Kristine Stiles
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Concerning Consequences STUDIES IN ART, DESTRUCTION, AND TRAUMA Kristine Stiles The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London KRISTINE STILES is the France Family Professor of Art, Art Flistory, and Visual Studies at Duke University. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London © 2016 by Kristine Stiles All rights reserved. Published 2016. Printed in the United States of America 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 12345 ISBN13: 9780226774510 (cloth) ISBN13: 9780226774534 (paper) ISBN13: 9780226304403 (ebook) DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226304403.001.0001 Library of Congress CataloguinginPublication Data Stiles, Kristine, author. Concerning consequences : studies in art, destruction, and trauma / Kristine Stiles, pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 9780226774510 (cloth : alkaline paper) — ISBN 9780226774534 (paperback : alkaline paper) — ISBN 9780226304403 (ebook) 1. Art, Modern — 20th century. 2. Psychic trauma in art. 3. Violence in art. I. Title. N6490.S767 2016 709.04'075 —dc23 2015025618 © This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO z39.481992 (Permanence of Paper). In conversation with Susan Swenson, Kim Jones explained that the drawing on the cover of this book depicts directional forces in "an Xman, dotman war game." The rectangles represent tanks and fortresses, and the lines are for tank movement, combat, and containment: "They're symbols. They're erased to show movement. 111 draw a tank, or I'll draw an X, and erase it, then redraw it in a different posmon.... But when they're killed they're erased and fl A gh0St image 80 the erasing is 3 vefy 'mPortant elemen of the war drawings.... The important thing is that it's always 2005^ (SUSan Swenson' conversation with Kim Jones: April 25 0 1 4 W"°rkC'ty; WarP™<*™^ NY: Pierogi 2005], 4). Two years earl.er, Jones described his "war drawings" as mages 0 , hat ^ ends„ ^ q ^ ^ ^ A Studio Vuit wuh Km Jones, a fifteenminute video codirected bv ' David Schmidlapp and Steve Staso (2003). Burden of Light: Chris Burden (2007)' Swear on your eyes... to the truth. JOSE SARAMAGO, Blindness Light pervades Chris Burden's work, from the glint of a bullet to that light emit ted bv solar rays, fire, and electricity, and the refracted luminosity of materials like glass, nickel, water, gold, and diamonds. Titles such as Icarus, The Speed of Light Machine, The Fist of Light, and Urban Light attest to four decades of Bur den's fascination with the capacity of light to elucidate aspects of human experi ence and consciousness. Rather than being used as a medium in and of itself, light becomes a multifaceted signifier for a wide range of meanings and subjects in his work, including myths and metaphors for knowledge; the authority of in stitutional practices, especially those of science and technology; the politics of social space and war; the mysterious energies of natural forces; and questions of morality, ethics, and the obverse, as darkness partners equally with light in Burden's art. His work with light can be sinister and foreboding, plunge viewers into pitch-blackness, expose the lethal and life-giving potentialities of light, and juxtapose visibility and invisibility. Light bears a singular task in Burden's art: to manifest and communicate the ancient concepts and qualities of lux (symbol izing the light of ideas, speculations, inference, revelation and divine illumina tion ) and lumen (related to knowledge gained from empirical evidence in the observable dimensions of light).2 Light figures in more than fifty works in Burden's art in a range of media. ^et, despite its physical, physiological, and psychological centrality to Burden's practice, art historians and critics have uniformly neglected light as a crucial dimension of his oeuvre. This is due in no small measure to the critical hyper bole that has plagued his reception and interfered with an appropriately schol- ar'.V cor,sideration of his work's semiotics. An example of this sort of criticism is a 1974 review by James Collins, who charged Burden with "game-playing and tokenly dangerous" acts, as well as with "raging for chaos."3 Erroneously claim- lng that Burden shot "himself in the arm" in his performance Shoot (November 19, 1971), Collins then linked this inaccurate account to the equally erroneous story that Austrian artist Rudolf Schwarzkogler had "sequentially mutilated his own penis."4 Such criticism unfairly discredited performance art and justifi ably dismayed Burden. "I didn't do performances for that many years [because] the press was too distorting," he said. "I would read what they had written and [think], 'My God! Who are they talking about?!'"5 In contrast, more thought ful criticism has noted a range of significant conceptual and historical themes in Burden's work, including a "will to power,"6 the pursuit of "self- and situa tional control,"7 "danger, risk, and unexpected survival in the cosmos of tech nology,"8 masochistic