Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Three Things on the Decline of... | One Thing You Could Do Tonight... »

Monday, June 5, 2006

It’s A Class Issue, Like Everything Else

Posted by on June 5 at 11:17 AM

Warning: This post is going to mention Dale Chihuly, so if you’re allergic to anything I have now or ever will say about him, step aside and keep up the blind loathing/loving/dismissal/avoidance.

In the last column I wrote for The Stranger, called Things Don’t Make Themselves, I called out some holes in a recent New York Times story that blithely described a division in the art world between thinkers and makers as intellectually grounded in something “post-conceptual.” I highlighted an artist who “omitted from publicity materials that she hired 20 poor Zulu women to glue glass beads to the barbed-wire cage she showed at White Cube Gallery in London. She wanted the piece to be aesthetic, not social, not tainted by the rags that came before the riches.”

The blogger Art Powerlines covered this in a piece I just saw this morning but that was posted several weeks ago (now that I know he’s out there, I’ll check him/her every day, I know!). A good little discussion took off about this on the comments, between Megan V. and Art Powerlines:

Megan V: It seems to me that there is a big difference between what the 1960’s conceptualists and minimalists did in telephoning in the dimensions of their sculptures to a fabrication company, and what Lou does. I think the difference is partially this: those early minimalist sculptures acknoweldged the anonymous nature of their production, they didn’t try to hide it. Like in your LeWitt quote, the materials are part of the concept. So, you have a concept behind the works that is at least partially in coherence with the anonymity of their production, the mechanized, assembly-line aesthetic, the industrial materials, etc.

A steel cube is one thing, a million hand-attached beads is another. The concept behind Lou’s work depends on the viewer looking at and marvelling over the millions of tiny beads, and being aware of that labor. Not given any indication otherwise, one assumes that she did it herself…. and her one pair of hands attaching the millions of tiny beads is a very different thing than dozens of anonymous hands attaching them. It’s like if you found out that Janine Antoni didn’t chew away her own chocolate cubes… it would change the interpretation of the work. Wouldn’t it?

Art Powerlines: What has struck me most about Liza Lou is how she didn’t want to “call attention” to the process of the work, rather the finished product. No one wants to call attention to how the latest air jordans are being made either.

The first line of the press release for Liza Lou’s exhibition at White Cube: “Combining visionary, conceptual and craft approaches, Lou makes mixed-media sculptures and room-size installations that are suggestive of a transcendental reality.”

Transcendental reality? It is so interesting. I don’t see how you can operate your studio like NAFTA and say it’s transcending reality. Do you?

I post this in contrast to an early response I got from a powerful person in contemporary art locally, who told me after reading my first Chihuly piece that by questioning his production methods, I was shirking my duty to educate the masses that art is not handicraft. Class divide, indeed.


CommentsRSS icon

postmodern conceptualism is a morally and aesthetically bankrupt evolutionary dead end.

But art is handicraft.

…the arrogance of the urban intellect, which, detached from its roots and no longer guided by strong instinct, looks down with contempt on the full-blooded thinking of the past and the wisdom of ancient peasant stock… Rationalism is at bottom nothing but criticism, and the critic is the reverse of a creator: he dissects and he reassembles; conception and birth are alien to him. Accordingly his work is artificial and lifeless, and when brought into contact with real life, it kills.


The intellectual vs. peasants is the world's oldest dialectic. Look at the labels on your clothing, your computer, your mousepad, your watch...thousands of Chinese peasants slave away making all the pretty things you use for a few months and then throw away. No one knows the names of those peasants.


The handi work of those Zulu women is known only because of the artist-intellectual. What if the artist had her beadwork done in China? Would anyone have said anything then? Why does Zulu handiwork deserve credit, when thousands more Chinese workers are slaving away clogging Pottery Barn and Urban Outfitters? Why is a Chinese woman who spends ten years making beaded lampshapes for Pottery Barn less important than a Zulu woman who spends two months beading a stupid art project? What if that Chinese woman can lay one hundred beads an hour, and the Zulu woman can only lay twenty?


The only class issue here is if a poor person spends $10 on a handbeaded Urban Outfitters lampshade, is that poor person purchasing art? If a rich person is standing in a gallery looking at a hand beaded square are they looking at art? Both objects are hand beaded. Why is one in a gallery and one in a poor person's house?

If you really gave a shit about the handiwork of women who do beadwork, that lame gallery project is irrelevant. You'd be writing about the thousands of women in Chinese factories. But you don't care about the women, you care about the concept of third world women doing work and not being credited.

Jen in your writing do you credit the workers who assembled your computer? The programmers who wrote the software? Without that software this blog would be impossible. Why are your thoughts more important than the software that makes display of your thoughts possible?


For the answer to that go talk to your collegue Charles who admits he prefers the urban thinker to the peasant worker.

Jen it's probably wrong that you are more famous than the person cleans out the toilets in your office, or the plumber that installed those toilets in the first place. Without those toilets it would be impossible to run your publication. But intellectuals are always more famous than laborers.

Who would you rather meet, The White Stripes, or the people who built their guitar and drumkit? The White Stripes or the factory workers that package their CDs? The White Stripes or the janitor who cleans the recording studio where they work? Are you certain that The White Stripes have more talent than the craftsmen who built their instruments? If not why is White Stripes a household name and the guitar maker unknown?


Poor people already know that you Jen and your trust funder collegues could not function without hundreds of working class hands supporting you. Poor people realize they do the handiwork in creating the culture and the urban intellects get the credit. That is how it should be.

But please keep writing funny stories fretting about some Zulu women who got paid to do beadwork. By all means keep attacking working class artists from Tacoma who became millionaires.

