Page 48 - Studio International - July August 1971

situation but with a specific topical situation, it TMM: Well if you try to establish the distinction— I'm wondering in what way you would
lost its immunity as a work of art. I think this when I spoke with Haacke about this, we distinguish this as a more specifically political act
could be argued, yes. By the definition that you discussed the possibility of illustrating the than the presentation of other systems within an
have obtained from me a little while ago, I system by showing the same photographs and art museum.
would say that at the point at which the intention introducing an ownership code; in other words TMM: Well I suppose what we are really talking
and the result is no longer general summary, if certain parties are identified let's say with about is this old division or identity of art and
metaphoric and symbolic, by the point it green and others with yellow and others with life. Again, traditionally, art and life were
addresses itself to a known specific topical colours suggesting connections between green counter-poles. Certainly art could not exist
situation, its status as a work of art—or at least and yellow (because obviously a system can only apart from, or without relationships to, the
its immunity as a work of art—is in question. work in its interaction), if that had been the reality of life; but it was always something that
BR: In terms of the metaphor we've been using purpose and the mode of execution, we would translated the daily occurrences or given
of the loaded gun, do you think that the exposure not have protested. I think that what was situations into a language once removed, and
of property ownership is somewhat lethal ? attempted here was more than to show an usually a language that had sufficient distance
TMM: Oh I'm all for it. Let me state very clearly existing system. It was attempting to expose from the specific occurrence. If life and art were
that I have no sympathy with slum-lordship, that individuals through whom the system is identical, which I realize is proposed by many,
I have every sympathy with social reform, carried out and the relationship between then the first thing that we don't need is a
that I'm all for these acts. I do question that ownership and between individuals that makes museum. Then you open the portals, let the
the art museum is the proper place from which its undesirable features attachable to taxis drive up the ramps, they become works of
to launch such an attack. If the same aims were personalities and groups. art by being in the museum; and the entire
proposed by another institution which is BR: Would this not mean that the art, if it's notion that art exists as a bespeaking medium
constituted for this purpose, I would be all for successful in doing so, might have political would be rather as those proposing life would
it. consequences, legal consequences, outside the have it, identical with a life current itself, which
BR: Do you think that it would constitute an fact of the exhibition— through questions rising would obviate the museum's existence.
attack on Elizabeth Taylor to have her image, in the head of anyone who perceived this within BR: But of course the exact parallel to that
with her name attached to it, exhibited in an art the museum, in people who might come for a analogy in Haacke's social systems would be to
museum ? variety of other reasons than to see this—which have included the actual buildings and the
TMM : No I don't. Unless it showed her in a way would satisfy your criteria about having social / people who ostensibly owned them juxtaposed
suggestive of all sorts of misdeeds. I think there political consequences, since the form of within the museum. So in fact there was some
could be a portrait of any individual so loathsome photographs and words and the content of social kind of intermediary distanced language of
and so evocative of—well—specific undesirable injustice has not been excluded by you for art ? photographs and words and county records
acts that the assumption that this is no longer a I find it very difficult to understand in what way which seem quite a morass of distance. And I
portrait but a personal attack would arise, yes. you would consider this a political means on an wonder how this relates to your notion of
But if you're asking me whether I consider any more specific level than anything that's done metaphor as levels of generalized exemplary
portraiture an attack against the sitter, obviously in any building can be construed as a political force as opposed to the specific character of
not. stance. metaphor.
BR: I think here the question comes up of the TMM: Than anything that's done in any TM M: Well in my mind at least, the distinction is
photographs of building façades : is it possible building ? What do you mean by that ? between, on the one hand, the illustration of a
that they can be an attack with political intent BR: Well, I mean that any activity could be system—in its entirety and generalized aspects—
rather than an exposure of a system that does in construed as political activity. It could be through translation into an art form in which the
fact exist, any more than the presentation of a construed as political action to put something in specific culprit would not be identified, and, on
laser beam within an art museum is a politically a museum as much as to walk down the street, the other hand, a system which I agree is in a
directed attack on the potential use of laser depending on the particular confluences. But as sense removed from the original because it did
beams to demolish human life ? all people are people, then they are also political. not bring in the slum-lords nor houses them-

Daniel Buren's Painting I 1970, hanging in the
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York.
36