Showing posts with label David Wojnarowicz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Wojnarowicz. Show all posts

19 October 2018

'History Keeps Me Awake At Night'


I was first introduced to the artist David Wojnarowicz when I worked with Leonardo Shapiro on Collateral Damage: The Private Life of the New World Order (Meditations on the Wars), a 1991 anti-Iraq war collage the director presented at the LaMaMa Annex in Manhattan’s East Village.  I served as dramaturg for the production and Wojnarowicz was one of the artists who contributed texts to the script.  (His was a piece called “Monologue,” commissioned for the performance but compiled in part from some of Wojnarowicz’s previous writings.  The artist was about a year away from his death from AIDS and was too ill even to come to the theater.)  A year or so later, Richard Schechner, the editor of The Drama Review, asked me to write a profile of Shapiro and his Shaliko Company.  That effort was published as “Shapiro and Shaliko: Techniques of Testimony” in issue T140 (Winter 1993), but I decided to expand the article into a book-length essay and I started extensive research into some of the figures Shapiro named as influences inspirations, and mentors over his career in theater; David Wojnarowicz (who had died by this time) was one of these artists.  (That unpublished book, “Commitments and Consequences: Leonardo Shapiro and The Shaliko Company,” has been the source of many posts on Rick On Theater.) 

I read most of what Wojnarowicz (pronounced voy-na-ROH-vitch) had written (he was a prolific, and very effective, writer), studied the catalogues of art shows in which his work had been shown, went to a number of galleries where his art was on exhibit while I was doing my research, including Fever: The Art of David Wojnarowicz at the New Museum of Contemporary Art (at its original location on lower Broadway in SoHo), the first retrospective after the artist’s death that ran from 21 January to 20 June 1999, and an exhibit of some of his papers and personal possessions, from his bequest to New York University, Reality and Realism: The Vision of David Wojnarowicz at the Fales Library and Special Collections (within NYU’s Bobst Library on Washington Square), 4 February-23 April 1999.

When I read the New York Times review of David Wojnarowicz: History Keeps Me Awake at Night at the Whitney Museum of American Art on Gansevoort Street in Greenwich Village (13 July-30 September 2018), I decided to walk over and catch the exhibition, the first retrospective of Wojnarowicz’s work since the 1999 Fever.  It took me a while to get over to the museum, so I didn’t make it until Friday afternoon, 28 September, but I spent several hours in the fifth-floor Neil Bluhm Family Galleries reacquainting myself with David Wojnarowicz’s art.  Some of the pieces I’d seen before at the NMCA or some of the other, smaller shows I went to in the ’90s, or were familiar from illustrations in catalogues of other Wojnarowicz exhibits, such as the controversial David Wojnarowicz: Tongues of Flame at the University Galleries of Illinois State University in Normal (23 January-4 March 1990).  (I also went to Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture, a group show of portraiture by gay and lesbian artists in the 20th century at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C., 30 October 2010-13 February 2011.  Work by Wojnarowicz was featured, including a video which was removed after protests that it was blasphemous; the video, A Fire in My Belly, made between 1986 and 1987, was shown in the Whitney’s History.)

(I have written several times about this artist on ROT, beginning with “David Wojnarowicz,” which includes a brief report on Hide/Seek, posted on 15 March 2011.  Mentions of the artist also appear in “The Return of HIDE/SEEK,“ 4 January 2012, and “Words with Pictures/Pictures with Words: David Wojnarowicz (1954-92),” 16 September 2014.  “David Wojnarowicz” provides general background, which I won’t repeat here, and includes a brief biography of the young artist—he was only 37 at his death in 1992—but I suggest readers have a look back at the post, accessible at https://rickontheater.blogspot.com/2011/03/david-wojnarowicz.html, to understand some of Wojnarowicz’s history, which had a huge impact on his art as well as his politics—which you’ll see are inextricable.)

David Wojnarowicz: History Keeps Me Awake at Night, organized for the Whitney by David Breslin, DeMartini Family Curator and Director for the Collection, and David Kiehl, Curator Emeritus, contained 144 works of photography, painting, music, film/video, sculpture, writing, performance, and, on audiotape, activism.  (In the New York Times Magazine, contributing writer Christine Smallwood called the show a “polymathic totality.”)  History actually began in 2001 when Kiehl, then the Whitney’s curator of prints, conceived the idea of a David Wojnarowicz show at the Whitney.  He began a program of acquiring Wojnarowicz works that led, eventually, to this retrospective.  (A few weeks later came the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.)

As brief as his life was (he really only produced art for around 20 years), Wojnarowicz was prolific in his output and eclectic in his choice of materials.  Arranged chronologically, History was spread over 11 galleries and included some artifacts of Wojnarowicz’s life—such as the one-dollar check he won from Rev. Donald Wildmon (b. 1938) and his American Family Association in 1990 for misappropriating images from some of his paintings for anti-NEA propaganda.  (The check and other items from this episode are in NYU’s Fales collection and were displayed in 1999’s Reality and Realism.) 

History Keeps Me Awake was an exhausting show, not just because of the large number of pieces it comprised.  So much of the artist’s works are experimental and innovative—Wojnarowicz was largely self-taught as an artist and had to try out different methods and materials, not to mention use whatever came to hand because he couldn’t afford store-bought conventional art supplies, that reading the wall panels was, if not a necessity, then an enticement—at least for me.  (Regular ROTters will know by now that I’m a compulsive wall-panel-reader.)  There were several images in History about which I’ve always wondered how Wojnarowicz made them (Untitled (Buffalos), 1988-89; Bread Sculpture, 1988–89; Untitled (Silence = Death), 1990; Untitled (Face in Dirt), 1991); the curators’ captions finally explained some of them to me. 

Wojnarowicz’s works themselves take extraordinary focus: many contain multiple, disparate images and symbols, more and more as his art grew in sophistication and scope.  Further, many of the pieces contain text as well as visuals (which is the subject of the Wojnarowicz section of my “Words with Pictures/Pictures with Words”) so that it’s necessary to read the canvases while contemplating the images.  The breadth of Wojnarowicz’s interests as reflected in his art is vast, and widened as he matured as an artist and activist (the artist’s politics was an integral part of his art from the start, though it became more pointed over his 20-year career) and just keeping up with his points and messages is demanding. 

Perhaps the most straining (and I don’t mean that as a complaint or disparagement) aspect of a large Wojnarowicz show is the artist’s intensity—the very passion with which he imbued his art.  Most artists show what they see, sometimes filtered through their unique perception (that’s Impressionism in a nutshell).  David Wojnarowicz showed what he felt, not just in his heart, but in his gut, his very soul.  In each work on display in History Keeps Me Awake, Wojnarowicz has stripped himself bare and flayed his own skin from his body.  Smallwood, in her Times Magazine feature on the artist, asserts that Wojnarowicz’s art “mixes text and image, autobiography and political action, tenderness and rage.”  I don’t think he knew any other way to do it; his writing reveals the same total exposure, and, if you listen to his orations, you can feel it.  This was an almost painfully shy man who was poked and stabbed so often that he was forced to rise up in anger and hurt, and his pain is visible in his art and audible in his prose—he was a true street poet and philosopher—and his speeches.  Seeing and listening to this in a limited time is heart-wrenching and draining.  And exhilarating.

(I’ve said that I regret that I didn’t meet Wojnarowicz when we were both working on Collateral Damage in 1991.  I don’t know if I could have had the opportunity, because of his illness, but I assume he and Leo met during that time.  David Wojnarowicz was a truly fascinating man and our lives almost intersected near the end of his, but never quite met.  Learning what I have about him since then, I wish circumstances had been otherwise.  Leo Shapiro said of him in December 1990:

One of the things he sets a clear example of is the function of the artist in this society.  You know, they always talk about like the canary in the mines—the ones that die first, that run out of air. . . . .  This is what Wojnarowicz’s function is: he was literal cutting edge.  It’s very brave work.

(When I met British playwright Christopher Hampton in July 1969 and he said something that revealed that we were the same age, I had an immediate sense of inadequacy.  Here I was, literally sitting at the feet of this young man, all of 23 at the time—he was giving a talk to a group of American theater students in London—who already had a list of accomplishments, when at the same age I hadn’t even begun to do anything at all.  I imagine that I’d have had the same response to David Wojnarowicz, who was eight years younger than I was. Ironically, by the way, at the time I met Hampton, he had just had a successful début of his play Total Eclipse, which is about the relationship between French poets Arthur Rimbaud and Paul Verlaine.  We’ll see that Rimbaud is a significant presence in History and in Wojnarowicz’s life.)

