Anna Ostoya's Avant-Garde
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REVISIONIST HISTORIES: ANNA OSTOYA’S AVANT-GARDE Tom Williams In a sculpture from 2010, Primary Structure with a Plant it exemplifies Ostoya’s larger effort to recover the criti- (The Plant as a Metaphor in George Orwell and Other Con- cality of the avant-garde in the face of its failures. texts), Anna Ostoya restages the domestication of Mini- The early-twentieth-century avant-garde movements— malism by making this domestication literal. This austere and to some degree their successors of the 1960s—devel - white pillar echoes Robert Morris’s plywood sculptures oped in antic ipation of radical political change. Their from the mid-1960s in both its materials and its anthro- histories are predicated on the possibility of revolution- pomorphism—its nearly human proportions—until a ary praxis. As Peter Bürger and others have pointed out, motorized platform concealed within the column raises the aim of the avant-garde was to abolish the autonomy a potted plant through its top and into sight. As if sum- of art and reintegrate it into daily life, and accounts of moned by a magician’s incantation, the plant transforms this project abound in its literature. “Down with art,” the vertical structure from a modernist sculpture into a proclaimed Alexander Rodchenko, “as a means to es- base for an ugly, inglorious little houseplant. This partic- cape from the life that is not worth living.”3 If art was ular plant, an aspidistra, was, as Ostoya notes, a metaphor the sublimation of revolutionary impulses, then fulfilling for middle-class materialism and conformity in George those impulses entailed the negation of art. The lan- Orwell’s novel Keep the Aspidistra Flying (1936).1 Her guage of these movements was, however, often total - Minimalist column, a once-radical form, thus alludes to itarian. Futurism, for example, promised to “exalt the swift commodification of avant-garde practices and aggressive action” and to “glorify war—the only hygiene their trans formation into a bland embellishment of the of the world—militarism, patriotism,” and “contempt anodyne decor of late capitalism. for women,” thereby offering extreme, but not unique, Primary Structure with a Plant relays the familiar tale versions of the avant-garde break with the bourgeois of “the tradition of the new.” Just a few years before the past.4 Even Walter Benjamin—one of Futurism’s most Jewish Museum’s 1966 landmark Minimalist exhibition, vehement detractors—succumbed to inflammatory, “Primary Structures” (from which Ostoya took the title chauvinist rhetoric when he celebrated the historical for her sculpture), art historian Leo Steinberg famously materialist who was “man enough to blast open the con- quipped that the enfant terrible was destined to become tinuum of history.”5 If the neo-avant-garde artists of “an elder statesman” in a short span of seven years. the 1960s seldom employed such violent rhetoric, they “The rapid domestication of the outrageous,” he wrote, nevertheless embraced their forebears’ extreme break “is the most characteristic feature of our artistic life, and with the past and repudiation of aestheticism. the time lapse between shock received and thanks Born of the intense political contests of the nineteenth returned gets progressively shorter.”2 During the fifty and twentieth centuries, the avant-garde often seems years since his prediction, we have repeatedly witnessed irrelevant in a “postpolitical” world in which we have this cycle. Even as Primary Structure with a Plant enacts been told again and again that there is no alternative to this recurrence of scandal and retroactive vindication, the free market and liberal politics. While she makes no 20 PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITH A PLANT (THE PLANT AS A METAPHOR IN GEORGE ORWELL AND OTHER CONTEXTS), 2010, from the Autopis series MDF, acrylic, electric mechanism, and potted plant; 63 ¾ x 21 ⅝ x 33 ¾ inches (162 x 55 x 35 cm) grand claims in relation to these circumstances, Ostoya super ficial observers of contemporary art have been aims to reestablish art’s political valence in the face witness to an endless litany of neos and posts. But of such depoliticization by striving to recuperate the most of these revivals, as so many critics have noted, mission of the avant-garde, if not its authoritarianism, have little in common with the revolutionary aspirations intellectual chauvinism, misogyny, and will to power. To of their predecessors. borrow Carol Duncan’s celebrated formulation, Ostoya Like many of her contemporaries, Ostoya rehearses has dedicated herself to avant-gardism, but without its these histories in both her work and her writing, but she commitment to “virility and domination.”6 Her aspira- resituates and complicates the avant-garde’s program of tions echo the poet and artist Anne Boyer’s call for a revolutionary transformation. Ostoya’s appropriations “provisional avantgarde.” Such an avant-garde, Boyer of works by Gustave Courbet, John Heartfield, Lyonel