8/13/2019 ELCONT~1

1/7

El contemporneo y el histricopor Donald Kuspit

Ha llegado a ser excruciatingly difcil e incluso imposible escribir una historia del arte contemporneo -- una historiaque har la justicia a todo el arte que se considere contemporneo: sa es la leccin del postmodernism. i escribirhistoria es algo como poner los peda!os de un rompecabe!as juntos" como el sicoanalista #onald pence sugiere"entonces arte contemporneo es un rompecabe!as que peda!os no $ienen juntos. %o hay narrati$a cabida entreellos" para utili!ar el trmino de pence" sugiriendo apenas cmo es el desconcierto de arte contemporneo" no

obstante muchos sus peda!os indi$iduales pueden ser entendidos.

&l 'contemporneo( por la definicin no es necesariamente el 'histrico"( es decir" el contemporneo es unacantidad de acontecimientos asociados en un presente specious ms bien que una narrati$a constante que integraalgunos de estos acontecimientos en un sistema o un patrn que los califique y supere simultneamente dndoosuna cierta clase de purposi$eness" de con$eniencia y de significado" as hacindolos parecerte predestinado.

&n )ostmodernism qu *ndr +alraux llam el global el 'museo sin las paredes( se ha obser$ado" dando porresultado la extensin ilimitada del contemporneo. &l pluralismo radical que pre$alece en el museo sin las paredesha hecho una mofa de la creencia que hay un arte que es ms 'histrico( que cualquier otro. *s la historia hallegado a ser tan absurda e idiosincrsica como el contemporneo.

)uede haber una historia del arte moderno y una historia del arte tradicional" pero no puede haber historia del artepostmodern" para la poder radicalmente contempornea nunca sea delimitado por ninguna sola lectura histrica.*unque uno era un ,ibbon uno no poda caber todos los peda!os de arte contemporneo junto en una narrati$a

unificada. &n el postmodernity que es no ms cualquier cosa como el juicio de la historia" slo un expedienteincompleto del contemporneo. i cada peda!o de arte es contemporneo" nadie peda!o se puede $alorar msaltamente que cualquier otro" excepto de cierta perspecti$a sicosocial. )ero cada perspecti$a resulta serprocrustean porque cierra hacia fuera el arte que contradice sus premisas.

a perspecti$a interpretati$a es siempre relati$a" pragmtica e informada con un moti$o msulterior. e refiere a legtimo qu se parecera de otra manera ilegtimo" es decir"contemporneo. &n lugar del sistema infinitamente abierto del arte contemporneo ofrece unsistema histrico cerrado de la comprensin autosatisfecha y del $alor asegurado" pero haysiempre ms del contemporneo. &l sistema histrico hermtico se derrumba bajo presin delcontemporneo o anali!a debido a su propio peso pretentious.

a historia de la escritura se puede comparar a la tierra que demanda del mar delcontemporneo" pero el mar se le$anta siempre hasta la recuperacin l. " si uno desea" la

historia del arte se ha con$ertido en un *tlantis que se ha hundido en el mar debido a laerupcin $olcnica del arte contemporneo. a historia puede ser una construccin creati$a"como pence dice" pero puede nunca ser una construccin definiti$a -- apenas como ningunaconstruccin artstica puede ser definiti$o de arte" por lo menos desde un punto de $istacontemporneo -- porque hay siempre una e$idencia ms contempornea para minarlo.

a historia es no ms posible en el postmodernism debido a modernism s mismo: en su ms$ital" es una historia de uno mismo-preguntar y uno mismo-duda" los artistas principales paramirar lejos un campo para su identidad. #ondequiera que sean se parece falso comparado a la$erdad de a otra parte -- del extranjero" extico" marginal -- lo que uno desea para llamar quse parece fuera de alguno interior institucional.

