Re: Barbara Kruger

2000-07-21 Thread Timework Web

Thanks Lou for posting this review. 

Kruger epitomizes for me the narcissistic sloganeering and chablis
apocalypticism that ate art/politics in the eighties. I especially liked
two comments in the review: "She doesn't like to be for things.
Instead, she identifies herself with a stance: critical, suspicious,
oppositional." and "Kruger makes the classic rhetorical mistake of
focusing so completely on what she means to say that she overlooks how she
says it. She's oblivious to the way her carefully reasoned critical
positionality actually comes off."

I don't think it's fair to blame Kruger for the edgy, cynical turn in
brand promotion. Actually, I think it was because her work was so
static and susceptible to re-appropriation that she was made into an art
world celebrity. Books on post-modern art/politics in the eighties just
had to include a reproduction of some utterly boring Kruger image.

In formal respects, my own image making trades on some of the same
trite elements as Kruger's -- the re-use of old magazine images, the
intrusion of swathes of large format text, the allusions to
constructivism and dadaist montage. The principal difference (I would
argue) is that my works are trivial but useful instruments in a
committed research project, whereas Kruger's are monumental,
cynically artless "works of art".

I also don't think it would be possible to overstate the importance of
Walter Benjamin's arguments about art and politics to the cynical,
edgy lifestyle commercialism. And I want to be clear that I don't mean
simply its importance as critique. I don't know if Kruger herself says
anything about Benjamin and his analysis of "post-auratic" art. But
W.B. essay on "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction" served as virtually the Communist Manifesto of the 1980s
post-modernist art scene. I have a couple of problems with that. One is
that the "reception" (ironic self reference) of Benjamin's theories about
the reception of art was extremely superficial -- reduced to sloganeering,
much of it based on hearsay. The other problem is that the Benjamin essay
that got monumentalized was both extremely suggestive and disasterously
unresolved, which is why it lent itself so readily to sloganeering.

It's almost as if Walter Benjamin holds up the fun-house mirror, by
means of which late capitalist consumerism presents its image as something
cool, radical and self-referential. I would suggest that the antidote for
this ironic instrumentation of Benjamin may be more Benjamin. I would
caution that what I am proposing is dangerous and could easily lead right
back into the narcissistic, sloganeering trap that Kruger epitomises and
Bennetton replicates.



Temps Walker
Sandwichman and Deconsultant




Barbara Kruger

2000-07-21 Thread Louis Proyect

[Back in the late 80s, when I worked in Goldman-Sach's new corporate
headquarters, I always got a chuckle over how the powerful investment bank
had decided to festoon the walls with 'avant-garde' art. This was
especially glaring in the cafeteria, which served as a mini-gallery for
some "daring" neon signs created by Barbara Kruger, who has an exhibition
at the Whitney Museum in NYC right now. These signs had slogans like "You
think you can escape commodification --- You can't". Standing on line
behind some bond salesmen in $1200 suits, I couldn't imagine them being
disturbed by her archly ironic postmodernism. Now if Goldman-Sachs had
decided to put up some of Mike Alewitz's murals of striking workers, that
would have been a different story…]

Barbara Kruger, Ad Industry Heroine

By Judith Shulevitz

Barbara Kruger, whose work is currently being exhibited at New York's
Whitney Museum, comes as close as anybody can to being the official artist
of American consumerism. You know who I'm talking about, even if you don't
know her name. Kruger is the collagist who slaps sarcastic slogans boxed in
red on old black-and-white photographs. "I shop therefore I am"; "It's a
small world but not if you have to clean it"; "Your body is a
battleground"--you've read her aphorisms on shopping bags and coffee mugs
and bus stop shelters and magazine covers and the Op-Ed page of the New
York Times. Slightly more than a quarter-century after quitting her job as
the head designer of Mademoiselle to turn the techniques of mid- and
late-20th-century propaganda and advertising against themselves, Kruger has
come full circle. Hers is the voice that suffuses today's airwaves and
magazine pages and that contemporary marketers work hard to emulate. The
edgy, ironic, supposedly self-hating but really self-congratulatory
advertisement or commercial--we owe it largely to her. 

Kruger wouldn't like the idea that she incarnates the spirit of our time,
the bourgeois bohemianism that David Brooks meanly calls "Boboism." She's
against the commercial exploitation of anything, her many market tie-ins
notwithstanding. If her work consciously advances a position, it's
feminism. But although she's a feminist, she's also a theorist trained not
to impose her values on other people. She doesn't like to be for things.
Instead, she identifies herself with a stance: critical, suspicious,
oppositional. Kruger has made a career out of denouncing oppressors, from
anti-abortion agitators to wife-beaters, homophobics, racists, and the
editors of glossy magazines. A typical Kruger piece is a long room swathed
from floor to ceiling in giant red and black type and 1950s-magazine-style
photographs. In one such installation, the wall text screams: "All violence
is the illustration of a pathetic stereotype." Underneath it is the
photograph of a screaming woman and the words, "hebe kike yid hymie spic
wop dago mex cunt gash snatch pussy spook sambo ..." and so on. In another
installation, the photographs are of preachers railing, a man and a woman
kissing through surgical masks, medical deformities, magnets picking up
nails. "Pray like us," says the text imposed on the magnets. In smaller
type: "Your tired rituals. Your power trips. Your pompous scoldings. Your
insane strictness." Out of the mouth of the preacher comes the phrase,
"Hate like us," and in a box that's perched on the tip of his nose: "Your
fear and loathing. Your mean spirit. Your constant contempt."

You might object that for an artist opposed to stereotyping she has few
qualms about doing it to people she doesn't like. She would reply that
that's the point. Unlike their stereotyping, hers is a necessary
counterassault against people who reduce other groups of people to
derogatory nouns. It's also commentary--education and critique by way of
appropriation and allusion (to Dada montage and Soviet constructivism,
mainly). In other words, speak unto others as they speak unto you. In an
interview with writer Lynne Tillman (the one good article in the show's
otherwise shockingly sycophantic catalogue), Kruger says: "Direct address
has motored my work from the beginning. I like it because it cuts through
the grease. ... It's everywhere and people are used to it." 

You can imagine the appeal of Kruger's bluntness for the New York art world
in the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan came to power and seemed to threaten
everything it held dear, and maybe even again in the early 1990s, with the
rise of hate radio. Contemporary art tends to be oblique. Political
messages are delivered in a language that their non-artist recipients can't
begin to decipher. Kruger's unsubtlety, her frank mimicry of mass media,
her unconcern about the distinctions betwe