AbstractArtinanAbstractReality

FinalDissertation3September2012

Studentnumber:33229373Tutor:ProfessorAlexDttmann

WordCount:14.973

DepartmentofVisualCulturesMAContemporaryArtTheory

2

TABLEOFCONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................3

Methodology ................................................................................................................................7

1stMOMENT:Adorno .........................................................................................................................8

REALITY ...........................................................................................................................................8

ExchangeMania............................................................................................................................9

DominativeAbstractStructure ...................................................................................................10

Totality ........................................................................................................................................11

ART .................................................................................................................................................12

Autonomy ...................................................................................................................................12

Art=reality=abstract ................................................................................................................12

Selfdenial ...................................................................................................................................13

Negation .....................................................................................................................................14

Socialdimension .........................................................................................................................15

ObjectiveDimension...................................................................................................................16

StandingFirm..............................................................................................................................18

AdReinhardt ...............................................................................................................................18

2stMOMENT:Foster .........................................................................................................................21

REALITY .........................................................................................................................................21

Baudrillard ..................................................................................................................................21

SignValue ...................................................................................................................................22

Code............................................................................................................................................23

SimulationandHyperreality .......................................................................................................24

ART .................................................................................................................................................26

NeoGeo....................................................................................................................................26

Simulationism .............................................................................................................................26

Compliantreproduction .............................................................................................................27

Conventionalism .........................................................................................................................28

SherrieLevine .............................................................................................................................28

ADORNOXFOSTER ...........................................................................................................................30

Friction ...........................................................................................................................................34

TOMMAABTS ....................................................................................................................................37

REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................42

3

INTRODUCTION

Throughoutmyreadingsduring thispastyear,overandover I cameacross the idea

thatthereality,asweknowit,isanabstractreality.Forexample,IcameacrossAntonioNegri

defending that the reality we see today is abstract and circular, in which experience is

composed by a process of accumulation of abstract events, that even though render reality

palpable and solid, it nevertheless affirms it as superficial, selfaffirming and meaningless

(2011,p.5).IalsocameacrossAlanBadiou(n.d.)affirmingthat globalizationproposestous

anabstractuniversality,anuniversalityofmoney,communicationandpowerwhereweare

ledtobelievethateverythingispossibleandeverythingisimpossibleatthesametime.

Thisconceptofanabstractrealityalwaysremainedelusiveand thispuzzledmeas I

wantedtounderstandhowrealitycouldbealteredinsuchaprofoundway.

The concept also made me wonder what would the relationship be between this

allegedalteredrealityandworksofartthatareabstract.Howcanthesepicturesofnothing,

asProfessorVarnedoe(2006,p.1) jokinglyaddressedabstractworks,emergeorrelate from

our reality? How can a picture with no connection to the visible world be relevant in the

realityweexperience?

4

The explanations that the development of early modern abstraction in the work of

Pablo Picasso, Georges Braque, Wassily Kandisnly, Kazimir Malevich was fuelled by

revolutions in society and in consciousness are already common and accepted (Varnedoe

2006,pp.25).Intheriseofthemodernmantheseearlyformsofabstractionwereadvancing

theformalfragmentationandreassemblingoftheworld,givingshapeandcolourtoidealsofa

newsocialorder,envisionedthroughtheadvancements inknowledgeandtechnologyunder

theguidanceofinstrumentalreason(idem;Kuspit1998,p.131).

It is also common the explanations thatwith the GreatWorldWars and the rise of

totalitarianregimens, theweakeningof theseearlymodernaspirationshappenedsucceeded

by riseof abstract expressionism, inwhichmetaphysical or social agendaswere left behind

andindividualfreedomswerecelebrated.

This period was then followed by the rise of consumer society, mass culture and

entertainment, and a heavy politicized critique of abstraction came to dominate the 1980s

(Varnedoe 2006, p.21) opposing artists who believed in abstraction as all powerful and

dominating,asPeterHalley1,seeFigure1,andartistslikePhilipTaaffe,whosawabstraction

as inconsequential and thin (ibid.), a position rather evident in the tone of his abstract

paintings,seeFigure2,whichreduceabstractiontodesign(Foster1996,p.100).

Figure1:PeterHalley,Loop,1995,oilonlinen,162x228cm.

(Source:www.peterhalley.com)

1 Even though Halleyss abstract paintings have been questioned by Hal Foster, I believe his practice is relevant here for his openly declared his faith in abstraction.

5

Figure2:PhilipTaaffe,Blue,Green,1987,Silkscreen,collage,andacryliconcanvas,219.7x172.7cm.

(Source:Varnedoe,K.;2006;PicturesofNothing,p.21)

Obviously thisaccount isovergeneralized,buthelpful inaheuristicway inpainting

thepictureoftheuncomfortableplacethatabstractionstilloccupiestoday.

EmblematicofthissituationisthenewsoloexhibitionoftheAmericanartist,famous

forherprojections, JennyHolzer. Inhershowentitled EndgameatSkarstedGallery inNew

York in March 2012, the artist presented paintings that resembled censored military and

intelligence documents related to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the situation at

GuantnamoBay(Jonhson,2012).Thesepaintings,seeFigure3, formallyandopenlyalluded

to types of modernist abstraction, including Kazimir Malevich, Ad Reinhardt and Robert

Ryman(Jonhson,2012).InareviewpublishedintheNewYorkTimes,ontheoccasionofthe

openingoftheshow,itwasnotedthatbyequatingthesepaintingstocensoreddocumentsthe

artworksaccusenonrepresentationalpaintingofcoveringupandblindingartistsandviewers

torealworldproblems(Jonhson,2012).

6

Figure3:JennyHolzer,TopSecret10,2012,oilonlinen,58x44inches.

(Source:SkarstedGallerywebsite)

Suchanopenattackon thepresupposed lackof relevanceorpuredetachment from

reality of abstract artworks reinforced my interest in exploring the relationship between

abstractioninartandthesocialhistoricalrealityoftheworld.

7

Methodology

Thegoalofthispaperwillbethentoanalyzetwodifferentmomentswhereabstraction

positioned itself as critical of the alleged abstract reality andby comparing the theoretical

background informing these two moments question how can contemporary abstraction

remainrelevantandoffertruecriticalresistancetothestatusofthings.

The first moment will be based on Theodor W. Adornos Aesthetic Theory,

posthumouslypublishedin1970,inwhichIwillfocusonthechapterentitledSituation.

The second moment will be build upon the work of Hal Foster. For this, I will be

focusing mainly on the text Signs Taken forWonders, first published in 1986 and in two

chaptersofhisbookfrom1996TheReturnoftheReal,namely ThePassionof theSignand

TheArtofCynicalReason.

SinceFosteralignshisunderstandingof realitywith JeanBaudrillards Iwilldirectly

recoursetosomeofhiskeytextsinordertobetterunderstandFostersposition.

By going in depth into the theories sustaining these twomoments, Iwill be able to

compare how these two authors understand reality and the role and relevance of certain

abstractartworksandexposeanapparentcontradictioninthelevelofcriticism(oropposition

tothestatusquo)thatthemovementfromAdornotoFosterwillexpose.

ToworkthroughthiscontradictionIwillrecoursetoThierrydeDuveandthenmove

towardsaconclusionbyexposingsomealternativesforcontemporaryabstractiontoremain

critical.

Lastly,Iwill lookintotheworkofartistTommaAbts,whoIbelieveembodysomeof

thesolidpossibilitiesleftforabstractiontopursue.

I am sure that as Brice Marden said abstraction is still in its infancy. Through

theoreticalresearchandtheanalysisofalivingartistsworkIhopetodiscussthepossibilities

opentocontemporaryabstractionandadvancethediscussionofitsrelevancy.

8

1stMOMENT:Adorno

REALITY

Adornoseestheworldthathelivedthroughasaverygloomyone.Fromtheopening

wordsof Dialectic ofEnlightenmentwe can grasphis disillusioned statewith the statusof

humanity,mainlywithin theWesternworld.Hehaswritten: enlightenment, understood in

thewidestsenseastheadvanceofthought,hasalwaysaimedatliberatinghumanbeingsfrom

fearandinstallingthemasmasters.Yetthewhollyenlightenedearthradiatesunderthesignof

disastertriumphant(citedinStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,2011).

Considering thehistoricalmoment thathe lived through (WorldWar II, the riseand

fall of Nazi Germany, the catastrophic and antihuman actions carried out in the name of

reason and the ferocious advancement of capitalism and consumerism) his disappointment

withhumanityanditsdevelopment,orenlightenment,shouldnotcomeasasurprise.

InthesectionofAestheticTheoryanalyzedfortheessay,itisstillevidentinhisuseof

wordsthedisillusionmentwithreality.Heaffirms,alludingtoBaudelaire, thattheworldhas

lost its fragrance and colour, (2004, p.50), that reality is at its most grim state, that it is

developing into an abnormity (ibid, p.3) and that this is an age of incomprehensible horror

(ibid, p. 24) to cite a few examples. He also reiterates his disappointmentwith the level of

technologicalandproductivedevelopmentofsocietywhichinsteadoftransformingtheworld

intoabetterplacecreatesmoreinjustices.Hehasaffirmedthatthis isaworld inwhichthe

realpossibilityofutopiathatgivingthelevelofproductiveforcestheearthcouldhereand

nowbeparadiseconvergeswiththepossibilityoftotalcatastrophe(2004,p.42).

Even though IagreewithAdornoonsomeaspectsof thisdarkenedreality Iwillnot

dwellinit.

MyobjectofinterestforthisessayisAdornosunderstandingofthisrealityasabstract.

He has affirmed that in the empiricalworld (hiswording to convey the idea of reality) the

concrete continues to exist only as a mask of the abstract (Adorno 2004, p. 40). As I

mentionedbefore,thisisaconceptthatpuzzlesmegreatly.

Zuidervaart(1994,p.86),oneofAdornoscommentators,affirmsthatforAdornothis

abstraction is the essence of contemporary society and explains that Adorno conceives of

contemporary society as a functional totalitywhose abstract structure governs aprocess of

dominativeexchange,beingcapitalismthedrivingforcebehindthisprocess.

