Reasons Why Assemblage (Or “Crap on Crap”) Is Now The “House Style” of the Art World

What I like about that list is the way it can be added to pretty much indefinitely. So the answer to the question “Why are people making work like this?” is essentially: “It depends.” And the more you consider that answer, the more it becomes clear that even talking about “trash art” as a category is incoherent.

I mean, you could point out that Ed Ruscha, Robert Indiana, Jean-Michel Basquiat, and Christopher Wool have all made artworks that use words. So? Have you said anything beyond: “In the late 20th century, language became something you could use in art”? If you’re going to go anywhere beyond that, you would have to, at the very least, READ the words they’ve used. And once you starting reading, start looking at specific examples, “art that uses words” pretty much stops being a productive category.

Whenever I see people talking about “trash art” or “detritus” or “crap on crap,” it’s pretty clear to me that there isn’t any reading going on. First of all, it’s often incorrect. Most of the objects used in so-called “trash art” simply AREN’T trash. How is it that “trash” has become a synonym for “any manufactured item of relatively low monetary value”? If I used that definition in real life, I’d end up throwing out just about everything I own.

In real life, in the non-art world of everyday interactions with objects, a pair of handcuffs, a shower curtain, and a cardboard box don’t have much in common. They serve different functions, they come from different places, they look different, they’re made from different materials. This is blindingly obvious. No one accidently reaches for a wig when they want a six-pack of beer. Yet once these objects show up in artworks, they all belong to the same vague category: detritus. (Or, if the objects are arranged more neatly, they might belong to the similarly vague category: “the commodity.”) It seems crazy that all the quotidian skills of distinction that everybody uses to get by–the ability to “read” manufactured objects–so often get tossed away the moment these objects show up in an art context.

What I like about that list is the way it can be added to pretty much indefinitely. So the answer to the question “Why are people making work like this?” is essentially: “It depends.” And the more you consider that answer, the more it becomes clear that even talking about “trash art” as a category is incoherent.

I mean, you could point out that Ed Ruscha, Robert Indiana, Jean-Michel Basquiat, and Christopher Wool have all made artworks that use words. So? Have you said anything beyond: “In the late 20th century, language became something you could use in art”? If you’re going to go anywhere beyond that, you would have to, at the very least, READ the words they’ve used. And once you starting reading, start looking at specific examples, “art that uses words” pretty much stops being a productive category.

Whenever I see people talking about “trash art” or “detritus” or “crap on crap,” it’s pretty clear to me that there isn’t any reading going on. First of all, it’s often incorrect. Most of the objects used in so-called “trash art” simply AREN’T trash. How is it that “trash” has become a synonym for “any manufactured item of relatively low monetary value”? If I used that definition in real life, I’d end up throwing out just about everything I own.

In real life, in the non-art world of everyday interactions with objects, a pair of handcuffs, a shower curtain, and a cardboard box don’t have much in common. They serve different functions, they come from different places, they look different, they’re made from different materials. This is blindingly obvious. No one accidently reaches for a wig when they want a six-pack of beer. Yet once these objects show up in artworks, they all belong to the same vague category: detritus. (Or, if the objects are arranged more neatly, they might belong to the similarly vague category: “the commodity.”) It seems crazy that all the quotidian skills of distinction that everybody uses to get by–the ability to “read” manufactured objects–so often get tossed away the moment these objects show up in an art context.

“Six years of art education teaches that high art is dead so everyone takes the low road.”

To which one would add, “Art education invariably has become the hang-out of the untalented, uninspired, unintelligent and unteachable refuse of the failed high schools of America.”

Rinse and repeat for decades and you get crap artists piled on top of crap artists taking their crap to the crap curators and crap gallery owners who have to show something so why not show crap.

“Six years of art education teaches that high art is dead so everyone takes the low road.”

To which one would add, “Art education invariably has become the hang-out of the untalented, uninspired, unintelligent and unteachable refuse of the failed high schools of America.”

Rinse and repeat for decades and you get crap artists piled on top of crap artists taking their crap to the crap curators and crap gallery owners who have to show something so why not show crap.

“Most of the objects used in so-called “trash art” simply AREN’T trash.” Maybe yes and maybe no, but ultimately irrelevant. It’s the art itself that’s trash.

“Most of the objects used in so-called “trash art” simply AREN’T trash.” Maybe yes and maybe no, but ultimately irrelevant. It’s the art itself that’s trash.

