In Defense of the “Politics of Difference” -Adrian Piper’s Place in the Sun
During the Red Scare of the 1950s Clement Greenberg’s formalist discourse reigned
supreme. Greenberg’s camp denied content in general and political subject matter in particular.
In response to this ideology and the Puritanism of culture at large a rebellious
anti-formalist, non-aesthetic mindset coalesced–orthodox
materials such as wood, steel, plaster and the painted two-dimensional surface became
inadequate tools for the realization of artistic ideas– Minimalism was born from this
rebellion. Minimalist rejected the speculative theorizing that was attached to art by formalist
critics.2 And the subjective internal emotive experience or “hand” of the artist. Minimalist
art focused on primary qualities: size, shape, length, and position opposed to secondary or
more subjective qualities: color, texture, or referent.10 This focus reconstituted art as a
self-reflexive object, and emphasized the unique, particularity of the specific object.
Minimalist geometry and reductiveness also distanced the viewer both physically and
psychologically. The works denied the human desire to project meaning due to their
austerity–this is partly why Minimalist works were said to be confrontational–the works gave
the viewer nothing and directed the viewer back unto his or hers own physicality/consciousness.
This forced the viewer to become self-aware. This experience is what Michael Fried called
“objecthood.” Objecthood confirmed the primacy of the object as content paradoxically enough
the “thinginess” of Minimalist Art also signaled the complete dematerialization of the art
object. The Conceptual art movement quickly expanded and harnessed the foundation created
by Minimalist Art, valorizing the cognitive ideas of the artist over the physical appearance of
the art work. Conceptual art dematerialized the art object completely. In during so formalist
Modernism overarching statement “art is everything that is not art” had mistakenly set
the stage for overt social content to re-enter the American art scene.
This paper’s focus is Adrian Piper. Pipers early conceptual performance pieces
synthesized and expanded conceptual arts investigation of mental cognition and
Minimalist concerns of objecthood and self-reflexivity. Throughout history artist that have
made these vanguard gestures from the margins of the art world were eventually given
Avant-garde status, this validation by the academic canon is similar to Sainthood. Even if
a canonized artist produced just one “grand work”, the label instantly gives credibility to
everything the artist did or ever will do. Essentially the artist will never be forgotten, since
any similar or related work, only serves to reinforce the canonized works importance as
forefather or trendsetter. Thus, all art must pass through the membrane of the canon. It is
taken in good faith that the glory of canonization is bestowed on art that expands the very idea
of what art is, can and should be. This essay will show Adrian Piper’s early performances were
Avant-garde and Piper’s lack of institutional support by, educators, curators, collectors
and museums are not isolated incidents or the accidental overlooking of a significant
artist. On the contrary, Piper’s lack of institutional reception is a signifier of the systemic
entrenched perspective of the Art World. By comparing and contrasting Pipers work with
the works of two canonical artists, Robert Barry and Cindy Sherman, in regards to form,
content and in relation to critical reception, this text will decode the discourse of the Art
World and the idea of pluralism this discourse promotes.
As the 1960′s came to an end Adrian Piper (through a transitional work entitled
The Hypothesis Series, 1968-1970) began to realize an important difference between
human objects and all other objects. Human objects can be physically examined by
others and can also examine their own internal consciousness, simultaneously. Said
another way, a human object with its own particularity, height, width, weight and
temperament, can be said to refer to nothing outside of its specific individuality yet, this
same human object can have symbolic or stereotypical meaning projected on to it, by
other human objects. Piper explored this object, subject nature of the human being
directly in a 1970 Untitled Performance for Max’s Kansas City. Like Robert Barry’s piece
from “Psychic Series (1969): All the things I Know but of which I am not at the moment
thinking-1:36p: June 15, 1969.”4 Piper‟s piece is also concerned with self-absorption.
Max‟s Kansas City was a popular hang-out for the New York City Art World.5The scene
overflowed with art consciousness and self-consciousness about art consciousness.1 To
walk into Max‟s was to be co-opted into the collective art self-conscious consciousness,
either as passive object or active participant.1 In order to negate or complicate both
options, Adrian Piper privatized her own consciousness by depriving her senses of input
from that environment. She isolated all tactile, audio, visual, feedback.1 Piper walked
around the potentially star studded crowd for an hour, speaking to no one.5 Her duality
as object and subject subverts the usual artistic creative process–she became a finite
object instead of merely producing one. In doing so Piper expands the limits of aesthetic
and artistic experience by presenting herself as a solipsistic minimalist sculpture.
