Page 17 - Studio Internationa - March 1971

Correspondence 1) When he says, 'he might pause to consider Haacke, Sonfist
the expectations which might be aroused by a
decision on the part of...Mind's editors to and Nature
change its name to Body', he is proving my point,
since that was my whole argument. The Technology and art 23
separation between mind and body is schizoid.
Our expectations are so fragmented as to be
insane (`normal'). The terrifyingly convergent
Hans Haacke has probably been the leading
expectations aroused by the words (concepts)
figure in what I have called elsewhere an
`Mind' versus 'Body' are the/a root of much
`alternative kinetic tradition' which uses the
psychological as well as political crap (and ART
fits in there too, I think). transformation processes inherent in nature,
2) Harrison asks, whether I object to his rather than motors and machinery. Among
phraseology (about Kosuth extending other artists in this tradition are Medalla,
Reinhardt's lifespan and fulfilling his prophecy) Metzger and Mark Boyle. Haacke's work has
or to his suggestion of the relationship between not been actually seen in Britain since the days
Kosuth's art and Reinhardt's. I object to both. of Signals, and I have not seen very much of it
Naturally.
myself, but it happens to have been discussed
3) Harrison infers, or pretends to infer that I
in several recent issues of Studio and many
am against knowing what one likes in Art and
readers will know already how his work has
having opinions. No. But I'm against clouding
shifted from the use of water, ice, steam, air,
opinions with abstract rationalizations and 'facts'
grass, etc., towards a freer definition of art. I
concerning 'validity'.
4) I'm accused of hysterical indeterminacy. shall refer closely to Jean Clay's challenging
Indeterminacy was never my problem. Painters article last December, 'Aspects of bourgeois
like Stella see to that. Hysterical I certainly art: the world as it is', which covers the recent
(obviously) am, confronted with apathy, atrophy, work of this important artist.'
attrition, and 'art'. Clay is correct in warning that the 'back to
5) What are Charles Harrison's 'notions of nature' cult can be reactionary. (Maurice
conviction and strength' (notions ?), which fit
Barrès, who was influential on the French
only Stella (of artists under 65) like a glove ?
cultural right, once said 'La Nature est a
6) As a final note, I'm happy CH is so
droite'.) However, it is clear that the current
self-confident in distinguishing between opinion
concern for ecology and nature is not confined
and fact, reality and 'reality'. I'm not as confident
to capitalist exploiters, since it is shared by the
as he is (he wisely realizes this). But then again,
I'm not an art critic. Underground. The ecology lectures at the
Peter Gidal ICA this winter are showing forcefully that
London ecology cannot be separated from economics
PS Lets lay this matter to rest with and the social sciences.2
Harrison's answer; there must be more important As I read Clay, Haacke's work falls into
things to talk (think) about, for both of us. three stages of development :
i. 'self-occluded' natural systems, 'alive
R. I. P.—C H
but only in parenthesis'. Examples would be
Rainbox (1963), Grass Cube (1967) etc. 'They
are impotent and have no repercussions on
reality.'
`Object-based art' 2. the 'signature' of on-going processes—for
Andrew Forge ('Forces against object-based art', instance, the exhibiting of a meteorological
January issue) quotes a statement of mine as chart, or of hatching chickens —while insisting
speaking 'from the pressure of a particular on 'non-intervention'.
situation, the events of May 1968'. In fact the 3. the disturbance of an ecological or social
text from which the quotation was drawn was system. Clay sees such work as escaping the
written in November 1967 and published in Les bourgeois constraint of non-intervention.
Lettres Francaises in March 1968. The statement Clay gives two examples of this last stage in
cannot therefore 'speak from the pressure' of the Haacke's development: a manifestation against
events of May 1968; it is only reinforced by them.
Daniel Buren Nelson Rockefeller in the Museum of Modern
Paris Art, and another against the Maeght Foundation
in France. It is not clear whether Clay would
In her article 'A smart set of concepts' in the include in this category another, less provocative,
February issue Suzi Gablik quotes me in a, experiment by Haacke, when he imported
context which implies that I believe 'that anyone artificial rain and moss into an area of dry
who wants to make (relevant) art at this moment forest, and thus changed its vegetation for a
must do so "in the absence of material props" '. short period. Here a 'system' is radically
I would like to make it clear that I believe no such disturbed, but since this act is not directed
thing. As an imperative the notion is plainly
against the bourgeoisie I am not sure if Clay
`A very abstract context' ludicrous; if this were better understood we might would include it in the same category as the
have fewer worried contributors writing in this
`How one does one's singling out determines what and other journals in defence of 'object-based two events he mentions.
Now it is admirable that an artist should be
he [she ?] singles out.' I agree, obviously. art'.
Charles Harrison's answer to my letter is Charles Harrison able to integrate political manifestations into
rather a mess. Islington his art. But these activities seem peripheral
95