#e hecho" desafo de e indiferencia al juicio institucional -- a la aprobacin o a la desaprobacindel sistema estupendo-egosta de la autoridad -- son los medios principales del a$ance supuesto

del $anguardismo. '*clarado( el sistema de la autoridad" es decir" el aceptar de 'extra/o"( arte'alternati$o(" ms que tiene que ser outfoxed por el absurdo que las mentiras fuera de l.

Hay no ms cualquier establecimiento digno de confian!a del arte" qui!s porque hayinstituciones establecidas que ciertos modos del pri$ilegio del arte presentndolas de una formaque las marcas ellas se parecen detalles ine$itables" es decir" decisi$os en una narrati$a ideal" oalgo una narrati$a del establecimiento que d $uelta irnico al arte en un espectculo bajo.

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGhttp://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=es&u=http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/kuspit/kuspit4-14-18.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDonald%2BKuspit%26hl%3Des%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

8/13/2019 ELCONT~1

2/7

Ha habido siempre ms contemporneo que arte histrico -- o" ponerlo ms ampliamente" hahabido siempre ms contemporaneity que historicity -- pero este hecho lleg a ser solamenteenftico explcito en modernidad.

0entati$a de la historia del arte de controlar contemporaneity -- y con eso el flujo temporal delos acontecimientos del arte -- por ciertos acontecimientos del arte que pelaban de suidiosyncracy e incidentalness en nombre de un cierto sistema absoluto del $alor" fue abrumadopor la abundancia de e$idencia contempornea del arte que alternati$a propuesto y las ideas amenudo radicalmente contrarias del $alor. )ienso que el punto fue hecho muy claramente yexacto por oren!o *llo1ay en el suyo libro la Venecia Biennale 1895-1968: De saln al GoldfishBowl234567.

*llo1ay obser$a que en 3455 el 8iennale demostr 9.6; trabajos de los artistas a partir de

8/13/2019 ELCONT~1

3/7

preciosa en el presente" ha inclinado hacia el Eltimo y lejos del anterior. * m sta es unamuestra de una tentati$a de escardar la incertidumbre del contemporneo predetermininghistoria del arte. &s decir" a pesar de la di$ersidad competiti$a continuada entre los pa$ilionsnacionales" las naciones indi$iduales han intentado poner su pie histrico del mejor arteadelante" as apropindose del juicio supuesto de la historia" no obstante es problemtico puedeser.

as naciones indi$iduales han enangostado su opcin de los artistas contemporneos que seexhibirn -- fueron llegados a ser ms selecti$o" como ella. )ero esto trae con l mucho de lainatencin selecti$a a otros artistas contemporneos" y con se cierta prdida de sentido crtico.&sta tentati$a prematura de escardar hacia fuera y de de$aluar abrumando el muchos parapoder poner el feli! pocos o uno y artista solamente $erdaderamente y absolutamentesignificati$o en la exhibicin gloriosa" as trayendo una claridad" una concisin y unconclusi$eness superficiales y represi$os a una abundancia poco concluyente y unmanageable --cul es ms profundamente significati$o que cualquier un artista que te informe -- puede serhecho transparente claro por una comparacin cuantitati$a de los artistas demostrados en el)a$ilion alemn en 3495 y en 3455.

0here 1ere three categories of 1orFs: painting" sculpture" graphics each year. Bn 3495 the,ermans sho1ed

8/13/2019 ELCONT~1

4/7

their o1n creati$ity: the historically significant permanent past can be as much of a hindrance"burden and inhibition as an inspiration" foundation" catalyst.

Khy bo1 onePs creati$e Fnee to an idol that has feet of clayQ 8lindness" indifference" rebellionagainst historically reified greatness is a 1ay of maintaining the $itality of oneOscontemporaneity. %othing is sacred to artists 1ho insist on their contemporaneity" because thecontemporary is al1ays profane.

