, עד כאן. תל-אביב: מוזיאון רמת גן, 1994. 9-15. לוסקי, חיים. "עולם אסוציאטיבי." ידיעות אחרונות 27 במאי 1994: 31. מאור, חיים. "תפילין, תפילות ופליאות." מוסף על המשמר 6 במאי 1994. מבורך, ניסים. "על שתי מהפחות באמנות החזותית." כוורת 13 )2006(: 66-68. __. "שמן קיק." הארץ 12 בינואר 1979: 24. מגד, אהרון. "יצר ההתאבדות הישראלי." מוסף הארץ 10 יוני 1994. מלי, יוסי. "העידן של זמנים :המהפכה התרבותית בהיסטוריוגרפיה החדשה." זמנים: רבעון להיסטוריה 100 )סתיו 2007(: 126-137. סגן-כהן, מיכאל. “הנחות בדבר אפשרות לידתה של אמנות יהודית-ישראלית.” מאסף ירושלים )1977(: 79-88. עפרת, גדעון. "החממה: אביטל גבע, בביאנלה של ונציה." תאוריה וביקורת 3 )1993(: 129- .141 רז־קרקוצקין, אמנון. "גלות בתוך ריבונות ביקורת ״שלילת הגלות״ בתרבות הישראלית ." חלק שני. תאוריה וביקורת 5 )סתיו 1994(: 24-118. 72 רם, אורי. "זיכרון וזהות:ההיסטוריונים סוציולוגיה של ויכוח בישראל." תאוריה וביקורת 8 .9-32 :)1996( רמון, אמנון. "דוקטור מול דוקטור ג" - שכונת רחביה בירושלים: היסטוריה, הווי, מסלולי סיור. ירושלים: יד יצחק בן-צבי, 1998. רפ, דוד. "תלוש בפאריס. " הארץ. 26 ספטמבר 2004. רפפורט, טליה. "אובססיה תנכית." דבר 29 דצמבר 1978: 21. __. "ניסיונות פוסט-מושגיות." דבר 17 פברואר 1978: 17. שנהב, יהודה. "האם יש בכלל תרבות יהודית חילונית." הארץ 11 ספטמבר 2007. "Ahkenazi." Def. Judaism 101. 29. Aug. 2013 < http://www.jewfaq.org/ashkseph.htm>. Bentkowska-Kafel, Anna, et al. Digital Visual Culture: Theory and Practice. Bristol: Intellect Books, 2009. Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A social critique of the Judgment of Taste. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1984. Buchloh, Benjamin H. D. “Conceptual Art 1962-1969: From the Aesthetic of Administration to the Critique of Institutions.” October 55 (Winter 1990): 105 143. 73 ___, et al. "Conceptual Art and the Reception of Duchamp." October 70 (Autumn 1994): 126-146. Elkins, James. “Art History Without Theory.” Critical Inquiry 14, 2 (Winter 1988): 354-378. Galrom-Goldschlager, Joseph. “Adam Baruch.” Hebrew Lieterature: A Bio Bibliogaphical Lexicon. 20 Sept. 2011 "Gemara." Def. MyJewishLearning. 28 August 2013 ml>. Gurevitch, Zali, and Gideon Aran. "The Land of Israel: Myth and Phenomenon." Studies in Contemporary Jewry 10 (1994): 19S-220. Green, Charles. The Third Hand: Collaboration in Art from Conceptualism to Postmodernism. Minnesota: UNSW Press, 2001. Guilat, Yael. "Between Painting and Poetry, Sacred and Secular Realms: A Reading of the Works of Yehuda Amitail and Michael Sgan-Cohen." Ed: Verzar, C.B., Gil Fishof. Pictorial languages and Their Meanings: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Nurith Kenaan-Keder. Tel- Aviv: TAU, 2006. 295-304. Harrison, Charles. Conceptual Art and Painting: Further Essays on Art Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001. 74 Heyd, David. "Between Response and Responsiveness: On Michael Sgan- Cohen's "Hinneni." Ed. R. C. Washton Long, M. Baigell, and M. Heyd. Jewish Dimensions in Modern Visual Culture. Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 2009. 273-284. Jones, Caroline A. Eyesight Alone: Clement Greenberg's Modernism and the Bureaucratization of the Senses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Knapp Steven, Walter Benn Michaels. "Against Theory." Critical Inquiry 8, 4 (Summer 1982): 723-742. Kotz, Liz. Words to be Looked at: Language in 1960s Art. Cambridge, MA: Mit Press, 2007. Krauss, Rosalind. "Poststructuralist and the 'Paraliterary'." October 13 (Summer 1980): 36-40. Manor, Dalia. “Form Regection to Recongniton: Israeli Art and the Holocaust.” Israel Affairs 4 (1998): 253-277. Mendelsohn, Amitai. "The Bible in Primary Colors: The Sources of Michael Sgan-Cohen's Art." Michael Sgan-Cohen: A Retrospective. Ed. T. Michelli. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 2004. 170-181. __. "Refelctive Pianting- A Symposiun." Michael Sgan-Cohen: A Retrospective 1976-1999. Ed. T. Michelli. Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 2004. 160-169. Mitchell, W. J. T. Iconography: Image, Text and Ideology. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1987. 75 "Midrash." Def. thefreedictionary. 2 Jun. 2013 Nelson, Robert, and Richard Shiff. Critical Terms for Art History. Chicago: U of Chicago Press 1996. Shapira, Anita. “The Bible and Israeli Identity.” AJS Review 28 (2004):11-41. Shohat, Ella. Israeli Cinema : East/West and the Politics of Representation. Austin Tex: University of Texas Press, 1989. Smith, Roberta. Conceptual Art: Concepts on Modern Art. Ed. Nikos Stangos. New York: Harper and Row, 1981. Sperber, David. "Israeli Art Discourse and the Jewish Voice." Images 4.1 (2010): 109-31. "Talmid Chacham." Def. Judaism 101. 10. Sept. 2014 "Talmud." Def. TheFreeDictionary. 02. Jun. 2013 Torres Louis, and Michelle Marder Kamhi. What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand. Chicago: Open Court, 2000. Wistrich, Robert Solomon, and David Ohana. The Shaping of Israeli Identity: Myth, Memory and Trauma. London: Frank Cass, 1995. 76 “Yirmiyahu Yovel.” Vanleer. 30 Dec. 2013 essays-yirmiyahu-yovel>. Zalmona, Yigal. "The Desire to Observe." Michael Sgan-Cohen: A Retrospective. Ed. T. Michelli. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 2004. 77 List of Artworks The English translations have been authentically copied from Michael Sgan- Cohen's archive122. . 122 Courtesy of Leora Laor Sgan-Cohen. 78 ,(חבקוק) Artworks Referenced in the Thesis Fig. 8: Detail from Habakkuk Oil sticks on paper, 2.97 X 0.94 ,1978 ,1978 ,(הנני) ,Fig. 1: Hinneni Print and acrylic on paper and frame, cm, p. 18. 