18 Mihai Nadin, M. S., Electronics and reservation, Bernd Kluser's and Computer Science, Polytechnic Armin Zweite's idea of a show University of Bucharest; Ph .D. and with his works and works of prom­ post-doctoral studies in Philosophy/ inent artists eager to publicly Aesthetics, University of Bucha rest, acknowledge his influential role in University of Munich; additional post­ the art of the last three decades. doctoral studies in Philosophy and He promised a larger work for the Science Theory at University of occasion, but it was not to be. His Munich, with special emphasis on death on January 23, 1986 changed semiotics. Currently Dean of the more than his own plans. Division of Art and Design, F. I. T. Of the 70 invited artists-all of Among his awards are the Richard whom had been asked to submit a Merton Award, the National new work or to select a representa­ University Continuing Ed ucation tive piece from their portfolios­ Association, and a Mentor Grant from the organizers received 40 original Austrian Radio and Television (ORF). works and 24 statements, later Author of many articles and books published in the massive catalog of published here and abroad. the show ho noring Beuys. In short, Beuys zu Ehren, which was BEUYS: ARTIST But maybe it is true that the dead artist open to the public between July 16 OR CHARLATAN? is better than the living one. and November 2, 1986 at the - Beuys, in dialog with Kiefer Stadtische Galerie im Lenbach­ haus, Munich, became a public testimony to whatever Beuys rep­ Perspective resented, to his influence, his rep­ Recent history will help put the utation, to everything that accom­ subject, " Artist or Charlatan," panied the life and work of a very which goes well beyond Beuys, in contradictory figure. perspective. Let me start with an A huge retrospective followed in account of posthumous Be uys 1987-1988 in West Berlin (in the shows and their public reception. Martin G ropius Bau), in the frame­ First, at the end of 1986, there was work of the 's 750th anniver­ the exhibit in Munich called In sary. Five hundred and eighty Honor of Beuys (, objects, drawings, and environ­ 1921- 1986). Actually this exhibit ments of Beuys were brought was supposed to celebrate his 65th together. At the end of February birthday, but it became a large­ 1988, at the Landes­ scale obituary. The comparison to museum, an exhibition entitled the way Florentine artists in 1564 Beuys und Warhol continued the gave Michelangelo the last honors series. Darmstadt is the place did not go unnoticed; admirers where Beuys' s principal installa­ and followers pushed the point tions had been assembled since that the two can and should be 1968 and where some of Warhol's compared . Beuys himself (who majo r canvases ("Green Dis­ would have enjoyed the associa­ aster," "Campbell's Beef Noodle tion) had accepted, not without Soup," "Tango," etc.) belong to the permanent coll ection. (In many ways the question of how much an artist and how much a charlatan Beuys was extends quite which mythifies the artist? Beuys seemed assignments in a class on 19 naturally to Warhol.) The Dia definitely embodied this question, Rosenkranz's Aesthetics of the Ugly Foundation followed suit and in becoming the main character of the (Aesthetik des HaBiichen, 1853). the new galleries in New York jux­ aesthetic drama he performed in The artist repeatedly argued that taposed Beuys's work with that of his many public appearances in the ugliness of existence and the Imi Knoebel and . Europe, as well as on the Amer­ ugly in art (as an aesthetic type of More shows will follow leading ican continent. expression) are related. again and again to the question Many inside and outside of the art Did Beuys actually design the posed in the title of this article. world never "saw" his art, and environment with a specific inten­ Whether it is too early to put Beuys many had problems defining it. tion, or, once it came into being, in some perspective is a question They felt uneasy about the conven­ did he add to the material body for art historians. Whether the tions he submitted, some never explanations that became part of prices his works fetch are justified before associated with art, or at the work? Was his and Nam June or not w ill attract the attention of least not with fine art. His draw­ Paik's concert for two pianos in art investors. Whether Beuys and ings looked like smears of choco­ honor of George Maciunas (spirit­ many of his followers deserve the late on cheap brown paper (and ual father of ) one more epi­ public attention they get is a sub­ that is wh at some are), or like pilot sode in a history of deceiving the ject sociologists will not fail to maps (which some indeed were) to address. My subject here is differ­ which h e added difficult-to­ ent, and if I were to rewrite the title understand markings (the mystery I used, I would quote Beuys's of his life prolonged in the work) words: "Every man an artist, " after recognition as an artist came which quite a number of viewers to him. express otherwise: " I can do this Theatrical