0o be ephemeral" then" may be preferable to being an epigone. neOs o1n passing narcissisticglory may be preferable to letting some of the glory of the sociohistorically sanctioned past ruboff on one. B am suggesting that the fetishi!ation of art into historical permanence may becompensatory for contemporary creati$e inadequacy. Korse yet" it may depri$e thecontemporary artist 1ho taFes such history seriously of the insecurity that comes 1ith beingcontemporary" 1hich has its o1n creati$e potential.

0he po1er of the contemporary comes from the insecurity of being ephemeral rather than frombuilding on some illusory historical foundation -- a hypothetical but al1ays crumblingpermanence -- as though that 1ill maFe oneOs automatically meaningful and of enduring $alue.%o art is historically important fore$er: the historical staying po1er of past art depends oncontemporary creati$e needs -- on contemporary emotional and cogniti$e necessity. Bt is

permanent and necessary only because the contemporary creates the temporary illusion that itis.

Bn short" 1hile the difference bet1een the ephemeral contemporary and the historicallypermanent may be the difference bet1een the +any and the ne" there is in fact nocontemporary 1ay of determining 1hat 1ill be the ne in the future. *nd it really doesnOtmatter" for once an art is chosen as the historically right ne it 1ithers on the contemporary$ine" losing its creati$e resonance" or" as #uchamp said" its aura. 0he contemporary is al1aysheterogeneous and fertile" the historical fantasi!es the ne and nly" thus reducingcontemporaneity to sterile homogeneity.

Mecall that by 3455 8euys 1as already hard at 1orF -- he had to 1ait until 345 to appear in the?enice 8iennale" together 1ith Iochen ,er! and Meiner MuthenbecF. culptureRinstallation 1asthe only category" as though there 1ere no paintings and graphic 1orFs being made. o 1ere,eorg 8aselit! and *nselm Liefer" 1ho appeared together in 346>. Bt is 1orth noting that in349 ,erhard Michter had the ,erman )a$ilion all to himself -- the only category 1aspaintingRinstallation -- and" in 3465" so did igmar )olFe" also in paintingRinstallation" again theonly category.

*re Hans HaacFe and %am Iune )aiF" 1ho alone shared the ,erman )a$ilion in 344< --installation 1as the category for the former" $ideo installation the category for the latter --,erman nationalsQ HaacFe still is" although he li$es in the Cnited tates" and )aiF ne$er 1as"although he 1orFed in ,ermany. $er the course of time" not only ha$e the categories beennarro1ed -- as though in an effort to say that some modes of art-maFing are more importantthan others" thus establishing an elitist categori!ation of mediums -- and the number of artistssharply reduced" but 1hat *llo1ay called the 'local( particularity of art has been pre-empted bya generali!ed internationalism" as though only transnational art had a place in the art historical

narrati$e.

S8e mistrustful of history"S the panish poet )ere Tuart 1rote in his poem de to 8arcelona" andhe is right. S#ream it and re1rite it"S he said" because it is only a dream -- a 1ish-fulfillment --and thus ne$er true to reality. History is an attempt to find consistency in -- to read consistencyinto -- the inconsistent contemporary. Meplacing the healthy flexibility of the contemporary 1iththe rigidity of history is an attempt to channel creati$ity in a certain direction and finally tocontrol and e$en censor it.

8/13/2019 ELCONT~1

5/7

Kriting history" as distinct from interpreting contemporaneity" in$ol$es narro1ing oneOs sights"indeed" Feeping certain things out of sight. * recent good example of the 1ay historicalsignificance is manufactured and can be a deliberate falsification is the ele$ation of *na +endietato the pantheon of art" or at least the suffering feminist part" by 1ay of the retrospecti$eexhibition of her rather thin if intriguing body of 1orF at the Hirshhorn and Khitney museums.0ucFed a1ay in one small exhibition case in the Khitney exhibition 1ere a number ofphotographs by Hans 8reder" the in$entor of intermedia and a $ery complex artist -- much more

complex than +endieta. 0his is all the credit he is gi$en for in$enting her" e$en though" at thepost-opening dinner" the director of the Hirshhorn acFno1ledged that 1e 1ere seeing +endietathrough 8rederOs eyes.