Inordertounderstandthedepthofthisaffirmationwewilltakeitbypartsandlook

into some Marxist ideas that informed Adornos understanding of how capitalism has

profoundlyalteredthenatureoftheempiricalworld.

9

ExchangeMania

Adornossocialtheory,beinggroundedintheMarxisttradition,acknowledgesthatit

was capital that changed theway people understand and relate to the world (Zuidervaart,

1994,p.67).

Adorno pointed out that in a capitalistic society, where everything is regulated by

exchangerelations,all thingsareturnedintocommodities(Adorno2004,p.23).Also,hehas

indicated that in the age of overproduction the commoditys use value has become

questionableandyieldstothesecondarygratificationofprestige,ofbeinginstep(ibid,p.22).

WiththeseaffirmationsAdornoispointingtoaprocessofcommodificationinsocietyandthe

substitutionofusevaluebyexchangevalue(Zuidervaart1994,pp.7278).

These two processes amount to a scenario in where first, value is no longer about

usefulnessbutaboutwhat somethingcanbeexchanged forandsecond for the spreadingof

thismentalitybeyondtheeconomicarena,sinceallthingsstartbeingtreatedascommodities,

fromarttosocialrelation.

Theoperationofexchangevaluetakingtheplaceofusevalue implementsanabstract

relationship of value, amarket one.Market exchange then becomes the golden rule against

whicheverythingismeasured.Thismentality,appliedtoallareasof lifecanthenrenderthe

experienceoftheempiricalworldasabstract(Adorno2004,p.39).

OneexamplethatIfindclarifyingofthisprocesswasgivenbyAdornointherealmof

howmusicappreciationhaschangedunderaworlddominatedbycapitalism,whichisaworld

of entertainment and commodified culture. Adorno points out that in these conditions, the

musiclistenernolongergoestoaconcerttotrulyenjoythemusic(orappreciateitsquality),

but rather, he goes to a concert worshiping themoneyhepaid for the ticket.His pleasure

comesoutofthesatisfactionofknowingthathisticketisconsolidatingtheeconomicsuccess

ofthemusicandthereforeestablishingitsexchangevalue(citedinZuidervaart,1995,p.78).In

this case the worth of the artwork, or themusic, becomes its economic worth or its price

insteadofitsusevalue,orquality.

TherearetwounderlyingconceptsthatareinformingAdornosunderstandingofthis

abstractprocessofcapital(Zuidervaart1994,p.72).

First isMarxs ideaof commodity fetishism,whichcanbeexplainedby theway that

commoditiesarefetishizedasbeingindependententities,withalife,andpowersoftheirown,

relatingtoothercommoditiesandpeopleasiftheywerebeingsofsomesort(Spickard2001).

AccordingtoSpickard(2001) this fetishismturncommodities,whicharenothingmorethan

products,intoenigmaticfetishesindependentofanyhumanagency,hidingthelabourpoured

intotheirproduction.

The problemwith this operation,whichMarx sees as an effect of capitalism, is that

commoditiesarethenturnedintousevaluesbymeansof theirexchange(Zuidervaart1994,

p.73)andstartbeingproducedtobeexchangedinthefirstplace(ibid,p.74).Whathappensis

thateven thoughcommodities,orproducts, cansurelybeproduced tosatisfyhumanneeds,

10

havingusevalue, theystartalsocommandingotherusevalues in theirexchange. Exchange

value, which is detached from a real need, starts having precedence over use value, which

originallywaswhysomethingwasproduced.Theinversion,orsubstitutionofvalues,iswhat

Adornoseesasresponsibleforimplementingaworldbasedonabstractrelationships(Adorno

2004,p.39).

The second underlying concept is the concept of reification advanced by Gyrgy

LukcsinhisbookHistoryandClassConsciousnesses,from1923,whichisanextensionofthe

pervasivenessofMarxsideasofcommodityfetishism(Zuidervaart1994,p.75).

In his theory of reification, Lukcs defended that the commodity is the central

structural problem not only of the capitalist economy but of capitalist society in general.

According to him, all forms of subjectivity and objectivity are organized around this

structuringcell(Zuidervaart,1994,p.76).Thisresults,ontheobjectiveside,inextendingand

sustaining the illusion that commodities have lives of their own, being independent

determinants of human life, and, on the subjective side, in reinforcing the idea that human

beingsareservantsof themarket,as if itwereanentitywithspecificdrives independentof

humancontrol(idem.).

InAdornoeyescommodificationandreificationchangedall layersof life,reordering

politics,cultureandsocialrelations(Adorno,2004,p.39).Reality,accordingtohimbecomesa

shell foranabstractworldgovernedbyimpersonalmarketexchanges(idem.)oranabstract

structurethatisfuelledbytheprocessesofcapital.Inhiswords,theapplicationoftheconcept

of abstraction in the vaguest possible sense, it signals the retreat from a world of which

nothingremainsexceptitscaputmortuum(idem.).

DominativeAbstractStructure

Thisabstractstructureadvancedbycapitalthroughmarketexchange,eventhoughis

abstractisnotneutralaccordingtoAdorno.Assaidbefore,heseesitasadominativeprocess

whereallhumanbeingsaresubjectedtothelawofcapital.

This domination is guaranteed through the inescapability from the law of capital.

Zuidervaart (1994, p.86) has explained that no one can escape the pursuit of capital, even

thoughnoteverybodypursuesitdirectly.Thismeansthattobeinacapitalistsocietyyouhave

tosubjectyourselftothelogicofmarketexchanges.AsAdornoputsis,thatpeoplearetrapped

inapositionofobediencetotheneedfortheexploitationofcapital(2004,p.27).

This dominative structure is also maintained by ideology which according to

Zuidervaartcanbeunderstoodasameansofcapitaltoobscuretheunderlyingtendenciesand

conflicts insocial formation (1994,p.69).Heexplains that ideology,under theconditionsof

commodification and reification, rather than justify indirect domination, lets people de

directly dominated in their conscious and unconscious experience (ibid, p.79). Because of

commodificationandreificationpeopledonotseethisstructure,orcapitalismasdominative,

11

ideologyveilstheinjusticesofthisstructureandthemarket issimplyseenasanimpersonal

uncontrollableentity(ibid,p.74).

Zuidervaarthoweverremarksthateventhoughthisstructureseemsunintelligible,itis

not,foritismodelledafterinstrumentalreason(1994,p.86).Theabstractstructureimpliesa

functionalprocesswhererelationshipsand the functionsof thesocialbodyaresubjected to

thelogicofcapital.

Even though logical, Adorno sees this process as something irrational since it is a

processthatrobshumanbeingsoftheirhumanity,reducingthemtovehiclesforprofitability

(2004,p.40)andconfirminghis initialdisappointmentwith theextent towhichreasonhas

beeninstrumentalizedforirrationalends.

Totality

Thissituationofveiledregimentationofhowlivesaretobelived,iswhatAdornocalls

asituationoftotaladministration(Adorno,2004p.23),wheretheabstractprocessofcapital

amountstoastatusofanallegedtotalcoherencewhichhidesthecontradictionsofadvanced

capitalism.

Adornoalsouses the term functional totality,being this totality,a realitywhere all

functionsarereducedtoonefunctionthatfunctions,beingprofitthelogicthatcommandsthis

function(Zuidervaart1994,p.86).

ForAdorno themore total societybecomes, themore completely it contracts into a

unanimoussystem(2004,p.39).Accordingtohim,inthistotalitythespellofexternalreality

overitssubjectsandtheirreactionshasbecomeabsolute(idem.).Thismeansthatthemore

totalthesystemis,themorepervasivethementalityofexchangebecomesorthemorereified

consciousness is. In this scenario, the abstract principle of market exchanges, comes to

organizesrealityandthelifethatpeoplelive,renderingtheempiricalworldabstract.

For Adorno, in this kind of reality art comes to occupy a prominent position in the

opposition again the abstract process of capital. He sees reason to hope in what he calls

authenticmodernartworks.

12

ART

According toAdorno, autonomousmodernartworks, areworks that even thoughdo

notaimatchangingpoliticalattitudes,yetoftendo(Zuidervaart1994,p.36). Herecognizes

that certain modernist works have sufficient experimental depth and technological

progressiveness to resist the commodification of consciousness and to expose the hidden

contradictionsofadvancedcapitalism.(ibid,p.42)

These autonomous modern art works stand out in a situation where, according to

Adorno,artiseithertotallycommandedbythemarked,whereartisconsumedasanyother

good (a mechanism explored by the culture industry) or by a false spiritualization of art,

wherethemodernsubjectseeks itsownprojection inthework, hopingtogeteasypleasure

outofit,tothepointofdimensionlesspuresubjectivity(Adorno2004,p.18;23;38,53).

In this scenario, Adorno is convinced of the effectiveness of autonomous modern

works.Accordingtohimtheseworksdeniedtheirownconcept,equatingthemselveswiththe

totalityinordertobeabletoopposeitthroughitsimmanentnegation.

Sincethisisaratherdensestatementwellworkthroughitbyparts.

Autonomy

TheideaofautonomyforAdornoiscentral.Forhim,themoreautonomousartworks

are,freeingthemselvesofanyexternalgoals,themorecompletelytheydeterminethemselves

astheirmasters(Adorno2004,p.23).

Ifartworksareproducedtoattendtheneedsoftheprofitdrivencultureindustry,they

arenotautonomousandtheycontributetothesmoothfunctioningoftheabstractprocessof

capitalism, or of the totality, hiding the fact that it is a dead process not revolving around

humanneeds(ibid,p.24).

In this scenario, by being autonomous, artworks are capable of mounting critical

resistancetothetotality,questioningitfromwithin.AccordingtoZuidervaart,suchworksby

appearingtohavealifeoftheirown,callintoquestionasocietywherenothingisallowedto

beitselfandeverythingissubjecttotheprincipleofexchange,bybeinguselessworksofart

recall the human purposes of production that instrumental rationality forgets (Zuidervaart

1994,p.88).

