OVER THIS PAST YEAR I had
two little epiphanies. The first came on a January night a few weeks after the
opening of the new
Yoshio Taniguchi, the
architect of the new MOMA, is a master of such light construction, and Terry
Riley, chief curator of architecture there, is a great advocate.
Riley (who has announced
his departure from MOMA next March) thinks such transparency is true both to
the precepts of modernist design and to the virtuality of the digital world,
and so perfect for the museum today. But there is a contradiction here, or
rather the collapse of one. Modernist transparency purported to be about
structural clarity, not light effects, yet the new MOMA evokes a dematerialized
minimalism: a sublimation of material and technique, not an exposure; a
fetishization of substance and structure, not a defetishization—in short, the
near opposite of what “modernism” and “Minimalism” once meant. In a sense,
abstraction stall rules, but It is not the White on White of Malevich; it is
closer to the “new vision” of Moholy, a vision of transparency driven by the
transformable media of the machine age, only here It is updated as the
cyberaesthetic of high finance. Give me enough money, Taniguchi told the MOMA
trustees In an oft-repeated remark, “and I’ll make the architecture disappear.”
But of course it doesn’t disappear; ultrarefined, it permeates everything, and
its rarefaction is everywhere. Such is the MOMA effect: a sublimation that is
at once aesthetic, architectural, and financial. Stumbling across the new
Modern that night, and crossed it with the old Moholy Image, began to clarify
for me what that might be about.
So much for epiphany one.
(It wasn’t a visionary year.) Epiphany two occurred six months later at another
bastion of art, the Venice Biennale. For all the babel of work on view, I was
struck by one idiom held in common—a bricolage of advanced and archaic images
and objects. Often archival, with its practitioners drawn to marginal figures
and outmoded forms, this ethnopoetic way of working is associated with artists
from David Hammons and Jimmie Durham to Gabriel Orozco and Rirkrit Tiravanija.
But other artists prominent today also work in this mode: Thomas Hirschhorn,
Pierre Huyghe, Stan Douglas, Sam Durant, Matthew Buckingham…In two pieces in
Venice this archival gaze was turned on two moments within European modernity
already touched with archaism: In a large Installation William Kentridge looked
back to one origin of cinema in Georges Méliès and created, in homage, his own
fantastic Journey to the Moon, while in a discreet film Tacita Dean meditated
on the stranded status of the Palast der Republik, the old seat of the GDR
government in Berlin, which is scheduled for demolition.
This Orphean mode is now
familiar enough, so what was the epiphany? Here again It came in the form of a
double exposure. In some ways, this mixing of advanced and archaic means, of
new and outmoded media, is distinctive to contemporary art. Yet in other ways,
it runs back to the early years of the twentieth century, when modernists were
also seized by a fierce dynamic of technological transformation, Imperial
conquest, and social upheaval, and responded with varieties of futurism,
primitivism, and constructivism. Then some artists struggled to respond to
modernization, and some do so again today, only in a far more penetrative
register of media, empire, and market that is already naturalized as
“globalization.” A problematic version of this encounter, at
What do these two little
epiphanies add up to? Only this: The different ends of this or that aspect of
modernism or modernity that many of us proclaimed, rightly or wrongly, over the
last three decades might have blinded us, at least in part, to one narrative,
perhaps the grandest of all, that continues unabated, even unabashed: the narrative
of modernization. What might count as a dialectical engagement, critical yet
non-nostalgic, resistant yet utopian, with its most important manifestations
today? Neither a new “new vision,” I league, nor old-school practices that
pretend nothing has changed. In the new year I hope some artists will point a
way forward.
Hal Foster is Townsend Martin Professor and Chair of Art
and Archaeology at Princeton University and the author, most recently, of
Prosthetic Gods (MIT Press, 2004)