Page 21 - Studio International - June 1971

nature of the art which unfolds along one's visitors were pretty sure to turn their backs as a watchdogs of the avant-garde mystery-making
path. It does not respect the classifications result. tradition). Their direct logical implications
which automatically impose themselves in a The spiral shape of the museum gives all its proved intolerable, involving as they do the
box-type museum. exhibitions an outward emphasis, pushes them questioning of the validity of most of the works
(2) Over the length of its seven storeys, or turns against the sloping wall along which they slide; on show, and in particular those that were best
of the spiral, it unfolds an absolute power this effect is all the more evident because the established (i.e. Judd, Flavin, De Maria and
which irremediably subjugates anything that spectacle afforded by the architecture itself others).
gets caught/shown in it, and thereby draws the eye irresistibly inwards, towards the
demonstrates what familiarity with box-type hypnotic nothingness which accentuates the 5 ORDER RESTORED
museums might have made us forget, which is general inanity of the works that seek to interact The alleged 'obstruction' caused by my piece,
that 'The museum/gallery is not the neutral there. To make use of the central space, as which was the pretext used by those who
space that we are told it is, but the sole Painting I did, is to accentuate this phenomenon censored it, was in fact nothing other than the
standpoint from which the work is seen, and with, instead of the void, a something which blinding revelation, not only of the work in
in the last resort the sole standpoint for which it offers nothing besides its own image and whose question—its contradictions, its limitations,
was made. By not being taken into consideration, presence clearly poses a question. This presence etc. —but of the work of the others. The
or by being taken for granted, the museum/ was immediately found to be unacceptable. revelation appeared intolerable to some, and

gallery becomes a myth-making/distorting Curiously, after the painting was taken away, unleashed a sequence of panicky actions which
setting for all that appears within it.' (DB, in the museum no longer appeared as a gigantic are hardly credible in the context of a museum
Limites/Critiques, October 1970.) sculpture, unfurling its triumphant spiral, but of art in 1971, in view of the amazing speed
As soon as the architecture appears so as an enormous hole, senseless and uninhabited. with which this kind of institution secures and
powerfully in its own right, the work of art One of the paradoxical things about the puts on show any and every avant-garde
(intended for a cubic, classic, customary Guggenheim as a museum is that it actually tendency. These actions led to the suppression,
setting) disappears. This is what happens with conceals from view the works that are shown by an act of censorship, of a piece of cotton
the Guggenheim Museum, and it is for this there. From the bottom nothing can be seen woven in alternate stripes of blue and white,
reason, among others, that any work that brings except the proud shape of the museum itself; the two outer white stripes being coated in
out this fact (such as Painting 1) creates an and this impression is renewed in varying white paint on both sides.
unexpected commotion. We now have two degrees on all seven levels. Frank Lloyd My proposition was the occasion of the first
conflicting revelations : (a) that of the museum Wright has used all his ingenuity to ensure example within the sheltering walls of a
as a place that no longer sets off what it holds/ that the works are hard to see when you are museum of 'aggression revealed thanks to the
presents but on the contrary masks it, reduces it, directly in front of them (because you cannot get neutrality/impersonality of the statement, a
destroys it, stifles it in order to place itself on back far enough) and pretty well impossible to form of aggression which, among others, is
show; (b) that of the shortcomings of art that is see without distortion when you are on the that of art'. (DB, interview in Opus
conceived in terms of an architecturally neutral opposite side of the spiral. Using the centre, as International, 12 June 1969.) q
and conceptually empty setting which makes it I wanted to do, both made the work itself visible, DANIEL BUREN
possible to impose one's will without any risk; in the only way possible in this particular
art which is thought out in the anticipation of a museum, and underlined the centripetal effect Statement by Diane Waldman
space which will endow it with value; art which of the architecture itself, by concentrating The Sixth Guggenheim International Exhibition
is therefore delusive, regressive and a hoax. attention not on empty space but on 'something'. (I I February until II April, 1971), unlike its
This something, Painting 1, placed in the predecessors and group shows in general, was
4 ORDER DISTURBED centre of the museum, irreversibly laid bare the never intended to be an all-inclusive survey but
My piece revealed these contradictions too building's secret function of subordinating an endeavour to isolate and highlight some of the
clearly not to be censored. But the censorship is everything to its architecture. The architecture developments of the last five years (or roughly
revealing in itself if one remembers that this has two contrary but simultaneous effects : the time that had elapsed since the previous
was an exhibition whose aim, according to the centripetal, drawing the eye constantly to the International of 1967). The framework for the
catalogue, was to present the most radical central space, and centrifugal, banishing to the exhibition was therefore a vital factor from the
endeavours of the present time! Some people's periphery what is exhibited on the ramps. The onset, as was the museum space itself. The
radicalism takes unexpected forms, to put it centripetal aspect, which distracts attention at organic nature of Wright's spiral and the
mildly—which goes to show that in art the only the best of times from the works on view, was environmental concepts of a number of the
radicalism that is accepted is that of the considerably accentuated by the central artists invited to participate in the exhibition
petit-bourgeois conservatives. placing of the work, which by its normal promised to provide a unique occasion for both
The placing of Painting I in the centre of the (unaccustomed ?) presence did two things : it the artist and the museum; indeed many of the
Guggenheim only underlined this state of disrupted the narcissistic function of the artists created work specifically for the situation.
affairs. For the first time people would not edifice/sculpture, which no longer reflected its Once the artists accepted the invitation to be in
move round an empty central space with a own image; and it broke down the parapet, the Guggenheim International, it remained to
strong attraction of its own (the fascination of behind which the works on show normally take work out what and where each artist would
the void, accentuated by the lowness of the refuge as best they can, precipitating into the show. (Although the exhibition as originally
balustrade); they would move round a work void all that had a natural affinity with the void devised was nominally divided into two separate
which would reveal itself in all its aspects as one (most of the works in the show). geographic areas to avoid duplication and to be
progressed, while at the same time allowing The demonstration raised other points which as comprehensive as possible, as it worked out
itself to be seen only one fragment at a time, it would take too long to discuss here. Dialogues I was responsible for all but two of the artists
and which, being suspended in space, would existed between Painting I and its context selected—Antonio Dias and Jiro Takamatsu,
reinforce the idea of the architecture of the (which I have just talked about), between from South America and Japan respectively—
Guggenheim itself, which plays on the absence Painting 2 and its context (the street), and and therefore undertook not only the realization
of walls. It might also be said that for the first between Painting I and Painting 2, as well as of the concept of the exhibition but the
time there was something to see in the museum, between the two contexts installation of the work and the catalogue.) From
and that this evident fact was resented by those These issues (and others) were perceived the first it had been my idea to allow each artist
of the invited participants on whose works the confusedly or clearly by certain artists (the ample 'breathing' space to make his contribution

247