Usually, though not always, I find political art, whether it’s theater or prose or visual art, less than compelling.  Most of it, I find, is better politics than art.  David Wojnarowicz’s art, whether expressing his feelings about our society’s insensitivity to poverty; neglect of the AIDS crisis; repression of thought, speech, and expression; America’s greed, violence, and imperialism; the loneliness and separateness of the outsider in our culture, is always compelling.  It’s thought-provoking, enraging, and painful; it makes you confront ideas and truths many of us would rather not think about—which is Wojnarowicz’s point.  “People should witness things,” insisted the artist.  “They should, at the very bottom level, be witnessed.”  It was a sort of credo and Wojnarowicz lived by it and made his art for it, as History Keeps Me Awake patently reveals.

From the artist’s Arthur Rimbaud in New York series (1978–79), a photographic representation of the ultimate outsider artist observing the hidden and quotidian life of New York City from afar, or serving as a silent guardian angel to its bereft denizens, to his later, more direct (and angrier—Rimbaud is almost sad) work like Americans Can’t Deal With Death and Untitled (One Day This Kid . . .) (both 1990), both deeply disturbing, heartfelt cris de coeur indicting our society, which Wojnarowicz condemned as the “pre-invented world.”

The show’s title artwork, History Keeps Me Awake at Night (For Rilo Chmielorz) (1986), for instance, combines such images as a gun-range pistol target in the image of a thug pointing a gun at the viewer, U.S. currency, an alien creature in a barren landscape, an industrial diagram, a toppled Greek column above a peacefully sleeping man all painted on a map of the world.  (Rilo Chmielorz is a multi-media artist who was close to Wojnarowicz from his early days.)  Some of the images are painted, some stenciled, and others pasted in from cut-out or found sources.  The collage/painting, which hung in Gallery 5, evokes fear for a world falling apart. 

As many art reviewers pointed out, the return of David Wojnarowicz to the spotlight at this moment—and in addition to History Keeps Me Awake, there were two other large shows in New York City at the same time: The Unflinching Eye: The Symbols of David Wojnarowicz at NYU’s Mamdouha S. Bobst Gallery (in the library), which ran from 12 July to 11 October (extended from 30 September), and Soon All This Will be Picturesque Ruins: The Installations of David Wojnarowicz at P·P·O·W (on West 22nd Street in Chelsea), from 12 July to 24 August—is timely, relevant, and necessary.  In the New York Times, for example, Holland Cotter opened his review by stating, “Like an irate guardian angel, the American artist David Wojnarowicz was there when we needed him politically 30-plus years ago.  Now we need him again, and he’s back . . . .”  (The interest wasn’t only local.  Peter Hujar & David Wojnarowicz ran at the Loewe Gran Via Gallery in Madrid from 4 June to 26 August 2018.)

The exhibit began in the corridor outside the galleries as museum-goers got off the elevator on the fifth floor.  In front of us was Self-Portrait of David Wojnarowicz (1983-84), made with Tom Warren (who took the black-and-white photo on which the self-portrait is based).  Wojnarowicz is facing us, looking straight ahead with his arms folded and his shirt sleeves rolled up to his elbows.  The right side (his right, our left) of the artist’s face, neck, and upper chest is formed by a map of the United States; there’s a tattoo of the globe on his right bicep and on his forearm are nine tiny clocks.  At his right elbow is a running man in flames, one of Wojnarowicz’s iconic images.  The left side of his face and body is ablaze in bright red and yellow flames.  The image, for me, is a man inflamed, burning with passion and anger—despite the placid countenance with which he meets us. 

The application to the exhibit to which Self-Portrait is an introduction, is that this is not only an exhibit of David Wojnarowicz’s art, but of David Wojnarowicz himself.  In this artist’s case, that’s über-appropriate because, as I observed earlier, his work and his life are inseparable.  You can’t appreciate the first without knowing something about the second.  You can’t learn about the second and not see what he put into his life’s work. 

If, as Shakespeare tells us, acting holds the mirror up to nature, art holds it up to life around us.  History Keeps Me Awake at Night is a self-portrait of David Wojnarowicz’s life.  If it’s not always pretty, that’s because Wojnarowicz’s world wasn’t.  But even if his art as displayed in this Whitney retrospective is disturbing and frightening—the truth can do that—if it doesn’t move you, than I fear there’s something wrong with you.  Like the David Wojnarowicz in Self-Portrait, it should make you burn.

Starting with Rimbaud in New York (Gallery 1), a series of simple black-and-white photos of three of Wojnarowicz’s friends posed individually wearing a life-sized mask of the poet’s face in various locations around the grittier parts of New York City (a subway; a late-night diner; the Hudson River piers west of Greenwich Village, right near where the new Whitney Museum now stands; masturbating on a bed), we see Wojnarowicz, who strongly identified with Rimbaud (1854-91—ironically, the poet also died at 37), casting himself as the outsider, observing but not participating in the life around him—an outcast or possibly holding himself aloof because he doesn’t feel he belongs.  (The gallery also displayed one of the original masks the artist used for this series, Rimbaud’s face from a well-known photograph, by Étienne Carjat in 1872, probably the one Wojnarowicz had seen plastered all over Paris when he went there to visit his sister and which inspired this series.)

Another photo collage from this same period, Untitled (Genet after Brassaï) (1979), depicts another of Wojnarowicz’s artistic heroes, the iconoclastic French writer and political activist Jean Genet (1910-86) as a saint with a Renaissance-style halo in the nave of a church, flanked by angels; over his shoulder hangs a picture of Jesus with a syringe in his arm—an image excerpted later for Donald Wildmon’s anti-NEA campaign brochure over which Wojnarowicz sued the American Family Association and it leader. (A third of Wojnarowicz’s personal heroes, William Burroughs, 1914-97, is featured in Bill Burroughs’ Recurring Dream, 1978, on display in the first gallery.)

In the second gallery, exhibiting work from the early 1980s, several of Wojnarowicz’s earliest visual symbols and media could be seen.  Untitled (Burning House) (1982) is stenciled with spray paint, a technique he initially used right on the sides of buildings because passersby would tear down his posters, advertising his band, 3 Teens Kill 4 (one of which is on display in this gallery), to take home. (Music from 3TK4’s 1982 album on Point Blank Records, No Motive, played in Gallery 2.  The band, whose name came from a New York Post headline, made its music on toy instruments and recordings; David Wojnarowicz “played” the tape recorder.)  True Myth (Kraft Grape Jelly) and Jean Genet Masturbating in Metteray Prison (London Broil) (both 1983) are silk-screened on supermarket posters.  Wojnarowicz used scrounged material throughout his career, but in his early years, maps, posters, trashcan lids, and other found surfaces served as his canvases. The burning house and the falling man were leitmotifs of Wojnarowicz’s early street art, reappearing frequently in his later pieces as well, in the same way as the radiant baby and barking dog were recurring symbols in Keith Haring’s street work. 

Something else about these works: they’re playful for the most part, sometimes even inside jokes.  They’re brightly colored in neon and primary colors, almost childlike figures, without much detail.  In a few years’ time, after the loss of Peter Hujar and his own HIV diagnosis, this seeming happiness would sour and the playfulness would turn into anger and deadly seriousness.  As the exhibit progressed, the change becomes very apparent.

Gallery 4 contained several photographic portraits of Wojnarowicz by Peter Hujar (1934-87), whom Wojnarowicz met in 1980.  Hujar (HOO-dzhar) was already established in the New York art world as a sensitive and perceptive photographer and he became a friend and mentor to the younger artist.  (The outlines of the two men’s early history were remarkably similar, which probably led Hujar to empathize with his younger friend and caused Wojnarowicz to look on Hujar as a kindred soul who understood him.)  They were briefly lovers, but Hujar’s most significant role came as Wojnarowicz’s closest friend and adviser, encouraging the insecure younger man to pursue his art, including returning to photography, and recognizing himself as an artist.  From the point when Wojnarowicz met Hujar, his art changed from parochial, insular objects like the posters for his band, to a broader, more expansive palette. He took on larger topics and issues and broadened his artistic vocabulary.

The two artists frequently appeared as subjects in each other’s work; Hujar’s photos of Wojnarowicz are iconic examples of his work in the field, and show a less-public soft, sensitive, and contemplative side of Wojnarowicz not always revealed in his own art.  Befitting the notion that History was an exhibit both of David Wojnarowicz’s creative output and the man himself, devoting a portion of a gallery to portraits of Wojnarowicz by another artist was unusual but apt. 

