Content provided in partnership with
Kelley Walker
ArtForum, Oct, 2004 by Bob Nickas
Coming to New York in the mid-'90s, I became aware of the difference between artists: Jeff Wall was cautious, Warhol was trouble. Warhol's work seemed much more intuitive, which I liked because of its direct expression, often in the form of a failed self-negation coupled with violence. Since then, I have become conscious that, however informed, by working intuitively Warhol found in Pop his conception of a functional antagonist, a one-character avant-garde, and a duplicity achieved through a language of marketing. Warhol's direct self-promotion and soliciting--offering the prize of a glamorous dinner with the cover star of that month's Interview to someone who commissioned a multi-panel portrait, for example--point to a significant reason he achieved such success as an antagonist. Through his use of commercial strategies. Warhol honestly questioned the hegemony that had come about through the avant-garde's activity of self-maintenance. I see a similar noncynical approach in later artists such as Cady Noland. In my recent work, I attempt to continue the dialogue between a contemplative history of display and the strategies of appeal inherited from Pop. Instead of presenting objects on a pole, I silk-screened white, dark, and milk chocolate onto canvas digitally printed with a 1960s black-and-white news photo (not unlike the ones Warhol used) of a race riot in the South.--AS TOLD TO BOB NICKAS
- Most Popular Articles in Arts
- Art since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism
- Free-standing cardboard sculpture
- What makes a successful business person? Business people who are tops in ...
- Take advantage of local advertising: TV, newspaper or magazines? If your ...
- Tino Sehgal at the ICA
- More »
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
COPYRIGHT 2004 Artforum International Magazine, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