Robert Barry’s piece on the other hand was a “pure” conceptualist work, “that reflects upon an
event occurring in a past time and place…. One is only left with the evidence of
phenomenology of the mind.”4 Again, both works deal with phenomenology of the mind:
Barry‟s of the mind expressed through language, Pipers of the mind expressed through
the body. Not to argue that Piper‟s piece was a “pure” conceptual work, conceptualism’s
anti-formalist approach to art had become as much of an institution as formalism itself.4
So, if Robert Barry’s canonized piece articulated what conceptual art was, Adrian Piper’s
piece pointed to where conceptual art was going. Chris Burden‟s 1973 Bed Piece for
instance, dealt with physical and mental isolation, restriction and the voyeurism of the
audience, these were the exact motifs Piper dealt with three years prior yet, Chris
Burden‟s work is canonized. Again, Piper‟s work provides a theoretical bridge from
Barry‟s work to Burden‟s.
The next artist this text will discuss is Cindy Sherman. Sherman‟s most
acclaimed work, Untitled Film Stills (1977-1980), consist of a series of sixty-five, black
and white photographs. In each photo, Sherman ostensibly assumes the stereotypical
identity of a Hollywood Actress, reconfiguring herself through: hairstyle, make-up,
clothing, body language and camera angle, as a satirical representation of cinematic
femininity.8 Sherman‟s work is widely disseminated and discussed; from feminist film
theorist Laura Mulvey to art critics, Peter Schjeldahl and Arthur Danto. Yet, In a 1993
essay, From “Cindy Sherman: Untitled, Rosalind Krauss revisits Sherman‟s acclaimed
work. Krauss applies Barthes‟ analysis of mythical speech to Sherman’s Film Stills.
Krauss arranges her thesis around a critic, she never gave the critics name but later
described the critic as a straw man because, his opinion is generally considered false
but his cognitive fallacy is identical to Arthur Danto and Peter Schjeldahl–they were all
myth consumers.7 In the case of the straw man, he mistakenly consumed Sherman‟s
photos as complete sign or past movie. Meaning, the object or physical photo is
believed to be a signifier.7 The elements depicted in the photos: clothing, hair-do,
camera-angle, lighting, are believed to be the signified or instance. The combination of
the two–signifier and signified–are falsely assumed to be a sign or direct reference to
Actress X in film Y.7 With an intellectual sleight of hand. Krauss effectively
showed Sherman‟s Stills are not autobiographical, the works have not passed through
the temperament, personality, memory or thoughts of the artist.7 Krauss explains to see
the Stills as an externalization of the character or emotions of Sherman would be, “a
process of self-deception or hallucination…To buy the pitch (but) To fail to look under
the Hood.”7
Krauss is correct to argue against a strictly autobiographical reading of the Stills,
sadly, this point is not her ultimate goal. She concluded the essay by stating that the
works have nothing to do with the “real” world in general; arguing that Sherman‟s Stills
should be viewed as strictly: camera angle, depth-of-field, clarity, graininess, light,
In her essay, Krauss confronted multiple interpretations of
darkness, positive and negative space.7 For her the Stills are strictly formal conventions,
“an effect of the already-written, already-herd, already read” codes.7 Krauss has
completely stripped the politics of identity from the Stills; and separated the potential
content of Sherman‟s Stills from their formal qualities. Krauss thus replaces content with
form, using philosophical theory to obscure insights that could be used to illuminate
systems of domination as well as provide strategies to fight against that domination.
This is an example of how postmodern discourses, both art and philosophy interlock for
exclusionary, apolitical purposes even as they claim to call attention to “difference” and
“Otherness.”9 This ploy “provides oppositional political meaning legitimacy and
immediacy.”9 Krauss‟ framing of Sherman is similar to High Modernism‟s fetish for
“purity”. Modernist theory is being concealed behind a postmodern language, in much
the same way the Modernist copy was concealed behind the original. Thus, postmodern
language is not typically used as a tool of resistance, although it could easily provide the
marginalized a voice to combat the authority of “master” narratives; on the contrary, it is
typically used as a rhetorical device that insincerely appropriates the idea of difference,
in order to promote the idea of pluralism. In contemporary art pluralism is venerated as
proof of arts transcendence over a Marxist critique.