in nature, his environ­ too!" ments constituted silent plays, tragedies without any characters, What is an artist? rhetorical statements refined visu­ We have inherited several explana­ ally but quite primitive in their tions and models of what an artist slogan-like quality. His obsession is or what an artist is expected to with fat, felt, and slate, intended be at some moment in time. And to translate a very persistent per­ we notice that the meaning of the sonal experience (as a German word " artist" is actually reducible prisoner of war among the to its use (as the philosopher Cossacks- another source of mys­ Wittgenstein would say). The par­ tery or only a pretense?!), was adox is that while art has been noticed, but the meaning got lost demythified to a great extent, the since the objects constituting artist-especially the successful Beuys's environment did not con­ artist-has enjoyed increasingly stitute a framework for sharing the mythical attributes. After a long background. It is said that cleaning history of hesitant public acknowl­ personnel once threw away what edgment, artists- actually success­ they perceived as incidental dirt ful artists-made the profession accumulated in one of his environ­ enviable and the glory comparable ments. At another time, a morti­ to everything celebrated as success cian invited Beuys's audience to in our day. But is it art or success the " real thing, " a morgue. Intended as symbols, some of his Joseplr Beuys, 1974. celebrated works (approached as or installations) actually 20 public, or a very intense testimony possible, did he introduce a new I met Beuys in 1982 at Dokumenta 7 to another aesthetic (that of the notion of art? in , West . His transient)? And what about La "7000 Oaks" project (coming after jambe d'Onvell, (another collabora­ The art of appropriation "Honey Pump" at Dokumenta 6) tion with ) on New rud not entirely succeed. For each Year's Eve at the Centre It was Duchamp who legitimized artistic appropriation, suggesting tree planted, a stone was added to Pompidou? The two tapes of these the sui generis monument of our works, which I heard played in (not for the first time in the history of art) that selection and framing awareness of the environment. Munich, were emotionally are equally (if not more) acceptable Ecology turned into art, and art charged. Nam June Paik-the most to aesthetic representation. into politics (should I say dema­ remarkable video artist of these Between "L'Urinoir" (1917), and goguery?), made for good head­ days-had created a new the ironic appropriation of past art lines but did little in respect to his videowork in remembrance of in the postmodern, the avantgarde creative concept. Quite sad, he Beuys. But what had Beuys cre­ of yesteryear has become the new had to accept, during our conver­ ated? Or was it enough for him classic of today. Although the aes­ sation, that the symbolism of the just to be there, to make things thetic ideology of appropriation is oak (another appropriation?) had possible? Or by making things relatively coherent, what the pub­ been compromised by Fascist art lic perceives is new and ever more (and reignited the question of his provocative ways of selecting and own political past). Followers, framing the real. The process is never flagging in their enthusiasm, one of change from artistic praxis noticed resignation. The brilliant involving craftsmanship to one dialogist attracted few to his tent dominated by histrionics. Skills, on this occasion. Art was some­ necessary to produce collectible where else-at least it seemed to artifacts, are replaced by intuitive be. When the project almost failed, directing, necessary to stage reputed artists contributed their unique performances. own works (proceeds from the auction went to pay for the plant­ Beuys's notion of art crystalizes in ing of the trees), and one of a theatrical rather than in a picto­ Beuys' s main collectors, Eric Marx rial or sculptural space. His (whom he met in 1975) paid for the selection-the classroom, the con­ entire lot. (Today Marx is almost a cert hall, the morgue, the streetcar billionaire in Beuys works!) Beuys stop (to name a few)- is indeed was sincere at that juncture. astute; and for as long as he lived, Defeat made him question even his participation in the perform­ those publicly acclaimed works ance ensured uniqueness. From which brought celebrity. among all those using the strategy of appropriation, Beuys was prob­ Art as deception ably one of the boldest. He liked how Warhol appropriated "Indeed," he said, "art is also American icons- from Marilyn deceiving. But knowingly. Monroe to Coca Cola and Otherwise it would be a tragedy." Campbell soup-but definitely had a less provincial view of the world. Beuys's themes are life, death, art, environment, wealth, knowledge; Bathtub for a Heromt, bro11u by Beuys, 1984. accordingly his appropriation of reality happened on a scale Warhol never felt comfortable with. My notes from our short conversa­ , the new fau­ The work which attracted my 21 tion retained one more idea: "Art