Bonnie/Jeremy Hellman on sun 27 oct 02
For anyone interested in what the sculptor Eric Fischel, whose "Tumbling
woman" sculpture was so controversial in Manhattan, has to say about that
sculpture and another controversial sculpture (of Arthur Ashe nude and
without a tennis racquet) and life in general, I'm copying the one-page NY
Times magazine story in today's paper. The article has a 4.5" by 6" photo of
him from the neck up, looking straight at the camera.
I read this as an "artist's statement" in Q & A format and certainly you
understand more of what he was thinking and intending.
Bonnie
QUESTIONS FOR ERIC FISCHL
Post-9/11 Modernism
Interview by DAVID RAKOFF
Your sculpture commemorating Sept. 11, ''Tumbling Woman,'' was recently
removed from Rockefeller Center. Is that the largest controversy you've been
through? Certainly the Arthur Ashe statue at Flushing Meadows freaked out
some people.
I guess it would be the highest profile. With the Ashe statue, the criticism
seemed to come from very literal-minded people who would say things like,
''We've never seen a nude tennis player'' or ''Where's the tennis racket?''
I think I'm most hurt by this one.
But isn't a certain amount of controversy what an artist hopes for?
I just feel like it would be cynical of me to appreciate the controversy,
because it wasn't controversy I was looking for.
You're not a provocateur in that way?
No. I actually have done paintings in the past, back in the early 80's, that
came out of profound anger and confusion. The sensational aspect was
intentional. But that was a long time ago by a young artist.
Where did that guy go?
He went into an adult world more complicated and subtle and more
fascinating, and whatever. I wasn't trying to make a universal monument to
sum up the entire experience of 9/11. The kind of response that I was
wanting to get was one in which people would allow me to share in the
experience, the holding up, the sitting with -- so of course the response of
''Get this out of here, you can't feel this'' or ''You can't make us feel
this way'' was incredibly hurtful.
Maybe the problem is that some have interpreted this body twisting in
freefall as a piece of grim, plastic photojournalism.
One might see a moment of impact in a kind of way that implies brains
splattering, a graphic moment there. The thing is that if you look at the
piece itself, it feels like a dream in which somebody is floating. There's
no weight there that is sending this crushing, rippling current back through
the body as it hits a solid mass. It feels more like a tumbleweed, even
though it's a massive sculpture. So somebody else looking at it might say,
''God, it reminds me of falling in a dream right before I wake up.'' Both of
those are probably correct.
Has your art now turned to other current events?
No. It's actually gone back to sort of smaller, more confined spaces. I've
been working on the relationship between men and women, intimacy, privacy,
boundaries, all of those issues.
Given the outcry, would you have done things differently?
I wouldn't have made the sculpture differently at all. I even regret caving
in to Rockefeller Center so fast and saying:
''Yeah, take it away. I don't want to hurt anybody.'' I'm sorry I didn't
raise a stink over it. I hate this idea that there are some people who have
a right to express their suffering and others who don't, that there are
those in this hierarchy of pain who own it more than you do. It's not about
necessarily witnessing firsthand that makes the experience. Picasso wasn't
at Guernica when it happened; Goya wasn't there on the firing line. This is
what a culture looks to art for, to put image, or voice, or context to a way
of rethinking, reseeing, re-experiencing.
When ''Guernica'' was first exhibited, I don't think people felt Picasso
wasn't entitled to paint it.
Yeah, I think this is a new turn, for the worse. Right now we're shrinking
away from truth. No one can criticize the president because we're in a very
vulnerable time, even though he's doing some things that are terrifying. You
can't express your personal horror and trauma at something that we all
experienced. I think what happened is that since the 60's there's been an
ambition that art merge itself with pop culture. At first it was an ironic
stance, and then it became actually a real thing; people wanted to have art
as a playground and as entertainment. And that's fine in good times, but
when something terrible or powerful or meaningful happens, you want an art
that speaks to that, that embraces the language that would carry us forward,
bring us together, all of that stuff. I think that 9/11 showed us that as an
art world we weren't quite qualified to deal with this. Not trained enough
to handle it.
That's some fairly grim training we're facing, then.
It's a terrible way to have to be trained, it's true, but the way the art
world has been training younger and younger artists is in ideological
gamesmanship, and there's been a lack of training in history and in
techniques that one could apply in rendering the human form, for example. A
lot of the young kids are sort of fabulous at drawing cartoons. But a
cartoon's going to be pretty hard to express a lot of the experience of the
last year. People have told me I should stop talking about this, just let it
die down. But I can't stand idly by.
Rikki Gill on sun 27 oct 02
Hi Bonnie, That was fascinating. Thank you for posting that. Eric Kischl
certainly shows sensitivity, and insight in his explanation of his work, and
I was interested in his opinion of where newer artists are coming from, and
the problems they face. [Actually, Art Spiegelman did a good job in his
cartoon book, " Maus "about the Nazis.]
But the real problem , as I see it, is the narrow definition of what is
allowable art. Some fine artists have turned away from original subject
matter almost totally, like Gerhad Richter, who says that when he copies
photographs is frees him to deal only with the medium. Of course, you do
get to choose the photographs you copy, as in his series of paintings of the
young nursing students killed by a serial killer in Chicago, Richard Stark,
and the Baader-Meinhof group. But that just points out the problem. Many
artists choose abstract art, because of the limited allowable expression.