Yet, the fact that politically relevant art must be “cleaned-up” or sterilized
contradicts the discursive lip-service, this fact is predominantly why Piper is not
canonized. Piper‟s work cannot be cleaned through formalist theorizing. Piper‟s use of
form and material cannot be separated from their content. The Art World only allows
political work of this kind a certain amount of visibility and has certain mechanisms in
place to discredit works of this nature. Donald Kuspit, is one type of fail-safe. Quoting
from his 1987 essay on Piper: “Each of her performances reads like a case history. Each
her problem-filled life a microcosm of the female problematic, an exemplary symptom of
a larger sickness unto female death.” Or “…exist to pull herself together emotionally, or
to camouflage a self so overwrought with anxiety about the threat of disintegration from
within that it seems unable to be centered in itself. It must dissolve outward in
discourse…that…masks emotional incoherence. Piper’s overwrought discourse seems
the centrifugal expression of a collapsing self… a… form of distress…Piper’s
intellectuality is a sign of a false self, in part the self-others expect her…to have…in
search of her true emotional self…” Notice how different the Art World deals with Piper
compared to Sherman. Kuspit is determined to derive the meaning of Piper‟s work
completely through his psycho-analysis of Piper. Yet remember what Krauss said, to
see the Stills as an externalization of the character or emotions of Sherman would be, “a
process of self-deception or hallucination…To buy the pitch (but) To fail to look under
the Hood.”7
In hopes of concretely showing how Sherman’s “Stills” relate to Piper the text will
now discuss Adrian Pipers Mythic Being Series. A mythic being is a false or abstract
persona that is generally part of a story or folklore used to explain or sanctify social or
legal institutions or explain natural phenomena.2 In this performance piece, Piper
assumes an art persona–The Mythic Being–a stereotypical identity of a “third world
male.” Reconfiguring herself through: clothing, hair-do, facial hair, mannerisms,
accessories, body language, and psychological and physiological impulses. The
affinities between Sherman‟s Stills (1977-1980) and Piper’s piece (1974-1976) should be
clear, one major or manufactured difference is Krauss‟ reading of Sherman‟s work which
restricts the Film Stills to a formalist endeavor. Again, this cannot be done with Piper‟s
work, her piece cannot be de-politicized, for it was intrinsically connected to the
discourse of life. This Mythic Being would visit certain cultural locales through-out the
city, art gallery openings, concerts, and films. This “third world male,” also took the
subway or buses and walked the streets at night within various neighborhoods.2 As art
persona Piper‟s behavior changed. She now walked with a swagger– a masculine bop–
set with her legs wide apart so as not to constrict her genitalia. Her sexual attraction to
women was openly displayed, no longer in competition with them for men. Piper‟s art-
persona followed women with predator like eyes, fantasizing about passionate scenes of
intimacy.2 Her sexual attraction to men was also altered and complicated by her
machismo appearance.2 Piper‟s persona forced her to envision male interaction as an
opportunity of kinship based on mutual respect and sincere friendship. Piper suppressed
expressions and thoughts of sexual desire.2 Adrian Piper further complicated the
metamorphosis between her and her art world persona by taking out ads and visually
reproducing the Mythic Being in the Village Voice, a widely distributed newspaper. The
Mythic Being appeared in the paper monthly with a cartoon thought bubble crudely
drawn over his head; the thought/speech bubble would be filled with different passages
from Piper‟s personal journal: “Today was the first day of school. The only decent boys
in my class are Robbie and Clyde. I think I like Clyde -9.21-61.”2 This phrase would then
be used as a mantra, which Piper would recite, while in drag, in order to maintain her
consciousness as the Mythic Being. The repetitive chant or mantra also emptied-out all
personal meaning for Adrian Piper.2 When these phrases appeared in the public arena
they were no longer documentations of Piper‟s past thoughts or emotions but historical
attributes of the Mythic Being.2 For Piper, the Mythic Being shares her consciousness to
a degree, then their inner histories diverge: Piper‟s past and present continues located
in time and space, while the Mythic Being, a collection of codes–a personality–not a
person, remains frozen in time.
As Krauss used postmodern theory to re-frame Cindy Sherman‟s Stills, this text
will now use postmodern theory to re-frame Adrian Piper‟s performance. In regards to
the composition of the postmodern individual or “subject” it has been said, that “ the
conflicting languages of power which circulate through and within individuals actually
constitute the self.”3 These languages of power like language itself are based on
binaries, as Derrida said, language does not so much describe realty as much as it
defers meaning or describes difference.3 Moreover, if an individual can be thought of as
a site of conflict and contradiction in the matrix of language–Piper‟s creation of the
Mythic Being skillfully describes how personality is nothing more than a combination of
contradicting and conflicting codes. Her performance shows the binary nature of the self/
human psychology; through her transformation into her visual/psychological inverse.
Piper is female, Mythic Being is male. Piper‟s complexion signifies her as a white female
the Mythic Being‟s afro signifies him as black/other male. Piper‟s education and chosen
field of profession (Analytical Philosophy) locates her within the ranks of the upper class;
thus, she can be read like language: rich, white, female. The Mythic Being‟s dress and
mannerisms locate him within the boules of the lower class, so he too is spoken for
before he speaks: poor, black, male. Not only are characters in film produced by codes,
but living breathing people are also spoken for and categorized by the binaries of
language.
Moreover, Piper discontinued the physical performance of the Mythic Being,
switching to a literary performance. This literary performance was purveyed through the
Village Voice a non-art publication. This performance is connected to Roland Barthes‟
“autobiographical” works. For instance in, “Ronald Barthes by Ronald Barthes (1975), an
autobiography begins by announcing in an epigraph that „all of this must be thought of as
being said by a character in a novel‟.”3 So there are two voices in the book, Barthes
“own” and that of Barthes as fictional “character.”3 This is exactly what is illustrated in
Piper‟s work done virtually at the same time as Barthes‟. Piper‟s Village Voice ad‟s
contained two voices and two bodies- that of the Mythic Being and that of Pipers. In his
work, Barthes‟ calls into question the codes that give the appearance of “literary realism”
thus he deconstructs the unity between author and the book the author produces in
hopes of “truthfully” describing life or society. Piper‟s piece also questioned the codes
that give appearance to “reality” (mannerisms, dress, education, sexual preference) in
doing so, she has deconstructed the moral/psychic unity of the individual.