27x36cm, p. 1. Fig. 9: General layout and lighting- Fig. 2: The official announcement for Chaim Gamzu Gallery, Ramat Gan the 1978 exhibit, hand written Museum, p. 39. by Michael Sgan-Cohen, p. 12. Fig. 10: Extremely large images of Fig. 3: Sgan-Cohen's clearly marked unframed canvases, displayed as close floor map of the 1978 exhibition, to the floor as possible, p. 39. Acrylic on ,1996 ,(דגל) mounted in the Kibbutz Gallery, p. 14. Fig. 11: Flag Fig. 4: General floor map of the plywood and broomstick, 120x98 cm, Kibbutz Gallery, showing the corridors p. 61. connecting between the two exhibitory Fig. 12: Sketchbook 49, 1996, p. 61. ,1998 ,(האור רואה) spaces, p. 14. Fig. 13: Ha'or Roeh Fig. 5: Torah Prophets Writings (The Acrylic on canvas, 40X40 cm, p. 64. ,(התיישבות) Fig. 14: Sitting/ Settlement ,(תורה נביאים כתובים) ,(Hebrew Bible 1978, Felt pen on Bible, 15x10x4 cm, 1992, Acrylic on wood, 83x44x40 cm, p. 15. p. 66. Oil sticks Fig. 15: Chair with Psalms (A Psalm ,1978 ,(נחום) Fig. 6: Nahum ,כיסא עם תהילים )מזמור אסף( ,(on paper, 67x100 cm, p. 16. for Asaph ,Acrylic on canvas and chair ,1982 ,(כה אמר ה') Fig. 7: So Says the Lord 1978, Acrylic on paper, 59X45 cm, p. 94x57.5x77 cm, p. 66. 16. 79 ,(פנים אל פנים) Appendix A: The 1978 Exhibiotn Fig. 13: Face to Face Oil 1978, Acrylic on gold framed ,1978 ,(נחום) Fig. 1: Nahum sticks on paper, 67x100 cm, p. 85. mirror, 29X23 cm, p. 91. ,(כה אמר ה') Oil sticks Fig. 14: So Says the Lord ,1978 ,(עמוס) Fig. 2: Amos on paper, 67x100 cm, p. 85. 1978, Acrylic on paper, 59X45 cm, .Oil p. 91 ,1978 ,(הושע) Fig. 3: Hosea ,1978 ,(לא עגל) sticks on paper, 100X67 cm, p. 86. Fig. 15: Lo Egel .Oil Acrylic on canvas, 49X106 cm, p ,1978 ,(זכריה) Fig. 4: Zechariah sticks on paper, 100X67 cm, p. 86. 92. Oil sticks Fig. 16: Recondite, 1978, Acrylic on ,1978 ,(חגי) Fig. 5: Haggai on paper, 67x100 cm, p. 87. canvas, 30x20 cm, p. 92. Print ,1978 ,(הנני) Oil sticks Fig. 17: Hinneni ,1978 ,(יואל) Fig. 6: Joel on paper, 67x100 cm, p. 87. and acrylic on paper and frame, .Oil sticks 27x36 cm, p. 93 ,1978 ,(יונה) Fig. 7: Jonah on paper, 67x100 cm, p. 88. Fig. 18: Ha'or Roeh, (The Light Acrylic on ,1977 ,(האור רואה) ,(Oil Sees ,1978 ,(עובדיה) Fig. 8: Obadiah sticks on paper, 67x100 cm, p. 88. dense wood, plastic lettering, 85X40 .Oil cm, p. 93 ,1978 ,(חבקוק) Fig. 9: Habakkuk sticks on paper, 67x100 cm, p. 89. Fig. 19: But in the Last Days it Shall ,(והיה באחרית הימים) Oil Come to Pass ,1978 ,(מיכה) Fig. 10: Micah sticks on paper, 67x100 cm, p. 89 1978, Acrylic on canvas, 142X210 .Oil cm, p. 94 ,1978 ,(מלאכי) Fig. 11: Malachi ,(שמעו נע) sticks on paper, 67x100 cm, p. 90. Fig. 20: Hear I Pray You Oil 1978, Acrylic on canvas, 80X200 ,1978 ,(עובדיה) Fig. 12: Obadiah sticks on paper, 67x100 cm, p. 90. cm, p. 94. 80 Appendix B: The 1994 Exhibiotn ,(מלך ישראל) Fig. 21: Melech Israel 1977, Acrylic on canvas, two gold Fig. 1: The display of similar genres, branches, 157X208 cm, p. 95. themes and motifs in separate Fig. 22: The Ark of the Covenant groups, in the Chaim Ganzu Gallery, .Acrylic on 1994, p. 99 ,1977 ,(ארון הברית) מזבח ) medicine cabinet, 10x27x13 cm, p. Fig. 2: Mizbeach Ha'Olah Acrylic on ,1993-1994 ,(העולה .95 canvas, pencil, copper piece and two שמעו ) Fig. 23: Hear All Ye People ,Acrylic on wood, wooden painted sticks, 286X251 cm ,1978 ,(עמים 200X80 cm, p. 96. p. 99. Fig. 24: Comfort Ye, Comfort Ye, My Fig. 3: Untitled, 1990, Acrylic on Acrylic cardboard and aluminum foil in ,1978 ,(נחמו נחמו עמי) People and oil sticks on wood and street wooden frame, 30.5x35.5 cm, p. sign, 183X62 cm, p. 96. 