Art=reality=abstract

Another manoeuvrethatAdornoidentifiesintheseauthenticartworksisthatatthe

sametimethattheyaretobeautonomous,theyaretoequatethemselveswiththerealitythat

theyareopposing. Accordingtohim,since thespellofexternalrealityoveritssubjectsand

their reactionshas become absolute, the artwork canonly oppose this spell by assimilating

13

itselftoit(Adorno2004,p.39).Thiswouldmeanthateffective,trueartworks(orabsolute,in

hiswords)wouldequalthemselvestoreality,becominglikeacommodity.Inhiswords:

theabsoluteartworkconvergeswiththeabsolutecommodity.Themodern

pays tribute to this in the vestige of the abstract in its concept. If in monopoly

capitalism it is primarily exchange value, not use value, that is consumed, in the

modernartworkitisitsabstractness,thatirritatingindeterminatenessofwhatitis

and to what purpose it is, that becomes a cipher of what the work is. The

abstractness[]isaprovocation,itchallengestheillusionthatlifegoeson,andat

thesametimeitisameansforthataestheticdistancingthattraditionalfantasyno

longerachieves[]afterthecatastropheofmeaning,appearancebecomesabstract

(Adorno2004,p.28).

This means that by equating themselves with reality, these artworks become thus

abstract, reflecting a world organized aroundmarket exchanges, which convert real values

intoabstractones.ForAdorno,thedrivetowardsabstractioniswhatisleftforarttopursuein

aworldwherereasonhasfailed.

Selfdenial

However, by becoming abstract the autonomous modern artwork let go of its

traditionalaffirmativeessence(Adorno2004,p.2).AccordingtoAdorno,theabstractnesshas

nothing incommonwith the formalcharacterofolderaesthetic normssuchasKants (ibid,

p.28).

InthehisCritiqueofJudgmentKantstatedthatindealingwithaproductoffineartwe

mustbecomeconsciousthatitisartratherthannature,andyetthepurposivenessinitsform

mustseemas free fromallconstraintofchosenrulesas if itwereaproductofmerenature

(Kant1987,p.173).Artwassupposed to look likenaturebutat thesametime itwas tobe

taken as art. By looking like nature, hiding the fact that itwas somethingmade, and at the

sametimelookinglikeart,thistraditionalmimeticpractice,sanctionedtheprimacyofreality

(Adorno2004,p.2).Thisaffirmativeposture,giventhebarbarismthatAdornoobservedinthe

worldandthelevelofcommodification,becomesprohibitiveandartisticproductioncannotbe

continuedasbefore(Kratzsch2007,p.12).

In Adornos words: in face of the abnormity into which reality is developing, arts

inescapable affirmative essence has become insufferable. Art must turn against itself, in

opposition to its own concept, and thus becomeuncertain of itself right into its innermost

fiber. Yet art is not to be dismissed simply by its abstract negation. By attacking what it

seemed to be its foundation through the whole of its tradition, art has been qualitatively

transformed,ititselfbecomesqualitativelyother(2004,p.3).Forhimartrespondstotheloss

of its selfevidence not simply by concrete transformations of its procedures and

comportmentsbutbytryingtopullitselffreefromitsownconceptasfromashackle:thefact

thatitisart(ibid,p.22).

14

Validartworks, forhim,are then artworks [that]becomeartworksonlybynegating

theirorigin(ibid,p.4)andthiswouldmeanthatrelevantmodernartworks,havetoletgoof

their mimetic past and no longer seek to hide the fact that they are something made,

constructed,rathertheyaretostartconfrontingtheirownfeasibility(ibid,p.34).ForAdorno,

byassuminganegativeposture,insharpcontrasttotraditionalart,newartaccentstheonce

hiddenelementofbeingsomethingmade,somethingproduced(ibid,p.33).

Negation

Byenteringincontradictionwithitsownconcept,becomingabstractandconfronting

itsownfeasibility,theartworkstartsnegatingitself.

More than that, since Adorno touts modernist works as genuinely realistic

(Zuidervaart1994,p.40)inthesensethattheyaremadebyequatingthemselvestothereality

of capitalism, abstract andmade, by negating itself the work also negates the reality from

whereitemerged.

This ispossibledue to the fact that art contains something that itwill then come to

negate. Adorno explains that art negates the categorical determinations stamped on the

empiricalworld and yet harbourswhat is empirically existing in its own substance (2004,

p.6). Everything that the work negates is contained in itself, but rather than resolving

antagonisms, art at times expresses overwhelming tensions negatively through extreme

distancefromthem(ibid,p.47).

Inotherwords,withtheartworktakingonitsownskintobelikeacommoditythereis

a situation in which the work enters in contradiction with itself, revealing an immanent

negation. But since the work is operating like a commodity, this self negation exposes the

contradictory nature of the totality, or the controversies of the empirical world, which are

veiled by the design of capitalism. In Zuidervaart words this immanent negation of the

artworksrevealanegativeknowledgeofthesocialhistoricalreality(1994,p.40).

Stillaccordingtohim,thisprocesscanbeunderstoodasadefetishizingfetish,(1994,

p.91)sincetheartworkexposesthefetishcharacterofthecommodity,byinflictedonitselfa

processalike.

The immanent negation leads to Adornos remark that serious modern art is

necessarilyfragmentary.Accordingtohimthefragmentisthatpartofthetotalityofthework

that opposes totality (2004, p.57). The critical content of modern works of art surfaces

therefore in its immanent negation and for Adorno, artworks that do not transpire this

fragmentarynature,butareinpeacewiththemselves,theirconceptandtheworldarenothing

morethananemptyspinningofgears;teleologicallyittendstowardinfantiletinkering(ibid.,

p.37).

For him in artworks the criterion of success is twofold: whether they succeed in

integratingthematicstrataanddetailsintotheirimmanentlawofformandinthisintegration

at the same time maintain what resists it and the fissures that occur in the process of

15

integration(ibid.,p.8).Byexposingthefragment,theirreconcilableaspectoftherealityinthe

coreoftheartworknewessence,artspeaksforwhattheveilhides(ibod.,p.24).Thismeans

thatartexpressestheirreconcilabilityintermsofformandthereforeopposesthestatusquo

bymeansofform(Adorno2004,p.3).2Bymimingtherealityofthehardenedandalienated

(ibid, p.28), the artworks internal coherence is lost, and through the showing of this non

reconciledrealityintheformofthefragment,theartworkopposesreality.

Butonecanask:howcantheseworkstrulyopposereality?Isntthisabstractnessand

autonomydetachedfromsocialhistoricalreality?

Not nor Adorno. His understanding includes a social and an objective dimension in

modernartworks.

Socialdimension

The social dimension can be explained through Adornos recognition of the double

character of art: being autonomous (free from external objectives) but also a social fact

(Adorno 2004, p.6). He has stated that artworks always turn one side toward society, the

domination they internalize also radiate externally. (2004, p.23). This means that the

unsolved social antagonisms, or contradictions of reality, come back in these artworks as

immanentproblemsof form, containing two layers that sustainAdornos standof the social

dimensionofaestheticforms.

The first layer lays in the recognition of the artist as a social agent. According to

Adorno, the artist works as a social agent, indifferent to societys own consciousness. He

embodies thesocial forcesofproductionwithoutnecessarilybeingboundbythecensorship

dictatedbyrelationsofproduction,whichhecontinuallycriticizesbyfollowingtherigoursof

hismetier. (2004,p.55). ForAdorno, theworkof theartist,withall its idiosyncrasies lives

fromcollectiveforcesofwhichitisunconscious(ibid,p.53).

Thesecondlayer,corollaryofthefirst,impliestherecognitionofsedimentedcontent

in the aesthetic forms, produced through the artists metier (Adorno 2004, p.6). Adorno

defines metier as the totum of capacities through which the artist does justice to the

conception of the work and precisely thereby severs the umbilical cord of tradition (ibid,

p.54).Beyondpure subjectivity,Adornopoints out that this totum of forces invested in the

work [metier] is the potential presence of the collective according to the level of available

productiveforces(ibid,p.54).

2 The emphasis on fragmentation in the content of the Aesthetic Theory can also be observed in the form of Adornos writing. His essayistic way of writing and utilization of dialectics to thing through every aspect of the artwork makes it impossible to pin down precise concepts. KRATZSCH (2007, p.5) even defends that Adorno can be approach in terms of washing around, circling around concepts rather than honing a precise meaning for every proposition.

16

Accordingtohim,metiernotonlysetsboundariesagainstthebadinfinityofworksor

the abstract possibility of artworks (ibid, p.55) but also allows for social issues to be

embodied in formal problems. He defends that the development of artistic processes is

correspondenttosocialdevelopment(ibid,p.6),sincewhatinformsthesedimentedcontentin

theformalproblemsaresocialstrugglesdeeplyrelatedtolabourandproductiveforces.Inthe

social dimension, Adorno ties the struggles of the social reality to the core of the artistic

practice,andtotheoutcomeoftheartistswork.

ObjectiveDimension

Theobjectivedimension in autonomousmodern artworks comes fromwhatAdorno

calls the dialectic ofmaturity (Adorno 2004, p.54). This dialectical relationship has in one

poleexperience(orexpression,whichcanbeloadedwithindividualsubjectivemeaning)and

ontheotherexpertise(orconstruction,thatisobtainedthroughthemasteringametier,with

itstechniquesandmaterials).

For Adorno, these apparent oppositional sides are not corrective of each other. He

explains that construction is not the corrective of expression, nor does it serve as its

guarantor by fulfilling the need for objectivation; rather, constructionmust conform to the

mimetic impulses without planning, as it were and at the same time what survives of

expressionism as something objective are those works that abstained from constructive

organization(2004,p.55).Healsosaysthatatthesametime constructioncannot,asaform

empty of human content, wait to be filled with expression. Rather, construction gains

expressionthroughcoldness.(idem.).

This means that for Adorno, the strength of modern artworks does not come from

resolvingthisdialecticinamiddleground,whichforhimwouldachievenothingmorethana

dubious consensus (ibid, p.55) but from gravitating towards one of the extremes. For him

validarttodayispolarizedinto,ontheonehand,anunassuagedandinconsolableexpressivity

thatrejectseverylasttraceofconciliationandbecomesautonomousconstruction;and,onthe

other, the expressionlessness of construction that expresses the dawning powerlessness of

expression(ibid,p.54).