8rederPs body performance-sculpture photographs are 1ell-Fno1n" particularly in ,ermany" andhe has also made important paintings and $ideos" some of 1hich ha$e been exhibited at theKhitney. +endieta 1as 8rederOs student at the Cni$ersity of Bo1a and became his lo$er. 0hey1orFed together for some 3> years. Bndeed" he taught her $irtually all she Fne1. * fair numberof the photographs in the Khitney exhibition 1ere made by 8reder. +any sho1 her exhibitingherself in performances concei$ed by 8reder. Her famous +exican performances -- her naFedbody is laid out in an earth gra$e -- 1ere all set up by 8reder and photographed by him.

0he idoli!ation of +endieta" for commercial and ideological reasons -- her estate is handled by

,alerie eong -- all but 1rites 8reder out of her art and life. 8ecome a historical figure" her artseems to exist on its o1n" as though it stood abo$e the contemporary complexity of itsde$elopment. 0he SmaFing of historyS al1ays in$ol$es 1hat Henry Lrysal calls an SidolatroustransferenceS -- indeed" B thinF +endieta idoli!ed herself" as though she intuiti$ely Fne1 ho1 tomaFe history -- and +endieta has been idoli!ed beyond belief.

#espite the ironical contemporary attempt to describe history as it is happening" that is" to sellthe insecure contemporary short by declaring it history-in-the-maFing" B 1ant to conclude bysuggesting a number of reasons 1hy" if one is truly a1are and open to all that is happening incontemporary art" 1ithout any pre-empti$e prejudices -- recogni!ing that oneOs interpreti$epreferences are not exclusi$e -- one cannot help but recogni!e that contemporary art has oustedand e$en destroyed historical meaning" despite contemporary efforts to maFe history by 1ritingit as it supposedly happens" thus blurring the boundary bet1een the contemporary and thehistorical.

0he reasons include the cross-pollination and interbreeding of culturally" cogniti$ely" andemotionally discrepant -- not simply routinely different -- Finds of art= the endless proliferationof contemporary art and artists" bringing 1ith it a ne1 definition of the contemporary 2since itcan ne$er be domesticated by history" the contemporary has a self-imposed ephemerality"suggesting that it is an e$er-changing communication construction7= and" perhaps morespeculati$ely" the increasing speciousness of art -- confirmed by the pseudo-philosophical notionthat 1hate$er anyone calls art is art" that is" Sanything goes"S the postmodern motto -- in acommercial cro1d culture.

Bndeed" it seems that the more artists there are -- as e$idenced by the ne1 crop of +*sproduced e$ery year" each 1ith his or her o1n portfolio of 1orFs and supposed uniqueness --and the more po1er o$er artistic significance money and popularity ha$e" the less clear it is

1hat 1e are talFing about 1hen 1e talF about art.

0he po1er of money and popularity to maFe history -- thus suggesting the speciousness ofhistory -- is the o$erriding sociological truth about contemporary art. *s Kalter Mobinson says"today there are no art mo$ements" only marFet mo$ements. 0his seems confirmed by an article"titled S0hrough the Moof"S in the #ec. 9" 9>>U" issue of orbes maga!ine. Bt begins 1ith thefollo1ing paragraph: Scenes from a fren!y: Iust t1o years after Btalian artist and notoriouspranFster +auri!io Gattelan made The Ninth Hourin 3444" ,ene$a dealer )ierre Huber boughtthe life-si!e 1ax sculpture of )ope Iohn )aul BB being felled by a meteorite for V665">>>. n%o$. 36 he flipped it at a )hilips auction in %e1 WorF for V< million.(

