Before the arrival of the Portuguese in Japan in 1543, the country had a largely chinocentric view of the world. Much of the culture and art being influenced by that of China and its neighbouring countries. Chinese art was revered much in the same way that that of classical Greece was by Europeans and was considered to come from a strong, ancient culture worthy of admiration. The Portuguese on the other hand, when they first arrived were regarded as inferior peoples, with none of the stately calm and grace of the Japanese and were known collectively as Nanban or ‘Southern Barbarians’. Despite their hasty ways the Portuguese fascinated the Japanese and interest quickly grew in their image making, in particular their rendering of human figures which seemed more alive than anything Japanese artists produced. The Portuguese were equally aware of the differences between the two artistic styles:

‘…Although they copy nature in their paintings, they do not like a multitude and crowd of things in pictures, but prefer to portray, even in a sumptuous and lovely palace, just a few solitary things with due proportion between them, and indeed they distinguish themselves in this respect. But they know very little about painting the human body and its various parts, and they can hardly be compared with our painters as regards the portrayal of the body itself and the proportions of its members; they lack a true knowledge of shading figures, for it is this which makes figures stand out and gives them strength and beauty.’ Joao Rodrig[1]

Interestingly the Japanese were afraid of colonisation and had the ability to resist being taken over by the Europeans because of their deeply engrained national identity and advanced military. Despite this the lure of the exotic quickly caught on and Western luxury goods became popular status symbols, Japanese screen painters depicted scenes of European arrivals and general Europeanization was evident. “The Japanese have always been quick to incorporate foreign concepts into their own culture”[2]

The term Nanbanbijutsu refers to Japanese art with Nanban themes or influenced by Nanban designs.[3] There are several remaining examples of folding screens that come under the fuzokuga[4] category and in particular depict the theme of the arrival of the Nanban and their manners and customs.[5]

After at least 95 years of exposure through trade with the West, Japan shut its boarders to all but a few Dutch and Chinese traders. Even Japanese people were forbidden from travelling overseas and those abroad were not allowed to return. This ‘Chained Country Edict’ as it was known, lasted some 220 years until 1858[6] and until 1720 there was even a ban on the study of Europe and on the importation of European books[7]. During this period Japanese art appeared to forget all that was learnt about the Western ways of image making, and there was a return to purely Japanese subject matter. There was a resurgence of Japanese nationalism and more government control was experienced. The Japanese clearly showed their ability to resist Europeanization and displayed the strength of their pre European culture.

In 1851 the International Exposition trend began with the building of Crystal Palace in Hyde Park, London and a wave of information sharing and exposure to other cultures and technologies swept across Europe. In the same decade Japan reopened its boarders and ten years later in 1868 a new Japanese government came into power and sets about modernizing the country and joining the Western world with wide spread industrialization. Up until this point Japan had remained in a pre industrial state: “the products of a country still in a stage of handicraft industry, they were part and parcel of the culture and land, people and environment where they were made. In this sense they were more than simply products of industry, but expressions of a unique culture that had developed in isolation over the centuries.”[8] This pre-industrial image of Japan greatly appealed to people involved in the art and craft movement in Europe as artistic values were ingrained into all areas of Japanese life and by becoming industrialized Japan betrayed the ideals it represented to them. “Devoting itself intensely to industrialization, it concentrated single-mindedly on westernization. The tradition that nineteenth century Europe saw as the wellspring of a new culture, the Japanese treated merely as tradition – things of the past, not present or future of the new Japan.”[9]

So as Japan was looking west and to a future as part of the wider industrialized world many in the West were turning their attention firmly to Japan as an example of a better time where the arts were highly and widely valued, and the skills and vision of the maker and artist were appreciated by society.

