yvant-garde t Gallery, and Jeff Wall, who contributes an easing national and international reputation, because bothWall’s writing and Wallace’s art iring elucidation. fonochrome in the Work of lan Wallace 1967- and briefly outlines their historical origin. The lity and discontent. Originally practised by id, it was later, starting in the ‘sixties, utilized d around half-digested quasi-Marxist ideas. ainting, i.e. painting so simple any idiot could Its practitioners thought for some reason this justified a variety of vastly overblown claims. cording to Wall, “opposed” (how?) to “the ifested the “despair of painting” (as though aintings cannot be “adequately reproduced” ) makes them, as Wall states, “...an intense is it has been determined by the division of es make clear is the drastic inflation of the n of mainstream art. 3e, transcendence is avery old idea in human ir variant Wallace is interested in as “...the out of a dying culture.” (When Wall tries very Ss (social inequality, reductivism, transcen- hrome painting and polemical photography sting. Somehow, that-bad ol’ “predominant ential ideal into reality. Eventually, art itself ve that nasty dominant culture by presenting mething like that). hat both he and Wall identify as “Symbolist” “art” than anything else, Wallace’s Symbol- ymething vaguely Romantic-sounding, like a any validity is complicated by a curious 1and, he maintains a curiously oblique third- } never defends or criticizes them, but rather }e, he uses these ideas to analyze Wallace’s thy for them. ionate cataloguer of artisitic trends, or an ho needs not defend them but rather should a critic writing from a particular theoretical 2s neither very well. If he is writing from the yer the most crucial questions they obviate: by reductivist painters? What exactly is “the “defeated” the “ideal of art”? Precisely what equire a great deal of exposition. But surely 1g together all these unproven assumptions r not the ideas he describes are valid,.. his the student of the history of ideas, without his re significant. re too difficult to be gone into here, which in | arises where he must use a highly technical ie explain where it is defined or proven. 2d by Wall’s tendency to state a simple idea sle, he refers to the blank spaces appearing “... dialectical recognition of the absence of .” What else does this phrase refer to besides t spaces between them? Exactly how does ing emblem of a negation of the established Planetofthe Arts vol.3no.5 March 1988 SELECTED VIEWS Again, what do each of these words mean ? When he states “Richter’s paintings contemplate their own self-alienation into a historically-evolved form of reproduction from within whose space their own image is returned as a kind of disappearance, “ he slips from overly complicated statements of the obvious into complete incomprehensibility. Flowery language that sounds good (“high interiority” has such an impressive ring to it , like “high art”) but means little disguises an inability or refusal to state the theoretical basis from which he writes. This disguise is perfectly described in one word: mystification. Part 2 - lan Wallace: Art as Idea or Experience? It is fitting Wall’s catalogue essay should try to play two sides of the street at the same time, since Wallace’s work makes the same kind of mistake, albeit on a somewhat different street. Whereas Wall tries to be both historian of ideas and artspeak advocate, Wallace tries to base his art on both experience and ideas. “Idea Art” had a brief flowering in the late ‘sixties and early ‘seventies, when artists for some reason thought it would be valuable to create an art without any concrete materials. Perhaps they thought here was an easy means to gain prominence without any of the messy effort required to produce more traditional art. At any rate, as eventually became apparent despite accompanying rhetoric, the results were tedious presentations of small minds writ large. Although it is doubtful Wallace is as silly as most of these artists were, he has maintained some of their less appetizing characteristics. First is the slightly numbing banality of some of his work. Amagazine is ripped apart and stuck on a wall. Models are posed in the most unremarkable stances imaginable. I’m all for simplicity and clarity of expression, but when this reveals only mediocre ideas to begin with, why bother? Wallace was being disingenuous when he stated ata recent gallery lecture viewers don’t require any special knowledge or background to “get” his work. Perhaps not, but viewers can be forgiven for thinking there must be something not apparent making this work significant, or else why would it be on an important gallery’s wall? Second is the large scale. For many pieces, almost all of their negligible force derives from being very large (and as acorollary, since it is photography, very expensive). To use Wall’s jargon, they are “monumental”. The works | enjoyed most in this show were the smaller pieces: the preparatory lithographs, the small cibachromes from Munich, the heads of “Portrait Gallery”. The larger scale usually suggested to me only inflated self importance, and the gullibility of the art establishment buying this work. The third characteristic is an irritating tendency for pedantic literal-mindedness. Wallace