It is often said, both postmodernist art and philosophy have opened up a
theoretical terrain where “difference and Otherness” can be considered legitimate
issues.9 If this was truly the case then Piper would be canonized but more often than not
phrases such as these only mask the unchanged status-quo. However, to be fair this
text acknowledges that the canon does leave deserving and relevant artist out of its self-
perpetuating system. A believer in liberal humanism, would argue this is what happened
in Piper‟s case and the canon might one day make room for her. As it did for Cy
Twombly, who suffered early obscurity, as his works were deemed out-of-step with the
avant-garde of his time, Abstract Expressionism. Or one could argue that Piper‟s
insistence on confronting the “politics of difference” is morally or ethically taboo,
somewhat linking Piper‟s predicament to Theodoros Stamos‟ situation. His ethics were
called into question due to his involvement with the Rothko Estate Scandal. He was
deemed guilty by the Art World, his work was instantly erased from the canons
trajectory. Yet, Piper has not acted morally transgressive, art has always carried the
code of politics, look at the work of Delacrouix, Goya, Gericault, Picasso.
What lies beneath Pipers lack of validation becomes clear when an announcement by Rosalind
Krauss, is recalled, “at a 1983 symposium, she doubted there was any unrecognized
African-American art of quality because if it didn‟t bring itself to her attention, it probably
didn‟t exist.”1 When this statement is de-coded what Krauss‟ announcement explicitly
states: the art world is not inherently bias or racist against blacks (we) the art world just
demand certain qualitative standards and blacks for one reason or another don‟t seem
to be up to the challenge. Krauss is famous for applying deconstruction philosophy to
art criticism, which makes her comments all the more, unfortunate. Those who
seemingly wield cognitive powers that enable them to see beyond the illusory and
antiquated structures which surround and mediate human interaction are themselves
chained to the very structure they claim to see through. Krauss comments, were made
with prideful candor, they speak through and point to, the discourse, not only art but
societal discourse.
Continuing, discourse should be defined; in this context, discourse is a group of
“historically evolved interlocking, self-supporting statement(s), used to define a subject.”3
Krauss‟ naturalization of the overarching discourse, shatters any fantasies about the
idea of “liberal humanist thought, which is supposed to be capable of being autonomous
and rational.”3 Krauss shows the subject can never stand aside from the actual social
conditions or text and judge from an autonomous point of view.3 The social condition or
text which surrounds Krauss, is the “a priori” of American history. Meaning, the history
that comes before the experience of history itself. This is a sort of theoretical groundwork
the language used to describe this pre- experience is instantly naturalized and
internalized as “truth.” This is why Rosalind Krauss is unafraid and unashamed, the
“truth” she speaks was here long before her and will be here long after her. Actually, it is
not so much that Krauss speaks the discourse but more so the discourse speaks
through her. At the heart of this discourse is the essentialist statement: blacks by
essence are slaves–blacks are meant to be slaves. This “truth” was created through:
systemic kidnapping, torture, rape, murder, dehumanization, the denial of education
and citizenship. Those actions taken in their totality silenced the black voice/experience.
The denial of this voice is how authority or “master narratives” derive power and
influence. If the world is viewed through this master narrative or this codified
framework/discourse, can anyone expect this discourse to ever transcend itself? If
Individuals compose/consume/perpetuate the discourse, to become self-aware of the
way this discursive practice legitimates itself is to admit that identity comes at the
abasement and degradation of the “Other”… Until this self-revelation occurs it will always
seem perfectly “natural” “reasonable” and “normal” to devalue, marginalize and overlook
the life-activity of blacks. This is what is meant when it is said that the discourse speaks
through Krauss- black art like black experience becomes invisible to consumers of this
discourse. This sort of discursive consciousness is what “Foucault calls, the
„archaeology‟ of the episteme.3 Conditions that lie below perception–they are not always
explicit– so the episteme is a kind of epistemological unconscious for the age.”3 To view
the “Other”/ blacks as individuals not as type, is to view the human object on merit alone
or outside the discourse. Thus, self-consciousness provides the only escape from the
epistemological unconscious.
Finally, Adrian Piper synthesized and expanded conceptual art and Minimalist art
motifs and methodologies, creating a catalyst code that can potentially help postmodern
subjects with self-reflexivity. Piper‟s works erect an art platform that can sustain the
weight of enriching discussions about timeless and significant art concepts. Perhaps it is
finally time for her place in the sun, as she ascends into the realm of the Saints.