Also in this same gallery were some of Wojnarowicz’s paintings in which Hujar appears as a subject (Peter Hujar Dreaming/Yukio Mishima: Saint Sebastian, 1982).  More famous depictions of his beloved friend were in Gallery 9: the photos Wojnarowicz took of Hujar’s dead body in his hospital bed right after the photographer’s death from AIDS (on 25 November 1987), all called Untitled (1987).  Wojnarowicz was with his friend at the end, and when Hujar died, Wojnarowicz asked everyone to leave the room so he could film and photograph his friend for the last time.  History displayed pictures of Hujar’s head, his feet, and his hand, showing clearly the ravages of the wasting illness that killed him.  Because of Hujar’s influence, Wojnarowicz devoted a considerable portion of the rest of his artistic life (he himself was diagnosed as HIV-positive the next year) to photography and writing (which is where he started), even as he continued to paint and sculpt.

Gallery 5 held the exhibition’s titular painting, which I described earlier, and several more of Wojnarowicz’s complex, symbol-filled paintings from the mid-1980s, the kind of large and multifarious works that dominated the rest of the artist’s career.  His criticism of American culture, indeed the whole of human society, at the height of the AIDS epidemic, became more pointed and direct, less oblique, and fiercer.  He’d seen so many friends die of what he deemed societal neglect and dismissal, culminating with his dear friend Peter Hujar, he could no longer hold his peace.  (The uncompleted video A Fire in My Belly, which ran in the next gallery, was made during this period as well, and his vocal activism became not only a feature of downtown New York City protests, but a significant part of his life.)  Works like Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water (1986), Das Reingold: New York Schism (1987), and The Death of American Spirituality (1987), show the nightmare of AIDS, societal violence, and capitalistic greed.  The bright colors, almost cartoon-like, are reminiscent of Wojnarowicz’s graphic autobiography, Seven Miles A Second—the most disturbing comic books I’ve ever read!—created with comic-book artist James Romberger and published by DC Comics in 1996. 

The images of humanoid, skull-like heads in Das Reingold echo the decorated cast-plaster alien-like heads in Gallery 3, the Metamorphosis series (1984) which are intended to evoke the horrors of the various Latin American armed conflicts (including the Nicaraguan Contra War, the Salvadoran Civil War, the Dirty War in Argentina) ravaging that region in the ’80s.  Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water is a precursor to the four monumental paintings Wojnarowicz made in 1987 called The Four Elements.  Earth, Wind (For Peter Hujar), Fire, and Water, each 6'x8' of dense symbolism and allegory, were displayed in Gallery 7 and placed Wojnarowicz’s art in the long line of Western tradition by evoking the timeless subject of the four mythical components of life and nature in images of his own time: violence, destruction, decay, greed and capitalism, unfettered industrialization, and other targets common to Wojnarowicz’s art and writing.  The collage-paintings are not only large in size and complex in content—I could have stood in front of any one of the four for hours and still not deciphered all of the artist’s symbols—but disquieting and unsettling. They’re also largely prescient looked at from 30 years on.

Galleries 6 and 8 were set up to show some of the artist’s film, video, and spoken/written work.  Gallery 6, as I indicated, included A Fire in My Belly, the video that got Wojnarowicz once again in trouble, posthumously this time, when it was shown in the Portrait Gallery’s Hide/Seek exhibit and then removed under protest from conservative religious activists (principally the Catholic League and Bill Donohue—who had also gone after playwright Terrence McNally and Corpus Christi).  (Wojnarowicz, like McNally, was raised Catholic and had some very pointed criticisms of the church and its guardians and leaders.)  Other films and videos by the artist were also run here, and in Gallery 8, museum-goers could sit and listen to samples of Wojnarowicz’s writing as he read selections at various public appearances.  Both the passion and the poetry of his words, as reflected in the many paintings that contained text, was clearly demonstrated here.  In fact, some of the passages we could hear in these taped sessions also appeared in artworks displayed in History Keeps Me Awake.

Gallery 9, which held the death photos of Peter Hujar, also returned to Wojnarowicz’s more wide-ranging work.  One painting, 1988-89’s Untitled (Hujar Dead) features nine of the Hujar photographs overlaid with an all-over text (later published in Close to the Knives, 1991) that articulates the artist’s feelings surrounding the death of his friend and others who died of AIDS, the rage he carries with him “like a blood filled egg.”  This piece was first shown at Artists Space in 1989’s Witnesses: Against Our Vanishing, a group show of the artistic response to the AIDS epidemic.  Wojnarowicz had contributed an essay to the catalogue, “Postcards from America: X-Rays from Hell,” that so enraged conservative politicians that they campaigned to have the NEA withdraw its funding for the exhibit.  (It was Wojnarowicz’s first appearance on the political right’s radar; he became a target thereafter, in the same league as Robert Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano, and the “NEA Four” (Karen Finley, Tim Miller, John Fleck, and Holly Hughes).

Another canvas in the gallery was Something from Sleep III (For Tom Rauffenbart) (1989), dedicated to the artist’s long-term lover, which depicts a dark silhouette of a man peering into a microscope; against a cloudy blue background, we seem to see through the man into space with planets and stars as if he were a window into the cosmos.  According to his own explanation, it’s a dream image inspired by the birth of Wojnarowicz’s niece expressing a notion of his passing—he’d been diagnosed with HIV by this time—beyond solid, earth-bound mortality.  Also on display here was 1988’s Childhood, which employs a technique that Wojnarowicz would use more and more in his late work, the peephole: tiny circular insets embedded in the larger painting with collaged or painted symbols that comment on or contrast with the main work.  One aspect of these two works that differentiate them from much of Wojnarowicz’s other art is that they are less frightening and foreboding, demonstrating that he could produce art that was beautiful.

In 1990, the year the University Galleries of Illinois State University in Normal mounted the only retrospective of Wojnarowicz’s work during his lifetime (Tongues of Flame, which later came to Exit Art in New York City from 17 November to 5 January 1991, along with other galleries around the country), the artist made a series of four large paintings (He Kept Following Me, I Feel A Vague Nausea, Americans Can’t Deal with Death, We Are Born into a Preinvented Existence).  (It was because of Tongues of Flame, which was partly supported by an NEA grant, that Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association launched his campaign against Wojnarowicz which resulted in the federal lawsuit the artist brought against the reverend and AFA.)  Each painting (all 2'x5' or larger) depicts a flower in almost botanical detail—a sort of hyperreal reflection of Georgia O’Keeffe—with a panel of text and small black-and-white peepholes (square ones, this time—like little Polaroid snaps).  The flowers (on display in Gallery 10), in their uniqueness and delicacy, express Wojnarowicz’s view of the AIDS victims he saw all around him in the art and gay communities, seeing in the beautiful flowers the fragile bodies of his friends (and now himself, of course). 

Also in Gallery 10 was one of Wojnarowicz’s most iconic and familiar pictures, the untitled photograph of buffalos falling off a cliff (1988-89).  (The photo seeped into our pop culture not long ago when it appeared under the credits of Westworld’s second season on HBO earlier this year.  The photo also appears as the cover art of the CD of U2’s single “One,” released in February 1992, four months before Wojnarowicz died.)  Actually a photo the artist took of a diorama of American Indian hunting techniques in the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, Wojnarowicz saw it as another evocation of the AIDS crisis.  It’s one of the simplest and most straightforward pieces Wojnarowicz ever made: the simple black-and-white picture is unadorned, without text or peepholes; it’s just presented as it is.  In her Times magazine feature, Christine Smallwood comments: “It is a very simple picture—a critique of heedless speed, as civilization stampedes to its future destruction—and one of his bleakest.  There is no turning it around for these buffalo.  They can’t save themselves.”  (This was one of the works whose origin always intrigued me and which the Whitney show revealed to me.)

History’s last gallery contained two more pieces about whose creation I wondered: Bread Sculpture (1988-89) and Untitled (Face in Dirt) (1991).  (There’s a fourth piece, another photo, that has always confounded me, but it’s not actually by Wojnarowicz.  Untitled (Silence = Death) is a still from the AIDS protest film Silence = Death (1990) by Rosa von Praunheim, with Phil Zwickler, in which Wojnarowicz appeared. The black-and-white still shows the artist’s head photographed straight on while the hands of an unknown person sews his mouth shut with thick string.  Assuming, as I do, that Wojnarowicz didn’t actually have his lips sewn together—later pictures don’t show any scars, for instance—how did the movie’s producers create this image, which became one of the most provocative of the AIDS activist movement.  The Whitney’s curators didn’t explain the technique.)

