Language
There has never been a dearth, either historically or currently, of artists who write competently about art, the art world, their peers or critical theory—but ultimately, artists really like to write about themselves. Self-critique, however, tends to dodder on the threshold of self-indulgence, which is not very enlightening in terms of the genesis of new ideas. It often takes the form of an extended artist statement, a device I myself have always found a bit tedious—a sort of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern-like cop out, supplementary to work that, more often than not, does not inherently possess the power to speak for itself.
For this issue’s special section on Language, I wanted someone to investigate the role of the written word within contemporary artistic practice. Enter Miami-based Gean Moreno. As a practicing visual artist and widely published critic, I knew he was, beyond a doubt, up to the task. What he produced, I’m pleased to report, is something far more precise and significant than I’d initially imagined. Gean invited David Robbins, Frances Stark, Michael Tedja and Jeffery Vallance—artists who do not merely use language in their work but produce texts that expand their practice in non-illustrational ways. In other words, the pieces Gean chose to include in this issue are not just statements or musings; they are stand-alone works of art, parallel to—rather than mere supplements of—each individual’s oeuvre.
Austin-based Caitlin Haskell and Michael Osborne tackled this issue’s installment of VISUAL SPACE. Osborne’s beguiling series of photographs, Press Pictures, is more about mediation than language—about the liminal space between the transcription and dissemination of the written word. In addition, I asked curator Ursula Davila-Villa and artist Carla Herrera-Prats to discuss their recent collaboration at testsite and Houston-based artist Matthew Sontheimer to contribute work for this issue’s PROJECT SPACE. Herrera-Prats’ practice—archival art—is integrally tied to language in a symbiotic manner, as are Sontheimer’s elegant distortions of invented script. Osborne, Herrera-Prats and Sontheimer’s work appear somewhat in counterpoint to the texts included in the themed section of this issue but remain, in many ways, complimentary to Gean’s guiding premise. While each of these artists obscures, twists and questions the communicative potential of language, text is not secondary in their work—or, in Gean’s words, none of them comes across as a “bottom.”
After experiencing the process of laying out this issue (which was challenging indeed), I think it is safe to say that contemporary art is essentially its own language—or, at least, a well-developed dialect—complete with imaginary syntax, pleasantries and the occasional choice explicative. The complacent can easily function within the dictates of this structure by dropping references—a little Duchampian sarcasm here, a touch of YBA angst there—and likely prosper as well. Others perceive the idiomatic nature of contemporary art as a doughy aphorism just begging to be prodded, challenged, provoked—even discontinued.
But if representation—the study of the object—is still key to critical discourse, what do we make of artists who parallel their visual practice with the written word and harness (or shroud) its power as a primary means of expression? Are we to treat their works as objects? If so, must we aestheticize them? Does this obliterate their significance? It seems postmodernism is such a resilient little bugger—one that can thwart even the most valiant efforts to dismantle its unruly infrastructure by sopping up all attacks, consuming them in order to add to its canonical girth—that even the works included in this issue might be at risk of absorption.
Anjali Gupta Editor, ARTL!ES