Ininvestingfullyinoneofthesides,theoppositesideisalsofulfilledinthisdialectic

relationship.Forexample,Adornodefendsthatabsoluteexpressionwouldbeobjective(ibid,

p.56). This means that works that take construction serious, end up being expressive. And

pureexpressiveness,giventodayssituationwouldbeobjective.

Eventhoughmakingartworksover40yearsafterAdorno, Isee inTaubaAuerbachs

description of her artistic process a way of better understanding how these 2 apparently

irreconcilable extremes (expression and construction) canoperate.The artist hasdescribed

herprocessassomethingcerebralbutatthesametimeassomethingcompletelyvisceraland

rightbrained(Bedford2012,p.104).Sheseesthismarriagealwayspresentinthemakingof

17

herartworks,andthethrivingofoneside,thecerebral,resultsinthegreaterevidenceofthe

otherside,thevisceral.

Inviewofthisdialectic,Adornoalsotouchesontheissueofexperimentalart.Forhim,

artisonlypossiblewhenitdoesexperiment(2004,p.47),buthisunderstandingdiffersfrom

thecommonmisunderstandingthatexperimentalartisabouttheartistsunconsciousorganic

labour, or by being surprised by the outcome of a work when the artist operates in an

unreflectedmanner(idem).EventhoughforAdorno,theelementofsurpriseintheoutcome

ofanartworkdoesnothavetoberuledout,itshouldbeunderstoodastheresultofanartistic

exploration where the artists has conscious control over materials and is conscious of its

aestheticexploration.AccordingtoAdornoyouhavetoknowexactlyifsomethingsounds,and

onlytoacertainextenthowitsounds(2004,p.48).

This concern relates to the fragmentary nature of serious modern artworks, which

Adornostressesthathasnothingtodowithacontingentparticularity(2004,p.57)butrather

hastodowiththefullunderstandingofartsconditionandthechangesinartsessencecaused

bythecurrentstatusofthings.

The remarks on experimentation also reflects on Adornos emphasis on mastering

somethinginordertodenyornegateit.Heaffirmsthat onlyassomethingmastereddoesit

bearwitnesstowhathasbeenliberated(Adorno2004,p.48).Adornoreiteratesthenecessity

oftheartistsoperatingconsciouslyandknowingly(p.47).Forhim,reflectionisarequisiteof

arttodaymeaningthatartmustbecomeconsciousofitsidiosyncrasiesandarticulatethem

(p.45), and operate with critical consciousness (p.47). For Adorno, these idiosyncrasies of

artists are sedimented in the canon of prohibitions, but they in turn become objectively

binding so that in art the particular is literally the universal. For the idiosyncratic

comportment,whichisatfirstunconsciousandhardlytheoreticallytransparenttoitself,isthe

sedimentationofacollectiveformofreaction(2004,p.45).

Allthisreiterationsstresstheimportanceofdominatingtradition,ofbeingawareand

groundedinknowledgeandpracticeasifonlythroughthatlimitscouldbeovercame.Since

traditiondependsoneconomic and social structures (Adorno2004,p.27) itsunderstanding

andmasteringallows for thesocialhistoricalconditionsberevealed in theartworks. In fact

Adorno,seesthehistoryofmodernartasastrainingtowardmaturity(Adorno2004,p.54)or

lettinggoofunquestionedandunconsciouspractices.

When it comes to materials Adorno defends that modern artworks must equate

themselveswithhighindustrialism,appropriatingitsrationale(2004,p.43).Healsodefends

that the substantive element of artisticmodernism draws its power from the fact that the

most advanced procedures of material production and organization are not limited to the

sphereinwhichtheyoriginate(idem.).ToillustratethisheusestheexampleofPaulKlee,who

throughartistictechnology,orconsciouscontrolovermeansandmaterials,appropriatedthe

industrialelementandinAdornowordsreturnedwithavengeance(idem).

18

StandingFirm

Finally,Adornoalsounderstandsthatthestrengthofmodernistautonomousartworks

comes from their capacity to stand firm. For him the radically darkened art (which he

understands as modern art) is en essence nothing but the postulate that art and true

consciousness of it can today find happiness only in the capacity of standing firm. This

happiness illuminates the artworks sensuous appearance fromwithin, offering a sensuous

enticementthatistheantithesesofthefraudulentsensualityofculturesfaade.(2004,pp.50

51).

InAdornoswordsbyenduring,artworksprotestagainstdeath(2004,p.35)andfind

happinessthatcomesfromthefeelingtheyinstilofstandingfirm(ibid.,p.18).

Bystandingfirm,consciousandknowledgeableofitstraditionandcurrentcondition,

the artwork endures its process of immanent negation and resists the abstract structure of

capital. Adorno describes such artworks as windowlessmonads (2004, p.54), that in their

autonomybringforththecontradictionsofasocialhistoricalprocess(Zuidervaart,p.89),and

resist conforming to the demands of capital, offering real opposition to the abstract reality

implementedbythelogicofcapital.

AdReinhardt

InviewofallthisIcannotbutthinkofAdReinhardt3,seeFigure4.Inhisseriesentitled

BlackPaintings thatdated from1954 to1967, allpaintingswereuniform,made througha

gridstructure,exploredhuesofblackandgreyandmeasured152x152cm(MoMa,2011).

Theobjectiveoftheartistwiththisserieswastopushabstractiontothelimit,ortothe

brink of silence, in Adornos words (2004, p. 50). His objective included purifying his

paintings of anything that was foreign to it, bearing no reference to anything outside

themselves (MoMa, 2011). By advancing this purification in the footsteps of geometric

abstraction, Reinhardt rejected the ideals of the Abstract Expressionists, and the deeply

subjective connotations of their work, that favoured emotionalism and the cult of the

individual.Insteadheproducedwhathecalledtheultimateabstractpaintings,anchoringhis

processincontrolandmasteringovermeansandtechnique(idem.).

Inthisprocess,IseeacorrelationbetweenReinhardtconsciouspracticeandAdornos

emphasisonautonomyandthedialecticofmaturity.

3 Adorno did not use the work of Reinhardt for his case nevertheless I cannot but see the correspondences between theory and practice.

19

The dialectic of maturity brings great stature to these works that were built on an

extensive formal research, an awareness of the historic tradition but nevertheless

encompassedalsoalevelofsubjectivitythatshowsitselfall themorerelevantwhenfiltered

throughthemasteringoftheconstructionmeansandtechniques.Reinhardthasdeclaredthat

hiswholeprocesswheretobeginandwheretoendwasworkedoutinhismindbeforehand

(Colpitt2002,p.158),whichcanbeunderstoodashimbeingincontrolofhisexperiment,not

leavingittochance.

Whenitcomestocolour,thereisalsoseeacorrelationbetweenAdornostheoryand

Reinhardts practice. In Adornos words: to survive reality at its most extreme and grim,

artworksthatdonotwanttosellthemselvesasconsolationmustequatethemselveswiththat

reality.Radicalarttodayissynonymouswithdarkart;itsprimarycolourisblack(2004,p.50).

Adornowas emphatic inmanymoments on the ideal of blacknessbeing oneof thedeepest

impulsesofabstraction(idem.). Accordingtohim,art thatdelights incolour ischildishand

only throughdark featurescanauthenticartoffer resistance to thesituationofdespair that

marksthecontemporarysituation(idem).

The level of concentration required from the viewer in Black Series also resonates

with Adornos critique of a commodified easy culture that reduced art to entertainment

(Adorno 2004, p.22). According to Lippard (1967, p. 56) there is a forced contemplation

required for theappreciationofReinhardtswork sincehisworksdemandmuchmore time

andconcentrationthanmostviewersareaccustomedor,inmostcases,willingtogive(p.56).

ReinhardtsBlackSeriesdependontimeandconcentratingfromtheviewertostartrevealing

itselfwithallitsdifferenthuesofdarkcolourandacrosslikeformation(MoMa,2011). The

viewer who expects instant pleasure and dont dedicate the time and effort to see these

paintings,loosewhattheseartworkshavetooffer(idem.).

ForAdorno,thisishowartcanresistinatimewhentheviewerhasbeenreducedtoa

consumer,whoexpects to get somethingoutofwhathe sees.Forhim, thisdemand to get

somethingoutoftheartworkisduetoaprocessofdeasthetizationofartcausedbycapitalism

and its all encompassing process of commodification (Adorno 2004, p. 23). This process of

deasthetization causes a reversal of the attitude of the viewer in front of the artwork; the

viewer assume a consumer attitude and expects to find an echo of himself in theworkno

longerseekingtoloosehimselfinfrontofanartwork(ibid,p.22).

By resisting to conform to this capitalist logic, resisting instant gratification, and

standingfirmonitsconditionofseriousautonomousart,Reinhardtsworksembodyawayto

offerresistancetothewaytheworldis.

ThisposturerelatestotheideathataccordingtoAdorno,seriousmodernautonomous

artworkshavethepotentialtoaffectsocialchange,eventhoughtheydonotaimatit.Forhim

only artworks that are to be sensed as a new form of comportment, a new praxis, have a

reasonforexisting(Adorno2004,p.14).

20

Reinhardtalsodeclared thatdespite the fact thathesought toremoveall references

from the external world from his pictures, he remained convinced that his art had the

potentialtoaffectsocialchange,eventhoughthiswasnothismainpursuit(Savvine2012).

It ismy understanding that both these position, stand for a belief that art can offer

truthresistancenotbyopenlydeclaringtocarrymessagesforsocialtransformations,butby

embodying in the particularity of its condition andpractice the state of theworld andonly

thenoppose itwith itsownmeans, in itsowncategory.By transpiringcontradiction if their

form,theseworksseemtoscreamallthelouderofthecontradictionoftheempiricalworld,or

oftheabstractreality.

Figure4:AdReinhardinhisstudiohangingoneofhisblackabstractpaintingstodry,1966.

(Photographer:JohnLoengard;Source:www.ica.org.uk)

21

2stMOMENT:Foster

REALITY

Hal Foster aligns his understanding of realitywith Jean Baudrillard, French theorist

renowned for his theories of the postmodern condition. In order to understand Fosters

argumentitisrelevanttolookdirectlyintoBaudrillardskeyideaswhichinformtheoperation

deployedbytheartthatFosterwilladdressascriticaloftheabstractreality.