claims his sticking together pages from Seventeen magazine illustrates “...the construction of the image of the young girl mirroring the social construction of identity.” Isn’t the fact items of culture help construct social reality, and do so in particular ways, painfully obvious? The interesting question is how, which this work does nothing to explain. Similarly Wallace points out the artifice made apparent by imperfectly matched lines in “Lookout”. You mean | could do stuff like this too? Duh, thanks lan! Fortunately, this weakness for simplistic ideas is sometimes counterbalanced by Wallace’s intuitive grasp of sensual experience . All the genuine satisfaction to be derived from art, as well as all criteria for evaluating it — balance, rythm, weight, gesture, warmth, etc. — derive from the irrational realm of the senses. Wallace admitted he likes his work to touch on common experiences the viewer may remember having had before. This is an admi- rable sentiment, but the example Wallace gave from “The Summer Script” to illustrate it instead demonstrates how he weakens his own best ef- fort. “The Summer Script” has a woman making an ambiguous upward-looking gesture. An ambigu- ous gesture is an excellent starting point for interesting art. But Wallace weakens any impact his own study has by making it obvious the image of the woman has been taken from a T.V. screen. As anyone who has tried knows, it is very difficult to make a satisfactory image from a television screen, primarily because of its low resolution. Only some advertisers succed, at very consider- able expense. Why does Wallace take his image i from a screen? Presumably he is making some point about the “levels of mediation” in art, as if viewers are incapable of figuring that out on their own. All he does thereby is make the supposedly important ambiguity less clearly visible. It’s too bad, because the other part of “The Summer Script”, avoiding a lot of the same ponderous self- consciousness, is an interesting, almost seduc- tive work. : Some of the smaller works, which as | already mentioned have the added advantage of mod- esty, also give more rein to Wallace’s sensuality. For example, some of the photos from the Munich museums have an eerie, evocative atmosphere where the sensuous lightness of paint and stone dissolve into the rosy, thick cibachrome darkness. In sum, unlike Wall, whose confused scholarship has almost no merit, Wallace’s art demonstrates a potentially powerful sensibility struggling to free itself from the shackle of mystifying ideas. Wallace might respond such is the plight of modern artist under capitalism, or whatever, but it appears to me he is shooting himself in the foot. Let’s hope he stops Derek Simons is a semi-monumental paint/canvas interface artist, who also inte- grates a sensibility of the dialectics of word and paper in Writing. He has an unlisted phone number. Derek Simons < yant-garde {Gallory, and Jeff Wall, who contributes an easing national and international reputation, because bothWall's writing and Wallace's art ing elucidation. jonochrome in the Work flan Wallace 1967. nd briefly outines their historical origin. Tho ity and discontent. Originally practised by twas later, starting inthe ‘sities, utlized {around hal-digested quasi-Manxistidoas. jing, i. painting sosimplo any idiotcouls ts practitioners thought for some reason this justified a variety of vastly overblown claims. cording to Wall, “opposed” (how?) to “the ested the “despair of painting” (as though aintings cannot be “adequately reproduced” makes them, as Wall states, "..an intense s ithas boon determined by the division of es make clear isthe drastic inflation of the nof mainstream art. 39, transcendenceis avery oldideain human r variant Wallace is interested in as ~.the outof adying culture.” (When Wall tries vary 36 (social inequality, reductivism, transcon: prome painting and polemical photography sting. Somehow, that bad of ‘predominant ential ideal into realty. Eventually, at itself vethat nasty dominant culture by presenting nothing lke that). pat both he and Wall identiy as “Symbolist” “att than anything else, Wallace's Symbol mmething vaguely Romantic-sounding, like a any validity is complicated by a curious and, he maintains a curiously oblique third- never defends or criticizes them, but rather houses these ideas to analyze Wallaco's hy for them, ionate cataloguer of artistic trends, or an ho needs not defend them but rather should a critic writing from a particular theoretical 5 neither very well It he is wrting from the er the most crucial questions they obviate: by reductvist painters? What exactly is “the “dofeated" the “ideal of an”? Procisaly what equire agroat dealt exposition. But surely 19 together all these unproven assumptions not the ideas he describes are val, his he student ofthe history of ideas, without his re significant. 0 t00 dificult t0 be gone into here, which in arises where he must use ahighly technical ‘explain where it is defined or proven. 