vistes, the neo-expressionists all attention to Beuys was Trolley is related to the entire creativity of force the public to question their Station (Strassenbahnhaltestelle, the human being. There are no skills, their trustworthiness as art­ 1976). I missed the reference to boundaries within which we keep ists. This is an interesting twist, Anarchsis Cloots, the revolution­ art, and outside of which there is without precedent, in the sense ary who, under the name Baptiste no art." Yes, this relates to his fun­ that traditionally value was du Val-de-Grace, was killed on damental thought that everybody questioned- i.e. how will a certain Robespierre's order, and who is an artist, and maybe implies work perform in time-but not yelled out, " People, look at this deception not as an accident but as trustworthiness. Some works head! Such one you will never see a component of our being, of our were not liked, but the accent was again!" This cry applies to Beuys, activity. If deception is carried on on aesthetic preference and not on with his well-known hat and very knowingly, as a matter of skill somebody's character. I believe intense look. As a piece of stage (which was the characteristic of that bringing character into the design for a play as yet unwritten pre-modern movements), or as a aesthetic discussion is indeed one and never performed, the work matter of attitude (starting with of Beuys's most remarkable contri­ had an unbelievable atmosphere. Dada and continued to our day), butions. But where was the artist and what shouldn' t we accept that there is no artist who is not at the same time a charlatan? Yes, the theme of this article was generated by a very controversial personality, and pos­ sibly made clear to me as a ques­ tion exactly because, through his work, Beuys challenged not only previous models of art but even our concept of the artist. In short, Beuys made it easy to approach -~----.....,__..... this question. In the show honoring his memory, artists and charlatans were as close to each other, as much a part of each other, as they will ever be. The same occurred in the Beuys­ Warhol exhibit, and in the Dia Foundation show. There is no way to say how much of an artist Gerhard Richter is (present with his Two Sculptures for a Room by Palermo) , or Palermo-he and Kiefer are Beuys' best known students-or how much so many of those showing their works: Cucchi, Disler, Sol LeWitt, Longo, (, •. Oldenburg, Pistoletto, Rauschen­ ru' 1 berg, Tapies, and Warhol, among ./ SC others. Not all are necessarily con­ Ei~nltsch by Beuys, 1956. troversial names but indeed all are artists, or at least celebrated as such. , conceptual art, 22 defined his art, I wondered. His cause controversy in Munich, a receive recognition, which justifies last installation ("Palazzo Regale" city where the classic notion of art a rhetorical question asked more at December 23, 1985 in the Museo di is at least as pervasive as the pro­ this time than at any other in his­ Capodirnonte) did attract me, and duction and consumption of beer. tory: Are artists inhabitants of a so does the still very controversial Some wanted to read a political generic village called Cerreta (to Show Your Wound housed in the program-Beuys was politically which the origin of the word Lenbachhaus. The pairs of stools, very active for a long time. If it was "charlatan" can be traced), and is chalkboards, stretchers, lamps and politics, then it pertained to money art the game of successful pre­ other odd objects represent a uni­ and glory, not to his statement of tense? Or is commitment to art verse of warning, meditation, and 1972: "We are the revolution." today such that the artist must despair. A breakdown is docu­ Others wanted to see an aesthetic consciously lie about who he is in mented here in terms of making scandal. And not a few wanted to order to make social and political the selection more important than see charlatanism. breakdown evident? As a space of the presentation, the ethics more possibilities, art implies research, critical than the aesthetics, the Art as provocation and its results, contrary to those of science, cannot be checked for cor­ statement more important than the Quite a few pretend to be artists, rectness, only accepted or rejected. art. Such a work was bound to and from among these, quite a few Under the enormous pressure of social and economic expectations, artists play the game at the border­ line where victory usually lies, that is, in breaking the rules. In the process, artists sometimes cheat: themselves, us, their patrons, the market. It makes no sense to con­ tinue to cultivate the romantic notion of the artist on the pedestal of a new demiurge. Beuys knew this. There is a genetic continuity between his fight for the chair at the Dusseldorf Art Academy­ which fight turned into a work of art-and the surprising life he decided to enjoy at the expense of the Guggenheim Museum. Thomas Messer's account is gentle but to the point: Beuys indulged in a life with caviar, champagne, a chauffeured Cadillac, and a reti­ l nue who lived