Assemblage feels like a trend right now, based on Unmonumental, Younger Than Jesus, the 2008 Biennial and what Paddy and Karen have been reporting on from the fairs. I’m not sure why identifying it precludes “reading” the constituent parts of the art. As Item 10 above suggests, parsing out the web-based elements of the collages in the above shows was a fascinating task (if daunting for the lag time in vocabulary). On the subject of naming, please see the discussion of Michael Mahalchick’s “web detritus” collage a few posts back. One of AFC’s commenters called it a familiar mishmash and I asked the commenter to name some individual parts. He/she couldn’t or wouldn’t, so I took a stab at it.

Assemblage feels like a trend right now, based on Unmonumental, Younger Than Jesus, the 2008 Biennial and what Paddy and Karen have been reporting on from the fairs. I’m not sure why identifying it precludes “reading” the constituent parts of the art. As Item 10 above suggests, parsing out the web-based elements of the collages in the above shows was a fascinating task (if daunting for the lag time in vocabulary). On the subject of naming, please see the discussion of Michael Mahalchick’s “web detritus” collage a few posts back. One of AFC’s commenters called it a familiar mishmash and I asked the commenter to name some individual parts. He/she couldn’t or wouldn’t, so I took a stab at it.

Vanderleum-
I challenge you to spend one day in ANY art department anywhere, from your local community college to Yale. What you will find there are students with the most inquisitive minds, complex emotions, and passionate selves. These aren’t people just “going to college”. These are folks who usually were too intelligent and complex for high school, who don’t fit in with regimented test taking, who found refuge in likewise creative minds and followed each other into art departments.

I am in one every day, I know what I am talking about. I don’t have any training in psychology to help in digging up the source of your irrational hate, I urge you to find someone who does.

Vanderleum-
I challenge you to spend one day in ANY art department anywhere, from your local community college to Yale. What you will find there are students with the most inquisitive minds, complex emotions, and passionate selves. These aren’t people just “going to college”. These are folks who usually were too intelligent and complex for high school, who don’t fit in with regimented test taking, who found refuge in likewise creative minds and followed each other into art departments.

I am in one every day, I know what I am talking about. I don’t have any training in psychology to help in digging up the source of your irrational hate, I urge you to find someone who does.

the only one on this list that irks me is the logic behind no. 3:nnDisgust with capitalism and consumer culture.nnThat isn’t to say that no one is making the work with that idea in mind but… The work is just as much a part of capitalism if an exhibition is financed by private funds or money from the state. How often do you see work like this outside of a commercial gallery or state-funded institution?

the only one on this list that irks me is the logic behind no. 3:\n\nDisgust with capitalism and consumer culture.\n\nThat isn’t to say that no one is making the work with that idea in mind but… The work is just as much a part of capitalism if an exhibition is financed by private funds or money from the state. How often do you see work like this outside of a commercial gallery or state-funded institution?

Have been thinking more about SS’s argument that art worlders are struck dumb in the face of detritus and recent posts here somehow prove this. A better counterexample than the Mahalchick collage (because it bridges cyberspace and real–or manufactured–space):nnDouble Happiness’ installation at vertexList in Brooklyn last year was a kind of “mega scatter” event. nnhttp://www.tommoody.us/archives/2008/09/13/double-happiness-at-vertexlist/nnSome of the AFC commenters who say current work lacks discipline compared to Rauschenberg et al would hate it. It sought to convince by overwhelming you with information. The viewer became a visual spelunker or wall climber across figurative miles and miles of crap. But after the initial “what is all this stuff?” the naming function kicks back in (“what nouns would I use to describe this?”), followed by the “function function” (“and what verbs?”).nnDoing a brief write up I got this far: “The [hundreds of] DVD cases are Nigerian and Thai cinema, mostly. One [video monitor embedded in the morass] was still rendering when I arrived so I didn’t get a shot of it (just the default JVC screen with colored spheres). The “snack station” features a working refrigerator and microwave and gallerygoers were heating mini-pizzas… The scatter-orgy successfully translates the maxed-out, unrepressed, multiple-overlapping-media vibe of the group’s blog. Taste and restraint are concepts they have no use for, making them the most lifelike of the surf clubs.”nnThere were also images, such as a school of sharks with the rasterized look that suggested a T-shirt shop or downloadable screen saver, and literal, printed wallpaper of the graffitioid scrawl “Jesus Rules.” (This was before “Younger than Jesus.”) One of the video monitors looped a cringe-inducing YouPorn vignette of a middle aged man masturbating onto another middle aged man’s face. The installation existed half in the physical world and half in a world of materialized virtual reference.nnSome writers are going to shut down in the face of all this and call it “a collection of detritus” or say “Double Happiness produced a large assemblage.” It seems unfair to say that “tossing aside the quotidian skills of distinction” would be a frequent response to the work, or to say it shouldn’t be described as part of a trend that stretches back to the Merzbau.nnIt is absolutely correct to say it wouldn’t be compared to the “word art” of Ruscha, Indiana, Basquiat, and Wool.