Bread Sculpture is very simply a loaf of bread, cut in two, stitched together with a needle and red string.  The bread may symbolize our broken, or divided society (how apt that image is for today!) and the string, heavy twine but still tenuous, an attempt to reunite the disparate factions—which, after all, are parts of the same whole.  What intrigues me is, if it’s made with actual bread—and it not only seems to be, but the list of materials in the artwork states that it is—how has it not rotted in over 30 years?  Would even varnishing preserve baked organic material forever?  I wonder . . . .  Untitled (Face in Dirt) is also a photograph of Wojnarowicz’s face, taken by his friend and traveling companion Marion Scemama in the Death Valley desert.  They were on a road trip around the Southwest and Wojnarowicz had planned this photo and knew exactly where he wanted to do it and how; he instructed his photographer collaborator exactly what to do, according to Wojnarowicz’s biographer Cynthia Carr:

[Wojnarowicz] had been there before and knew exactly where he wanted to stage this.  “We’re going to dig a hole,” he told her, “and I’m going to lie down.“  They began digging without saying a word, a hole for his upper body and a bit for the legs.  They used their hands.  The dirt was loose and dry.  He lay down and closed his eyes.  Marion put dirt around his face till it was halfway up his cheeks and then stood over him, photographing his halfburied [sic] face first with his camera and then with hers.

The image is from a dream Wojnarowicz said he had in 1979 (he described it in his journal at the time).  The artist never explained whether he’s sinking into the earth or rising from it—and I suspect he didn’t want to define that aspect of the work explicitly.  And even though the dream came a decade before his diagnosis as HIV-positive, the photo project is clearly some visualization of his mortality since it came three years after the diagnosis.  (A few months after the picture was taken, Wojnarowicz tested positive for AIDS, a death sentence in 1991.)  As for the methodology, Carr’s description explains a lot, except it’s still hard for me to figure how Wojnarowicz could lie with loose dirt in his eye sockets, even if his eyes were closed!  Ick! 

Also in this last gallery was probably the artist’s most iconic work, Untitled (One Day This Kid . . .) (1990-91).  It shows a photo of Wojnarowicz as a young boy, probably about 9, looking like the kind of portrait schools used to take of every student each year.  It’s a completely innocent image, all buck-toothed and jug-eared surrounded by text that starts: “One day this kid will get larger.  One day this kid will come to know something that causes a sensation equivalent to the separation of the earth from its axis.”  It’s an increasingly ominous statement about the future life of not only young David, but many, many kids like him who will suffer horrendously because they are queer (or black, or fat, or migrants, or Muslim, or . . .).  It’s a powerful and poignant condemnation of societal homophobia (and, by extension, all kinds of marginalization, disempowerment, and disenfranchisement of “others”).  The artist created One Day This Kid while he was preparing Tongues of Flame in Illinois, where it wasn’t shown, but it became a frequent illustration for announcements of many later exhibits of Wojnarowicz’s work. 

The press interest in David Wojnarowicz: History Keeps Me Awake at Night was great, including several daily papers from both the New York region and outside it—abroad and domestic.  The art press is represented as well as a significant number of cyber journals and blogs.  Reviews were almost universally positive and laudatory, comparing Wojnarowicz’s reception today, with shows at the prestigious Whitney and elsewhere, with his outsider status in his lifetime.  Because Wojnarowicz is not as well known among the general public, even the museum-goers, almost all the reviewers spent considerable space on his bio and general commentary on his work.

The London Guardian’s Jake Nevins (in the New York edition) declared that “now America, or at least its art world establishment, is ready, a quarter-century after his death, to acknowledge Wojnarowicz’s rightful place in the canon of contemporary art, not just ‘gay art’.”  Though he covers gay subjects and issues in his art, Nevins insisted, Wojnarowicz’s “work is really about America, a place he had described in his 1991 essay collection Close to the Knives as an ‘illusion’, a ‘killing machine’, a ‘tribal nation of zombies . . . slowly dying beyond our grasp’.”  As many of his colleagues pointed out, the Guardian reviewer observed, “The retrospective . . . could not be more timely, arriving in a charged political moment not unlike the one from which Wojnarowicz emerged as a voice of searing honesty.”  Nevins mused, somewhat ironically considering the origins of this exhibit, “one wonders how Wojnarowicz would react to the retrospective at the Whitney, the epitome of the art world establishment that has been slow to recognize the gravity of his contributions.” 

In the New York Times, Holland Cotter labeled History “a big, rich retrospective” and said that the artist “was one of the most articulate art world voices raised against the corporate greed and government foot-dragging that contributed immeasurably to the global spread of AIDS.”  Cotter admonished us, however: “Yet he was far from a one-issue artist.”  Wojnarowicz was “an artist deeply invested in dealing with mortality and spirituality,” the Times art reviewer believed, “huge subjects rarely, and usually only obliquely, addressed in American contemporary art.”  The Timesman asserted that “Wojnarowicz’s formal means—stenciling, spray painting, collaging—are anti-academic.  But his fact-and-fantasy images of existential violence and degradation, past and present, are in an old allegorical mode,” comparing him with a Renaissance painter and a member of the Hudson River School, artists who “addressed contemporary politics in a classical language of mythology and landscape.”  After Hujar’s death, Cotter felt, Wojnarowicz “collapsed political, cultural and personal history” and “took his outsider citizenship as a subject and weaponized it.”  The Times reviewer’s summation of this artist’s life and career rings particularly true:

In his lifetime, Wojnarowicz became a star, though an unconventional one, unsmooth, unpredictable, unstylish even, with his clotted paint, uncouth symbols, and jabbing ideas and words.  There’s little about his art I would call sublime, yet I think of him as angelic.  I think of him as being something like the Angel of History, as imagined by the philosopher Walter Benjamin, an omniscient being who looks back to the human disasters of the past and sees them repeating themselves in the present and future, which is exactly what’s happening in this country right now.

Philip Kennicott of the Washington Post asserted, “By showing the richness, breadth and intensity of Wojnarowicz’s full career, [History Keeps Me Awake at Night] underscores how relentless the demonization of his work has been, how . . . suppression operated while he was alive, how it continued after he died, and how tawdry, cruel, cynical and successful, it was.”  Further, Kennicott deemed, “The most powerful moments of the exhibition have a moral grandeur rare in contemporary art, as it becomes clear that not only was Wojnarowicz fully cognizant of the tools being used against him, he made the onslaught the subject of his work.”  The Post art reviewer called the Whitney retrospective an “absorbing and comprehensive exhibition” and he capsulized his sense of the artist’s importance:

His feelings, and his art, would harden in later years, as his friends died, his body failed and he was subject to attack by bigots and opportunistic politicians.  He ended as a fighter, but as this exhibition makes clear, that was only one of the several Wojnarowiczes who inhabited this world for just 37 years, and it is by no means the most dangerous of them.  The young man who loved Rimbaud, hated war, defended women and unapologetically slept his way through New York and Paris was far more of a threat, and that’s why most people today still know only the angry artist losing his war against a virus.

The Village Voice, in an article attributed to the “Voice Archives,” said History “coalesces into a sum greater than art,” continuing, “Rarely has an artist’s life been as intricately entwined with the objects on view—a visual life story.”  (The rest of the Voice’s article was about past coverage of the artist.  The Village Voice officially ceased publication on 31 August.)  Clayton Press wrote in Forbes that the Wojnarowicz show, which “focuses (almost exclusively) on the output of a single artist across an exceptionally broad range of media,” should be a reminder “of inherent tensions that prevail in the United States.  They are certainly not new issues, and they most certainly are unresolved ones, whether the discussion is race, gender or identity politics.” 

In the Brooklyn Rail, Danilo Machado described History as “an urgent, stunning retrospective of an artist who, across media, coupled rage with tenderness to create images and calls to action that reverberated with viewers in the 1980s just as much as they do with visitors to the Whitney Museum today.”  He continued that “the show immerses you in Wojnarowicz’s world of sound, sculpture, photography, and painting” and, detailing some of Wojnarowicz’s techniques, Machado observed that “the physical demarcations of process and material convey a kind of generosity and assert personal subjectivity.”  In the end, the BR reviewer wrote: “History Keeps Me Awake at Night, and exhibitions like it, tell a critical history of resilience while reminding us of the continued need for community and action.” 

The New Yorker’s Moira Donegan proclaimed:

Because Wojnarowicz was so vivid and uncompromising in his moral outrage, and because his writing about the injustices, bigotries, and abuses of power that led to his own death is so searingly lucid, it can be uncomfortable to admit that some of his artwork is not very good.  His paintings, in particular, can be disappointing, drawing heavy-handedly on Frida Kahlo magical realism and the pop-art sensibilities of artists such as Richard Hamilton and Keith Haring.  It may be more accurate, and more fair, to judge him as a moral crusader, whose indictment of government indifference and hostility toward its most vulnerable groups resonates as urgently today as it did during his lifetime.