100. ,(אורנט),(Fig. 4: Orant (triptych ,1977-78 ,(משה) Fig. 25: Moses Acrylic and oil sticks on canvas, 1978, Acrylic on metal sheet, 31X71 212X70 cm, p. 97. cm, p. 100. ,1983 ,(לויתן) Fig. 26: Torah Prophets Writings Fig. 5: Leviathan .Acrylic on canvas, 260x644 cm, p תורה נביאים ) ,(The Hebrew Bible) .Felt pen on Bible, 101 ,1978 ,(כתובים ללא כותרת ) ,(15x10x4 cm, P. 97. Fig. 6: Untitled (Elijah Acrylic on canvas ,1992 ,()אליהו( ,(הארץ) ,(Fig. 27: Ha’aretz (triptych 1978, Gouache on newspaper, and leather, 138x213 cm, p. 101. 58X42 cm (each), p. 98. 81 Acrylic Fig. 16: Sitting/ Settlement ,1984 ,(הר) Fig. 7: Mountain ,Acrylic on wood ,1992 ,(התיישבות) and oil sticks on canvas, 215x365 cm, p. 102. 83x44x40 cm, p. 106. Acrylic on Fig. 17: Chair with Psalms (A Psalm ,1992 ,(מפה) Fig. 8: Map כיסא עם תהילים )מזמור ) ,(canvas, 55X55 cm, p. 102. for Asaph Acrylic on canvas and ,1982 ,(לאסף( Fig. 9: Untitled, 1993, Acrylic and oil sticks on canvas, 55X55 cm, p. chair, 94x57.5x77 cm, p. 107. ,(מיכאל) ,(Fig. 18: Michael (triptych .103 Fig. 10: Untitled, 1983, Acrylic on 1984, Acrylic on canvas and glitter, canvas, 105X127 cm, p. 103. 30x50 cm, p. 107. ,1981 ,(מ"ם) ,(Fig. 19: Mem (diptych ,1982 ,(מרכבה) Fig. 11: Chariot Acrylic on canvas, 89x89 cm, p. Acrylic on canvas, 25X41 cm, p. 104. 108. כתונת ) Fig. 12: Covenant of the Word Fig. 20: Coat of Many Colors ,Acrylic on canvas ,1981 ,(פסים ,1980 ,(ברית מילה) ,(circumcision) Acrylic on canvas, 112X72 cm, p. 177x71 cm, p. 108. בזרועות ) Fig. 21: With Raised Arms .104 Acrylic and ,1982 ,(מורמות )שמשון( Fig. 13: Untitled, 1985, Acrylic on canvas, 94X125 cm, p. 105. oil on canvas and cardboard, .213x137 cm, p. 109 ,(כנפיים) ,(Fig. 14: Wings (triptych ,(שם) ,(Acrylic on canvas, 61X97 cm, Fig. 22: Naming (diptych ,1982 p. 105. 1982, Acrylic on canvas, 26X42 cm, .p. 109 ,(מאוזן) ,(Fig. 15: Level (triptych 1981, Acrylic on canvas, 25X36 cm, p. 106. 82 Fig. 30: Untitled, 1982, Acrylic on ,(דיוקן עצמי) Fig. 23: Self-portrait 1984, Acrylic and mirror on canvas, canvas with oil sticks and super-lac, 31x23 cm, p. 110. 210X130 cm, p. 113. Acrylic on ,1980 ,(מפה) Fig. 24: Untitled, 1983, Acrylic on Fig. 31: Map camouflage cloth and canvas, canvas, 135X102 cm, p. 114. ,(מפה )טיארה() ,(151x120 cm, p. 110. Fig. 32: Map (kite Fig. 25: Entreaty, Self-portrait 1984, Acrylic on canvas, 260X260 .Acrylic & oil cm, p. 114 ,1983 ,(נשיאת כפיים) sticks on canvas, 150x107 cm, p. Fig. 33: Torah Prophets Writings תורה נביאים ) ,(The Hebrew Bible) .111 ,Felt pen on Bible ,1978 ,(כתובים חיים עד ) Fig. 26: Life Forever More .Acrylic and oil 15x10x4 cm, p. 115 ,1981-85 ,(העולם sticks on canvas, 225X152 cm, p. Fig. 34: Untitled, 1982, Acrylic and 111. aluminum foil on canvas, 101x0.31 .cm, p. 115 היהודי ) Fig. 27: The Wandering Jew .Acrylic and pencil on Fig. 35: Untilled, 1987-1993 ,1983 ,(הנודד canvas, 212x108 cm, p. 112. Acrylic on canvas, oil sticks and .parcel string, size unknown, p. 116 ,(קיר טלויזיוני) ,Fig. 28: T.V. Wall 1984, Acrylic on canvas, 166X209 Fig. 36: Esh! (or) Aleph Esh Shin cm, p. 112. Shemesh (or) Esh Tishamesh )אש! )או( אלף אש שין שמש ,(diptych) ספר ) ,(Fig. 29: Open Book (diptych Acrylic on ,1982 ,)או( אש ת'שמש( ,Acrylic on canvas ,1987 ,(פתוח 61X102 cm, p. 113. canvas, 45X25 cm, p. 116. 83 Appendix C: Artwork by Other Artists Fig. 1: Joseph Kossuth, One and Three Chairs, 1965, Chair, 82x37.8x53 cm, photographic panel, 91.5x61.1 cm, text panel, 61x61.3 cm, p. 117. Fig. 2: Art & Language, 77 Sentences, 1974 (detail), p. 117. Fig. 3: Art & Language, Shouting Men, 1975 (detail), p. 1118. 84 Appendix A: The 1978 Exhibition ,1978 ,(נחום) Fig. 1: Nahum Oil sticks on paper, 67x100 cm. ,1978 ,(עמוס) Fig. 2: Amos Oil sticks on paper, 67x100 cm. 85 ,1978 ,(הושע) Fig. 3: Hosea Oil sticks on paper, 100X67 cm. ,1978 ,(זכריה) Fig. 4: Zechariah Oil sticks on paper, 100X67 cm. 86 ,(חגי) Fig. 5: Haggai 1978, Oil sticks on paper, 67x100 cm. ,1978 ,(יואל) Fig. 6: Joel Oil sticks on paper, 67x100 cm. 87 ,1978 ,(יונה) Fig. 7: Jonah Oil sticks on paper, 67x100 cm. ,1978 ,(עובדיה) Fig. 8: Obadiah Oil sticks on paper, 67x100 cm. 88 ,1978 ,(חבקוק) Fig. 9: Habakkuk Oil sticks on paper, 67x100 cm. ,1978 ,(מיכה) Fig. 10: Micah Oil sticks on paper, 67x100 cm. 89 ,1978 ,(מלאכי) Fig. 11: Malachi Oil sticks on paper, 67x100 cm. ,1978 ,(עובדיה) Fig. 12: Obadiah Oil sticks on paper, 67x100 cm. 90 ,1978 ,(פנים אל פנים) Fig. 13: Face to Face Acrylic on gold framed mirror, 29X23 cm. ,1978 ,(כה אמר ה') Fig. 14: So Says the Lord Acrylic on paper, 59X45 cm. 91 ,1978 ,(לא עגל) Fig. 15: Lo Egel Acrylic on canvas, 49X106 cm. Fig. 16: Recondite, 1978, Acrylic on canvas, 30x20 cm. 92 ,1978 ,(הנני) Fig. 17: Hinneni Print and acrylic on paper and frame, 27x36cm. ,1977 ,(האור רואה) ,(Fig. 18: Ha'or Roeh, (The Light Sees Acrylic on dense wood, plastic lettering, 85X40 cm. 93 ,1978 ,(והיה באחרית הימים) Fig. 19: But in the Last Days it Shall Come to Pass Acrylic on canvas, 142X210 cm. ,1978 ,(שמעו נע) Fig. 20: Hear I Pray You Acrylic on canvas, 80X200 cm. 94 ,1977 ,(מלך ישראל) Fig. 21: Melech Israel Acrylic on canvas, two gold branches, 157X208 cm. ,1977 ,(ארון הברית) Fig. 22: The Ark of the Covenant Acrylic on medicine cabinet, 10x27x13 cm. 95 ,1978 ,(שמעו עמים) Fig. 23: Hear All Ye People Acrylic on wood, 200X80 cm. ,1978 ,(נחמו נחמו עמי) Fig. 24: Comfort Ye, Comfort Ye, My People Acrylic and oil sticks on wood and street sign, 183X62 cm. 96 ,1977-78 ,(משה) Fig. 25: Moses Acrylic and oil sticks on canvas, 212X70 cm. Fig. 26: Torah Prophets Writings (The Hebrew Bible), .Felt pen on Bible, 15x10x4 cm ,1978 ,(תורה נביאים כתובים) 97 ,1978 ,(הארץ) ,(Fig. 27: Ha’aretz (triptych Gouache on newspaper, 58X42 cm (each). 