Baudrillard

Baudrillardssocialcritique issomehowclose toAdornoandtheMarxist tradition in

themeasure thathealsoblamescapital for advancingaprocessof abstraction in theworld

(Lane2000,p.25).InhistextSimulacraandSimulationweread:

it was capital which was the first to feed throughout its history on the

destructionofevery referential,ofeveryhumangoal,whichshatteredevery ideal

distinctionbetweentrueorfalse,goodandevil,inordertoestablisharadicallawof

equivalence and exchange, the iron law of its power. It was the first to practice

deterrence, abstraction, disconnection, deterritorialization, etc; and it was capital

whichfosteredreality,therealityprinciple,itwasalsothefirsttoliquidateitinthe

exterminationofeveryusevalue,ofeveryrealequivalence(1981,pp.182183).

His account, however, takes ideas regarding commodification and reification to a

further level by bringing these Marxist theories together with structuralist theories (Lane

2000,p.25).

Structuralismcanbeunderstoodasanintellectualmovementfocusedonthetheories

of Ferdinand de Saussure (18571913) which defended that a sign was composed of a

signifier(soundimage)andsignified(concept)(Lane2000,p.15).Hismainissuethough,

wasthatthesesignscontainedanarbitraryrelationbetweenarealobjectanditssymbol,or

signified and signifier. For example, the sign that represents a cat and the real animal are

linkedbecauseofaconventionorasystemofsigns,thesignandthethinghavenointrinsic

connectionbetweenthemselves(ibid,p.16).

Butstructuralistsarenotonlyinterestedinthewaythatthesesignsystemsworkina

semiotic level,but theyare interested in lookingatwhole theoriesas systems(idem.)and

then deconstruct them by unveiling arbitrary connections between its significants and

signifiers.

Taking into account the depth and structural effects of this operation, Baudrillard

updatedthelayersofvaluesimplicatedincommodities(idem.)andstartedadvocatingthatthe

22

issuewasno longer the fact thatusevaluehadbeensubstitutedbyexchangevaluebut that

commoditiesnowrelatedtoeachotherintermsofitssignvalue(Baudrillard1972,p.80).

SignValue

The world from where Baudrillard is drawing context for his theories is not at all

different fromwhatwe see today, but he saw, in front of his eyes4, the rise of a consumer

societywithanendlessnumberofproducts,orgoods,becomingavailableforconsumersand

theriseofadvertisementpresentingtheseproductsastofulfiltheneedsoftheseconsumers

(Lane2000,p.29).

Baudrillard observed, though, that there was something else commanding the

exchange of products in this so called consumer society. He noted that, mainly through

advertisement,productswerenotbeingsoldandboughtfortheirutility,orusevalue,butfor

whattheseproductsstoodfor.Inotherwords,heexposedamovementinwhichobjectform

turnsintocommodityformthatturnsintosignform(Baudrillard1972,p.59).

Thissignform,whichBaudrillardunderstoodasthesumofideasorvaluesattached

to a commodity,was thenanew formof value that startedbeing taken intoaccount in the

constitution of value in a way that took priority over the object itself (ibid, p.79). In this

scenario,signvalue,ratherthanexchangevalueasinAdorno,startedcommandingallvalue.

Thesignthenbecameanintegralpartofacomplexpoliticaleconomy,alsocalledby

Baudrillardasthesystemofobjects.Accordingtohim,inthissystemofobjects,inorderto

becomeanobjectof consumption, theobjectmustbecomeasign andbydoingsoestablish

itselfinanabstractandsystematicrelationtoallotherobjectsigns(Baudrillard1968,p.22).

In this system of objects it is no longer an economic order that coordinates the

relationships and exchanges, but an order that has to do with social class privilege and

differentiation;economicpoweristransfiguredintosymbolsofstatus(1972,p.59).

AsAdornoobservedacontaminationofallareasof lifewithan economicmentality,

orwitha logicofexchange,sodidBaudrillard.Heobservedthatwith theconversionof the

object to a systematized status of signs all forms of human relation have consequentially

becomerelationsofconsumption(1968,p.22).Thisneworderaffectedallareasoflife.

In this new order, Baudrillard also explains that people start actualizing themselves

through consumption (1968, p. 12), being consumption the act of manipulating and

exchangingsignvaluesassignifyingsubstance(1968,pp.2122;p.80).

Thismeans, for example, that by buying designer clothes you are not proving your

economicpowerbutyouareaccessingaprivilegedgroup,whosestandingissymbolizedinthe

designer clothes youwear. By acquiring symbols of their aspirations or pretensions, in this

neworder,peoplethendefinewhotheyare.

4Richard Lane reminds us that the rise of the consumer society that Baudrillard saw was mainly in the modernization of France under the American model (2000 p. 29).

23

Code

Inthisconsumersociety,whereallrelationsarerelationsofconsumption,Baudrillard

emphasizes the existence of an abstract system of consumption which organizes and

differentiatesobjectsas signs, rather than individualexpressionsofneedandpleasure inor

for the object (Horrocks and Jevtic 2011, p. 22). In this case you do not buy products

necessarilybecauseyouneedthembutbecauseyouareattractedtothesignitcarriessinceit

mighthelpdefiningyouridentity.

Similar to Adornos idea of a functional totality, Baudrillard also talks about an

operationalaspectofthissystemthatfunctionsonitsownaccountinadementedandself

referential perspective (1995, p. 268). The abstract self referential system is what

Baudrillard calls the code; for it is effective, simple (1968, p. 19) and commands an

operational,apatheticworld(1995,p.273).Thiscode,accordingtoBaudrillard,liketheother

codesofvaluessuchasexchangevalue,isrationalyetabstract(1972,p.59).Accordingtohim,

throughthecode:

The sign value cannot admit to its own deductive abstraction any more

than exchange value can. Whatever it denies and represses, it will attempt to

exorciseandintegrateintoitsownoperation:suchisthestatusofthe"real,"ofthe

referent, which are only the simulacrum of the symbolic, its form reduced and

interceptedby thesign.Through thismirageof the referent,which isnothingbut

the phantasm of what the sign itself represses during its operation, the sign

attemptstomislead:itpermitsitselftoappearastotality,toeffacethetracesofits

abstracttranscendence,andparadesitselfastherealityprincipleofmeaning.(ibid,

p.92).

Inotherwords, this code,which isnot arbitrary as anyother mathematical code is

efficient in establishing a universal system (1968 p. 20) that hides its disconnection from

realityandaffirmsitsownreality.Baudrillardseesthissystemnotasalivedrelationbutas

anabstractedandannulledone(1968,p.22).

He also identifies that this dominant and totalitarian code is reinforced through

advertising.Heexplains that thecollective functionofadvertising is toconvertusall to the

code(ibid,p.19),manufacturingandmanipulatingneedsinordertoconvincepeopletojoin

inthesystemofdifferentiation,andbydoingsoreinforcesthecodewhereallindividualsare

describedintermsoftheirobjects(idem).

Inthiscode,orsystemthesignworksasanaccompliceofcapitalandasanagentof

abstraction. Baudrillard has declared capital to be a monstrous unprincipled undertaking

(2001, p. 176) and a sorcery of the social relation (ibid, p.177), commanding the life the

peoplelivebutforitsownmaintenance.

24

SimulationandHyperreality

It is a source of worry for Baudrillard the moment when the production of signs

becomespriortotheproductionoftheobject,orwhenthesignprecedesthemodel,becoming

one thing independent from the other. This inversion is what Baudrillard understands as

simulation(Lane2000,86).Hearguesthattherearethreelevelsofsimulation,beingthe3rd

level responsible for the production of signs totally detached from the real (ibid, p.30), ,

becoming independent and establishing themselves as reality on an equal stand with the

objectwhichoncetheyrepresented,seeFigure5.

Figure5:Levelsofsimulation.

Source:Horrocks,C,andJevtic,Z.(2011)Baudrillard:AGraphicGuide.pp.109110)

For Baudrillard, when signvalue precedes the object, usevalue is then destroyed

(1972,p.58),becomingirrelevant.Inthissituation,thesignbecomessignifiedandsignifiedat

thesametime(ibid,p.59),establishingitselfindependentfromtherealthingsandclaimingto

bearealthingonitsownright,establishingitselfasusevale.

Inthisoperationtechniqueandknowledgearedivorcedfromtheirobjectivepractice

and recovered by the "cultural5" system of differentiation (ibid, p.58). This means that in

5 According to Baudrillard the production of signs was traditionally associated with culture; works of art, for example, stood for something beyond themselves, beyond their use values, they were symbols of higher ideals or values. With all commodities becoming signs, everything then becomes cultural. (1972, pp.76 -77).

25

simulation,techniqueandknowledgearenolongeraimedatattendingrealneedsbutrather

theyareaimedatfeedingandmaintainingthesystemofsigns,orabstractsymbols,thatcome

torepresentonlythemselves.

Thecreationofsignsdetachedfromrealobjectscanbeexemplifiedinmanydifferent

ways,giventhatourwayofexperiencingandunderstandingtheworld ishighlyconditioned

by thismechanism.However,an illustrativeexamplecanbe the actofbuyingcoffee.Today,

anyrespectable,consciousandcaringworldcitizenwouldcertainlyprefertobuyfairtraded,

organicallygrowncoffee.Thesefeaturesamounttoacoffeethatstandsforwhatispolitically

correct, free of any chemicals, mindful of other human beings, and conscious of the global

socialandeconomicstruggles.Withsomanyadmirablethingtogofor,thequalityofthecoffee

risk becoming secondary. In this scenario, coffee production starts revolving around

sustaining these signs that are detached from the intrinsic quality of the coffee, its roast,

grinding,aromaandsoforth.

This is a simplified example, but helps understanding how the world starts being

organizedaroundsigns,thatareabstract,signifyingthemselvesbutstillimportantinhelping

peopleactualizethemselvesthroughtheendorsementofthesesigns,bethemthingstheybuy,

products,trips,houses,orevenwholelifestyles.