2d by Wall's tendency to state a simple idea a, he refers to the blank spaces appearing dialectical recognition of the absence of What else does this phrase refertobesides (spaces between them? Exactly how does ing emblem of a negation ofthe established Planetofthe Arts vol.3no.5 March 1988 SELECTED VIEWS ‘Again, what do each these words mean ? When he sates "Richt paintings contemplato their own sel-alination into a hstricaly-evolved form of reproduction trom within whose ‘space their own image is returned as a kind of disappearance, * he slips trom overly Complicated statomants ofthe obvious into complata incomprahensiily Flowery language that sounds good igh intriorty"has such an impressive rng tot, Tk “high at) but means lit dsguises an inability or refusal to sate the theoretical basis from Which he wits. This disguise is portectly described in one word: mystiication, Part 2- lan Wallaco: Ar as Idea or Experience? iis fiting Wall's catalogue essay should tr to play two sides ofthe street athe same time, since Wallace's work makes the samo kid of mistake, albeit on a somewhat ferent street. ‘Whreas Wall is tobe both historian of daas and artspeak advocat his art on both experience and ideas. “idoa Ant had a brie flowering in tho lato ‘sitios and early ‘seventies, when artists for some reason thought it would bo valuable o create an art without any concrete materials. Perhaps they thought here was an easy means to gan prominence without any ofthe messy effort required to produce more taditonal an. At any fata, as eventualy bocame apparent despito ‘Accompanying rhetoric, the resus were tedious presentations of smal minds writ largo. ‘Although tis doubtful Wallace isa sily as mostofthese artists wer, he has maintained somo their loss appetizing characteristics. Firtisth sight numbing banaiiy of smoot his work. Amagazine’s ripped apartand stuck on a wall. Modols are posod inthe most unremarkable stances imaginabo. Im all fr ‘Simply and carty of expression, but whan this reveals only mediocre kas io begin wth, why bother? ‘Wallace was being disingonvous when he stated ata recent galery lecture viewers dont require any special knowledge or background io “gehis work. Perhaps not, but viewers can be forgiven for thinking there must be something not apparent making this work significa, ‘of else why would tbe on an important gallery's wall” Second is the large scale. For many paces, almost a of ther negligible force derives from being vary large (and as a corollary, since is photograpt, very expensive). To use Wall's Jargon, they are "monumental ‘Tha works | enjoyed most his show we the smal cbachvomes rom Munich, the or scala Usually suggested to me only inflated sel importance, and the gulibilty ofthe at establishment buying this work, Tho third characters is an itating tendency for pedantic iteral-mindedness. Wallace claims his sticking together pages rom Seventeen magaziellustrates the constuction {theimageo! the young gt mioring the social construction of identi." isn the factitoms of culture help construc social realty, and do son particular ways, painfully obvious? The interesting question is how, which hs work does nothing to expla. Similarly Wallace points ut the artfice made apparent by impertecly maiched ines in "Lookout. You mean leould Go tut Ika this too? Dun, thank lant Fortunatoly, intutve grasp of sonsval experience Al the genuine salstaction tobe derived from at, as wellas all eri for evaluating it— balance thm, weight gesture, warmth, ete. —-derive {rom the rational reaim ofthe sonsos. Wallace admitod he fkos his work to touch on commen experiences the viewer may femomber having had before, This is on adm abla sentiment, but tho example Wallace gave from “The Summor Script to ilustrate it instead demonstrates how he weakens his own best of- for. “The Summer Script” has a woman making an ambiguous upward looking gesture. An ambigu: ‘us gesture is an excolant starting point for interesting af. But Wallace weakens any impact fis own study has by making itobvous the image the woman has boon takan from a TV. sereen ‘As anyone who has ted knows, tis very ditfeut to mako a satisfactory image from a television scroon, primarily bocause of is low resolution Only some advartisors sueced, at vary consida able expanse. Why does Wallace tak his imago from a scroon? Presumably he is making some Viewors are incapable of figuring that out on their ‘own, Allie does thereby is make the supposedly Important ambiguity less clearly visible. i's too bad, because the other part of “The Summer ‘Seri, avoiding a lotof the same ponderous sot- Consciousness, is an interesting, almost seduc- tive work ‘Some of the smaller works, which as | already mentioned have the added advantage of mod- testy, also give more tein to Wallace's sensualty For example, some of the photos from the Munich museums have an eerie, evocative atmosphere where the sensuous lightness of paint and stone dissolve into the rosy, thick cibachrome darkness. {In sum, unlike Wall, whose confused scholarship has almost.no merit, Wallace's art demonstrates a potentially powertl sensibility struggling to fo itso fromthe shackle of mystilvingideas. Wallace might respond such is the plight of modem artist ‘under capitalism, or whatever, but it appears to ‘meheis shooting himself inthe foot, Let'shope he stops Derek Simons is a semi-monumental paint/canvas interface artist, who also inte- ‘grates a sensibility of the dialectics of word and paper in Writing. He has an unlisted phone number Derek Simons ‘Touch of salt.Dash of pepper.