RICHARD
CHARTIER:
WASHINGTON POST (US)
AS
AMERICAN AS JAMBALAYA
Blake Goprik
The
biennial exhibition that opens today at the Whitney Museum of
American Art is the largest, most comprehensive roundup of this
nation's art, as the biennial has been since its founding 70
years ago. For this latest edition, first-time organizer Lawrence
Rinder asked his Whitney team to beat the country's bushes even
harder than usual, to flush out all the best of what is being
made within our borders.
They
pulled in an impressive assortment of fascinating objects (a
billboard-size dead artist, a 300-inch accordion, hermaphroditic
Bible paintings) and experiences (seances with a different dead
artist, tap-dancing Palm Pilots, fractured sonic poems) by 113
different artists and collectives from 20 states and Puerto
Rico. And the curators also managed, apparently by accident,
to make one single crucial point:
There
is no such thing as American art. Maybe there never was.
Anthropologists,
sociologists and other serious students of culture gave up years
ago on the idea that there can be a single "spirit" that shapes
a country's character and creativity. "Volksgeist" was the favored
scholarly term, and it was much loved by the Nazis. Weirdly,
however, many popular historians and critics, and some curators,
still see no problem with it. Pick up any intro to our nation's
art or culture, and you'll get not only an account of all the
stuff that has gone on here, but some attempt to see in every
bit of it the true expression of the "national identity."
Now
that the United States of America has been attacked by terrorists,
the dangerous idea that We the People need to conceive of ourselves
as a single creature, with one overriding character, is stronger
than ever. Rinder writes in his introduction to the exhibition
catalogue about how "in the aftermath of the attack, the questions
of what is American art, what is an American artist . . . have
taken on a keen and tragic importance. Our uniqueness as a nation
has suddenly been thrown into high relief. . . . It is imperative
that we have the courage to look deeply, and critically, into
our own national character." But if his excellent biennial demonstrates
anything at all, it's that this critical looking can start by
staring down the whole idea that such a single character exists.
It
is, you could argue, only by resisting any idea of tribal identity
that all the different peoples settled in this country have
achieved the peace to go about their varied business, including
that of making potent art of every kind. That resistance to
the tribal doesn't come naturally to human beings, even when
they live under the Stars and Stripes: It has to be taught and
re-taught, and encouraged through events like this latest Whitney
Biennial, with its vast variety of non-American, sometimes even
un-American, artmaking.
With
the culture of contemporary art gone almost wholly global, most
of the best pieces in this exhibition could have been made by
a talented artist raised or working nearly anywhere within the
reach of Western influence.
New
Yorker Ken Feingold, for instance, gives us a cardboard box
full of styrofoam packing popcorn, out of which emerge two life-size
animatronic heads, bald and without any markers as to sex or
culture. Moving their rubber mouths, blinking their silicone
eyes, they engage in never-ending conversation about the metaphysics
of existence -- a conversation, it turns out, governed entirely
by a complex computer program that lets the figures listen to
each other, and reply, but never understand. The profundity
of these plastic philosophers is governed by the artificial
rules of how such talk is put together, rather than by a thoughtful
close encounter with the world -- which makes them, perhaps,
not so far removed from many other poseur eggheads all around
the globe. They may be speaking American English, but they could
fake it just as well in French.
Tim
Hawkinson -- he had a solo at the Hirshhorn last year, and is
one of the few well-known names who made it into this Whitney
show -- gives us another animated head. This time, a giant color
photo of the Los Angeles artist's face has been cut up into
the component parts it takes to form expressions. A crude array
of springs and pneumatics is mounted onto the fractured picture's
surface, to control each independent particle of cheek and brow
and chin. And as viewers approach this self-portrait-of-the-artist-as-a-Rube-Goldberg-machine,
they get a new grimace manufactured just for them -- a half-grin,
half-yawn, maybe, as the mouth's lower lip descends and its
corners turn up. Or a left nostril flaring with disdain, as
a right eye narrows in suspicion. Hawkinson is presented as
the universal archetype of the expressive artist.
And
then there is the abstract sound art of Richard Chartier, from
Arlington, which should succeed in speaking to almost any human
born with ears. Heard through fancy headphones, a disconnected
suite of barely-there clicks and buzzes and tiny chirps stretches
the fundamental fabric of our perceptions almost to the limit,
like the painful concentration of an endless hearing test. Visual
experience can almost never push us quite so far in attending
to the things we see. You can close your eyes, or simply disconnect
them from a mind that wants to wander, but you will find it
hard to empty out your head once it has been invaded by the
swarming little sounds of Chartier's work. By comparison, a
mosquito under the sheets at night is positively inconspicuous.