(I’m not sure what Donegan meant by “good”; perhaps she meant “pretty,” which much of Wojnarowicz’s work is not.  If “good art” means “expressive” or “effective,” I’d have to disagree with her statement.  I’d recommend that the New Yorker art reviewer read some Susanne Langer, the aesthetic philosopher, who defined “beauty” as “expressive form,” by which she maintained that it affects its audience in some way.  “Beautiful works may contain elements that, taken in isolation, are hideous,” Langer wrote.  There’s also Aristotle’s admonition that we get pleasure in drama even from seeing things we’d regard with disgust if encountered in reality because we learn from them, and learning gives us pleasure.  Aristotle, of course, was discussing tragedy, and imitative tragedy in particular, but the broader application to art in general, even in its more abstract forms, seems apt.) 

In New York magazine and Vulture, Jerry Saltz called History Keeps Me Awake at Night “an astonishingly relevant, urgently important retrospective” and admonished readers: “Miss it, and you miss transcendental levels of incredulity, indignation, vulnerability, lamentation, fighting back—ultimately, what it means to be human in a time of encroaching political darkness.”  Saltz, however, felt that Wojnarowicz was a “better, more lucid freedom fighter than he was an artist.” 

Joseph R. Wolin of Time Out New York labeled the Whitney show a “beautifully curated retrospective” which “does more than just give us the raw power of his jeremiads: It balances them with the romantic, poetic and visionary side of his work that is too often forgotten.”  Sukhdev Sandhu remarked in Apollo magazine that “this is a show where the line between the work and the man behind the work is—and perhaps has to be—smudged.” Sandhu dismissed Wojnarowicz’s “large-scale, colourful canvases” as “mulligatawny messes full of hyperreal colours, scribbles, vaguely Mexican motifs, grids and garish animation.”  They are “the show’s loudest, least successful pieces.”  Sandhu’s final analysis is that History “adds up to a melancholic, angry, sometimes gorgeous exhibition that does a valiant job of conveying why Nan Goldin called the artist ‘a moral conscience of our time’.  The exhibition seethes with energy and militant drive. It’s restless and relentless; hopeful and hopeless. It feels absolutely of the present moment.”

Art in America’s Jameson Fitzpatrick warned, “A certain level of cognitive dissonance is required to enjoy the Whitney Museum’s long-awaited retrospective of” David Wojnarowicz.  Reason: the artist “was an exacting and unabashed critic of institutions, including museums such as the Whitney.”  Fitzpatrick continued to ponder: “In one sense, Wojnarowicz’s recent canonization . . . is both an artistic and a social good.”  But he goes on to wonder, “with the institutional recognition that his retrospective signals, a question emerges about the cost of his inclusion: what does it mean for the outsider to be invited in, and what, perhaps, gets left behind?”  Nonetheless, Fitzpatrick decided, the show “crafts a compelling narrative of the artistic and political development of an exceptional and yet quintessentially American figure.”  Wondering what Wojnarowicz might make of the current exhibit and his own acceptance, the AiA reviewer observed, “Fittingly, it’s members of ACT UP (of which Wojnarowicz was himself a part) who have assumed this work, having recently staged a protest at the Whitney calling on the museum to recognize both the legacy of Wojnarowicz’s activism and the fact that the AIDS epidemic is not over.”  The journalist concluded, “By framing the artist’s activist spirit as historical, this otherwise impressive exhibition betrays that spirit, leaving us not just to marvel at all Wojnarowicz made, but also to wonder what critiques he would have to make, what interventions.” 

On WNYC, a New York City outlet for National Public Radio, Deborah Solomon proclaimed that because Wojnarowicz’s “moment and his message remain unequivocally urgent, . . . the Whitney Museum is to be commended for bringing us this beautiful and much-needed show.”  The NPR reviewer added, “The retrospective allows us to finally glimpse Wojnarowicz whole; it is a must-see event for anyone who believes in the necessity of love, empathy, and moral rightness.”  Solomon complained that while the artist’s photographs “are more memorable than his paintings, the latter of which are never contextualized in this show.”  She found it “odd that the Whitney fails to acknowledge the historical artists who interested him,” affirming that “Wojnarowicz was no naïf.”  In her conclusion, Solomon found:

You could say that Wojnarowicz’s accomplishment, as a painter, was to infuse the upbeat and innocent forms of Pop art with a sense of political menace and impending death.  In retrospect, his vision was prophetic.  He saw that America had a mean streak and, had he lived, he might not be surprised to see that today, the meanies rule.

John Reed on Slate called History a “thoughtful, extensive exhibition” but he noted that the Whitney places examples of pre-HIV and post-HIV work together, seeking to overcome the chasm,” but isn’t successful, noting that the dynamics of Peter Hujar’s photo portraits of Wojnarowicz and the paintings of Hujar made by Wojnarowicz, though both groups hung in the same gallery, clashed.  Reed was surprised at “the immediacy and originality of Wojnarowicz’s color, and the meticulous technique in everything he did.”  On Hyperallergic, Zachary Small reported that History “tactfully highlights the artist’s most confrontational pieces while giving sometimes too-brief, tantalizing glimpses into his vulnerabilities.”

Bemoaning the return to “the culture wars of the late 1980s and early 1990s,” Joshua Sanchez of Lambda Literary proclaimed:

Seeing much of Wojnarowicz’s best-known photographs, paintings, films, audio recordings and writings at David Wojnarowicz: History Keeps Me Awake at Night at the Whitney Museum of American Art feels like a punch in the gut in today’s political climate.  It’s both a reckoning with what he called America’s ‘ONE-TRIBE NATION’, and a call to arms for society’s many wounded minority communities.

Sanchez found that the Whitney “exhibition shows, with dignity, power and beauty, just how intensely David Wojnarowicz wanted to lift the veil of[f] this American myth, or the ‘pre-invented world’ as he called it.”  The LL writer, a filmmaker who’s developing Fire in the Belly, a movie about the life and times of David Wojnarowicz, concluded by stating: “In 2018, we are far from this reveal.  But as long as David Wojnarowicz’s work exists in this world, more and more people will find it and begin to peek behind the curtain.  And this is where change can occur.”

16 September 2014

Words with Pictures / Pictures with Words


[In a recent post, “Words and Pictures?” (25 July), I ruminated on the way film writer Gerald Di Pego and director Fred Schepisi of Words and Pictures created a story pitting “words”—that is, language—against “pictures”—that is, images—told in a medium that relies on both words and pictures so significantly.  I noted in that article that there are “artists who use both words and pictures,” naming specifically William Blake, “who integrated text into his images,” and Jenny Holzer, “who uses words as pictures” in her work.  I also brought up the Dada poets, who “used words not so much for their meanings as for the pictures they could make on the printed page.”  One artist who also incorporated text into many of his paintings, drawings, and photographs whom I didn’t mention is David Wojnarowicz, and I’m sure there are several others as well.  I thought, though, that it would be an interesting exploration to examine the work of these artists and see what, if anything, we can glean from them.]

In the movie Words and Pictures, released earlier this year, screenwriter Gerald Di Pego and director Fred Schepisi set up a contrived conflict between Jack Marcus, a veteran prep school English teacher, once-renowned poet, and general word maven (played by Clive Owen), and newly-arrived art teacher Dina Delsanto, a celebrated painter with a successful New York career seemingly behind her (Juliette Binoche).  The two soon-destined-to-be-lovers tease and provoke one another right from the moment they meet in the faculty lounge over which medium is the better conveyor of ideas and feelings, words—that is, writing, Marcus’s specialty and obsession—or pictures—the focus of Delsanto’s world and life.  It’s not long, after Delsanto has disparaged words in her art class and Marcus responds in his English class (which share a large number of students), before the poet challenges the painter to a contest to prove whose metier is worthier: his students will compose pieces of writing and hers will create paintings and drawings and the best of each will be published in the next edition of the school’s literary magazine (which Marcus edits).  (The contest eventually evolves into a challenge for Marcus, who’s been blocked for years, to write a new poem from which Delsanto, who suffers from debilitating rheumatoid arthritis, will draw inspiration for a new painting.)  In the end, the students and faculty of the school will judge the results and decide which creation has accomplished the artist’s purpose more effectively.  