After trade was re-established with Japan in the 1850′s, Japanese products flooded the European market and a new generation of artists were quick to pick up on the versatile inspiration they offered. They were a refreshing glimpse away from some of the more depressing aspects of industrialization and an alternative to the conventions of academic art in Europe. “Japanese art was introduced to the West at just the right moment to offer the alternative of a varied and sophisticated artistic tradition.”[10]The influence of Japanese art, culture and aesthetics became known as Japonism[11] One of the first artists who produced work clearly in response to the availability of Japanese objects was James McNeill Whistler, in 1863-1864 he painted La Princesse du Pay de la Porcelaine (The Princess from the Land of Porcelain)[12], he staged japoneries like this one using a model wearing Japanese Kimono, Japanese painted fan and other oriental props. His posing of the model references asymmetrical Japanese composition but the painting is in many ways still very much influenced by his European education and sketch-like realism, different elements which he fused together. “Whistler was trying to work through Japanese art toward an original vision that did not reject his Western heritage but gave it a new direction.”[13] Whistler gained from Japonism a highly refined and delicate style. He was also associated with the impressionists[14] who were similarly interested in all things Japanese. They too were quick to utilize the unusual compositional stylings and bold colour found in many Japanese woodblock prints of the time.

One such impressionist was Vincent van Gogh who collected a vast number of Japanese woodblock prints with his brother Theo. Like many people who were influenced by these images van Gogh explored their characteristics by copying them directly,[15] as well as painting japoneries[16]. Van Gogh traced the pictures and painted them in his own impressionist style but still generally following the colours of the original. It is interesting to note that he built up bold painted frames around the paintings which he decorated with Japanese style characters.[17]

A century after van Gogh and other European artists were directly referencing Japanese printmakers; many young Japanese artists are doing the same. The world changed a great deal during that time, we have seen continuing industrialization, the digital revolution and two world wars, the second of which ended with use of atomic weapons by the U.S.A against Japan in 1945. Many Japanese artists are now working with ideas of living in a post nuclear Japan and the U.S occupation that followed. One of the leading figures dealing with this internationally is Teraoka Murakma who mimics traditional Japanese prints in his watercolour paintings of apparently traditional subjects which on closer inspection directly reference contemporary American culture as well as the japoneries of 19^th century Europe[18]. “This kind of “Orientalism” was imported back into Japanese society in the 1980s”[19]. Another, Yoshitomo Nara also discusses “contemporary Japan versus traditional Japanese culture, and how it all relates to the West. Nara made the bold move of painting over Japanese woodblock prints with his images of badass, horrific little kids and their dogs.[20] Everyone since Manet brings up Japanese woodblock prints whenever talking about Japanese culture, so what better cultural icon for Nara to appropriate and deface?”[21] It is clear to see that Japanese culture has been greatly affected by its use overseas as well as the general Europeanization and Americanization that occurred. “The betrayal implied in Nara’s work resonates, because it expresses a universally shared loss of innocence.” [22] Many works, like those of Murakama and Akira Yamaguchi[23] are more obviously nationalistic, it is easy to see Yamaguchi’s use of the style of 17^th century screens. Even if they do refer to a much changed Japan and incorporated decidedly Western influences, they also copy styles which are thought of as stereotypically traditional. In this way the artist show a relation to an obsessive and distorted national identity that has seen extremely rapid modernization.

“Robin Spencer Writes: “the exposure of occidental art to Japanese artists, and the influence of Japanese art on Western artists, has produced hybrid styles which had little to do with the ancient traditions of any one civilization.”[24] but speaks about them all and the way in which world travel, industrialization, globalization, and the internet has led to a some what global nationalism where it is becoming less and less likely that a person only identifies with one culture, heritage, nation etc. Hybridity occurs everywhere, especially in art. The Japan may have put off exposing itself to the world for 220 years beginning back in the 17^th century but today the same would be impossible – (the harder it is to get information about and from a place, the more the world wants it – take Myanmar as an example) and in the mean time Japan has more than caught up, it arguably leads the world in terms of integrating technology into every aspect of life just as it did with art.

a desolate landscape, a future view

of the world, collapse, destruction

of structure, fragility

the unhappiness of our times,

public/private individual/society as

a whole, a cry for help, a plea

hopelessness, a lack of understanding

an outlet(/lack of) for emotion

lack of human (direct) interaction

the part that technology plays in

communication these days.

horror, helplessness, loneliness

switch off – distance, control,

The Blue Oyster Gallery, Dunedin, New Zealand

I apologize for the lack of footnote marks in the text, for some reason was not able to copy those into here, all the footnotes and references are at the bottom of the text.