Have been thinking more about SS’s argument that art worlders are struck dumb in the face of detritus and recent posts here somehow prove this. A better counterexample than the Mahalchick collage (because it bridges cyberspace and real–or manufactured–space):\n\nDouble Happiness’ installation at vertexList in Brooklyn last year was a kind of “mega scatter” event. \n\nhttp://www.tommoody.us/archives/2008/09/13/double-happiness-at-vertexlist/\n\nSome of the AFC commenters who say current work lacks discipline compared to Rauschenberg et al would hate it. It sought to convince by overwhelming you with information. The viewer became a visual spelunker or wall climber across figurative miles and miles of crap. But after the initial “what is all this stuff?” the naming function kicks back in (“what nouns would I use to describe this?”), followed by the “function function” (“and what verbs?”).\n\nDoing a brief write up I got this far: “The [hundreds of] DVD cases are Nigerian and Thai cinema, mostly. One [video monitor embedded in the morass] was still rendering when I arrived so I didn’t get a shot of it (just the default JVC screen with colored spheres). The “snack station” features a working refrigerator and microwave and gallerygoers were heating mini-pizzas… The scatter-orgy successfully translates the maxed-out, unrepressed, multiple-overlapping-media vibe of the group’s blog. Taste and restraint are concepts they have no use for, making them the most lifelike of the surf clubs.”\n\nThere were also images, such as a school of sharks with the rasterized look that suggested a T-shirt shop or downloadable screen saver, and literal, printed wallpaper of the graffitioid scrawl “Jesus Rules.” (This was before “Younger than Jesus.”) One of the video monitors looped a cringe-inducing YouPorn vignette of a middle aged man masturbating onto another middle aged man’s face. The installation existed half in the physical world and half in a world of materialized virtual reference.\n\nSome writers are going to shut down in the face of all this and call it “a collection of detritus” or say “Double Happiness produced a large assemblage.” It seems unfair to say that “tossing aside the quotidian skills of distinction” would be a frequent response to the work, or to say it shouldn’t be described as part of a trend that stretches back to the Merzbau.\n\nIt is absolutely correct to say it wouldn’t be compared to the “word art” of Ruscha, Indiana, Basquiat, and Wool.

Dear Paddy and Karen,nI want to thank you for inviting and hosting a wondrous series, the IMG IMGT invited artist series. This week ,Marc Handelman’s remarkable piece on the sky, on nature, perspective divinity, and agency, Jon Rafman’s insightful and moving essay on the nature of representation in Google Street View are exceptionally thoughtful and ‘beautiful’, Vvork’s photo essay on Turbo Sculpture and the attachment issue lead to a considered view of contemporary culture. These integrated philosophical, political, artistic and social insights have indeed provided original contributions at a remarkable level. The invited artists probably benefited from editing whether internal or external and put a lot of thought into their projects and essays. nI should like to suggest that immediately following the publication of the invited artist piece, there should be a desisting from starting or perpetuating blogs of an entirely different nature, where the thought process, the restraint or consideration of the contents seem to have have encountered far less internal judgment. These blogs are at a very different level and to my mind tend to detract from concentration on the originality, or theoretical and artistic features of the invited piece and seem unfair as we are distracted from giving them the full attention they deserve.nPerhaps you could have an invited series on the issues, e.g. trash art, recently raised. Sandra

Dear Paddy and Karen,\nI want to thank you for inviting and hosting a wondrous series, the IMG IMGT invited artist series. This week ,Marc Handelman’s remarkable piece on the sky, on nature, perspective divinity, and agency, Jon Rafman’s insightful and moving essay on the nature of representation in Google Street View are exceptionally thoughtful and ‘beautiful’, Vvork’s photo essay on Turbo Sculpture and the attachment issue lead to a considered view of contemporary culture. These integrated philosophical, political, artistic and social insights have indeed provided original contributions at a remarkable level. The invited artists probably benefited from editing whether internal or external and put a lot of thought into their projects and essays. \nI should like to suggest that immediately following the publication of the invited artist piece, there should be a desisting from starting or perpetuating blogs of an entirely different nature, where the thought process, the restraint or consideration of the contents seem to have have encountered far less internal judgment. These blogs are at a very different level and to my mind tend to detract from concentration on the originality, or theoretical and artistic features of the invited piece and seem unfair as we are distracted from giving them the full attention they deserve.\nPerhaps you could have an invited series on the issues, e.g. trash art, recently raised. Sandra

SS’s comment made me think that maybe it’s FOUNDATIONALLY #6.

