Few artists can identify with as many movements as John Armleder. His artwork has spanned nearly 50 years, encompassing elements of collective art groups from modern to minimal to made up. His lives without characterization, a champion of the ambiguous, a transvestite in the constant titular world of contemporary art. But in a remarkable twist, Armleder finds something cohesive in his thought, the shifting doesn’t crack his method but makes it stronger. From his start in the collective Ecarts, he used imagery from popular movements of the day in a recycled and new vision. This reuse of past work, sometimes quite literally, is Armleder’s greatest strength. Citationism, one his of his many groups, allows him to be more overt in doing what all artists do, reference past work to create something new. In this way, Citationism is not just a commentary on art, but a commentary on how art is made, a dissection of process. Still, much of this Citationism takes on the form of comedy, heaping iconic still life materials in piles of trash, which duly asks if the art is now trash, or the trash is now art. A question answered most commonly by collectors. In an especially strange twist on this idea of recycling, Armleder uses his own work, taking one of his paintings and having it printed on a rug, then moving the rug from wall to pedestal to the floor. His invention is clever and self-analyzing, but often the idea is lost on the audience. To really understand Armleder’s work you have to know his past, know his paintings, sculpture, etc. Often, the only person who fully understands the recreation is Armleder, and while he makes no attempt to hide that the work is for himself, his denial of communication with the audience seems destructive to the qualities of his work. The organization of his work into art movements is done by the same people he seems to disregard in his creation, is he not dependant on their response? Here I question Armleder’s sincerity, in isolating himself and a few art enthusiasts what is he really doing with his work other than congratulating the privileged few knowledgeable enough to get the inside joke?
Despite some pretentious remarks, Armleder’s work itself is impressive. And while many critics and curators have heaped it in with movements of the day, Armleder’s own title pseudointelligence seems the most appropriate. He points out that art most commonly takes on academic devices, referencing history, science, or any other field for meaning. Armleder in contrast builds installations that are steeped in the cliches of communication, calling into question not academia but art. His method of working is against the obvious, in a culture that appreciates the unique, art collaged from predecessors is often ridiculed. Yet, that is how not only art but society as a whole evolves. To ignore our past may create new visions, but their depth is lacking the strength of a foundation. Armleder strikes many different tones in his interview, sometimes humble, sometimes condescending. His greatest weakness is the contradiction between his intent and his necessity, and while the masses are not always the most observant, their power as an audience and a tool for analysis beyond the original intent should never be overlooked. John Armleder’s constant recycling allows his work to survive the constraints of contemporary fads, but the charm of period qualities is lost with this as well. If the Mona Lisa were repainted every decade, it might still hang in the Louvre, but it’s influence would be lost. Recycling art, is pleasing, but ultimately his aim should be to make art strong enough to survive the changes of culture. Great art needs no reinvention, it has no trend to to catch up with, its power timeless. Just as we save limited edition 7up cans, lets remember not everything needs recycling.
bainbridgepress 