20071026 semester2 essay

Bachelor of Fine Arts

Stage 1

Theory and History of Art

Semester 2, 2007

Alida Harris

Group A

Harriam6@tekotago.ac.nz

Is the status of a work of art fixed?

Alexandra Kennedy

26th October

Word Count: 1845.

Is the status of a work of art fixed?

Art can be any number of things, that much is clear. Some artists take the things they see around them and elevate them to the status of art whereas others work creating an artwork from scratch. Both deal with ways of realizing an idea, the initial concept of the work, be it about aesthetics or making a statement about the culture in which the artist finds themselves. If an everyday object can be given the status of a work of art then that status would seem not to be an intrinsic part of it. It is allocated to it while that work is in the realm of art. Take that object or any other art object out of that space and it is not the same is it was in it. A famous artwork in storage between exhibitions would not be any less valuable in that state, it would still be a work of art, but it would not have the same impact or aura as it would have if hung or placed on a pedestal. If it were however given a function, like that of a domestic non-art object would it be more changed? Or if the object is permanently lost or destroyed would it no longer exist as art?

Artists such as Marcel Duchamp showed that with the use of devices such as recontextualization for example, an everyday object can become a work of art. Duchamp, a French born artist who’s early work was influenced by the impressionists, cubists and futurists began assembling common objects the conception of which came to him as the “HAPPY IDEA TO FASTEN A BICYCLE WHEEL TO A KITCHEN STOOL AND WATCH IT TURN,” in his early 20’s. After relocating to New York in 1915 he started using the term “Readymades” to describe these objects which he elevated to the status of art simply by their selection and inclusion in exhibitions. Duchamp also became an influential figure in the New York Dada movement. At the time this use of prefabricated items was radical. Even now public discussion continues about whether or not works like Duchamp’s most controversial Fountain (1917) belong in the gallery. Although it would seem that “the artworld” that Arthur C. Danto wrote of has spoken. In 2004 Fountain was named “the most influential modern artwork of all time” by coming top in “a poll of 500 art experts” . Versions of Duchamp’s readymade works are included in public and private art collections the world over and feature in such texts as Art Since 1900: modernism, antimodernism, postmodernism and The 20th Century Art Book .

If then, a functional commonplace object can be elevated to the status of art by its selection and inclusion in an art exhibition is the reverse also possible? Can a recognised work of art loose its status as such by being given a function? Duchamp played with this idea when he conceived the “Reciprocal Readymade”. This was described in his Apropos of “Readymades”, 1961. “AT ANOTHER TIME WANTING TO EXPOSE THE BASIC ANTINOMY BETWEEN ART AND READYMADES I IMAGINED A “RECIPROCAL REDYMADE”: USE A REMBRANDT AS AN IRONING BOARD!” Giving a recognised artwork a function or treating it as a functional object lifts it off the plinth on which it stood. Removing it from the context of the gallery removes some of its aura, or at least displaces it.