on his expense account-actions seen as a poten­ t tial way of destroy ing the Guggenheim in order to constitute a work of art in Beuys's peculiar understanding of the term. Naturgesclricllte by Beuys, 1970. Probably the stock market crash in October of '87, if directed by a Beuys, could be declared a work of art, difficult, indeed, to imitate. Beuys' s persona was irresistible­ very shrewd choreographer of a 23 Such performances, at a scale even when he was impertinent, fame bound to increase in time, are never anticipated by the artists of intolerant, and impatient-his all part of this extended show of the '60's, definitely require work, provocative. But so were the authentic and the deceptive. unusual criteria for interpretation Warhol and Palermo, and so is Charlatans claim healing powers and evaluation. Eventually, Beuys Keifer. And not very much differ­ and the ability to read the crystal became his own work and was ent are the artists who in our day ball. Beuys, who sometimes saw adulated as such a work. make it "big" in Soho, in Paris, or himself as a shaman, seemed to Obviously, he knew it, liked it, in Dusseldorf. If, in producing arti­ come to the conclusion that there and expressed himself in forms so facts that, according to some con­ is art in the charlatan's perform­ cynical that few wanted to read ventions we know too little about, ance. Instead of being ashamed of them as a confession. To provoke qualify as art, deceit is part of the the charlatan identity, he assumed sounds better than to confess, and process, then obviously each artist it courageously. When all commu­ has a higher aesthetic aura. is at the same time a charlatan. nication fails because the power of This sentence is obviously tainted previous means of expression no " Artists are, to a great extent, by the perception of delusion as opportunistic," he said. "They are longer breaks the barriers of social being necessarily negative, as well indifference, we can only rely on ass holes." Again, "Artists have no as by moral stereotypes, or at least magic. Magic demythified is what conscience." But would any of expectations, according to which people call charlatanism. these statements change our per­ artists are models, art is an honest ception of what his activity actu­ expression of feelings, craftsman­ ally meant, of what the activity of Biographical Index ship cannot be acquired without Cucchi, Enzo. Artist. Italy, b. 1950. his followers, signifies to us? sweat. Hopefully they would not. Kiefer, Disler, Martin. Artist. Switzerland, b. 1949. to refer to one of the most success­ It took a long time for us to accept Duchamp, Marcel. Artist. , b. 1887, ful of Beuys' s followers, exem­ that art lies, but we are still not d. 1968. plifies both the strategy of appro­ prepared to accept that the artist Kiefer, Anselm. Artist. Germany, b. 1945. priation and the opportunism of himself can be a liar. Beuys had no Knoebel, Imi. Artist. Germany, b. 1940. art. Appropriating the Holocaust, qualms about this. He invented his LeWitt, Sol. Artist. U.S.A., b. 1928. Kiefer has produced some of the own stories, changed his past, Longo, Robert. Artist. U.S.A., b. 1953. most intriguing canvases in which changed his present, even Maciunas, George. Composer. (N.D.) everything celebrated on the large changed his future. It cannot go Oldenburg. Claes. Artist. Sweden, b. 1929. compositions is at the same time unnoticed that the German shows Cit. U.S.A. subjected to a sui generis doubt. following his death were shad­ Paik, Nam June. Video Artist. South Korea, The artist is not self-flagellating. owed by tremendous scandals (to b. 1932. He does not have any sense of which his widow Eva, his son Palermo, Blinky. Artist. Germany, b. Peter responsibility for the mass mur­ Wenzel, as well as Heiner Bastian, Schwarze, 1943. d . 1977. ders, but he ascertains that our his closest friend and adviser, con­ Pistoletto, Michelangelo. Artist. Italy, b. 1933. entire system of values-love, tributed). thinking, heroism, appreciation of Rauschenberg, Robert. Artist. U.S.A., b. Prices for his works literally sky­ 1925. nature-is forever tainted by a rocketed: " Kunst= Kapital" is the Richter, Gerhard. Artist. Germany, b. 1932. criminal past of such proportions inscription dominating an auto­ Rosenkranz, Karl. Philosopher and aesthe­ that no one can elude it. To what ironic image of the artist. Beuys's tician. Germany, b. 1805, d . 1879. extent his appropriation of the repeated warning against the Tapies, Antoni. Artist. Spain, b. 1924. Holocaust is more (or less) legiti­ transformation of culture into busi­ Warhol, Andy. Artist. U.S.A., b. 1928, d . mate than Beuys's appropriations ness seemed to be a script fo r the w~ . o is an open question. What is less show going on parallel to his open is the suspicion that some­ exhibits. The prisoner of war in body is exploiting the the me, Russia, the suspected Nazi, the avoiding any implication of sincer­ very provocative liberal artist, the ity in art, actually eradicating sin­ cerity from art, as Beuys himself did so successfully.