98 Appendix B: The 1994 Exhibition Fig. 1: The display of similar genres, themes and motifs in separate groups, in the Chaim Ganzu Gallery, 1994. ,1993-1994 ,(מזבח העולה) Fig. 2: Mizbeach Ha'Olah Acrylic on canvas, pencil, copper piece and two wooden painted sticks, 286X251 cm. 99 Fig. 3: Untitled, 1990, Acrylic on cardboard and aluminum foil in wooden frame, 30.5x35.5 cm. ,1978 ,(אורנט),(Fig. 4: Orant (triptych Acrylic on metal sheet, 31X71 cm. 100 ,1983 ,(לויתן) Fig. 5: Leviathan Acrylic on canvas, 260x644 cm. ,1992 ,(ללא כותרת )אליהו() ,(Fig. 6: Untitled (Elijah Acrylic on canvas and leather, 138x213 cm 101 ,1984 ,(הר) Fig. 7: Mountain Acrylic and oil sticks on canvas, 215x365 cm. ,1992 ,(מפה) Fig. 8: Map Acrylic on canvas, 55X55 cm. 102 Fig. 9: Untitled, 1993, Acrylic and oil sticks on canvas, 55X55 cm. Fig. 10: Untitled, 1983, Acrylic on canvas, 105X127 cm 103 ,1982 ,(מרכבה) Fig. 11: Chariot Acrylic on canvas, 89x89 cm. ,1980 ,(ברית מילה) ,(Fig. 12: Covenant of the Word (circumcision Acrylic on canvas, 112X72 cm. 104 Fig. 13: Untitled, 1985, Acrylic on canvas, 94X125 cm. ,1982 ,(כנפיים) ,(Fig. 14: Wings (triptych Acrylic on canvas, 61X97 cm. 105 ,1981 ,(מאוזן) ,(Fig. 15: Level (triptych Acrylic on canvas, 25X36 cm. ,1992 ,(התיישבות) Fig. 16: Sitting/ Settlement Acrylic on wood, 83x44x40 cm. 106 ,(כיסא עם תהילים )מזמור לאסף() ,(Fig. 17: Chair with Psalms (A Psalm for Asaph 1982, Acrylic on canvas and chair, 94x57.5x77 cm. ,1984 ,(מיכאל) ,(Fig. 18: Michael (triptych Acrylic on canvas and glitter, 30x50 cm. 107 ,1981 ,(מ"ם) ,(Fig. 19: Mem (diptych Acrylic on canvas, 25X41 cm. ,1981 ,(כתונת פסים) Fig. 20: Coat of Many Colors Acrylic on canvas, 177x71 cm. 108 ,1982 ,(בזרועות מורמות )שמשון() Fig. 21: With Raised Arms Acrylic and oil on canvas and cardboard, 213x137 cm. ,1982 ,(שם) ,(Fig. 22: Naming (diptych Acrylic on canvas, 26X42 cm. 109 ,1984 ,(דיוקן עצמי) Fig. 23: Self-portrait Acrylic and mirror on canvas, 31x23 cm. Fig. 24: Untitled, 1983, Acrylic on camouflage cloth and canvas, 151x120 cm. 110 ,1983 ,(נשיאת כפיים) Fig. 25: Entreaty, Self-portrait Acrylic & oil sticks on canvas, 150x107 cm. ,1981-85 ,(חיים עד העולם) Fig. 26: Life Forever More Acrylic and oil sticks on canvas, 225X152 cm. 111 ,1983 ,(היהודי הנודד) Fig. 27: The Wandering Jew Acrylic and pencil on canvas, 212x108 cm. ,1984 ,(קיר טלויזיוני) ,Fig. 28: T.V. Wall Acrylic on canvas, 166X209 cm. 112 ,1987 ,(ספר פתוח) ,(Fig. 29: Open Book (diptych Acrylic on canvas, 61X102 cm. Fig. 30: Untitled, 1982, Acrylic on canvas with oil sticks and super-lac, 210X130 cm. 113 ,1980 ,(מפה) Fig. 31: Map Acrylic on canvas, 135X102 cm. ,1984 ,(מפה )טיארה() ,(Fig. 32: Map (kite Acrylic on canvas, 260X260 cm. 114 Fig. 33: Torah Prophets Writings ,1978 ,(תורה נביאים כתובים) ,(The Hebrew