DeShawn Lamar Dumas
Piper, Adrian, Out Of Order, Out Of Sight Volume 1, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1996.
Piper, Adrian, Out Of Order, Out Of Sight Volume 2, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1996.
Butler, Christopher, Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Morgan C, Robert, Art Into Ideas, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Wark Jayne, Conceptual Art and Feminism, Woman’s Art Journal. Vol. 22, No. 1, pp 44-50,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/135873
Schopenhauer, Arthur, Essays And Aphorisms, London, England: Penguin Press, 1970
Krauss, Rosalind, From “Cindy Sherman: Untitled” (1993)
http://www.mariabuszek.com/kcai/PoMoSeminar/Readings/KraussSherman.pdf
Matthews, P, Art Since 1945 Allen Memorial Art Museum, Oberlin College
http://www.oberlin.edu/amam/Sherman_UntitledFilm.htm
Hooks, Bell, “Postmodern Blackness,” from Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics, Boston,
Massachusetts: South End Press, 1990.
http://www.mariabuszek.com/kcai/PoMoSeminar/Readings/hooksPoMoBlckness.pdf
Piper, Adrian, ArtForum International, September 2010, pp 269-270
supreme. Greenberg’s camp denied content in general and political subject matter in particular.
In response to this ideology and the Puritanism of culture at large a rebellious
anti-formalist, non-aesthetic mindset coalesced–orthodox
materials such as wood, steel, plaster and the painted two-dimensional surface became
inadequate tools for the realization of artistic ideas– Minimalism was born from this
rebellion. Minimalist rejected the speculative theorizing that was attached to art by formalist
critics.2 And the subjective internal emotive experience or “hand” of the artist. Minimalist
art focused on primary qualities: size, shape, length, and position opposed to secondary or
more subjective qualities: color, texture, or referent.10 This focus reconstituted art as a
self-reflexive object, and emphasized the unique, particularity of the specific object.
Minimalist geometry and reductiveness also distanced the viewer both physically and
psychologically. The works denied the human desire to project meaning due to their
austerity–this is partly why Minimalist works were said to be confrontational–the works gave
the viewer nothing and directed the viewer back unto his or hers own physicality/consciousness.
This forced the viewer to become self-aware. This experience is what Michael Fried called
“objecthood.” Objecthood confirmed the primacy of the object as content paradoxically enough
the “thinginess” of Minimalist Art also signaled the complete dematerialization of the art
object. The Conceptual art movement quickly expanded and harnessed the foundation created
by Minimalist Art, valorizing the cognitive ideas of the artist over the physical appearance of
the art work. Conceptual art dematerialized the art object completely. In during so formalist
Modernism overarching statement “art is everything that is not art” had mistakenly set
the stage for overt social content to re-enter the American art scene.
This paper’s focus is Adrian Piper. Pipers early conceptual performance pieces
synthesized and expanded conceptual arts investigation of mental cognition and
Minimalist concerns of objecthood and self-reflexivity. Throughout history artist that have
made these vanguard gestures from the margins of the art world were eventually given
Avant-garde status, this validation by the academic canon is similar to Sainthood. Even if
a canonized artist produced just one “grand work”, the label instantly gives credibility to
everything the artist did or ever will do. Essentially the artist will never be forgotten, since
any similar or related work, only serves to reinforce the canonized works importance as
forefather or trendsetter. Thus, all art must pass through the membrane of the canon. It is
taken in good faith that the glory of canonization is bestowed on art that expands the very idea
of what art is, can and should be. This essay will show Adrian Piper’s early performances were
Avant-garde and Piper’s lack of institutional support by, educators, curators, collectors
and museums are not isolated incidents or the accidental overlooking of a significant
artist. On the contrary, Piper’s lack of institutional reception is a signifier of the systemic
entrenched perspective of the Art World. By comparing and contrasting Pipers work with
the works of two canonical artists, Robert Barry and Cindy Sherman, in regards to form,
content and in relation to critical reception, this text will decode the discourse of the Art
World and the idea of pluralism this discourse promotes.
As the 1960′s came to an end Adrian Piper (through a transitional work entitled
The Hypothesis Series, 1968-1970) began to realize an important difference between
human objects and all other objects. Human objects can be physically examined by
others and can also examine their own internal consciousness, simultaneously. Said
another way, a human object with its own particularity, height, width, weight and
temperament, can be said to refer to nothing outside of its specific individuality yet, this
same human object can have symbolic or stereotypical meaning projected on to it, by
other human objects. Piper explored this object, subject nature of the human being
directly in a 1970 Untitled Performance for Max’s Kansas City. Like Robert Barry’s piece
from “Psychic Series (1969): All the things I Know but of which I am not at the moment
thinking-1:36p: June 15, 1969.”4 Piper‟s piece is also concerned with self-absorption.