For Baudrillard, when simulation becomes the organizing principle of postmodern

consumer societies, reality becomes hyperreal. When the sign establishes its own reality,

realitybecomeshyperreality(Lane2000,p.30).

ForBaudrillardallofreality[hasbeen]absorbedbythehyperrealityofthecodeand

ofsimulation[beingnow]aprincipleofsimulation,andnotofreality,thatregulatessociallife

(BaudrillardSED,p.120).Forhim,hyperrealityistheactualizationoftheoperationalcodeof

consumption(Baudrillard,2001,p.170)thatestablishesasituationinwhich:

it is no longer a question o imitation, nor of reduplication, nor even of

parody.Itisratheraquestionsofsubstitutingsignsoftherealfortherealitself;that

is,anoperationtodetereveryrealprocessbyitsoperationaldouble,ametastable,

programmatic,perfectdescriptivemachinewhichprovidesallthesignsofthereal

andshotcircuitsallitsvicissitudes(idem).

Inotherwords, inhyperreality, the signbecomes real and reality isbetrayedby the

sign (ibid,p.184). Simulation,whichproduces this secondreality, threatens thedifference

between trueand false,between realand imaginary (1981,p.168),making it impossible

thentonegotiatewhatisrealandwhatisnot(Lane2000,p.86).

ForBaudrillardhyperrealityandsimulation[are]deterrentsofeveryprincipleandof

everyobjective(Baudrillard1981,p.179)andthismeansthatbyaffirmingtheirownreality,

hyperreality and simulation push away the reality of real things and use values, each time

moreconcealingnotthetruth,butthefactthatthereisntanythatistosay,thecontinuityof

thenothing(1995,p.272),arealityemptiedofitselforanabstractreality.

26

ART

Theartpracticesfromthe80sand90swerewellawareofthearbitraryrelationships

betweenobjectsandsigns,bathinginstructuralistanddeconstructivisttheories(Colpitt2002,

p. 181;Hopkins 2000, p.197).. In this atmosphere the practice of abstraction in art did not

have an underlying theoretical background orienting its efforts. Quite the opposite, the

practicesfromthe80and90sweremarkedbytheirpluralism(idem.).

There was, however, one group of abstract artists that adopted the theories of

Baudrillardandstartedoperatingbyit(Colpitt2002,p.186).Thisgroup,knownasthe neo

geo,whichstoodfornewgeometricpainting, includedJackGoldstein, JamesWelling,Phillip

Taafe,PeterSchuyff,PeterHalley,AshleyBickerton,MeyerVaismanandOliverWasow(Foster

1986,p.48).

NeoGeo

In the text SignsTaken fromWonders, Foster addresses theworkof the neogeos

andopenly attacks their strategy (Colpitt2002,p.186).Mainlyworking throughout the80s,

thisgrouphad,accordingtoFoster,aremovedrelationshipfromseriouscriticalabstraction,

whichheunderstoodastheworkofBriceMarden,FrankStellaorRobertRyman(Foster1986,

p.48). Instead, thegeosdeployedtheprinciplesofBaudrillards theoryofsimulation intheir

practice of making abstract paintings, which Foster understood as being an unsuccessful

manoeuvre,functioningincomplicitywiththeofficialculture(ibid,p.187).

Colpitt(2002,p.186)explainsthatBaudrillardwasavitaltheoreticalforceinthe80s,

sustainingthe ideathat intheadvancedcapitalistsociety worksofartaretransformedinto

signs (signifying, for example, theprestige that accrues to theart collector), independentof

their use value. Theneogeos, armedwith this idea, set out to represent this conversionof

everythingintosignvalueintheirpractice(idem.)andtoquestionthesignvalueattributed

toart.

Thisleadtothequestioningofthereifiedmodernistartworks(Foster1996,p.7186)

throughappropriation,treatingthetraditionofseriousabstractionasastoreofreadymades

to be appropriated, which, according to Foster, only confirmed a removed, ironical

relationshiptothisverysametradition(ibid,p.99).

Simulationism

The problem, according to Foster, was that instead of properly appropriating these

allegedreifiedworks,whichwouldimplyacopyandthereforetheconfirmationthatthereis

one model and one copy (1986, p.49), the neogeos simulated modern abstraction. This

strategy, which Foster calls simulationism, appropriated modernist abstraction in order to

mockitsaspirationtooriginalityandsublimity,ortoplayuponitsfailure(1996,p.101).

27

The production of artworks that are simulacra, according to Foster, called into

question theverynotionsof copyandmodel (idem.)but indoing so hardly contestedour

politicaleconomyofthecommoditysignasdefinedbyBaudrillard,onthecontrary,itplayed

intothisneworder inwhichpracticesarereducednot just to commoditiesbuttosimulacra

for exchange (1996, p.92). For foster, the simulationist strategy misses the point of

questioning thereifiedstatusofmodernworksand instead participate[s ]on theirempting

(1986,p.49).

Byproducingartworksthatarejustsignsofmodernistreifiedartworks,theneogeos

helped in further establishing the independence of the sign from the model. They also

presented themselves to be comfortablemanipulating these signs (Foster 1986, pp. 4950).

Even though their initial intentionwas to contest the system of signs, or the massmedia

economy,inoperatingbythesamerules,theneogeosendedupjoininginthesystem(ibid.).

Inthisscenario,inwhichthemythicalsignendsupbeingreinforcedcynicallyrather

than questioned (Foster, 1996 p. 92) Foster reminds us of Baudrillards remark about

simulationbeingtheworstkindofsubversion,forinthreateningthedifferencebetweentrue

orfalse(Baudrillard1981,p.171),itcanshortcircuitrealitybutstillcontinuetoreproduceit

bymeansofthereduplicationbysigns(ibid,p.185).

For Foster, simulationismwas hardly disruptive or critical of simulation as amode

(Baudrillard 1986, p. 55) but as a form of social control as important as ideological

representation(idem),ithelpedinestablishingtherealityofthesymbolratherthanquestion

it.

Inotherwords,withsimulationism,the linesbetweendeconstructionandcomplicity

blurred (Foster 1996, p. 101), and it became hard to see if the attitude is of defiance or

complicity(ibid,p.120).

Compliantreproduction

To illustrate thismixofoppositionandendorsement,Foster talksaboutapostureof

defiantcomplicity(ibid,p.103),oraparadoxbetweensubversionandoperationofthecode,

thatwaspresentinthepracticeoftheneogeos.

Foster accuses this posture of mirroring the processes of capital, which transforms

objectsintocommoditysigns,byacceptingthereificationofcriticalabstractionandreducingit

toastyle(Foster1996,p.187).Evenif the initialgoalwas toexposetheabstractprocessof

capital, with this posture, simulationists ended up playing along with it and according to

Foster,inthissituation,itbecomeshardtodistinguishcriticsfromconnoisseursofreification

(ibid,p.96),orplayerswhoarefororagainst.

28

Conventionalism

AnotherunderlyingtendencythatFosteridentifiesinmanypostmodernistpractices,

including the artists operating through simulationism, is what he calls a conventionalist

ethos,which canbedescribed as amodel that with thepermissionof a post structuralism

thatwasnotwellunderstood,ittendedtotreatallpractices(artistic,socialandotherwise)as

detachedsignifierstobemanipulated,ahistoricalconventionstobeconsumed(1996,p.91).

For Foster, conventionalism become a pervasive aesthetic of our new order of

capitalisminwhicha posthistoricalperspective isevinced,accordingtowhichartappears

strippedofitshistoricalcontextanddiscursiveconnections(ibid,p.104).

In this ethos art appears stripped of its material context and discursive

entanglements, or as a synchronous array of so many styles, devices or signs to collect,

pasticheorotherwisemanipulate(Foster1986,p.50).

For Foster, this dry post historical attitude can lock artists into an indifferent

pastiche[]orpassivepessimism(ibid,p.51).

SherrieLevine

Anillustrativeexampleofanartistthatoperatedundertheprinciplesofsimulationism

is Sherrie Levine. American, know for appropriations also described as conceptual act of

quotation(SimonLee,2012),theartistproducedinthemiddle80stwoseriesofpaintingson

wood,inwhichsherecalledtwodifferentkindsofmodernabstraction(Foster1996,p.100).

InoneseriesherworkrecalledtheanalyticabstractionofStella,Ryman,Mardenand

others,seeFigure6andabouttheseFosterremarkedthatherworkevokedthemodernsonly

tofallshortofitwhichistosay,onlytosuggestthatithadfallenshort,thatithadfailedon

itspromiseofpictorialpurity,formalreflexivity,andsoon(idem).Intheotherserieswhere

she evoked automatism abstraction, Foster remarked that she did so just to mock these

modernistworksasfalseorforced(idem.).

According tohim bothseries thuscitedmodernistabstraction,but inamanner that

draineditofaestheticvalue(idem.),demonstratingthatthesemodesofmodernabstraction

are no longer critically reflexive or historically necessary forms with direct access to

unconscious truths or a transcendental realm beyond the world they are simply styles

amongothers(Foster1986,p.48).

Levine,alongsidetheneogeos,throughsimulation,attemptedtooperatethecodethat

commands the system of the signs and ended up reproducing the reality that they were

addressing,reducingsimulationtothestatusofatheme(Foster1996,p.107).

29

Accused of being reduced to a stylistic reaction, their practice, instead of truly

questioningthesystemtheyinitiallysetouttoconfront,endedupoperatingcompliantlywith

it,emptingthecategoryofartofanyaestheticvalue.

ForFoster,theconventionalistoperationdeployedbytheneogoesnotonlyrevealsan

ahistoricalmodelbutalsoamountstoapracticethatcannotaccountadequatelyforanyart

(1986,p.49).Intreatingallartpracticesandformsassymbols,neogeosoverlookedquestions

of technique, material, tradition and the intricate sociohistorical layer that constitute the

artwork,masteringonlytheunderstandingandapplicationoftheabstractcodeofthesign.

Figure6:SherrieLevine,Untitled(LeadChecks:2),1986/1987,Caseinonlead,wood.152.4x101.6cm.