And just look what happens when an Eric Fischl tries to say what he feels.
Thanks, Rikki
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bonnie/Jeremy Hellman"
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 11:38 AM
Subject: Eric Fischl Q & A from NY Times 10-27-02
> For anyone interested in what the sculptor Eric Fischel, whose "Tumbling
> woman" sculpture was so controversial in Manhattan, has to say about that
> sculpture and another controversial sculpture (of Arthur Ashe nude and
> without a tennis racquet) and life in general, I'm copying the one-page NY
> Times magazine story in today's paper. The article has a 4.5" by 6" photo
of
> him from the neck up, looking straight at the camera.
>
> I read this as an "artist's statement" in Q & A format and certainly you
> understand more of what he was thinking and intending.
>
> Bonnie
>
>
>
>
> QUESTIONS FOR ERIC FISCHL
> Post-9/11 Modernism
> Interview by DAVID RAKOFF
>
>
> Your sculpture commemorating Sept. 11, ''Tumbling Woman,'' was recently
> removed from Rockefeller Center. Is that the largest controversy you've
been
> through? Certainly the Arthur Ashe statue at Flushing Meadows freaked out
> some people.
>
> I guess it would be the highest profile. With the Ashe statue, the
criticism
> seemed to come from very literal-minded people who would say things like,
> ''We've never seen a nude tennis player'' or ''Where's the tennis
racket?''
> I think I'm most hurt by this one.
>
> But isn't a certain amount of controversy what an artist hopes for?
>
> I just feel like it would be cynical of me to appreciate the controversy,
> because it wasn't controversy I was looking for.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You're not a provocateur in that way?
>
> No. I actually have done paintings in the past, back in the early 80's,
that
> came out of profound anger and confusion. The sensational aspect was
> intentional. But that was a long time ago by a young artist.
>
> Where did that guy go?
>
> He went into an adult world more complicated and subtle and more
> fascinating, and whatever. I wasn't trying to make a universal monument to
> sum up the entire experience of 9/11. The kind of response that I was
> wanting to get was one in which people would allow me to share in the
> experience, the holding up, the sitting with -- so of course the response
of
> ''Get this out of here, you can't feel this'' or ''You can't make us feel
> this way'' was incredibly hurtful.
>
> Maybe the problem is that some have interpreted this body twisting in
> freefall as a piece of grim, plastic photojournalism.
>
> One might see a moment of impact in a kind of way that implies brains
> splattering, a graphic moment there. The thing is that if you look at the
> piece itself, it feels like a dream in which somebody is floating. There's
> no weight there that is sending this crushing, rippling current back
through
> the body as it hits a solid mass. It feels more like a tumbleweed, even
> though it's a massive sculpture. So somebody else looking at it might say,
> ''God, it reminds me of falling in a dream right before I wake up.'' Both
of
> those are probably correct.
>
> Has your art now turned to other current events?
>
> No. It's actually gone back to sort of smaller, more confined spaces. I've
> been working on the relationship between men and women, intimacy, privacy,
> boundaries, all of those issues.
>
> Given the outcry, would you have done things differently?
>
> I wouldn't have made the sculpture differently at all. I even regret
caving
> in to Rockefeller Center so fast and saying:
> ''Yeah, take it away. I don't want to hurt anybody.'' I'm sorry I didn't
> raise a stink over it. I hate this idea that there are some people who
have
> a right to express their suffering and others who don't, that there are
> those in this hierarchy of pain who own it more than you do. It's not
about
> necessarily witnessing firsthand that makes the experience. Picasso wasn't
> at Guernica when it happened; Goya wasn't there on the firing line. This
is
> what a culture looks to art for, to put image, or voice, or context to a
way
> of rethinking, reseeing, re-experiencing.
>
> When ''Guernica'' was first exhibited, I don't think people felt Picasso
> wasn't entitled to paint it.
>
> Yeah, I think this is a new turn, for the worse. Right now we're shrinking
> away from truth. No one can criticize the president because we're in a
very
> vulnerable time, even though he's doing some things that are terrifying.
You
> can't express your personal horror and trauma at something that we all
> experienced. I think what happened is that since the 60's there's been an
> ambition that art merge itself with pop culture. At first it was an ironic
> stance, and then it became actually a real thing; people wanted to have
art
> as a playground and as entertainment. And that's fine in good times, but
> when something terrible or powerful or meaningful happens, you want an art
> that speaks to that, that embraces the language that would carry us
forward,
> bring us together, all of that stuff. I think that 9/11 showed us that as
an
> art world we weren't quite qualified to deal with this. Not trained enough
> to handle it.
>
> That's some fairly grim training we're facing, then.
>
> It's a terrible way to have to be trained, it's true, but the way the art
> world has been training younger and younger artists is in ideological
> gamesmanship, and there's been a lack of training in history and in
> techniques that one could apply in rendering the human form, for example.
A
> lot of the young kids are sort of fabulous at drawing cartoons. But a
> cartoon's going to be pretty hard to express a lot of the experience of
the
> last year. People have told me I should stop talking about this, just let
it
> die down. But I can't stand idly by.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>
| |
|