A syllogism:

1. Group A makes sculpture/assemblage
2. Group A uses “non-art materials”
3. Group A’s art work will look superficially similar

Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes

SS’s comment made me think that maybe it’s FOUNDATIONALLY #6.

A syllogism:

1. Group A makes sculpture/assemblage
2. Group A uses “non-art materials”
3. Group A’s art work will look superficially similar

Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes

Oh, no, the slash-ns for hard returns are back. Anyway, Sandra is the new maestro of the total backhanded compliment! “Dear Paddy, stop following great posts with posts that suck, you are discrediting the superior writers you invite here and bringing down the overall level of the blog. From now on, only make posts as good as your best ones.” An obvious newbie to the wacky inconsistent world of weblogs–welcome to 2001, Sandra.

Oh, no, the slash-ns for hard returns are back. Anyway, Sandra is the new maestro of the total backhanded compliment! “Dear Paddy, stop following great posts with posts that suck, you are discrediting the superior writers you invite here and bringing down the overall level of the blog. From now on, only make posts as good as your best ones.” An obvious newbie to the wacky inconsistent world of weblogs–welcome to 2001, Sandra.

this is some crap about crap..

http://the-steelers-blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/0-question-what-are-best-objects-to.html

this is some crap about crap..

http://the-steelers-blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/0-question-what-are-best-objects-to.html

Tom – thanks to you i have a new name for my band:

“A way to make formal arrangements of things without being called “Greenbergian.”

I would have called it “Nihilism”, but it was already taken by a Blink 182 cover band who’s looking for a singer – http://nihilismtheband.tripod.com/id1.html

Tom – thanks to you i have a new name for my band:

“A way to make formal arrangements of things without being called “Greenbergian.”

I would have called it “Nihilism”, but it was already taken by a Blink 182 cover band who’s looking for a singer – http://nihilismtheband.tripod.com/id1.html

What’s wrong with the idea of recycling, giving the object new meaning and new status?

What’s wrong with the idea of recycling, giving the object new meaning and new status?

Crap on crap artists are merely emulating nature. Nothing is messier than a forest. No one ever picks up anything! Restraint and simplicity are artificial anomalies created through human effort – that’s why they’re so surprising.

Crap on crap artists are merely emulating nature. Nothing is messier than a forest. No one ever picks up anything! Restraint and simplicity are artificial anomalies created through human effort – that’s why they’re so surprising.

If you figure that the last cycle of tight painting and more conservative aesthetics started around the mid 90s (think Peyton, Currin, Yuskavage), and started to fall out of trend around 2004/2005, then this is about the right timing for crap on crap. I don’t think it will last as long though, because won’t economic depression plus “crap on crap” equal an ultimately oppressive and depressing art world experience after awhile? Also, if outlets such as AFC are already beginning to call out the “frames sticking out of pedestals” art, then that means the tide is already turning.

If you figure that the last cycle of tight painting and more conservative aesthetics started around the mid 90s (think Peyton, Currin, Yuskavage), and started to fall out of trend around 2004/2005, then this is about the right timing for crap on crap. I don’t think it will last as long though, because won’t economic depression plus “crap on crap” equal an ultimately oppressive and depressing art world experience after awhile? Also, if outlets such as AFC are already beginning to call out the “frames sticking out of pedestals” art, then that means the tide is already turning.

If you figure that the last cycle of tight painting and more conservative aesthetics started around the mid 90s (think Peyton, Currin, Yuskavage), and started to fall out of trend around 2004/2005, then this is about the right timing for crap on crap. I don’t think it will last as long though, because won’t economic depression plus “crap on crap” equal an ultimately oppressive and depressing art world experience after awhile? Also, if outlets such as AFC are already beginning to call out the “frames sticking out of pedestals” art, then that means the tide is already turning.

Not to disagree with Angry Painter’s timeline but this just occurred to me: if we were discussing crap on crap in 1996-7 or so Jason Rhoades would have figured prominently in the discussion (“Semiotics Redefined: The Base Materialism of ‘Theatre in My Dick’”). I believe he is seen as the tail end of Cady Noland/Karen Kilimnick rather than the forerunner of the “Unmonumental” posse.

Not to disagree with Angry Painter’s timeline but this just occurred to me: if we were discussing crap on crap in 1996-7 or so Jason Rhoades would have figured prominently in the discussion (“Semiotics Redefined: The Base Materialism of ‘Theatre in My Dick’”). I believe he is seen as the tail end of Cady Noland/Karen Kilimnick rather than the forerunner of the “Unmonumental” posse.