Reading 2: “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”

Rosalind Krauss, “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”, October, Vol. 8 (Spring, 1979), pp. 30-44.

In the advent of the allusively permissive, un-categorizable phenomenon known as postmodernism, sculpture unwittingly emancipated itself from any preconceived definition. Starting with the basic precepts of modernism, where form was employed in the service of function, sculpture was most closely aligned with the place of monument. In her article Sculpture in the Expanded Field, Rosalind Krauss traces the re-contextualization of sculpture from the quantifiable precepts of modernism to the radical, manifestations of postmodernism.

Krauss aligns the degeneration of post-war American sculpture with the manipulation of art categories via art criticism. Any new art experimentations were imbued with a familiarity that could be traced to a former, knowable time in history. Krauss recounts the lineage of Minimalism as inherited from the paternity of its constructivist fathers. Issues of explicit ideological incompatibility were overlooked in favour of aesthetic and historic familiarity. The eradication of the pedestal by Brancusi meant that sculpture became officially devoid of any extraneous function and maintained its own autonomous ontology.

In its most pure postmodernist form, Krauss argues sculpture became that which was not-landscape and not-architecture. An excellent example of sculpture occupying this ‘non-place’ would be Claes Oldenburg’s Placid Civic Monument, 1967. Oldenburg himself occupied an un-categorizable place in art history. His works effectively trail blazed postmodernist ideologies particularly Minimalist and Conceptual art practice. He was an art prophet. Placid Civic Monument effectively inverted the notion of sculpture. At approximately 10:00 a.m., Sunday 1st October, a grave was dug behind the Metropolitan Museum in New York.1 The covert hole dug secretly behind the museum was filled in again after lunch. This ‘hole’ was arguably the quintessential manifestation of the not-landscape, not-architecture place. Oldenburg took the classic notion of monument and subverted its commemorative function, culminating in a fugitive, temporary deconstruction and reconstruction of place.

Krauss asserts that under the guise of postmodernism, sculpture now defies all categorization. She states ‘the logic of the space of postmodernist practice is no longer organized around the definition of a given medium on the grounds of material, or for that matter, the perception of material. It is organized instead through the universe of terms that are felt to be in opposition within a cultural situation.’2 In other words, within a postmodern context sculpture is no longer confined to materials or function, rather it can be anything in dialogue with either the degeneration or regeneration of its former categorization. Postmodernism has given sculpture the permission to be whatever it claims itself to be, occupying a place that is at once not-landscape, and not-architecture but everything, or anything, in between. Sculpture is a secret hole dug behind a museum then filled in after lunch, it is the un-categorizable thing which defies place.

1 - Boettger, S. A Found Weekend, 1967: Public Sculpture and Anti-Monuments. Art in America. http://findarticles.com/p/articles 26/08/2008
2 - Rosalind Krauss, “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”, October, Vol. 8 (Spring, 1979), pp. 30-44. P 43.

Reading 1: Meg Cranston with Nico Israel

Meg Cranston with Nico Israel, “Running On Light Feet”, from “Hot Pants in a Cold Cold World: Works 1987 – 2007”, Auckland: Artspace and Clouds, 2008, pp.6-21.

What does it mean to read theoretical material as a creative practitioner?

Meg Cranston’s informal dialogue with Nico Israel provides a candid insight into the working methods and ideologies underpinning her diverse artistic practice. The interview Running on Light accompanies Cranston’s exhibition Hot Pants in a Cold Cold World: Works 1987 – 2007, held at Artspace, Auckland 2008. Israel and Cranston weave together a casual discourse that bellies the fluid yet informed modus operandi of the artist.

The ease of conversation and the maneuverability between disparate subjects fools the reader into perceiving Cranston as somewhat cavalier and haphazard in her artistic approach. Anecdotes about Paris Hilton and Rem Koolhaas suggest aspects of a playful, lighthearted application of theories under girding Cranston’s concepts. Cranston seamlessly dovetails pop-culture with art theoretical giants. A quick glance through the text reveals a myriad of personalities contributing to the contemporary art canon. Skimming the pages names such as; Kippenberger, Foucault, Freud, Haring, Duchamp, Nietzche, Led Zeppelin, Mike Kelley, Greenberg…oscillate revealing the diverse sources of theories, concepts and influences informing Cranston’s work.

Cranston reveals the immense breadth of content informing her pieces. In her words, ‘I won’t discredit artists who go deep, but I go broad.’1 Her working methods can be considered an example of the archetypal post-modern practitioner. Fidelity to one primary art theoretical position is sublimated to a type of theoretical polygamy. Multiple heavyweight principles weave in collaboration with one another. Both Israel and Cranston assume a level of theoretical literacy. Witty references could be lost on less informed readers, for example Israel’s clever re-contextualizing of the Hilton vs. Koolhaas anecdote. Phrasing the parable “Rem Descending a Staircase”2 is a direct referral to the hugely controversial work produced by Marcel Duchamp in 1912, Nude Descending A Staircase 3. A theoretically proficient reader would be aware of the revolutionary history inherent in the painting.

The clever application of theoretical precepts places Cranston’s work within a broad art historical context and at once imbues the work with a sense of authority by virtue of its informed references. In addition to acknowledging works by revolutionary artists such as Duchamp, Cranston also sets up vital discourses with her contemporaries including artists and thinkers who have, and will, continue to provoke her conceptual responses. The Wonder and Horror of the Human Head is a quintessential example of the amalgamation of past and present art history. Cranston references a show of the same name curated by Roland Penrose and Herbert Read in 1953 and charges Richard Hamilton to curate a contemporary version.

Without Cranston’s incredibly well versed theoretical knowledge many of her works would lack depth. Aspects of content referring to broader social commentary are only as powerful as they are well informed. Cranston is an advocate of what she refers to as the “unsavory aspects of Modernism,” that is “any kind of education about how to think and talk about abstract concepts becoming form.”4 She embodies the ideal that an artist must be simultaneously fluent in both art history and theory in order for their art to convey concepts with authority.

In summary Cranston exemplifies the fact that in order to confront sociological constructs in a meaningful way the artist must operate from a position of diversely informed knowledge. It is from this informed position that an artist can then authoritatively deconstruct such knowledge to make counter or complementary claims. Cranston and Israel playfully unpack heavy weight art theory that is accessible to art savvy readers and burgeoning practitioners. In a lighthearted, non-prescriptive way, Cranston illustrates the great breadth, authority and freedom indicative of works by a creative practitioner widely informed by theoretical material.

1 - Meg Cranston with Nico Israel, “Running On Light Feet”, from “Hot Pants in a Cold Cold World: Works 1987 – 2007”, Auckland: Artspace and Clouds, 2008, pp.6-21. P 8
2 - Ibid. P 15.
3 - Nude Descending A Staircase. http://www.idiom.com/~wcs/duchamp.html. 14.03.2008
4 - Meg Cranston with Nico Israel. P 19.