extremes,9 and "pure renunciation."10 These subjects are qualities and conditions of Burden's art, but such descriptions miss a quintes sential philosophical dimension of his work: the sculptural role that light plays as it shapes Burden's viewers' psychological and psychophysical experiences, and as it both transmits and sustains Burden's own unique aesthetic vision and the principled concepts represented in his art. Nevertheless, it is true that danger distinguishes the material conditions of many of Burden's works. Burden calculates unleashing violence as a means to oblige himself and his viewers to act with mutual responsibility and trust. So that while one may justifiably point to unprecedented fearsome aspects of his work, no other artist has so consistently trusted the public to react to danger ous and challenging situations and to treat the artist and his artworks with such responsibility. In short, Burden trusted viewers not to electrocute him in Pre lude to 220, or 110 (1971) and 220 (1971); not to kill him in Shoot (1971); not to starve him in Bed Piece (1972) and Doomed (1975); not to abandon him in Dead- man (19/2); not to permit him to be severely burned in Icarus (1973); not to let him drown in Velvet Water (1974); not to permanently damage his body in Trans Fixed (1974) and Back to You (1974); not to destroy buildings in Samson (198a) and Exposing the Foundations of the Museum (1986-88); not to let tech nology overpower reason in Big Wheel (1979); not to neglect cultural heritage in Urban Light (2005); not to forget the transgressions of power in The Other Viet nam Memorial (1991), America's Darker Moments (1994), Hidden Force {1995), The Mexican Bridge (1998), and LA.P.D. Uniforms (1993); and not to forget the possi bility of nuclear holocaust in A Tale of Two Cities (1981). Given this litany ofways urden has activated the conscience and ethics of viewers, the time to shift the discourse about his art away from its more spectacular as pects to its experiential depth where lux and lumen unite in trust. BLIND TRUTH llTLight mite Heat ,February 8-March 1, 1975), Burden remain twen^ T 3aC eV3ted Platf0rm in the Ronald Feldman Gallery in New Yc wen y-tyvo days without seeing nor speaking to anyone or coming dowr hel ,r ' SUre "l *"*" teed HIS title on Lou Reed s 1967 song Bec^fhi'7' S"ng ^ 'he Ve'm m part, the enduran Peet his performance oblique!, referred to rhe physical effects of hero !60 | BURDEN OF LIGHT FeldmT ^ ChnS BUrden' White Li8ht/White Heat, February 8-March 1, 1975, Ronald one n ^lne ^nS' ^eW Statement by the artist about his performance: "For my structed1'S^°W ^ B°na'd Fe'dtrian, ' requested that a large triangular platform be con- and tw f1 S0Ut'least corner °f the gallery. The platform was ten feet above the floor and h ' ^e'°W ce"'ng; the outer edge measured eighteen feet across. The size withouU)1,0'^0 '3'at'0rm were determined by the requirement that I be able to lie flat the show e'n^ V'SdD'e ^rom any point in the gallery. For twenty-two days, the duration of I did n ' °n ttlL P'atf°rm- During the entire piece, I did not eat, talk, or come down, e anvone, and no one saw me." Courtesy of the artist. eluding the ways in which heroin slows respiration and heart rhythms, lowers the body's temperature, constricts the pupils, and also makes one indifferent to pain, grief, fear, hunger, and cold, all of which result in feelings of sensory depri vation and physical isolation. Burden achieved a similar although non-narcotic state, reproducing some of these effects by remaining isolated, fasting, and drinking nothing but one six-ounce glass of celery juice a day (a liquid known for its utility in lowering and maintaining blood pressure and for its calming effects) during the entire three-week period.12 Read through the normative conditions for seeing art, White Light/White Heat offered viewers nothing to look at but a stark minimalist structure in an architectural and institutional setting saturated with light. With nothing to see, visitor's perceptions were submitted to the contemplation of that which could not be witnessed, yet with the pledge that Burden inhabited the space. Burden's visual inaccessibility required viewers to experience the art through means other than mere looking, and to conceptually connect visibility to invisi bility.13 By restricting what spectators could witness and validate as truth, Bur den expanded the necessity for them to attend to other corporeal perceptions, and heightened their senses to discern his presence in the gallery and "feel that something was wrong."14 The fact that Burden used his body to enhance feeling over seeing empha sized physiological over visual methods of knowing, thereby activating viewer proprioception, or what neurobiologist Paul Grobstein has referred to as the "I-function."1 • Proprioception is a mechanism of the central nervous system that governs one's awareness of self, most significantly through determining which senses identify environmental stimuli and enable the decision making that is necessary for well-being.