8/13/2019 ELCONT~1

6/7

)resumably this maFes Gattelan" or at least his 1orF" historically important" that is"automatically guarantees it a place in art history. *rt history has become ridiculous -- up forgrabs -- at least 1hen it is not a catch-all chronicle of the contemporary. 0he same articlequotes arry Kalsh" Sfounder of useu!smaga!ine and an early collector of 346>s art stars liFeIean-+ichel 8asquiat and Leith HaringS 2it seems 1orth noting that both are dead" and diedyoung" the former of a drug o$erdose" the latter of *B#7: S0he real problemQ . . . 0oo muchmoney tricFling do1n to material thatOs not historically tested. History has a tight sie$e.S

8ut only the art that money pours through it passes through it: economic $alue has becomehistorical $alue. )assing the marFet test" the art passes into history. S,reatness" experts agree"usually settles in after at least 9> years of interest in an artist"S +issy ulli$an" the articlePsauthor" 1rites. nly then is the artist SFissed by posterity.S Khich expertsQ Khose interestQ *nd1hat exactly is posterityQ Me-sale $alueQ ?alue for yet unborn artistsQ Gultural celebrityQBnstallation in the so-called permanent collection of a museumQ Khich museumQ Kalsh andulli$an raise more questions than they ans1er.

*nother sociological truth is the competiti$e proliferation of interpreti$e perspecti$es" and 1iththat the struggle for intellectual as 1ell as historical supremacy. * contemporary art becomeshistorical 1hen a particular perspecti$e achie$es authoritarian success by imposing anideological reading on it" thus gi$ing it a certain reputation and representati$e significance.

Bn attempting to establish certain art as more legitimate and necessary than other art" history1riting implicitly pri$ileges some art as more creati$e and ideologically correct than other art"ho1e$er much 1riting history itself may be a creati$e interpreti$e and as such artistic act" andalso an ideological act" as pence and many other thinFers ha$e argued.

0hus +endieta is supposedly more creati$e and ideologically correct than 8reder" for" after all"she 1as a feminist" and has had" if posthumously" major museum exhibitions to pro$e that sheis creati$ely inno$ati$e. 2B $enture to say that her function as a symbol of an ideology taFesprecedence o$er her creati$ity. 0hat is" she has come to ha$e a more important place in anideological narrati$e than in the history of artistic creati$ity.7 B am suggesting that the arthistorian is less interested in the creati$e process -- and its interdependence 1ith other humanprocesses" at once physical" psychic" and social -- than he or she is in finished institutionallysanctioned art products.

History 1riting thus often in$ol$es 1hat *lfred %orth Khitehead called the fallacy of misplacedconcreteness. 0he object is concreti!ed art" that is" established as being art -- B am thinFing ofKhiteheadOs theory of concrescence as the primary ontological process -- 1hen it is misplacedinto some institution" indicating that the process that brought it into being is complete. Bt is no1a fetishi!ed product" as though the creati$e process that brought it into being is beside its point.Bn fact" the process is completed by its creati$e interpretation" 1hich is ongoing -- a perpetualre-becoming and thus de-reification and dis-establishing of the art product.

nly 1hen there is nothing left to interpret and communicate is the object complete" that is"resoundingly concrete" 1hich means that it is a product that has lost the $ital resonance or aurait had 1hen in process -- a resonance or aura that can be restored by a reju$enating injection ofdynamic interpretation. Bt is perhaps ine$itable that art history misplaces the concreteness of the

1orF process that is art" for art history is subliminally concerned 1ith the legitimacy of objects"and only reified objects are legitimate from the perspecti$e of history. History 1riting" then" isnecessarily an act of reification" and reification goes hand in hand 1ith idoli!ation -- theantithesis of critical consciousness.