(Source:Varnedoe,K.;2006;PicturesofNothing,p.208)

30

ADORNOXFOSTER

The close analysis of Adornos and Fosters (through Baudrillard) understanding of

realityhas revealed thatbothauthorsunderstand it as somethingbecomingabstract.While

Adornopointedouthowthementalityofmarketexchanges,whichappliedtoallareasoflife,

contributed to a process of use values being exchange by exchange values, Foster took this

substitutiontoadifferentlevelhighlightingtheriseofthesignvalueabovethepreviouskinds

ofvalue.Bothauthorsseethecorrosiveeffectsofcapitalinorderingtheliveofpeopleagainst

equivalencesthathavenorealbearingsinreallife.

Inbothcasesthereistherecognitionthatthisprocessofabstraction,madepossibleby

capitalism, relies on a structure, or a code that is selfreferential and guarantees its

reinforcement by concealing the fact that it is detached from real humanneeds andhuman

values. On other words the system does not operate for the greater good but for its own

maintenanceonly.Also,bothinAdornoandFoster,theprocessofabstractionsubjectshuman

beingstothelawofcapital,insteadofofferingthemrealcontroloverthissystem.

Additionally,inbothunderstandingsofreality,economicprincipleshavepermeatedall

levels of life, fostering the implementation of abstraction in culture, finance and human

relationsingeneral.

When it comes to the abstract art that both these author address, the move from

AdornotoFostersuggeststhattheseartworks(modernseriousanalyticalabstraction, inthe

caseofAdornoandtheworkoftheneogeo,orsimulationists,inthecaseofFoster)operatein

radicallydifferentways,havingparadoxicallydifferentpositionstowardsreality.

While in Adorno, the works assumed a negative essence, taking on themselves the

contradictionsofreality,sufferingtheirfragmentationinordertoopposerealityfromwithin,

theworks in Foster have a rather affirmative essence; incorporating the abstract code and

operatingbythesamelogic.

While inAdorno, theworks are not reconciledwith the abstract reality, opposing it

throughtheirownnature, inFostertheseworksarenotonlyreconciledwith itbuttheyare

alsoreproducingthisrealitybemeansofsimulation.

WhileinAdorno,theworksstandfirm,consciousofitscondition,beingcriticalofthe

empiricalworldbylookinginward,inFostertheworksarereactions,oroperationalreflexes

oftheabstractrealityofthesign,makingthemcompliantwiththisreality.

Thismovefromnegationtoaffirmation,seemsverycontradictoryconsideringallthe

theory thatwas informing thepractices fromthe80s.Hopkinsdescribed thisdecadeasone

with highly professionalized critical and academicdiscourse (2000, p. 212). But thenhow

comeinaperiodofawarenessoftheory,ofquestioningofthevariouslanguagesgames(ibid.

p.198),ofdeconstruction,andthereforesuspicion,thecriticaledgeseemstohavebeenlost?

31

Howcometheseartiststhatweresoimmersedinthiscriticaltimesendeduprevertingtheir

practicesintoconformismratherthanopposition?

In a very simplified and even caricatured way, Thierry de Duve, by addressing the

changesinarteducation,exposesthatthedemiseofthemodernistmyth,whichaccordingto

him is epitomized in the triad creativity/medium/invention, came to be substitutedby the

triadattitude/practice/deconstruction(Duve1994,pp.1926).

Thismeans that the postmodern triad came to prominencewith the art education

system fostering a subversive attitude of young artists against the modernist rhetoric and

works of art, becoming it all about suspecting, questioning, and deconstructing rather than

masteringandthenpushingforward(idem.).

AccordingtoDuve,thisnewemphasisonattitude,waswhatledtheory(orsocalled

Frenchtheory)[toenter]schoolsand[thus]succeededindisplacingsometimesreplacing

studio practice while renewing the critical vocabulary and intellectual tools with which to

approachthemakingandtheappreciatingofart(1994,p.27).

Hepointsoutthatbydoingthisschoolsstartproducingartistswhowerepushingthe

rejection of both metier and the medium to the point where their only technique is the

appropriation of readymades or [] simulation [] denying imitation and invention at the

same time (ibid, p.26). This approach also led to the breakage of boundaries between

disciplines andmediums, leading to the rise of inter or transdisciplinary approaches to art

(ibid,p.28).

In this atmosphere, in which attitude came to be the word of order, operating

subversively, questioning notions of originality and authorship becamemore relevant than

masteringaspecificmedium,oroperatinginaspecificcategoryofart.

Duveexplainsthatthistendency,whichstartedasanideologicalone,characterizeda

newpoliticizeddiscourseaboutartanditsrelationtosocietywhichbecamefashionableand

associatedwithpoliticalcorrectness(ibid,p.27). Thisofcoursehadapositiveaspectinthe

sensethatitchargedartisticpracticeswithpoliticalconnotations(ibid,p.29),howeveritalso

hadadownside.

First,Duvepointsoutthatthecriticalattitudeofartistsbecamejustthatanattitude,

a stance, a pose, a contrivance (ibid, p.27). He is very sharp in his critique of this notion,

declaring it poor and the most tautological notion of all (ibid, p. 28). As he said before, it

becameamatterofpoliticalcorrectness.Accordingtohimtheexpressionartisticpractice

hasbecomearitualformula,conveyingthevaguesuspicionthathadcometosurroundtheart

world,while failing to designate referents in theworld (that is, actualworks) ofwhich one

couldbesurethattheworldhasceasedtoapplytothemsignificantly(ibid,p.29).

Hissharpcritiqueofthisapproachisdirectedattheriseofadeconstructionfeverina

generationthatdidnothaveanymodelsortruereferentials.Hehasstatethat:

rathermisunderstood andbadly assimilated, deconstructionhad apparently

become,inthe80s,amethodbywhichtoproduceartandtoteachit.Assuch,however

32

[] deconstruction is merely the symptom of the disarray of a generation of art

teachers who have lived through the crisis of invention and have never themselves

beensubmittedto thedisciplineof imitation.Theresult is thatstudentswhohavent

had the time to construct an artistic culture of any kind are being tutored in the

deconstructivesuspicionpropertoourtime(ibid,p.30).

Because suspicionwas being taught before anymastering,Duve also accuses all the

endemic practices of quotation, second or third degree referentiality, replicas (p.29), and

would add appropriation, of revealing a dryness, caused be the absence of models to be

imitatedorcontested(ibid,p.29).

The triad attitude/practice/deconstruction has watched its potential for negation

becomingconventional(Duve1994,p.31).Deconstructioninpostmodernityhasturnedinto

anexoticaffair(Hopkins2000,p.212)whichmadeitharderforarttoachieveanyadversarial

distancefromthesocialmechanismsintowhichitwasmerged(ibid,p.197).

Duvealsoadds that theanguishof thepostmodernist time is no longerof thekind

that nourishes true artists (it is fake, because it is reconciled with the present); and its

suspicionisnotfruitful(itisaimedattheotherandnotatoneself)(Duve1994,p.31).

ThissuspicionthatisnotfruitfulalsostronglyresonateswithFosterbringingintothe

discussiontheconceptofcynicalreason,whichcanbeunderstoodasaparadoxicalstructure

ofthoughtexploredbyPeterSloterdjik.Accordingtohimthisenlightenedfalseconsciousness

, is lessasatoyingwithfetishismthana coquettingwithschizophrenia,aformulationthat

captures the subject position ofmuch contemporary art (Foster 1996, p. 118). Foster also

lamentsthatthiskindofdismissiveknowingdrain[s]somuchenergyfromourculturallives

and our political lives alike (Foster 2012, p.7), and generates an atmosphere of moral

indifferenceandpoliticalnihilism(Foster2012,p.4).

Asseenbeforewiththesimulationists,Fosterwasalsowellawareofthedownsideof

deploying a deconstructive critique irresponsibly. He observed that exaggeration of the

epistemologicalscepticismofdeconstruction(ibid,p.119.)leadedtoapostcriticalcondition,

whichaccording tohim isabackfire. Forhim thepostcriticalcondition [was]supposed to

releaseusfromourstraightjackets(historical,theoreticalandpolitical),yetforthemostpart

ithasabettedarelativismthathaslittletodowithpluralism(Foster2012,p.3).

Aligned with Duve, Foster also sees the critical attitude falling into an automatic

value,oraselfregardingposture(Foster2012,p.6),acontrivanceaimedattheother.

All these remarks start sounding very descriptive of the posture of the neogeos:

marked by conventionalism, compliant with the system, reconciled with the present and

aimed at its outside rather than at itself, falling into a state of cynicism that little helps in

questioningthestateofthings.

Considering the urgency of the contemporary situation, I have to agreewith Foster

thatthisisabadtimetogopostcritical(2012,p.8).

33

Butwhen ideologycritiquecanlapseintocontemptanddeconstructioncanslip into

complicity (Foster 1996, p.119) what is then left for contemporary abstraction to pursue?

When practices seems to float free of historical determination, conceptual definition and

critical judgment (Foster 2012, p.1) how can art be truthfully critical again? How could

abstractionregainitsrelevanceandcriticaledge?

Fosterpointsoutthatoneofthewayoutsforthispostcriticalpredicamentwouldbe

thereadoptingofa quaseAdornianpositionthat insistsonthecategoryofart,butwiththe

forlorn sense that thisminimalautonomynowhold forminimalnegativity (2012,p.8). He

recognizesthedesolationtowhichthisoptionhasbeenrelegatedthroughpostmodernitybut

neverthelessindicatesitasapossibilityfortheregainingofcriticalnegativity.

Baudrillardhasalsodefendedsomethingsimilar.Eventhoughincredulousofabstract

art (Colpitt1981,p.183),hehasdefendedthat theonlyweaponofpower, itsonlystrategy

against this defection, is to reinject realness and referentiality everywhere, in order to

convince us of the reality of the social, of the gravity of economy and the finalities of

production (Baudrillard1981, p. 182). For that itwould bemandatory to eradicatewithin

oneselfeverytraceoftheintellectualconspiracy(Baudrillard1995,p.275).

Both these positions seem to point to an insistence on something real, solid, on use

valueandonthecategoryofart,notasemptysymbolsbutasautonomous,consciousentities.