Watching the absurd machinations of the urban intellect has always been a welcome entertainment for the working poor who are at this moment slaving away to make the lifestyle of the affluent urban intellect possible.

You're right, Dumb Toilet Cleaner. You run "dialectic" circles around me logically. Unfortunately, my celebrity schedule prevents me from engaging you further, however, as I am late for my daily dip in my home indoor pool lined with a million dollars of glass art.

Those Zulu women were oppressed by not getting credit and only getting money for the work they did. A Chinese woman making Nike shoes knows she isn't creating art, so she doesn't need any credit, just money.


People who clean toilets at "The Stranger" are not writers. Anyone can clean a toilet, writers are special.

Jen, can you find out the names of the workers installed the glass in the Rem Koolhaas library? I'd prefer to name the library after the people who did the physical labor on the building. Why is Rem so reluctant to credit those who make his buildings possible?

Wow, someone uncaged the spittle-spewing mouth-foamers today.

"Watching the absurd machinations of the urban intellect has always been a welcome entertainment for the working poor who are at this moment slaving away to make the lifestyle of the affluent urban intellect possible."

And here I was, thinking that the working poor were slaving away to feed their families and pay rent. Silly me.

Instead, they're like visitors to some human zoo, standing and pointing and amused to death by us highbrow intellectuals discussing process in art-creation while they scrub our shit from the porcelain.

Every one of your analogies proves you miss the point, DTC. Maybe try wiping the froth from your screen and rereading.

Curious, I think the difference between what you're talking about and what I'm talking about is that architecture is publicly collaborative. Rem didn't have to credit his workers for you to know that they were there: they're built into the profession itself.

Let's be clear: I don't have a problem with artists who use anonymous assistants; I have a problem with artists who use anonymous assistants and then either hide that they ever did, or act like using them was simultaneously a conceptually driven (or conceptually justified) and ultimately meaningless act. It can't be both a part of the work, and nothing to do with the work. One, or the other, but not both. Get what I'm saying?

You know, it's 99% luck - and at most 0.99% perspiration and 0.01% inspiration - that determines who's successful enough to get noticed in this world, whether in art, architecture, or weekly reader authorship.

Some people are lucky enough to become Chiefs, the rest of us have to settle for being Indians.

Hence the poverty of "conceptual" art: nice work if you can get it, but shouldn't you try a little harder if you want to earn the Indians' respect?

As for your powerful contact in the arts community, Jen - name names please!

Then we can all give this nitwit a piece of our collective mind.

I highly doubt that those Zulu women give a crap if they get credit. Money is more important to them than the knowledge that some art snobs in London appreciate their labor. That said, I think all artists should disclose whether they did all the busy work themselves. Their audience can then evaluate whether it's a good work of art in its own right, not simply an example of painstaking physical labor.

Art is not handicraft? Then art is shit.

It's all about handicraft for me. A roomful of grannies making quilts is more valuable than all the conceptual artists in the world put together. Fuck 'em. And fuck Dale Chihuly.

When Allen said: Those Zulu women were oppressed by not getting credit and only getting money for the work they did. A Chinese woman making Nike shoes knows she isn't creating art, so she doesn't need any credit, just money.

Good point Allen, but at the end of the day it's not about credit or money. It's about exploitation, and exploiting laborers. Has anyone asked the Zulu women if they would like credit? Mia Fineman asked Liza Lou, did she call the women in Durban and ask them?

If we're going to talk about money, well then, that is another agenda altogether. Take money out of the equation, and what are we left with? Who are we? What do we have? What does credit even matter?

Thanks Jen for linking me, liked what you wrote...and by the way, I am a she.

artpowerlines

In America we all have some form of "Zulu Women" doing our dirty work and not getting credit. It's not only the people with glass lined swimming pools. Everyone.


The beaded box cleverly pointed that out. Why don't you ask one of the workmen who installed the glass on the Rem Koolhaas building if given the choice he'd rather have the money and fame? My guess is he would.

I am the mighty Rump Coolhouse praised by The Stranger. The greatest architect known to man. The men and women who labored to build my structure don't matter. It's my name attached to the Seattle Public Library because my concept is what matters.


No matter how skilled the glass cutters are in their own right, no one will never even know they existed. The final creation is my vision, and will forever contribute to my fame.


No one cares about the workers who have the essential skills, it's the brilliant mind that guides those skills that deserves praise.


Lead me to that roomfull of quilt sewing grannies and I'll create a Rump Coolhouse Seattle quilt that will put this city on the map.


It's about exploitation, and exploiting laborers. Has anyone asked the glass workers if they would like credit for Seattle Public Library? No.


Does anyone care if Martha Stewart bakes the cakes that appear in her magazine? No.


Do readers of this Blog care to know the names of the software developers who make blogs possible? No?.


It's those who exploit the skills for their own fame that our society praises. That's a good thing.


Simple people who make things with their hands are the world's true artists. A comforting quilt, a bowl made by a potter's hands. This is where the heart is visable. Creativity comes from our hearts. Art galleries are not the place to find true art.

"It's all about handicraft for me. A roomful of grannies making quilts is more valuable than all the conceptual artists in the world put together. Fuck 'em. And fuck Dale Chihuly."

Amen, Fnarf.

I read the original NYT Article, and I lost my admiration for the beaded work in question when I read that the labor was jobbed out.

And while you're at it, fuck Dale Chihuly in the empty eye socket.

Mark Mitchell: I'm totally with you except for the eye-socket thing. Mind using your own dick for that? I'm, uh, no. Please no.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).