Bt should also be noted that" ironically" the celebration of creati$ity in our society -- scientific andtechnological creati$ity more than artistic creati$ity" 1hich looFs less insightful and useful at firstglance -- is also responsible for the fact that contemporary art seems more $ital than historicallyreified art. *t the same time" the indiscriminate adulation of creati$ity -- $irtually any Find ofcreati$ity" leading to the labeling of any Find of acti$ity as creati$e if it is performed 'differently(

8/13/2019 ELCONT~1

7/7

-- is responsible for the o$ercro1ding of contemporary art. Bt is paradoxically the loss ofstandards of creati$e excellence that maFes art $ulnerable to marFet and populist forces. 0heyalone can maFe an art 'historical( and 'meaningful( 1hen it is no longer clear 1hat the $alue ofart is. Bn other 1ords" money and popularity are meaningful in capitalist mass society" so that1ithout their imprimatur art is socially meaningless" ho1e$er creati$e. B belie$e it is alsobecause maFing art has become a 1ay of maFing money and becoming popular -- Karhol andLoons are the exemplary cases here -- that the art 1orld is o$erpopulated" to the extent that it

is in a +althusian crisis.

et me return to the beginning of my talF for a final 1ord. pence 1rites:

"f we are #uttin$ to$ether a %i$saw #u&&le in which each #iece has one and onl' one final restin$#lace( we can use what !i$ht )e called the narrati*e fit to esta)lish the correct #osition of eachof the #ieces+ But+ + + as soon as we ad!it that( for e,a!#le( a $i*en account !i$ht ha*e anu!)er of different endin$s( all euall' satisf'in$( we )e$in to see that esta)lishin$ narrati*e fit!a' )e a less definiti*e outco!e than we !i$ht ha*e wished for and( as a conseuence( arather sha.' )asis for !a.in$ clai!s a)out truth *alue+ + + + / narrati*e( in short( is al!ostinfinitel' elastic( acco!!odatin$ al!ost an' new e*idence that ha##ens to co!e alon$+

B suggest that the only 1ay a narrati$e history of contemporary art can a$oid apotheosi!ing one

artist at the expense of another -- the 1ay +endieta 1as apotheosi!ed at the expense of 8reder-- and thus becoming a Find of delusion of grandeur" is by becoming infinitely elastic andaccommodating.

8ut then it 1ould no longer be a narrati$e= it 1ould be a perpetually contemporary unsol$ablepu!!le. %onetheless" since" 1hen one is 1riting history" one is 1riting about particulars ho1e$ertempting the 1ish to generali!e" and since the particular is radically contemporary -- B 1ould infact argue that the contemporary is a sum of incommensurate particulars that can ne$er bemade commensurate in a 1hole 2integrated completeness is a meaningless notion in thecontemporary7 -- B suggest that by definition the history of any particular art is a case history.0hat is" it maFes an interpreti$e case for a particular artOs interestingness by tracFing itsen$ironmental de$elopment in the context of the obser$er-interpreterOs phenomenologicalarticulation of his or her complex experience of it.

nly by approaching and regarding the 1orF of art as an affecti$e-communicational-educationalexperience can one preclude the pre-emption and e$en foreclosure of its meaning and $alue bymoney and popularity" 1hich" in the contemporary situation" speaF in the name of history. uchidolatrous reification remo$es the cogniti$e challenge and human interest from the 1orF" 1hichmaFes it less contemporary and stimulating" that is" less liFely to be experienced 1ith anydegree of freshness.

0hat is" less liFely to be an affecti$e-communicational-educational experience -- less liFely toin$ol$e the disco$ery" demonstration and exemplification of a certain Find of attitude"consciousness and relationality -- and thus not 1orth the human and intellectual trouble.)aradoxically" once an art is historically reified -- o$erdetermined" as it 1ere -- Sholy curiositySabout it tends to disappear" to use &insteinOs phrase. Cnless" of course" it can be madecontemporary again by critical interpretation" 1hich means" to again quote &instein" 'not to stop

questioning( it.

0his text is a re$ised $ersion of a lecture gi$en at the B0*G 2Bnternational ymposium onGontemporary *rt 0heory7 conference in +exico Gity in Ianuary 9>>;.

DONALD KUSPITis professor of art history and philosophy at SUNY Stony Brook and A.D. White professor at large at CornellUniversity.