I said this was contrived, not only because Di Pego and Schepisi have set it all up very conveniently, but because there’s not really a conflict between words and pictures to begin with.  This is especially so since most of Delsanto’s AP art students are also Marcus’s AP English students, portrayed as the school’s best and brightest who manage to use both words and pictures interchangeably as the need and circumstances necessitate.  When the final show-down occurs at the end of the movie, Marcus makes a passing concession that, of course, both writers and painters are artists who “take us to another place.”  (As I observed in the first article, the movie does use music in one scene in which Marcus expresses his feelings to Delsanto, a medium that’s neither words nor pictures, but that idea isn’t developed.  I’m not going to develop it here, either, except to say that there are other artistic means, like music, dance, and architecture, which don’t—or don’t strictly—depend on words or pictures in order to communicate ideas, moods, or feelings.)  

Not even considered in Words and Pictures is the phenomenon of artists who use both text and imagery to make their art, and what I want to do here is take a look at those creative spirits from that narrow perspective: their use of words and pictures together.  It’ll be interesting to see what, if anything at all, we get from this examination—because I honestly don’t know what the results will be; it’s an honest-to-God exploration and I have no idea what’s on the other side of this mountain.  (Talk about going to another place!)  Shall we have a look-see?

WILLIAM BLAKE (1757-1827)

William Blake was an English poet, painter, engraver, and printmaker who was born in Soho, London.  Largely home-schooled (by his mother) and then self-educated—he left school at ten, after learning to read and write—he was seen as a visionary and a mystic.  An outspoken iconoclast in both his poetry and his visual art, he was something of a social outcast during his lifetime as well.  He’s also considered by some to be the first multi-media artist because of the books he made for his richly illustrated poems, particularly Songs of Innocence (1789) and Songs of Experience (1794).  

Blake self-published his books of poetry, using etched copper plates to effect the integrated text and images, tinting the engravings by hand with water colors afterwards or using a method he invented himself.  Many critics find this evidence that the artist and poet never intended his poems and illustrations to be separated.  Blake printed each copy of what he called “illuminations” by hand, in different colors, with different details, and sometimes with the poems in a different sequence.  In some estimations, the books are as beautiful as medieval illuminated manuscripts, “the words enhanced by decoration of design and colour,” in the view of Kathleen Raine, a poet, critic, and scholar with a particular interest in Blake.

Blake’s designs are immensely complex, full of symbols and mythology that he invented, requiring readers to use their imaginations to comprehend the dialogue the artist set up between his texts and his illustrations.  “At a time when painting had become a manner and a mannerism,” wrote Jacob Bronowski, a mathematician, biologist, historian of science, theatre author, poet, and inventor who wrote several books on the artist, “Blake crowded his paintings with matter.  It was not wholly a painter’s matter; but neither was it a writer’s matter.  It was common to all that he did, the single and compact matter of a great imagination.  And Blake knew how he wanted to put this matter.  He knew that it needed a manner of its own . . . .”  Literary critic Harold Bloom contends that Blake invented a new art form that combines design and text in varied ways so that the two “illuminate one another” and Raine wrote: “Such art comes from a source deeper than the individual experience of poet or painter, and has a power of communication to that same level in the spectator.”  

Literary critic Northrop Frye, who established his reputation with a book on Blake, wrote:

In the Preface to Jerusalem [1804–20] Blake speaks with pride of having developed a free and unfettered verse, but he hardly seems to notice that he had at the same time perfected a far more difficult and radical form of mixed art, for which there is hardly a parallel in the history of modern culture.  The union of musical and poetic ideas in a [Richard] Wagner opera is a remote analogy; but the poetry is not independent of the music in Wagner as it is of the painting in Blake.  Blake seems to have worked on his text and his pictorial ideas simultaneously: this is clear from the manuscript of The Four Zoas [1797], where the pencil sketches in the margins indicate that Blake did not think in terms of a poem to be written first and decorated afterward, but, from the beginning, in terms of a narrative sequence of plates.

Blake’s words and pictures weren’t just the two sides of a coin or a matched set, created merely to compliment one another.  They were both independent of one another and dependent on one another simultaneously.  Frye explained:

Blake . . . hit very early on a form in which text and design are simultaneously present and contrapuntally related.  From the start Blake avoids all devices that would tend to obscure either text or design at the expense of the other. . . .  The words are left alone to do their own work.

More surprising than the independence of the words from the design is the independence of the design from the words. . . .  In Blake the poem does not point to the picture . . . .  On the other hand, the design is not, like most illustrations, an attempt to simplify the verbal meaning. . . .   [W]e can see that, so far from simplifying the text, the design has added a new dimension of subtlety and power.

So, from this brief examination, it seems that William Blake, at least, “thought” in both words and pictures, if not simultaneously then with equal import and weight.  One medium for him wasn’t more “worthy” in its capability of communicating thoughts, feelings, and ideas, and they weren’t so much interdependent, either, but co-dependent.   His poetry books were, perhaps unique (and maybe we’ll see), specimens of “words with pictures/pictures with words.”

THE DADA POETS (1916-24)

Dada, or Dadaism, was an art and political movement that evolved out of the aftermath of the start of World War I, the first mechanized war, and lasted for about eight years.  It was first a reaction to the horrible destruction technology visited on humankind, but it quickly became a response to all forms of regimentation, oppression, suppression of thought and ideas, conventionality, and conformity.  Anti-establishment, anti-conventional, and anti-regimentarian, the Dadaists were purposefully provocative and relentlessly anti-establishment—even (or especially, perhaps) with respect to the art establishment.  They weren’t, however, without a considerable sense of humor; some of their work is profoundly silly.  (For the interested ROTter, I posted a report on a 2006 and ’07 Dada art exhibit on this blog on 20 February 2010.)

Dada artists turned their hands to almost everything: painting, drawing, sculpture, photography, and other usual forms of art; film, music, dance, theater and performance; printed works including posters and flyers for Dada events, books, journals and magazines; signs, illustrations; sound poems—and just about anything someone could come up with in the years between the World Wars.  Since some of the originators of the Dada movement were poets, Dada poetry was one of its initial mainstays.  In 1920, Tristan Tzara (1896-1963; born Samuel Rosenstock in Romania), one of the principal founders of the movement, even wrote out the process of creating a Dada poem:

Take a newspaper.
Take some scissors.
Choose from this paper an article the length you want to make your poem.
Cut out the article.
Next carefully cut out each of the words that make up this article and put them all in a bag.
Shake gently.
Next take out each cutting one after the other.
Copy conscientiously in the order in which they left the bag.
The poem will resemble you.
And there you are—an infinitely original author of charming sensibility, even though unappreciated by the vulgar herd.

What Tzara didn’t include in his instructions was the way the words were to be assembled on the page—the patterns the poet determined they should form.  The Dada sound poems focused on words as sounds and just vocal noises; some were recorded, but they wouldn’t work too well on a printed page.  The “literary” version of Dadaist poetry, if that’s even the correct designator, are sort of the reverse: they look interesting on the page, to the eye—but reading them, especially aloud, would be very difficult (if not even impossible).  In his 1918 “Manifesto of Dadaism,” Tzara affirmed of Dada writing: “Every page should explode, either because of its profound gravity, or its vortex, vertigo, newness, timelessness, or because of its crushing humor, the enthusiasm of its principles, or the way it is printed” (my emphasis).  Using typography itself as a medium of communication, the “pictures” the words made on the page were equally important as the sense the words conveyed, if not more so, requiring readers to look “at” the words as objects rather than just “through” them to meaning.  Tzara, for example, wrote Bilan (“Balance Sheet”) in 1919 using 20 different typefaces, and German artist Kurt Schwitters (1887-1948) designed poems for Die Scheuche Märchen (The Scarecrow Fairy Tale, 1925) featuring anthropomorphic letters with feet and arms.  

Today, this kind of work, in which the typographical arrangement of the text is the significant element in conveying the meaning or impact, known as visual or concrete poetry, depends almost exclusively on what the poem looks like on the page rather than what the words say.  While some literary experts consider the two terms, coined in the 1950s, synonymous, others see visual poetry (called vispo by adherents to the form) as a subset or off-shoot of concrete poetry, while yet others consider them discrete forms.  The distinction between them is that concrete poems may still convey meaning semantically, through rhyme, rhythm, and other aspects of word meaning and poetic diction, while visual poems are entirely pictorial in their effect, the words frequently nonsensical.  I’m not going to enter into this debate, principally since Dada predates the use of either term and, therefore, Dada poetry is essentially sui generis.  (Dada poetry is what it is, let’s say.)

