Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

When I say what I am about to say I am not doing soto gain pity but rather to have a place to begin. Therewere never any studios for me. However, there havebeen tables in rooms, and when there is a room with notable, there is my ever eager lap enthusiastically offer-ing support. This was the place where the work origi-nated. This ‘was the private place, the ivory tower, the

stationary

place where

portable

objects were pro-duced.’

So, do I claim these tables and my lap as mystudio or do I claim myself ‘post-studio’? There wasa point in time when the idea of being post-studio hadnever occurred to me. This was a time when I hadn’tbeen introduced to the term. I think the introductionto ‘post-studio’ came by way of V

a coworker and apainter. When V and I exchanged explanations of whatwe were each pursuing in art, I told him I made art inliving rooms, on trains, and on the sides of buildings.V sarcastically asked if I was ‘one of those post-studioartists?’ While I wasn’t completely sure of the mean-ing of the term ‘post-studio’ I thought I probably was,but due to the way V framed the question, I prudentlythought I should refrain from telling him that the ideasounded interesting to me. I told him I was not apost-studio artist, I was just poor and making due. Helaughed and his attitude toward me changed. I wasn’tthreatening his practice by calling into question hismode of production. V was making paintings, mostlysexually charged female nudes. He did these paint-ings in his small studio under a bridge, always alone

and without any explicit input from others (inuence is

another matter altogether and in the short time we heldthe same job we never broached this subject.)My post-studio practice was born out of neces-sity. As I had no designated place for making work, Iworked wherever I could. More importantly becauseI had no platform in which to exhibit my work I beganto make work for public arenas and build my ownplatforms. Historically ‘post-studio practices’ have notsimply have been born out of necessity but birthed in atangle of social and political gestures.Pete Seeger had been a radio man, travelingthe far corners of the country recording folk music inan attempt to preserve the countries disparate ways of interpreting and expressing the sentiments of its people.He broadcast the songs to millions of listening Ameri-cans thus giving them some sense of ownership overthis great music that came from their country. WhenSeeger was branded a communist and black-listed fromthe radio he did not give up his crusade to bring thisvital music to the people. Instead, he turned to sing-a-long’s as a way to carry music to the ears of Americans.In this simple act Seeger subverted the authority of theradio, the powerful little box that since its introductionhas reigned supreme in the dissemination and displayof music.

Buren, Daniel. “The Function of the Studio”. In

October: TheFirst Decade, 1976-1986,

ed. Joan Copjec, Douglas Crimp,Rosalind Krauss, 201- 207. Cambridge: MIT, 1987.

I am not using the letter V in place of a name to protect thispersons identity but rather because I can not be completely sureof his name. His last name is entirely lost to me, but I believe it

is possible that his rst name was Vincent so I decide on V.

Smithson referred to this as ‘site/non-site.’* Smithsonian: Archives of American Art. “Oral history inter-view with John Baldessari, 1992 April 4-5.” Smithsonian Insti-tute. http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/oralhistories/transcripts/baldes92.htm (January 10, 2009).

In the 1960’s, artists began to follow Seeger’sexample of subverting the power structure. Artistbegan subverting the idea that the production of artshould be linked to the studio. While the constrainsof the studio are more theoretical than Seeger’s con-straints, nevertheless the rejection of the studio has hada profound effect on the way art has been producedand exhibited since. Judd began having his boxes builtwith industrial fabricators instead of building them inhis studio. Robert Smithson (considered by many tobe one of the earliest examples of a post-studio artist)

produced art at/for specic sites and then only referred

to those sites when exhibiting the idea off site

. JohnBaldessari burned all of his paintings in order to clean

the slate of any remnants of the rareed artist slaving in

seclusion to produce a masterpiece.Since Daniel Buren dropped the bomb hecalled

The Function of the Studio

we cannot help but

rene our relationship to the studio. The studio now

represents a place of preparation rather than produc-tion.

In Buren’s essay, unleashed in 1971, he neveruses the term ‘post-studio’, he establishes that artworkis not necessarily portable and when it is there is al-ways an

unspeakable compromise

: to stay in its nativehabitat (the studio where the work was conceived andexecuted) and never be seen, or to be exhibited publiclyand equalized by the systematic display methods of themuseum.While studio/post-studio is a fascinatinghistoric split and helped us achieve artistic freedomsnot previously associated with art. We can no longerignore the fact that this strand of dialogue is being ren-dered increasingly obsolete. We live in a time wherevalue and authority reside more in information than inobjects. Where dissemination holds more sway thansite. With production and exhibition no longer cor-responding to physical spaces or states but dreamed up

for specic projects, it is clear that artists have takenthe death of the rareed production place as a given.

Ryan Wilson Paulsen, January 2009

A few notes on post-studio

ohn Baldessarisaid that CarlAndre might havecoined the term‘Post-Studio.’

Suzi Gablik was the

ﬁ

rst person who use the term “Connective Aesthetics”. She criticized the mainstreamart practice as lacking connection to the real world. Suzi is against the idea that artists are geniuses whoneeds to separates themselves by being alone in the studio and contemplated their own individual ideainto a piece of art. She also disliked idea that artist should not involved their practice with politic oractivism. Many artists and art historians argued that such works are not considered art because artistneed to compromised their idea in order to serve that kind of functional purposes. The “connectiveaesthetics” term, in my opinion, is similar to “social practice” in a way that both terms corroborated theidea that art should connect to the society instead of separate it.About Suzy GablikSuzy is an artist, art critic, and art historian. She attended Hunter College (now part of the City Universityof New York) where she studied with Robert Motherwell. She received her B. A. in 1955. Suzy began hercareer as a painter and had many solo show in New York. In 1970s she stopped making art anddedicated herself to writing art history and criticism. She also gave lectures at universities. She wrote"Progress in Art" in 1977. Increasingly, she became concerned with the social aspects of art and oftenwrote about it. She published "Has Modernism Failed?" in 1984. IIn the book she criticized that early1980s art movement lacking the commitment to social change. Suzy said that she stopped paintingbecause her writing was not only more satisfying but also allow her to alter people's thinking throughreading. She was the London critic for Art In America until 1990. In 1991, she came up with the term"connective aesthetics" which she intended to use against "deconstruction and despair" of mainstream artworld. Suzy wrote that she believed the dominant art was part of the problem. "Art should heal" shecontinued "Something that contemporary art did not do."Suzy in printGablik, Suzi.

Conversations Before the End of Time.

New York; London: Thames & Hudson, 1998.Gablik, Suzi. “Connective Aesthetics,”

American Art

6, no. 2 (Spring,1992) 2-7.Gablik, Suzi.

Has Modernism Failed?.

New York; London: Thames & Hudson, 1985.Gablik, Suzi.

Progress in Art.

New York; London: Thames & Hudson, c1976.Gablik, Suzi.

The Reenchantment of Art

. New York; London: Thames & Hudson, 1991.Suzy on the webGablik, Suzi.

The Nature of Beauty in Contemporary Art

, http://www.ru.org/81gablik.htmlGablik, Suzi.