I'm
not pushing the old, vapid cliche that these works, however
fine, transparently express some Universal Human Values. Show
them to any Bushman of the Kalahari -- or to more than a few
Yankees I know -- and you'd probably get nothing more than shrugs.
But I don't think it makes sense, either, to imagine that the
artistic language that they speak, to those who've taken time
to learn it, has some crucially American intonation.
Of
course, given the selection process for this exhibition, some
of the artists in the Whitney deal with aspects of existence
that don't crop up so much outside of the United States. But
that is a very different thing from saying that they encapsulate
some nebulous shared principle of being that you would want
to call an American Way.
I
don't suppose you get much Texas televangelism in Germany, where
artist Christian Jankowski was born and raised and mostly lives,
but that doesn't stop him from dealing with it in a brilliant
video called "The Holy Artwork" -- a foreigner's creation that
pretty much steals the show at this survey of American art.
(The piece seems to have sneaked into the Whitney survey by
virtue of its U.S. setting, its U.S. origins -- it was commissioned
by the ArtPace foundation for contemporary art in San Antonio
-- and Jankowski's significant New York ties.)
Last
year the Berlin artist joined forces with pastor Peter Spencer,
of the Harvest Fellowship Church in San Antonio, to have him
preach the Good News about contemporary video art, while helping
it to find a place within the worldview of a Baptist congregation.
At the Whitney, Jankowski simply gives us an un-artsified video
of the reverend's spectacularly impressive sermon on the subject,
ad-libbed live in church and sent out onto local cable. "Today
we have to understand that the miracle of art is not because
of we the paintbrushes or we the cameras of life," intones the
preacher man, "but it's because of the Great Artist, the Great
Creator who gave us the ability to feel inspiration by his power."
Some of what the preacher says could be straight from the mouth
of any mainstream critic -- if only half of us were one-tenth
as skilled at oratory -- but it is a pleasure to watch him segue,
without missing a beat, from such East Coast-sounding stuff
to a biblical message with a distinctly Texas twang. "He not
only created the Earth but He created Man. You know why? Because
He couldn't have a piece of art to show off without having someone
to see it."
There
may be ironic attitude lurking in all this, but it's mostly
in the minds ofurbane art world beholders, as they try to come
to grips with almost comic contradictions brought so seamlessly
together through a preacher's rhetoric. If the artist shares
such a cynical take on things -- and I'll bet you anything he
does -- he doesn't let that bias stick out in the fabric of
his work. The sermon, like Jankowski's taping of it, doesn't
tell us what to make of the results of this cultural crossbreeding:
It seems to ask "What if a Manhattan loft-dweller could be Saved
in Texas," and then proceeds with the experiment in all good
faith. "Thank you, Lord, for creating video," says pastor Peter.
Amen.
Other
artists in the exhibition also take distinctions that are supposed
to be central to the American experience, and manage to call
them into question. Collaborators Sanford Biggers and Jennifer
Zackin, for instance, look at the home movies that their middle-class
families -- one black, the other Jewish -- shot of themselves
in 1970, as they traveled on vacation, gathered for a festive
holiday, or gamboled in the yard. And they realized that their
parallel economic fortunes did more to give them shared experiences
than race and creed could do to separate their worlds. The two
sets of Super 8 films are projected side by side, without tricks
or commentary, but with their scenes reorganized to let intriguingly
similar moments in the artists' picture-perfect American childhoods
appear to us at once.
And
then there are all the demonstrably "American" artists who choose
to let us in on experiences that seem entirely foreign.
Puerto
Rican native Javier Cambre cuts a tumbledown shack from a San
Juan Beach in half, and siameses it to a slickly modern, high-end
version of itself, as though I.M. Pei had been appointed to
remodel every single corner of the world, and this is his demonstration
piece. Can the official American Experience open up so wide
that there's room in it to include the cultures of our possessions
overseas?
Washington
photographer Chan Chao makes straightforward photo-documents
of political refugees in camps around his native Burma. Can
the American Experience also include the potent memories of
those we've taken in from far away?
And
if Americanness has to stretch so far that it encompasses all
this inchoate variety, why not just dispense with the bloated
idea altogether? As this biennial suggests, it's possible simply
to enjoy all the very varied excellences that this land produces,
and leave national mythmaking to other countries.
That,
it seems to me, is the truly American way to go.