Many of Marcel Duchamp’s Readymades which he so confidently placed in the gallery/ artworld setting were just as easily returned to their original and commonplace states. “Their artistic or anti-artistic content is reduced to nothing…They could be thrown away, put in some store or returned to their normal functions.” After exhibition they were lost back into the world of the everyday and did not retain their art status. However the concept of them remains and they continue to exist through replacements, reproduction and photographic record. In a similar sense the “Reciprocal Readymade” exists even though it was never realized by Duchamp as it has been imagined and discussed within the artworld, treated in the same way as an artwork that exists but none have seen. Duchamp valued the content or idea of a work above the physical material of it so perhaps it is not important that it was never made, the simple concept of it being enough to give it value. There have been many works since that have consisted of little more than a note in a book or a set of instructions and plenty that have been criticized and discussed by people who have never seen them in the flesh.

If we assume that an artist (being a member of “the artworld” and so able to represent it) has the authority to declare that an artefact is art then we must also assume that they have equal right to declare that it is not art, as the Dadaists so often did when they were trying to break away from all previous conventions of art. Duchamp intended demoting the recognised work of art by changing the context in which it is placed. He proposed, physically altering the work by giving it a function therefore affecting its status as art “…this imagined degradation of a work of art to the indignity of everyday commodity, implying the replacement of symbolic enjoyment at a distance by practical use, physical contact and material wear and tear,”

Robert Morris however, attempted to alter the status of a work of his own long after he had possession of it and could change it physically. He essentially retracted its value as art as a writer would retract a written statement (by writing another statement) when in 1963, after not receiving payment for his work Litanies Morris created a counter work in the same materials entitled Statement of Esthetic Withdrawal. It was signed, notarized and declared that “The undersigned, ROBERT MORRIS, being the maker of the metal construction entitled LITANIES, described in the annexed Exhibit A, hereby withdraws from said construction all esthetic quality and content and declares that from the date hereof said construction has no such quality and content.” Interestingly both are now in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art in New York and their public display there “may show that the aesthetic disqualification of one’s own work is difficult to effect beyond a statement, but they certainly prove that it can be acknowledged and intended − like auto-destruction − as art.” This attempt at aesthetic withdrawal draws into question, how much control an artist can have over a work after it has left their possession. In this case the artwork had not been properly paid for and so rightful ownership was still an issue.

If an artwork has been bought then the person who now owns it must also have some rights or responsibilities as to what they do with it. This level of control (if not total) will be affected by the interest of the artist in retaining influence and their ability to do so. Felix Gonzalez-Torres is interested in ideas of ephemeral art, changing over time, with the aid of the audience and exhibitors. There is an emphasis both on the responsibility of the exhibitor to maintain the work and in the freedom for them to choose how to install or arrange it. In the exhibition of his 1991 work Untitled (Lover Boys) “…viewers are encouraged to take away individual pieces of candy from piles…” and Gonzalez-Torres stresses the importance of this audience interaction “Without a public these works are nothing, nothing…I need the public to complete the work” The collaboration continues in that the exhibitor is required to remake the work, maintaining it by keeping it at a recommended weight “…with the need to replenish the piece linked to the invitation to viewers to take away elements in an ongoing cycle of disappearance and reappearance.”

On the idea of collaborations it is important to take note of artists altering the work of other artists. In 1953 Robert Rauschenberg erased a drawing by de Kooning in order to make a new work which was as the title suggests literally Erased de Kooning Drawing . This was an act of both destruction and creation, and was done with the full (if un-approving) consent of de Kooning who said that although he didn’t like it he understood the idea. Unlike the Chapman Brothers who from 2001-2003 worked with and over a mint condition series of Goya’s Disaster of War to create Insult to Injury shocking both the public and artworld “…a desecration of the memory of Goya…this is a treasure – and they have vandalised it.” . Even this seemingly badly received work has undoubtedly now been accepted as an important work of art in its own right. The original work by Goya is no less important than before and in fact it has been reintroduced to new audiences through its contemporary use.