Max‟s Kansas City was a popular hang-out for the New York City Art World.5The scene
overflowed with art consciousness and self-consciousness about art consciousness.1 To
walk into Max‟s was to be co-opted into the collective art self-conscious consciousness,
either as passive object or active participant.1 In order to negate or complicate both
options, Adrian Piper privatized her own consciousness by depriving her senses of input
from that environment. She isolated all tactile, audio, visual, feedback.1 Piper walked
around the potentially star studded crowd for an hour, speaking to no one.5 Her duality
as object and subject subverts the usual artistic creative process–she became a finite
object instead of merely producing one. In doing so Piper expands the limits of aesthetic
and artistic experience by presenting herself as a solipsistic minimalist sculpture.
Robert Barry’s piece on the other hand was a “pure” conceptualist work, “that reflects upon an
event occurring in a past time and place…. One is only left with the evidence of
phenomenology of the mind.”4 Again, both works deal with phenomenology of the mind:
Barry‟s of the mind expressed through language, Pipers of the mind expressed through
the body. Not to argue that Piper‟s piece was a “pure” conceptual work, conceptualism’s
anti-formalist approach to art had become as much of an institution as formalism itself.4
So, if Robert Barry’s canonized piece articulated what conceptual art was, Adrian Piper’s
piece pointed to where conceptual art was going. Chris Burden‟s 1973 Bed Piece for
instance, dealt with physical and mental isolation, restriction and the voyeurism of the
audience, these were the exact motifs Piper dealt with three years prior yet, Chris
Burden‟s work is canonized. Again, Piper‟s work provides a theoretical bridge from
Barry‟s work to Burden‟s.
The next artist this text will discuss is Cindy Sherman. Sherman‟s most
acclaimed work, Untitled Film Stills (1977-1980), consist of a series of sixty-five, black
and white photographs. In each photo, Sherman ostensibly assumes the stereotypical
identity of a Hollywood Actress, reconfiguring herself through: hairstyle, make-up,
clothing, body language and camera angle, as a satirical representation of cinematic
femininity.8 Sherman‟s work is widely disseminated and discussed; from feminist film
theorist Laura Mulvey to art critics, Peter Schjeldahl and Arthur Danto. Yet, In a 1993
essay, From “Cindy Sherman: Untitled, Rosalind Krauss revisits Sherman‟s acclaimed
work. Krauss applies Barthes‟ analysis of mythical speech to Sherman’s Film Stills.
Krauss arranges her thesis around a critic, she never gave the critics name but later
described the critic as a straw man because, his opinion is generally considered false
but his cognitive fallacy is identical to Arthur Danto and Peter Schjeldahl–they were all
myth consumers.7 In the case of the straw man, he mistakenly consumed Sherman‟s
photos as complete sign or past movie. Meaning, the object or physical photo is
believed to be a signifier.7 The elements depicted in the photos: clothing, hair-do,
camera-angle, lighting, are believed to be the signified or instance. The combination of
the two–signifier and signified–are falsely assumed to be a sign or direct reference to
Actress X in film Y.7 With an intellectual sleight of hand. Krauss effectively
showed Sherman‟s Stills are not autobiographical, the works have not passed through
the temperament, personality, memory or thoughts of the artist.7 Krauss explains to see
the Stills as an externalization of the character or emotions of Sherman would be, “a
process of self-deception or hallucination…To buy the pitch (but) To fail to look under
the Hood.”7
Krauss is correct to argue against a strictly autobiographical reading of the Stills,
sadly, this point is not her ultimate goal. She concluded the essay by stating that the
works have nothing to do with the “real” world in general; arguing that Sherman‟s Stills
should be viewed as strictly: camera angle, depth-of-field, clarity, graininess, light,
In her essay, Krauss confronted multiple interpretations of
darkness, positive and negative space.7 For her the Stills are strictly formal conventions,
“an effect of the already-written, already-herd, already read” codes.7 Krauss has
completely stripped the politics of identity from the Stills; and separated the potential
content of Sherman‟s Stills from their formal qualities. Krauss thus replaces content with
form, using philosophical theory to obscure insights that could be used to illuminate
systems of domination as well as provide strategies to fight against that domination.
This is an example of how postmodern discourses, both art and philosophy interlock for
exclusionary, apolitical purposes even as they claim to call attention to “difference” and
“Otherness.”9 This ploy “provides oppositional political meaning legitimacy and
immediacy.”9 Krauss‟ framing of Sherman is similar to High Modernism‟s fetish for
“purity”. Modernist theory is being concealed behind a postmodern language, in much
the same way the Modernist copy was concealed behind the original. Thus, postmodern
language is not typically used as a tool of resistance, although it could easily provide the
marginalized a voice to combat the authority of “master” narratives; on the contrary, it is
typically used as a rhetorical device that insincerely appropriates the idea of difference,
in order to promote the idea of pluralism. In contemporary art pluralism is venerated as
proof of arts transcendence over a Marxist critique.
