Parkett+87+Fritsch+Katharina.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Katharina Fritsch Katharina Fritsch From Out There to Down H ere JESSICA MORGAN KATHARINA FRITSCH, DISPLAY STAND II, Fritsch’s works are thus taken to be madeleines, in 2001, glass, aluminum, and objects dating the Proustian sense, evoking the lost memory and from 1981 - 2001, detail / WARENGESTELL II, imaginary world of childhood. Glas, Aluminium, Objekte, Detail. While I am familiar with the sources from which many of Fritsch’s representations are thought to be derived, I have never been entirely convinced by PH x 3040 x Vs”; O T O G R A P H (BL8 A C K F O R E S THOUSE), 2006/2008,paint, silkscreen, plastic, Much has been said of the unconscious in the work of the psychoanalytic reading of her work. Perhaps I lh Katharina Fritsch. It has been described as “sinister am separated from the work by a generational, or and uncanny”1* and said to deal with “the dark side even a national, sort of schism; I do feel quite far of the psyche.”2* From her early representations of removed from any underlying phobias derived from rats, a monk, and a ghost, to her recent sculptures of devils, rats, and religious fables. In the urban Lon a giant, a snake, and an octopus, the ur-myths and fa don of my childhood, the real threats were burglars, bles supposedly summoned by these forms have gen muggers, and random street violence. When I look erally been thought to lead us unwittingly to assess at Fritsch’s RATTENKÖNIG (Rat-King, 1991-93), DOK their—and our own—greater psychological depths. TOR (1999), or HÄNDLER (Dealer, 2001), my over Fritsch’s technique is to amplify; her manifestly scru whelming impression is of the otherworldly and even pulous attention to detail, scale, color, and surface al hallucinogenic effect of her immaculately modeled, lows not only for the immediate comprehensibility of matte surfaces. Their extraordinary autonomy from form, but provides one with the sensation of endur their surroundings strikes me as ultra-contemporary: ing a visitation to the site of a formative experience. rather than appearing like refugees from a rec reation of a dance macabre or a German medieval JESSICA MORGAN is curator of Contemporary Art at Tate fable, their true home seems closer to commercial KATHARINAFRITSCH, COOK, 2008,79polyester, color, M odern. ized popular culture and to the disarming visual ef- K O/ C H detail ,147 x Polyester,Vi”, 110 Vi Farbe, 20276 102x x c FO m ; T 6. O ( S C H W A R Z W A L D H A U S ) , Siebdruck, Kunststoff, Farbe, 280 375x cm, Detail. PARKETT 87 2010 3 4 3 5 Katharina Fritsch Katharina Fritsch contain mass-produced versions of the same object to think in pictures, to be versed in a kind of per (WARENGESTELL MIT MADONNEN, Display Stand sonal interior sign language. This notion of language with Madonnas, 1987/1989, or WARENGESTELL MIT suggests why her work may be difficult to penetrate GEHIRNEN, Display Stand with Brains, 1989) evoke a for anyone who does not have the linguistic tools to more typical consumer display aesthetic; in this case, make sense of her system of signs. Nevertheless, this the objects obscure the stand that lies beneath them. “distancing effect” separates her work from other art In fact, it is truly the outline of the packed stand (a ists of her generation who have similarly dealt with tower of Pisa that doesn’t lean, and an hourglass appropriated objects taken from the everyday. Take, form) that dominates our impression, rather than any for example, Haim Steinbach, Sherrie Levine, and of the individual items contained within in it. Fritsch Robert Gober. Or most notably, Jeff Koons, whose eventually chose to substitute the vitrine for a more works of the eighties and nineties were often cyni traditional pedestal, but one all the while elevated to cally “misunderstood,” especially in Europe. In the monumental proportions to accommodate its over meantime it has become apparent that Koons’ sub sized sculptural occupant. ELEFANT (1987), indeed, versive strategy consists more of celebrating popular took tremendous bravura. It was an almost inconceiv culture than of criticizing it. Does that put Fritsch in ably grandiose gesture for an artist in her first solo the same camp with Koons? show in Germany, and it quickly established Fritsch’s In my mind, the major difference between the mastery of a form of alienation and of alien forms. two artists is that Koons makes a deliberate effort at The elephant, with its physical attributes—already as inclusion through the accessibility of his shiny sur sociated with museology, albeit that of the Museum faces, overtly sexual subject matter, and reference to of Natural History—had long been established as toys and popular culture, while Fritsch, conversely, one of the greatest spectacles of the natural world. Fritsch then added to this trope an arresting, dull- green surface. It was a disarming feat, which she took to even greater lengths with her fluorescent-yellow MADONNENFIGUR (Madonna Figure, 1987). The fig ure stood without a pedestal famously positioned in KATHARINA FRITSCH, COOK, 2G08; PHOTOGRAPH 6 (BLACK FOREST HOUSE), 2006/2008; C O M P A N Y AT TABLE, 1988, exhibi a Münster public plaza between a department store tion view, Deichtorhallen, Hamburg / KOCH, 6. FOTO (SCHWARZWALDHAUS), TISCHGESELLSCHAFT, Ausstellungsansicht. and the neighboring church. With this work and oth ers like it, Fritsch achieved an otherworldly remove fects of film. Indeed, the manner in which Fritsch’s Initially, Fritsch achieved this kind of isolation at odds with the dominant interpretation of her work work resists contextualization in the gallery further of form (or image) by placing toy-like objects and as a projection of our subconscious fears and desires. suggests some form of digitized projection. This dis multiples on display stands (WARENGESTELL, Display While dreams and nightmares are characterized by a arming quality is also a result of their resolutely non- Stand, 1979-84). These glass-shelved structures in distortion of reality, Fritsch’s figures are outlandish reflective surfaces that disallow for any absorption vited a comparison to the world of merchandize dis beings separated from contextual grounding. of the surroundings, as well as their pristine finish play, but to my eye, they even more closely resembled On the topic of her sculptural work, Fritsch has that sets them apart from the viewer and from any the sort of display cases often found in domestic envi remarked on her need to “abide by all the various non-Fritsch artworks unfortunate enough to be in ronments—those used by a family to protect and ex laws of sculpture,” despite her desire to ignore such their proximity. And yet, the unnerving, apparitional hibit its most treasured objects—be they tchotchkes laws and produce instead what she calls “three-di quality of Fritsch’s work is distinctly its obdurate exis or semi-precious objet d’arts. This is confirmed by mensional pictures.”3’ But what is meant by three- tence in space; our relationship to it, unlike cinema’s Fritsch’s selection of the artifacts, which suggest dimensional pictures? Does this term connote a per immersion, remains one of impenetrability. These the vagaries and eclecticism of a “personalized” col fectly constructed, immaculate image existing purely presences do not come across as simulacra crafted in lection—including a group of toy sheep, a mirror, within the mind, rather than in our ever-deficient a Hollywood prop shop, but as unmistakably unique and a bead necklace, as well as a most perplexing reality? And what precisely is the difference between sculptural objects that evidently refuse to fit into translucent, large green gemstone that sits mysteri a flat image and a sculpture in the round? Is it strictly their surroundings. ously high up on the top shelf. Only the stands that KATHARINA FRITSCH, DISPLAY STAND WITH MADONNAS, 1987/1989; BARGAIN COUNTER, 1987/1989; DISPLAY STAND WITH VASES, 1987/2001, exhibition view, KunstbausZürich WARENGESTELL / a MITmatterMADONNAS, WÜHLTISCH, of WARENGESTELL detail?MIT VASEN, Ausstellungsansicht. Fritsch has spoken of her ability 36 37 Katharina Fritsch Katharina Fritsch detaches her sculptural “pictures” from their origins, logue for her recent show at Kunsthaus Zurich that KATHARINA FRITSCH, BOOTH WITH FOUR making them appear to be frozen in time and out of Fritsch had had a fruitful and sympathetic conversa STATUES, 1985/86 / 2001, w o o d , paint, plaster, reach. tion with the legendary set designer Ken Adam, who 78 3A x 78 3A x 110 >/«*, detail / With this in mind, it is all the more surprising to is known for his work on the early James Bond sets M E S S E K O D E MIT VIE R FIG UREN, Holz, Farbe, see Fritsch’s recent work. The sculptures have now (Dr. No and Goldfinger) and is the person responsible Gips, 200 X 200 X 280 cm, Detail. been given backgrounds! No longer are we con for the otherworldly settings in Stanley Kubrick’s fronted by alien beings dropped from nowhere into Dr. StrangeloveN What Fritsch’s new backgrounds do our reality. Now there is the suggestion that they have in combination with the sculptures is not particularly form of ur-archetypes rather than descending to the an appropriate home. This impression comes from suggestive of the set design genre; however, they are level of the here and now. Indeed it seems increas the monochromatic, large-scale photos (pictures of reminiscent of the “blue screen” effects seen in some ingly the case that Fritsch’s particular use of surface pictures). For example, in one piece, a nauseating, what dated films and television from the sixties and treatment—the matte coloring that sets them apart cake-icing-yellow-colored chef holds an utterly un seventies where actors are artificially superimposed in the gallery—also has a gendered aspect, a subtlety desirable plate of food in front of what appears to onto virtual sets through a trick of the camera/edit that has progressed in the recent works.