There have of course always been physical attacks on works of art, acts of vandalism and iconoclasm , enforcement of political or religious control, artworks being miss interpreted and in fact artworks not being recognised as art at all. Like Duchamp’s readymades being lost back into the domestic sphere from which most of them came, other artworks have been mistaken for part of their surroundings, or refuse and have been destroyed in the name of waste removal. Unless they are remade these works no longer physically exist however they can still be discussed and with the use of photographic reproduction these works can still be viewed by many who would not have had the opportunity to view them during exhibition anyway. In this situation the experience of these works would for many be totally unchanged.

It has been accepted by the artworld that everyday objects can be elevated to the dignity of works of art in the right circumstances. Without the artworld context the object itself does not always retain its art status after exhibition. However the concept remains valid and the work can sometimes be remade for further exhibition if the object initially selected is lost, as readymades do not suffer from some of the concerns of originality. Removing a recognised work of art from “the artworld” context does alter its status but again the memory of it in its original state will remain. Robert Morris’ Statement of Esthetic Withdrawal was not entirely successful in retracting the aesthetic value of the earlier Litanies as it is still being exhibited and treated with the dignity of art. This may be partly because the original work was physically unchanged whereas in most situations the status of a work of art is altered because of a physical change to the object. In general it would seem that the concept of a work of art is more enduring than the object itself, and that a work of art does not necessarily stop being art after it no longer physically exists. Its status is variable and is in no means fixed to the physical object.

Footnotes and references

Michel Sanouillet and Elmer Peterson eds., The Writings of Marcel Duchamp. (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, Inc, 1973). 141. (Note that original source had this text in capitals)

Definition of “Readymades” by André Breton “manufactured objects promoted to the dignity of objects of art through the choice of the artist.” André Breton, “Phare de la Mariée,” Minotaure, 2, no.6 (Paris, Winter 1935): 45-49; trans. As “Lighthouse of the Bride,” View, 5, no.1 (New York, March 21, 1945): 6-9, 13; quoted here from William A. Camfield, Marcel Duchamp: Fountain. (Texas: Houston Fine Arts Press, 1989), 65.

New York Dada: “The works made by Picabia and Duchamp in New York, which would later be acknowledged as Dada, differed from Zurich Dada by being less concerned with the war but more aggressive towards the art establishment.” Michael Rosenthal: “New York, 1915–21.” Grove Art Online. Oxford University Press, http://www.groveart.com/, (accessed 25.10.2007)

Arthur C. Danto. “The Artworld” The Journal of Philosophy 16, no 19 (october 15, 1964): 580.

BBC NEWS. (December 3rd, 2004), http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/talking_point/4061491.stm (accessed June 1st, 2007)

Hal Foster. Art Since 1900: modernism, antimodernism and postmodernism. (London, UK: Thames and Hudson, 2004).

The 20th Century Art Book

antinomy n. A type of paradox consisting of a contradiction between two apparently unassailable propositions.

Andrew M. Colman, “A Dictionary of Psychology in Politics & Social Sciences”, 2006 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/SEARCH_RESULTS.html?q=antinomy&authstatuscode=202&ssid=1174601418&scope=global&time=0.456137405477961

Marcel Duchamp, Apropos of “Readymades” Talk Delivered at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, October 19th, 1961. Quoted here from Michel Sanouillet and Elmer Peterson eds. The Writings of Marcel Duchamp. (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, Inc, 1973). 142.

Hans Richter. Dada:Art and Anti-art. (New York, NY and Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965) 208. Quoted here from William A. Camfield, Marcel Duchamp: Fountain (Texas: Houston Fine Arts Press, 1989), 100.

Daniel Spoerri used the idea in his 1964 work Use a Rembrandt as an Ironing Board (Marcel Duchamp). Dario Gamboni. The Destruction of Art: Iconoclasm and Vandalisim since the French Revolution. (London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 1997), 263.

“Duchamp’s Philosophy of advocating intellectual over purely visual (what he called “retinal”) concerns and his focus on the conceptual meaning of his work were also controversial at the time.” Lauren Ross (artist biographies) from Francis M. Naumann and Beth Venn eds., Making Mischief: DADA invades New York. (Whitney Museum of American Art: New York, 1996.), 189.