Bible) Felt pen on Bible, 15x10x4 cm. Fig. 34: Untitled, 1982, Acrylic and aluminum foil on canvas, 101x0.31 cm. 115 Fig. 35: Untilled, 1987-1993. Acrylic on canvas, oil sticks and parcel string, size unknown. Fig. 36: Esh! (or) Aleph Esh Shin Shemesh (or) Esh Tishamesh (diptych), ,1982 ,)אש! )או( אלף אש שין שמש )או( אש ת'שמש( Acrylic on canvas, 45X25 cm. 116 Appendix C: Artwork by Other Artists Fig. 1: Joseph Kossuth, One and Three Chairs, 1965, Chair, 82x37.8x53 cm, photographic panel, 91.5x61.1 cm, text panel, 61x61.3 cm. Fig. 2: Art & Language, 77 Sentences, 1974 (detail). 117 Fig. 3: Art & Language, Shouting Men, 1975 (detail). 118 תוכן עניינים מבוא...... 1 פרק ראשון: מיכאל סגן-כהן - מתאורטיקן לאמן...... 11 מבוא...... 11 התערוכה של 1978...... 12 פרשנות ביקורתית...... 1 16 הפנייה של סגן-כהן אל עבר היהדות...... 3 32 פרק שני: בחינת התקבלותו של מיכאל סגן-כהן: טרנספורמציות בשדה אמנות הישראלי...... 3 36 3 מבוא...... 36 התערוכה של 1994...... 3 37 פרשנות ביקורתית...... 4 40 סיכום...... 5 57 אפילוג...... 5 59 התערוכה של 2004...... 6 60 פרשנות ביקורתית...... 6 61 סיכום ומסקנות...... 6 68 ביבליוגרפיה...... 7 71 רשימת יצירות...... 7 78 נספח א': התערוכה של 1978...... 8 85 נספח ב': התערוכה של 1994...... 9 99 נספח ג': יצירות מאמנים אחרים...... 1 118 IV תקציר מחקר זה בוחן את התקבלותו של האמן מיכאל סגן-כהן על ידי שדה האמנות בישראל, לאורך תקופה של 25 שנים. הטענה המרכזית המועלית בעבודה זו היא שחרף העובדה כי הסגנון הייחודי של סגן-כהן – המאופיין בהתייחסות ובעיבודים חדשניים למקורות ולתכנים יהודיים, ולהצגתם בהקשרים קונספטואליים ותיאורטיים עדכניים – לא השתנה במהלך השנים, הרי שהיחס אליו וליצירתו השתנה באופן משמעותי. כתוצאה מכך, הפך מאמן לא אהוד בשנת 1978, לאמן מקובל יותר בשנת 1994 - ולאמן הזוכה להערכה, הכרה ושבחים בשנת 2004. באמצעות גישה היסטורית וניתוח השדה (field analysis) של השינויים שהתחוללו בשדה האמנות בישראל בתקופה הנדונה (1978-2004), תזה זו סוקרת ומנתחת את הדרך השונה בה התקבלו שלוש תערוכות היחיד של סגן-כהן. תוך בחינת הפרשנויות הביקורתיות אשר ניתנו לתערוכות אלו, ועריכת ראיונות עם דמויות מפתח בעולם האמנות הישראלי של אותן שנים, העבודה מציגה הן את שלבי התקבלותו של סגן-כהן והן את השינויים שהתחוללו בעולם האמנות הישראלי )ואשר, בין השאר, אפשרו התקבלות זו(. שינויים אלה נבחנים בנוסף גם בעזרת התמקדות בעלייתו של השיח הפוסט-מודרניסטי במרחב החברתי בישראל, והשפעתו על שיח האמנות בישראל, תוך מסגורם של הממצאים בתחום של תיאוריית השדה (field theory), המהווה קונטקסט פורה להבנתם. כמו כן, בעזרת ההתייחסות לשלוש תערוכות היחיד של סגן-כהן, שהתפרשו על פני שניים וחצי עשורים, המחקר מצליח להוות מקרה-בוחן מייצג של כמה מהשינויים המשמעותיים שהתרחשו בשדה האמנות בישראל באותה תקופה – כאשר השיח הפוסט- מודרניסטי השפיע על מאפייניו ועיצובו של שדה זה. V אוניברסיטת בן גוריון בנגב הפקולטה למדעי הרוח והחברה המחלקה לאמנויות מטמורפוזה פוסטמודרנית: התקבלותו של מיכאל סגן-כהן לתוך השדה האמנות הישראלי חיבור זה מהווה חלק מהדרישות לקבלת התואר "מוסמך למדעי הרוח והחברה" (M.A.) מאת: רותי רובנשטיין בהנחיית: ד"ר מרב ירושלמי כסלו, תשע"ה דצמבר, 2014 VI