claims, would “mimic something other than war or Feininger, Kazimir Malevich, and innumerable others machines or violent manly death”; it would offer “a constitute a revisionist reading of twentieth-century art healthy combination of jouissance and juiciness.”7 These rather than a mere deconstruction of its claims to imme- sentiments correspond, in many respects, to Ostoya’s diacy and rupture.8 In her work, avant-garde histories conviction that the avant-garde’s commitment to social become artistic material. In an interview, she describes and political change cannot be discarded without risking her relationship to art history generally: either cynicism or aestheticism. I would like to treat art history as a material or a medium. To me, like paint it has its form and its I. Elasticity and Endurance consistency. It has its history—the history of art history. Maybe it is better to say: it has its histories. The developments the avant-garde inspired have in I like this material. It seems the most interesting recent years been the objects of innumerable artistic material to work with now since it changes . revivals and deconstructions, and the appropriation of how art and history can be understood. By work- its forms has become one of the most consistent maneu- ing with art history as material, I mean engaging vers in the art of the past thirty years. Even the most critically with its narratives.9 22 THE TRADITION OF INTENSITY AND FORCE, THE TRADITION OF ELASTICITY AND ENDURANCE, 2010, from the Autopis series 2011, from the Autopis series Framed archival pigment print on paper; 16 ⅜ x 11 ½ inches Framed archival pigment print on paper; 16 ⅜ x 11 ½ inches (41.5 x 29.2 cm) (41.5 x 29.2 cm) If Ostoya is acutely aware of art-historical narratives, her to radical politico-artistic programs—Abstract Expres- preoccupations are not, as she notes, with historiography sionists, Conceptualists, Futurists, Surrealists, etc.; Elas- so much as with a dialectical reconsideration of the his- ticity and Endurance highlights isolated faces of women. tory of twentieth-century art. One of her most consistent These juxtapositions call attention to the familiar story tactics has involved juxtaposing iconic twentieth-century of the patriarchy of the avant-garde. As her titles suggest, figures with images drawn from outside normative his- each of these photomontages recounts the history of tory. In one series, for example, she appropriated images modern art from a distinct standpoint, and her presen- of leading avant-garde artists—including famous photo- tation proposes an equivalence between them. In one, graphs of the “irascibles” of the New York School, the we witness the male-dominated tradition of avant-garde Conceptualists featured in Seth Siegelaub Gallery’s pio - defiance and, in the other, a countertradition that cele- neering exhibition “January 5–31, 1969,” and numerous brates the solitary accomplishments of the women artists others—and collaged them together in a patriarchal who moved in the shadows. rogues’ gallery that she called The Tradition of Intensity The related Pseudomorphisms (2010‒11) stage similar and Force (2010). Two women (Hedda Stern and juxtapositions. Although many of these photomontages Rotraut Uecker) appear within this ocean of male faces, address politics and popular culture, they also often take but they are outliers. In a companion piece, The Tradi- on the histories of the avant-garde. In one, the American tion of Elasticity and Endurance (2011), she montaged sculptor Eva Hesse and the Polish sculptor Alina faces of women artists that she had gathered from pub- Szapocznikow appear side by side in an arrangement lications and through Google image searches for “a wife, that levels their incommensurate reputations. Both a girlfriend, or a lover of a male artist.” The differences images angle away from the wall and converge like the between these works are striking: Intensity and Force fea- sides of a prism so that viewers must shuffle back and tures groups of men who are united in their commitment forth between them, making the act of comparison a 24 physical exercise. For another, Visual Pseudomorphism in In recent years, Bürger’s theory has sustained this Monochrome (2010), Ostoya mounted reproductions of understanding of photomontage as an assault on art. Minimalist sculptures onto jigsawed pieces of fiberboard Ostoya’s use of it, however, presents a different reading. to make them into a child’s matching game. Views of The Pseudomorphisms—those involving photomon- works from a 1964 Robert Morris exhibition at the tage—often feature two images rather than a plurality of Green Gallery in New York are positioned beside images fragments, and through these binaries, she implores the of formally similar works by Zbigniew Gostomski in a viewer to consider relationships between two realities. 1967 exhibition at the Foksal Gallery in Warsaw.10 She These works do not stage destruction, as they are little thereby made the task of differentiating them into a puz- more than juxtapositions of images.