Yet, the fact that politically relevant art must be “cleaned-up” or sterilized
contradicts the discursive lip-service, this fact is predominantly why Piper is not
canonized. Piper‟s work cannot be cleaned through formalist theorizing. Piper‟s use of
form and material cannot be separated from their content. The Art World only allows
political work of this kind a certain amount of visibility and has certain mechanisms in
place to discredit works of this nature. Donald Kuspit, is one type of fail-safe. Quoting
from his 1987 essay on Piper: “Each of her performances reads like a case history. Each
her problem-filled life a microcosm of the female problematic, an exemplary symptom of
a larger sickness unto female death.” Or “…exist to pull herself together emotionally, or
to camouflage a self so overwrought with anxiety about the threat of disintegration from
within that it seems unable to be centered in itself. It must dissolve outward in
discourse…that…masks emotional incoherence. Piper’s overwrought discourse seems
the centrifugal expression of a collapsing self… a… form of distress…Piper’s
intellectuality is a sign of a false self, in part the self-others expect her…to have…in
search of her true emotional self…” Notice how different the Art World deals with Piper
compared to Sherman. Kuspit is determined to derive the meaning of Piper‟s work
completely through his psycho-analysis of Piper. Yet remember what Krauss said, to
see the Stills as an externalization of the character or emotions of Sherman would be, “a
process of self-deception or hallucination…To buy the pitch (but) To fail to look under
the Hood.”7
In hopes of concretely showing how Sherman’s “Stills” relate to Piper the text will
now discuss Adrian Pipers Mythic Being Series. A mythic being is a false or abstract
persona that is generally part of a story or folklore used to explain or sanctify social or
legal institutions or explain natural phenomena.2 In this performance piece, Piper
assumes an art persona–The Mythic Being–a stereotypical identity of a “third world
male.” Reconfiguring herself through: clothing, hair-do, facial hair, mannerisms,
accessories, body language, and psychological and physiological impulses. The
affinities between Sherman‟s Stills (1977-1980) and Piper’s piece (1974-1976) should be
clear, one major or manufactured difference is Krauss‟ reading of Sherman‟s work which
restricts the Film Stills to a formalist endeavor. Again, this cannot be done with Piper‟s
work, her piece cannot be de-politicized, for it was intrinsically connected to the
discourse of life. This Mythic Being would visit certain cultural locales through-out the
city, art gallery openings, concerts, and films. This “third world male,” also took the
subway or buses and walked the streets at night within various neighborhoods.2 As art
persona Piper‟s behavior changed. She now walked with a swagger– a masculine bop–
set with her legs wide apart so as not to constrict her genitalia. Her sexual attraction to
women was openly displayed, no longer in competition with them for men. Piper‟s art-
persona followed women with predator like eyes, fantasizing about passionate scenes of
intimacy.2 Her sexual attraction to men was also altered and complicated by her
machismo appearance.2 Piper‟s persona forced her to envision male interaction as an
opportunity of kinship based on mutual respect and sincere friendship. Piper suppressed
expressions and thoughts of sexual desire.2 Adrian Piper further complicated the
metamorphosis between her and her art world persona by taking out ads and visually
reproducing the Mythic Being in the Village Voice, a widely distributed newspaper. The
Mythic Being appeared in the paper monthly with a cartoon thought bubble crudely
drawn over his head; the thought/speech bubble would be filled with different passages
from Piper‟s personal journal: “Today was the first day of school. The only decent boys
in my class are Robbie and Clyde. I think I like Clyde -9.21-61.”2 This phrase would then
be used as a mantra, which Piper would recite, while in drag, in order to maintain her
consciousness as the Mythic Being. The repetitive chant or mantra also emptied-out all
personal meaning for Adrian Piper.2 When these phrases appeared in the public arena
they were no longer documentations of Piper‟s past thoughts or emotions but historical
attributes of the Mythic Being.2 For Piper, the Mythic Being shares her consciousness to
a degree, then their inner histories diverge: Piper‟s past and present continues located
in time and space, while the Mythic Being, a collection of codes–a personality–not a
person, remains frozen in time.
As Krauss used postmodern theory to re-frame Cindy Sherman‟s Stills, this text
will now use postmodern theory to re-frame Adrian Piper‟s performance. In regards to
the composition of the postmodern individual or “subject” it has been said, that “ the
conflicting languages of power which circulate through and within individuals actually
constitute the self.”3 These languages of power like language itself are based on
binaries, as Derrida said, language does not so much describe realty as much as it
defers meaning or describes difference.3 Moreover, if an individual can be thought of as
a site of conflict and contradiction in the matrix of language–Piper‟s creation of the
Mythic Being skillfully describes how personality is nothing more than a combination of
contradicting and conflicting codes. Her performance shows the binary nature of the self/
human psychology; through her transformation into her visual/psychological inverse.