One significant point in Tzara’s manifesto is that he said that Dada writing should be characterized by great impact of what it says OR by how it’s printed on the page—either words as words, or words as pictures.   Unlike Blake’s illuminated poems, Dadaist poetry isn’t really an integrated, multi-media art form.  While Blake worked in both media at once, the Dadaists used an either/or approach.  They gave equal weight, perhaps, to both communications forms, but they didn’t make them work together.  Dada visual poetry (as distinguished from the sound poems) relies almost entirely on the typography, together with the fonts, which often include a wide variety in each work, and the lay-out, and less on what the words mean denotatively or even connotatively (which, as we’ve seen, are often haphazardly assembled).  In fact, when read, many of these Dada poems lose part or all their effect.  (I should confess here that I’m generalizing about Dada poetry.  Many of the artists and writers of the movement wrote decidedly avant-garde poems but still conveyed meaning through the semantic sense of the words.) 

JENNY HOLZER (b. 1950)

Born in Gallipolis, Ohio, conceptual artist Jenny Holzer went to the Rhode Island School of Design in Providence.  Having taken summer classes there in 1974, she enrolled in the Master of Fine Arts program in 1975; a year later she moved to New York City and joined the Independent Study Program of the Whitney Museum of American Art.  Though Holzer started out to be an Abstract Expressionist—she “wanted to be soft like [Mark] Rothko and ruthless like Ad Reinhardt”—like many artists in that era, she became interested in a more socially-aware, even political art, especially in a feminist vein.  The young artist began “concentrating on work that had content—accessible work,” she said in a 2012 interview. “There was a lot of talking and reading in the ISP, so language was welcome.”  Looking for a way to insert narrative and commentary into visual art, she began putting words into her paintings.  “I used language because I wanted to offer content that people—not necessarily art people—could understand,” Holzer says.  Soon she abandoned traditional painting entirely and focused on language.  She started displaying messages, mottoes, verses, and quotations in public spaces, such as billboards, the sides of subway cars, projections on building façades, plaques on storefronts, stone benches, and baseball parks—eventually mounting lighted electronic signs and her work began to share similarities with Dada art. 

“Words, in fact,” wrote artist Kiki Smith in Interview magazine, “are the marrow of the 61-year-old Ohio-born artist's large-scale, technology-driven productions.”  Holzer felt the writings she’d read in the Whitney’s ISP could be reduced down to simple phrases everyone could understand.  She called them Truisms (1978), and she printed them anonymously on paper and pasted them on building façades, signs, and telephone booths in lower Manhattan.  Maybe I can convey some of the valuable content [of the ISP reading list] in an accessible way,” thought the artist.  In 1977, Holzer had started writing her own texts, but since 1993 she’s focused on passages by others.  These have included literary texts by respected authors but also quotations from other sources, such as declassified (and much redacted) government documents, including autopsy reports, military maps of the Iraq invasion plans, FBI e-mails from the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, and letters from Gitmo prisoners.  One large LED display presented testimony from soldiers interrogated about atrocities they committed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; other works in this line are Was in Baghdad Ochre Fade (2007) and Redaction Paintings (2009).  

In addition to several successful exhibits at galleries and museums both in the U.S. (the Guggenheim, New York, 1989; Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, 1991) and abroad (Institute of Contemporary Arts, London, 1988; Hamburger Kunsthalle, Germany, 2000), Holzer become the first woman to represent the United States at the Venice Biennale.  The 1990 U.S. pavilion housed her LED signboards and marble benches.  Holzer was one of the first artists to embrace new technology for her work—later she began using computers to manipulate and generate her texts, offering her a greater variety of possibilities in both text size and configuration—and the lighted messages became the artist’s main medium after 1996.  In 2010, Holzer returned to painting on canvas, though her medium is still words.  As she explained to Stuart Jeffries of The Guardian of London in 2012: “I wanted to show time and care.  I wanted it to be an indicator of sincerity and attention.  I wanted it to be human.”  The artist also asserted, “The paintings seem true because nobody wants me to do them.”  She insists, “I hope to show the truth.” 

In 1993, while New York‘s Times Square was undergoing a massive renovation (some called it “Disney-fication”), Holzer created scores of signs and messages for the vacated storefronts of onetime porn shops and empty marquees of former grind houses along 42nd Street.  Slogans such as “alienation produces eccentrics or revolutionaries,” “abuse of power comes as no surprise,” “raise boys and girls the same way,” and “laugh hard at the absurdly evil.”  She has emulated the diction of advertising and political sound bites, and Smith asserts, “Holzer simultaneously honors the value of language to communicate and critiques its ability to control and contain.  In the words of Stuart Jeffries, Holzer’s “characteristic” texts are “as punchy as a headline, yet confusing to unsuspecting passersby.”  

In contrast with William Blake, who was both a painter and a writer/poet, Holzer doesn’t perceive herself that way.  I really wasn't—and I'm not—a writer,” she admits.  “[E]ventually writing wore me down because it didn't come naturally,” the artist explained.  “The visual is easier for me”—which is why she turned to quoting others in her messages, “people who really are writers.” 

The Dadaists were intent on ridiculing all that was conformist and establishmentarian.  Their messages were anarchistic and provocative, and often hidden in obscurantism and nonsense.  Holzer wants to illuminate with her messages, to throw light (if you will) on subjects previously hidden and secret, like the Abu Ghraib violations.  While the Dada poets and artists were political only in a general way, espousing a kind of muscular libertarianism, Holzer is conscientiously political in her art.  Her messages question consumerism and power; describe violence and torture; lament oppression, war, disease, and death; celebrate sexuality and feminism.  She doesn’t offer an opinion or commentary on the words she displays, however, leaving the viewers to come to their own understandings of what the texts import.  “I think the material speaks for itself,” Holzer told Jeffries. “There's no reason for me to give my pathetic opinion.”

Ms. Holzer has infused Conceptual Art’s playful language with real-life seriousness,” wrote art critic Roberta Smith in the New York Times.  Her intent is to provoke a response in the viewer and, critic Smith says, her work “regularly succeeds in taking us deep into the machinations of human frailty and power.  Holzer’s said, for instance, “The desperate things seem to require attention, the lovely things seem to elicit celebration.  If I had to choose, I would go to the awful in the hope that doing something could yield a happier result.”  In addition to the more substantial structures on which Holzer inscribes her words, they’ve also appeared on T-shirts, baseball caps, and even condom wrappers.  “I like placing content wherever people look,” declares the artist, “and that can be at the bottom of a cup or on a shirt or hat or on the surface of a river or all over a building.”  

DAVID WOJNAROWICZ (1954-92)

Born in Red Bank, New Jersey, painter, photographer, videographer, sculptor, writer, and activist (among other things) David Wojnarowicz dropped out of New York City’s High School of Music and Art at 16 and ran away from home to escape a violently abusive, alcoholic father.  Most of his short life was fraught with hardship, artistic, political, or personal.  After hitchhiking cross country and back between 1970 and ’73, Wojnarowicz settled again in New York, living for a time on the streets and working as a prostitute, thief, and hustler.  The world in which Wojnarowicz lived is recorded in a graphic (and autobiographic) novel, Seven Miles a Second (DC Comics, 1996), created with artist and cartoonist James Romberger, and in the monologues he transcribed from some of the people he met on the streets, published in The Waterfront Journals (Grove Press, 1996).  The artist’s own journals have also been published: In the Shadow of the American Dream: The Diaries of David Wojnarowicz (Grove Press, 1999).  His world’s also visible in much of Wojnarowicz’s art, especially his paintings, which often contain images and sometimes words reminiscent of the childhood he always carried with him.  Sadly, when he died of AIDS in 1992—he was diagnosed in 1987—he hadn’t gotten very far chronologically from his childhood.  (I posted a profile of the artist, “David Wojnarowicz,” on ROT on 15 March 2011; he’s also mentioned extensively in “The Return of HIDE/SEEK,” 4 January 2012.)

As early as 1970, Wojnarowicz began writing and taking photographs (with a stolen camera and film) to document his life and the life he saw around him, and also as a way to take control of his life, which was already painful and difficult.  He was bearing witness to the history that the official record didn’t tell because, the artist thought, “People should witness things.  They should, at the very bottom level, be witnessed.”  This might be called Wojnarowicz’s creed and would be the prevailing impulse of the artist’s work in all the forms, including his writing— perhaps particularly his writing.  His visual artworks were eclectic in their use of media, ranging from conventional canvas, to masonite, maps, advertising posters, photographs, trash-can lids, “found objects,” and such unlikely material as loaves of bread and plastic sharks—and he often incorporated texts into his paintings, along with other visual media.  Wojnarowicz offered his art as testimony of life he felt no one else acknowledged.  According to writer and cultural critic Cynthia Carr, “Art was his way of witnessing.  On some level, the work was about putting information out there, exposing what’s usually hidden and creating cultural counterweight.  Where the marginal were ignored, he would exalt them.”  Personally shy and reticent (as was Jenny Holzer), art and writing gave him a way to say what he couldn’t in a social setting.  It became the artist’s mission to call attention to any injustice he perceived in American society, especially (but not exclusively) where it concerned the gay community.  