George Dickie Aesthetics, 101. Paraphrased here from William A. Camfield, Marcel Duchamp: Fountain (Texas: Houston Fine Arts Press, 1989), 121.

Dario Gamboni. The Destruction of Art: Iconoclasm and Vandalism since the French Revolution. (London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 1997.) 261.

Martha Buskirk. The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art. (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press, 2003) 1.

Dario Gamboni. The Destruction of Art: Iconoclasm and Vandalism since the French Revolution. (London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 1997.) 323.

Without leaving a written contract or set of legal instructions the artist must, I presume upon their death loose all control over the preservation and display of their work. Their ability to retain influence over a work after its sale must also be dependant on some sort of formal agreement.

Martha Buskirk. The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art. (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press, 2003) 154.

Tim Rollins, interview with Felix Gonzalez-Torres, in William S. Bartman, ed., Felix Gonzalez-Torres (Los Angeles: A.R.T. Press, 1993), 23. Quoted here from ibid, 154.

Martha Buskirk. The Contingent Object of Contemporary Art. (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press, 2003) 154.

Dario Gamboni. The Destruction of Art: Iconoclasm and Vandalism since the French Revolution. (London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 1997.) 269.

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art “Robert Rauschenberg Erased de Kooning Drawing, 1953” Making Sense of Modern Art http://www.sfmoma.org/msoma/artworks/93.html

Jonathan Jones, “Look What We Did” Guardian Unlimited (March 31, 2003) http://arts.guardian.co.uk/critic/feature/0,,931774,00.html#article_continue

Iconoclasm. “The wilful destruction of art.”

Dario Gamboni. The Destruction of Art: Iconoclasm and Vandalism since the French Revolution. (London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 1997.) 17.

Figure 1 Marcel Duchamp Bicycle wheel, 1913. Diameter 64.8 cm, mounted on a stool, 60.2 cm high. Original lost. Replica. Private collection.

www.marcelduchamp.net/Bicycle_wheel.php

Figure 2 Alfred Stieglitz, Photograph of Duchamp’s Fountain, (1917), 1917 www.toutfait.com/…/betancourt/popup_8.html

Figure 3 Daniel Spoerri, Use a Rembrandt as an Ironing Board (Marcel Duchamp), 1964, assemblage. Arthuro Schwarz Collection Milan.

http://web.tiscali.it/nouveaurealisme/precedenti/precedenti.htm

Figure 4 Robert Morris Litanies, 1963. Lead over wood with steel key ring, twenty-seven keys, and brass lock, 12″ x 71⁄8″ x 21⁄2″. The Museum of Modern Art, New York, Gift of Philip Johnson. © 2002 Robert Morris / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York. Photo © 2001 The Museum of Modern Art, New York. http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=9901&mode=toc

Figure 5 Felix Gonzalez-Torres, Untitled (Lover Boys), 1991. Candies, individually rapped in silver cellophane, endless supply, ideal weight 300 pounds, dimensions variable with installation. Photo by Katrine Bartram Reinert Nielsen. At the Hamburger Bahnhof http://www.kopenhagen.dk/billeder/reportage/felix_gonzalez_torres_hamburger_bahnhof/

Figure 6: Robert Rauschenberg, Erased de Kooning Drawing, Traces of ink and crayon on paper, 195325 1/4 x 21 3/4 inches, San Francisco Museum of Art. http://www.artrenewal.net/articles/2002/Pandoras_Box/large/Rauschenberg_Erased_De_Kooning.jpg

Figure 7: Jake and Dinos Chapman Insult to Injury 2003. Francisco de Goya ‘Disasters of War’, Portfolio of 80 etchings reworked and improved, Courtesy Jay Jopling/White Cube (London) Photocredit: Stephen White © the artists

http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2003/images/chapman_insult.jpg