Buthowtopursuitarealoppositiontothestatusofthing,basedonthis insistenceswithout

beingthemostnaveofall6?

IseeintheworkofeconomistStefanoHarneyaconceptthatcouldequipabstraction

to return to offer resistance to the abstract reality and to consuming abstract process of

capital. He offers the idea of offering friction to capitalismby standing still,which sends us

backtoAdornoandtheideaofthemonad,andhisinsistenceontheworkdrawingitsstrength

fromstandingfirm.

6 Foster cites Bruno Latour and his insight that the fetish of demystification can render one the most nave of all (Foster 2012, p. 5)

34

Friction

Harvey(2011)7defendsthatattendingthedemandsofcapitalmovement;a logistical

subjectisbeingcreated.Whenoperatinglogistically,thesubjectisconditionedtoengageand

operateaimingforabsoluteefficiencyorabsolutesurplusvalue,inMarxistterms.Thismeans

thatduetoamarketdemand,thenatureandboundariesofworkhavedramaticallychanged,

implying inwork no longer being justified in terms of content, as itwaswith the previous

modelofthestatisticalsubject,butintermsoftheabilityofconnectingareasoflifethatonce

seemeddisconnected.

Inthisnewmodusoperandi itallbecomesaboutskillsthatcanbelearned,adapted

anddeployedinwhateversituationthesubjectisfacedwith.Iwouldrisksayingthatitisno

longer about mastering one subject, one area, one profession but rather it becomes about

being able to engage across areas, to plug into different field of expertise and connect at

differentlevels.

For Harney this new tendency can be observed not only in the attention that the

subject of logistics has been given in business studies lately but also in the changes in

educationingeneral.Hepointsoutthatinuniversities,itiseachtimemorecommonthefact

that you have to produce you own set of knowledge in order to plug it in into whatever

directionyouchoose.Heexemplifiesthisbydefendingthattodayapoemisnottaughtbecause

ofitscontentanddepthbutratherbecausebylearninghowtoreadthispoemyoucanextract

aspecificskillthatcanbedeployedindifferentsituations.Againhere,theideaofcontentgets

overtakenbytheideaofbeingabletointeract,connect,orreactinacertainway.

Thisnewkindoflogisticalsubjectivityalsochangedourunderstandingofinnovation.

AccordingtoHarneysubjectsareconditionedtoseekinnovationnotincontentbutinthevery

abilitytoconnect,beingthisability toadaptamarketdemand.Thisattitude isdiametrically

opposedtothestatisticalsubject,whowasrequiredtoinnovatewithincertainlimits.

With the logistical subject there is a breakage of all boarders and areas that seem

incompatiblebeforestartmergingtoconstituteanewpanacea.Weseelanguage,financeand

cultureallmeltingtogetherandthelogisticalsubjectbecomingalabouringconduitforthings

thatlookedincongruentbefore,beingabletointeractorrespondprofessionally,academically,

orevenmorebroadlyasasubjectintheworld,acrossallthesedifferentspheres.

To oppose this demand of capital for adaptability, flexibility and absolute efficiency,

Harney points out that one would have to offer friction. This concept, according to him

involves the attitude of the subject to remain firm, stand still, and refuse to operate by

stimulus and reaction. He defends ways of living that are sticky, that embody certain

insistences.

Byrefusingtoadapt,connectoroperatebetweenareassubjects,fieldofexpertisebut

insteadchoosingtoremainwithinonedomain,youofferresistance.Thispostureofstayingin

7 Since all of Harveys references come from the same source, I will not keep repeating the source along this text. All quotes are extracted from the video cited in the references.

35

place,isaccordingtoHarneybecominghighlypoliticalinthewayitoffersadeadendforthe

fluentmovementofcapitalinlogisticalsubjects.

Thisabilitytoplugin,orbelogistical, isveryclosetotheattitudeoftheneogeoand

theirdeploymentofsimulationtoquestionthepretensionsofmodernartandabstraction.In

their case, a skill, deconstruction, appropriation and some cynicism was used to operate

logistically. They connected the systemof the sign, themarket, artmaking, advertising, and

with a highly theoretically equipped (or illequipped base) responded to the world by

connectingallthesethingsthatseemedincongruous.Theyoperatedasthelabouringconduit,

andbydoingsocompliantlyreproducedtheabstractrealitythattheythoughttobecriticizing.

Intheircasewealsocaninterpretthatcontentwasoverlookedandattitudeorlogisticswere

positionedasmainconcerns.

In my understanding, the attitude or the postcritical condition, as well as the

logistical subject reveal an approach to the world that I understand as circumstantial. It

focusesoncircumstancesandrespondstothesebymeansofreaction.Diametricallyopposed

tothis,therewouldbeastructuralapproach.

ThestructuralapproachiswhatIwouldpositionclosertoAdornosambitionforanart

that could effect social change. In operating structurally, art looks at itself and relies at the

mastering of its own domain. It becomes thus autonomous, and as Foster had suggested

before,minimalautonomywouldnowholdminimalnegativity.

Withinthequestioningoftheidiosyncrasiespertinenttoartsconcerns,initsconcept

andmaking, art couldoffermuchmore friction to the abstract process of capitalism than if

sellingitselfasaccompliceoftheprocessofabstraction.In itsautonomyartcouldrevealthe

contradictionsandanxietiesoftheworldallthemoreandthroughitsabstractness,reinforce

its autonomy and make space for the social and historical struggles of the world to come

throughinitsformalproblems,ratherthanthroughobjectivefigurativemessages.

To exercise the thinking about this possibility of operating structurally, relaying on

certain insistences, and offering friction to the status quo I will finalize this dissertation

lookingintotheworkofTommaAbts(seeFigure7,Figure8,andFigure9)whosepracticeI

understandasembodyingasolidalternativeforabstractiontoremainrelevantandcritical.

36

Figure7:TommaAbts,Lubbe,2005,Acryliconcanvas,48x38cm.

(Source:GreenGrassiGallerywebsite)

37

TOMMAABTS

GermanbornbutLondonbased,TommaAbtswas thewinnerof the TurnerPrize in

2006.Herworkconsistsofabstractpaintingsthathaveallthesamemeasure,48x38cm,and

astitlespropernamesthattheartistchoosesfromadictionaryofnamesfromaspecificregion

inGermany.Theselectionofthenamesisbasedonaphoneticconnectionbetweenthework

andthewordandresultsinconferringauniqueandwholesomeidentityforeachpiece(Abts

2004,p.16).

For the making of these paintings, Abts practice has been described as labour

intensiveandaresultofaprocessofaccrual(Doubal2011).AccordingtoCoombs(2011)her

paintings are developed over a long period of time, comprising far more complexity than

wouldappearfromthesurface.

In addressing her own practice, Abts has described it as based on a concrete

experimentationthatisanchoredinthematerialsused(AbtsquotedonBedford2012,p.101).

Involving incommensurable organizational principles (Hudson2009, p. 21), this controlled

experimentationworks,according totheartist, inremovinganyarbitrarinessfromthework

(Abts2004,p.16).

Neverthelessdespite this level of control,Abtshas shown tobe awareof something

that surpasses it. She has acknowledged in her process a combination of control but then

havingtoletgotogetbeyondwhatyouknow(Abts2004,p.16).

All these remarks aboutAbts practice, remindsme of Adornos dialectic ofmaturity

and his emphasis on the need for experimental art. Abts work reveals an insistence on a

conscious control over her means of production, which allows for something beyond it to

comethrough.

Another aspect of Abts practice that I find pertinent to be highlighted here is the

awareness thatherpaintingsdonotstand foranythingelsebeyondthem. Inaconversation

withPeterDoig,Abtshasconfirmed thisanddeclared that the forms inherpaintings dont

symbolize anything or describe anything outside the painting. They represent themselves

(2004,p.14).

Abtshasactuallydeclaredtobedistrustfulofthingsthatarenotquitethemselves,or

that pretend to be what is not, characteristics that she understands as effects (Coombs

2011).

In linewith these standpoints,Abts alsodeclared to seek toproduceworks that are

congruentwith itselfaimingat theworkbecomingselfsufficientand abletocontenditself

(Hudson 2009, p.18). In Hudsons words Abts works are about becoming an autonomous

thingintheworldthatcanbecome,ormaybeinherentlyis,congruentwithnothingexceptthat

verypainting(2009,p.23).

38

Despite this declared autonomy, Abtsworks has also been classifiedwork among a

group of abstract artists that reveal a great embeddedness in the world made possible

throughmaterialsandwork(Bedford2012,p.99).

These statements clearly reveal another correspondence between Abts practice and

Adornos theory. In this apparently irreconcilable relationship of autonomy and

embeddedness in the world, I see in Abts work a palpable example of how the work can

establishitselfasautonomousorasitsownmaster,butatthesametime,throughthelabour

poured into itsmaking, that involvescontrolover techniqueandmaterials, transpireadeep

connectiontotheworldandtothetimesfromwhichtheworkemerged.Inmyunderstanding,

thisautonomy,or purposefulmuteness (Hudson2009,p.18)ofAbtsworks isall themore

sounding.

Also, by distrusting what Abts addressed as effects, I see in her work a structural

approach.Withtheworkssettingouttobeonlythemselves,theyrefusetooperateintermsof

reaction,afteralltheyareonlyaccountabletothemselves,andlookintotheirownconceptand

conditionratherthansimplyatthecircumstancesaroundthem.

Finally, a feature in Abts works that I believe can bring together the aspects

highlightedbefore iswhat some critics havehighlighted as a potential of temporal latency

(Verwoert2008).

This featurehasbeenexplainedasthepositionthatAbtsslowworkandabstraction

takeinstandingfirm,refusingtoadapttoaideologyofperformancedefendedbytheadvanced

information capitalist society that we live in today, where agency is measured by the

professionalstandardsofahighperformancecultureinwhichtoperformmeanstoproveyour

abilitytoactualizeyourpotentialonthespot,anywhere,anytime(idem).

ForVerwoert, thispotential fortemporal latency inAbtsartworkscanbeevokedin

twofold way. On one hand its does so by allowing the latent memories inscribed in the

materiality of the picture to emerge in the moment wh