Wojnarowicz saw himself as an outsider in the art world; in fact, Wojnarowicz at first didn’t think of himself as an artist at all.  “Artists,” according to him, “were such-and-such people,” people who were special, different from the rest of us.  Wojnarowicz “wasn’t particularly an artist,” he insisted; he was just a guy with something to say who tried hard to find ways to say it—like music, writing, or installations.  He’d been writing since he left the streets—poetry, transcribed monologues of street people—but photography was another way to chronicle the world he was witnessing and which few others, especially the established media, were recording.  “A camera in some hands can preserve an alternate history,” Wojnarowicz asserted.  Some of his later works, including photographs, incorporate disparate visual media and written texts in the form of short stories, which, as in William Blake’s art work, are integrated into the painting with the other media (see He Kept Following Me and I Feel a Vague Nausea, both 1990).  

In his essay in the catalogue for Fever: The Art of David Wojnarowicz (New Museum of Contemporary Art, 1999), art historian and critic John Carlin wrote:

Simply put, David was not just an artist; he used art as a vehicle for something else, not as an end in itself.  David was more like a shaman, the witch doctor of our tribe, than someone purely interested in formal relations or being smart. . . .  He was less concerned with aesthetics than with communicating—about himself and society, about things that were real and actually happening but that no one wanted to talk about.

His artistic matrix, however, wasn’t beauty or even aesthetics in general.  He had no interest in being “decorative.”  Wojnarowicz wasn’t interested in design or composition—he hadn’t had any training in that anyway.  He wanted to communicate, to show people what the world he saw looked like—even if they didn’t want to see it.  He was a habitual truth-teller, even as a second-grader when he learned that everyone dies: “I remember running down the block and to every kid that I saw I said, ‘We all die, one day we’re all going to be dead!’”  The kids cried and their parents decided Wojnarowicz was a sick child—because he thought everyone should know the truth.  Leo Shapiro, the stage director whom I’ve mentioned often on ROT, believed that artists are society’s oracles.  “The point of an oracle,” Shapiro asserted, “—you support the oracle, you don’t support what it says.  It doesn’t always give you good news.” 

In a 2011 Brooklyn Rail review, Kara L. Rooney called Wojnarowicz’s art “often elusive, sometimes dangerous, and always brutally honest.”  Shapiro called Wojnarowicz “the canary in the mines—the ones that die first.”  Rooney put Wojnarowicz in the category of the “selfless” artists whose artistic impulse 

derives from a genuine passion for change, seeking to foster political and social awareness among disparate economic classes.  The work of these artists challenges the status quo.  It shakes things up.  It provokes.  It is groundbreaking in its execution and often only appreciated in hindsight.  In short, it haunts us.

While writing had long been a mainstay of the artist’s creative life--he started keeping a journal when he was 17—text began appearing in his visual art in the 1970s.  Wojnarowicz’s generation, in addition to being impelled to address issues of sex, race, gender, and ethnicity, was also drawn to mixing their media, including non-traditional ones like pop culture and even pornography and recycled materials like posters, maps, and even derelict cars.  Like his contemporaries, Wojnarowicz saw little distinction among the various means of making art or making his statements, working in paint, sculpture, photography, installation, and collage with equal force.  Wojnarowicz also made films and videos and was, as noted, a prolific writer and speaker as well. (He also played in a band, 3 Teens Kill 4, known as 3TK4, from a New York Post headline.)  “Often juxtaposing text, paint, and collaged elements with photography,” observed Melissa Harris in Aperture magazine in 1994, “his works animate ideas and images, playing them off one another both ironically and metaphorically.  Experiencing Wojnarowicz’s art is like being in the wake of a dream—or perhaps a nightmare.”  Richard H. Axsom concluded of the artist’s legacy in a 2002 profile on glbtq: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture: “Of all the media and formats for which Wojnarowicz is known, the works that combine image and text are the most complex and moving, offering the best summary of his art.”  

At a 2004 retrospective of Wojnarowicz’s work that combined image and text, Out of Silence, the Chelsea gallery PPOW asserted: “Wojnarowicz's juxtaposition and overlay of the two signifying systems, the visual and the linguistic, is central to his artistic development.”  In the works where the artist combined images and text, the words seem intended to be both read as text per se, and simultaneously to be seen as part of the overall visual message in tandem with the pictorial aspects.  Wojnarowicz’s words enhance the pictures’ points, illuminating and concretizing them.  In his graphic (in both senses) autobiography, 7 Miles a Second, for example, we can see very clearly that the text isn’t a direct narration of the pictures and the pictures don’t actually illustrate the words: they function separately and together, contrapuntally.  In his essay on the artist, English professor Bill Albertini points out that “the text and visuals comment ironically, and darkly, on one another.”  In some of Wojnarowicz’s mixed-media work, it’s not the picture that’s dominant, but the words: in Untitled (One day this kid . . .) (1990-91), for instance, the center of the piece is a ’50s-style photo of a freckle-faced boy, clearly the artist himself as a child, while all around the innocent-looking picture, occupying two-thirds of the space, is a text predicting the boy’s possible tragic future.  

More akin to Blake than Holzer, Wojnarowicz was impelled to use any and all media to convey his ideas for several reasons.  First, he just didn’t know any better: never having had any formal training in art or its establishment practices, the artist learned by observation, experiment, and imagination.  Second, he possessed an endlessly restless and curious mind, always searching for new and more effective ways to communicate.  Third, he was good at a lot of the forms, visual and textual.  His painting was raw, rough, and powerful, and his writing was just as moving and brutal, poetic and honest.  (He was an equally effective orator, by the way.)  Oddly, though, he innately distrusted words, especially the way they were used (or abused) by politicians, bureaucrats, and advertisers—a kind of Postmodern Newspeak—in what he called “the preinvented world”: “The bought up world; the owned world—the world of coded sounds; the world of language, the world of lies; the packaged world; the world of speed in metallic motion.”  (In fact, he sounds a little like a less-gentle Dina Delsanto and less in tune with Jack Marcus.)  Yet, he subverted the establishment’s hegemony over words and turned them against those he saw as responsible for society’s ills and injustices or who should have helped but didn’t.  If pictures were successful in showing the world what no one else was revealing—the responses of people like Donald Wildmon, Jesse Helms, and William Dannemeyer proved that they were!—then words and pictures were even more effective.  If anyone wasn’t sure what the pictures meant, then the words would leave no doubt.

In a 2012 interview with Matt Fennemore about a stage adaptation of Wojnarowicz’s Close to the Knives (Vintage, 1991), the performance artist remarked: “Visuals and soundscapes will support and underpin the text and further assault the senses”; that precisely captures, perhaps in reverse expression, the way Wojnarowicz’s words and pictures work symbiotically in his visual art as well.  It may be ironic (but only slightly) that this multifaceted artist was thrust onto the main stage of American culture because of words—“Post Cards from America: X-Rays from Hell,” his controversial essay in the 1989 catalogue for Witnesses: Against Our Vanishing (Artists Space)—and then rose once again in a controversy over pictures—the excerpt in 2011’s HIDE/SEEK: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture (National Portrait Gallery) of his 1986-87 video, A Fire in My Belly.  

Most artists devote themselves to one medium or the other, pictures or words.  There have always been some who’ve shared the same spaces: N. C. Wyeth (1882-1945), the father of artist Andrew Wyeth, made a career of illustrating boys’ adventure stories—one artist’s pictures encapsulating the words of another.  But William Blake and David Wojnarowicz, separated by two centuries, found they needed both words and pictures to make their art, integrating the one form with the other; and the Dada poets and Jenny Holzer both made the words into pictures—or at least visual images.  In all their cases, I’d say, theirs would have been poorer, far less powerful art (if, indeed, art at all) if they hadn’t worked simultaneously in both media, if both forms weren’t present in their work at one and the same time.  Gerald Di Pego and Fred Schepisi can make Jack Marcus and Dina Delsanto conceive a conflict between words and pictures, argue over which is a truer conveyor of meaning and emotion, but not all artists can keep the two separate.  Proving, I think, that words and pictures aren’t in conflict—it’s only the imaginations of some artists that are.  QED.