Art as Social Action: Mark Rothko

This is a portrait of the painter Mark Rothko in his New York studio, circa 1953, taken by Henry Elkan.

I do not know much about Rothko personally or politically, but I do like his paintings. That probably makes me the median visitor to nearly any museum that shows his work! In any case, I picked up a copy of his The Artist's Reality: Philosophies of Art (Yale UP, 2004) and have been dipping into it over the past several days. One passage I discovered strikes me as telling:

"Art is not only a form of action, it is a form of social action. For art is a type of communication, and when it enters the environment it produces its effects just as any other form of action does.

It might be said that its use as a form of action is dependent upon the numbers which it effects. ... Needless to say this sort of measure will lead one to the most absurd conclusions. ... How far a single impulse can extend in its effect is unpredictable. One minute stimulus can be more far-reaching, can effect the course of society more significantly in a single minute than a thousand other stimuli - whose effect is more obvious - might over a hundred years."

This view resonates in two ways. Most obviously it seems correct to think about art generally and photography in particular in terms of its effects, its consequences, whether those be intimate or expansive. Second, it also seems right not to prejudge what those effects might be. Here I am reminded of the argument Rebecca Solnit makes in her Hope in the Dark (Nation Books, 2004) regarding the unforeseeable effects political or artistic interventions might have across time and distance. This is something about which I've posted before [here] in discussing some remarks Alfredo Jaar made about the consequences his work may or may not have had. The perspective that Rothko and Solnit seem to share counsels patience and hope (not naive optimism) in the face of seeming failure and irrelevance. I must say it is a view I find difficult to fully embrace. But it is one I would like to find persuasive. So, I leave you with one striking example of Rothko's social action.

____________________

PS: Added 10/4/06. Lest you misunderstand, Rothko was writing in the early 1940s (this ms. was "lost" for many years) and makes the statements I note in the context of a defense of artists who might be accused of "escapism." He is defending artistic freedom not suggesting that we should endorse didactic criteria for assessing artists or their work. His point is simply that no matter how "abstract" or "personal" artistic work might appear, it is still social action insofar as it is an intervention in the world that potentially has effects.

So, how then, does this square with my criticism of Nikki Lee in my post yesterday? Well, it seems to me that she is using common preoccupations with social identity as no more than a ruse to present herself in a sort of exhibitionist way; in effect she is saying "look at me!", "look at the things I can do!", "aren't I clever!?!" In the end, I really don't find that sort of self-absorption terribly interesting, especially since she is displaying her cleverness by making it seem as though she is concerned about something else. Without the pretense she is probably not especially clever or interesting. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the trend seems to be toward more explicit preoccupation with Nikki rather than with the broader issues she is exploiting.

On the Uses of Moden Art

 Orange, Red, Yellow © Mark Rothko

I am pre-occupied with the pragmatics of visual images, meaning with their uses. We have known for years that during the Cold War the US government sponsored tours of, for instance, jazz musicians to the Soviet block as examples of "freedom." Now, from this report at The Independent, we know that the CIA was involved in the dissemination of abstract modern art for much the same purpose. Surprise! I've posted here before about complexities at the intersection of art and politics in Mark Rothko and Robert Motherwell, among others. This latest report helps underscore that politics depends not just on the posture of artists and other art world denizens, but of agents from other worlds as well.

Chris Harris

Storm Break, Shirrod Road, Nez Perce County (2003).
Photograph © Chris Harris.

Port Susan #16 (2004). Photograph © Chris Harris

Can You Afford Me? Photograph © Chris Harris.

I found the work of Chris Harris over at Conscientious where Jörg has linked to it. (Thanks!) I find his images striking. Some of his work reminds me of Rothko, other of it brings to mind the images on ECM record covers (like this and some of these). As the commentary on this web page suggests, regardless of whether he is photographing landscapes on the prairie or the seaside or whether he is shooting window displays at the local mall, Harris offers us images of possibility sometimes fugitive because under siege, sometimes ambiguous, sometimes quite dubious.

"The pristine wilderness that often comes to mind when Americans think of the West is far removed from the reality of the region’s pervasive sprawl. True wilderness has now become remote from our day-to-day urban and suburban lives. Still, the West continues to engage us as a landscape of possibility."

"On the coast, possibilities seem to close and open at the same time."

"Mall windows suggest we can make ourselves into something new by buying something more. "Re-invent yourself," declared my local department store in its ad campaign. Photographs of glamorous women and men who have apparently succeeded in transforming themselves fill store windows. "Can You Afford Me?" the T-shirt on the half-reclining young woman asks, signaling both the shirt’s price and the price of passing it up. Buy the goods, adopt the look, and the glamour of mall models can be ours."

I think this is really terrific work and I think the questions Harris raises about the possibilities open to us are crucially important. On the Western landscape, it seems, commercial development threatens possibility, in the mall commerce extends the illusion of possibility (in the guise of putatively transformative products). And on the coast? Is it nature that offers up fleeting possibilities? From my perspective the important question is whether we might, in a non-commercial way create possibilities instead of waiting to encounter them or for them to present themselves. That compels us to confront the central challenge of politics.

Plausible Deniability

From today's New York Times: "The Rockefeller name worked its magic last night at Sotheby’s sale of contemporary art, where a mysterious bearded collector in a skybox outbid five other contenders for Rothko’s “White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose).” The $72.8 million he paid, far above the painting’s $40 million estimate, set records for both the artist and for any contemporary work at auction." I just want you readers to know that I am not the "mysterious bearded collector" from this story. Bearded, yes. Mysterious, not so much. That rich, definitely not. And I have many witnesses who can place me at a tailgate party following the Fairport-Pittsford lacrosse game last night. Blogging is not that lucrative!