Piper is female, Mythic Being is male. Piper‟s complexion signifies her as a white female
the Mythic Being‟s afro signifies him as black/other male. Piper‟s education and chosen
field of profession (Analytical Philosophy) locates her within the ranks of the upper class;
thus, she can be read like language: rich, white, female. The Mythic Being‟s dress and
mannerisms locate him within the boules of the lower class, so he too is spoken for
before he speaks: poor, black, male. Not only are characters in film produced by codes,
but living breathing people are also spoken for and categorized by the binaries of
language.
Moreover, Piper discontinued the physical performance of the Mythic Being,
switching to a literary performance. This literary performance was purveyed through the
Village Voice a non-art publication. This performance is connected to Roland Barthes‟
“autobiographical” works. For instance in, “Ronald Barthes by Ronald Barthes (1975), an
autobiography begins by announcing in an epigraph that „all of this must be thought of as
being said by a character in a novel‟.”3 So there are two voices in the book, Barthes
“own” and that of Barthes as fictional “character.”3 This is exactly what is illustrated in
Piper‟s work done virtually at the same time as Barthes‟. Piper‟s Village Voice ad‟s
contained two voices and two bodies- that of the Mythic Being and that of Pipers. In his
work, Barthes‟ calls into question the codes that give the appearance of “literary realism”
thus he deconstructs the unity between author and the book the author produces in
hopes of “truthfully” describing life or society. Piper‟s piece also questioned the codes
that give appearance to “reality” (mannerisms, dress, education, sexual preference) in
doing so, she has deconstructed the moral/psychic unity of the individual.
It is often said, both postmodernist art and philosophy have opened up a
theoretical terrain where “difference and Otherness” can be considered legitimate
issues.9 If this was truly the case then Piper would be canonized but more often than not
phrases such as these only mask the unchanged status-quo. However, to be fair this
text acknowledges that the canon does leave deserving and relevant artist out of its self-
perpetuating system. A believer in liberal humanism, would argue this is what happened
in Piper‟s case and the canon might one day make room for her. As it did for Cy
Twombly, who suffered early obscurity, as his works were deemed out-of-step with the
avant-garde of his time, Abstract Expressionism. Or one could argue that Piper‟s
insistence on confronting the “politics of difference” is morally or ethically taboo,
somewhat linking Piper‟s predicament to Theodoros Stamos‟ situation. His ethics were
called into question due to his involvement with the Rothko Estate Scandal. He was
deemed guilty by the Art World, his work was instantly erased from the canons
trajectory. Yet, Piper has not acted morally transgressive, art has always carried the
code of politics, look at the work of Delacrouix, Goya, Gericault, Picasso.
What lies beneath Pipers lack of validation becomes clear when an announcement by Rosalind
Krauss, is recalled, “at a 1983 symposium, she doubted there was any unrecognized
African-American art of quality because if it didn‟t bring itself to her attention, it probably
didn‟t exist.”1 When this statement is de-coded what Krauss‟ announcement explicitly
states: the art world is not inherently bias or racist against blacks (we) the art world just
demand certain qualitative standards and blacks for one reason or another don‟t seem
to be up to the challenge. Krauss is famous for applying deconstruction philosophy to
art criticism, which makes her comments all the more, unfortunate. Those who
seemingly wield cognitive powers that enable them to see beyond the illusory and
antiquated structures which surround and mediate human interaction are themselves
chained to the very structure they claim to see through. Krauss comments, were made
with prideful candor, they speak through and point to, the discourse, not only art but
societal discourse.
Continuing, discourse should be defined; in this context, discourse is a group of
“historically evolved interlocking, self-supporting statement(s), used to define a subject.”3
Krauss‟ naturalization of the overarching discourse, shatters any fantasies about the
idea of “liberal humanist thought, which is supposed to be capable of being autonomous
and rational.”3 Krauss shows the subject can never stand aside from the actual social
conditions or text and judge from an autonomous point of view.3 The social condition or
text which surrounds Krauss, is the “a priori” of American history. Meaning, the history
that comes before the experience of history itself. This is a sort of theoretical groundwork
the language used to describe this pre- experience is instantly naturalized and
internalized as “truth.” This is why Rosalind Krauss is unafraid and unashamed, the
“truth” she speaks was here long before her and will be here long after her. Actually, it is
not so much that Krauss speaks the discourse but more so the discourse speaks
through her. At the heart of this discourse is the essentialist statement: blacks by
essence are slaves–blacks are meant to be slaves. This “truth” was created through:
systemic kidnapping, torture, rape, murder, dehumanization, the denial of education
and citizenship. Those actions taken in their totality silenced the black voice/experience.
The denial of this voice is how authority or “master narratives” derive power and
influence. If the world is viewed through this master narrative or this codified
framework/discourse, can anyone expect this discourse to ever transcend itself? If
Individuals compose/consume/perpetuate the discourse, to become self-aware of the
way this discursive practice legitimates itself is to admit that identity comes at the
abasement and degradation of the “Other”… Until this self-revelation occurs it will always
seem perfectly “natural” “reasonable” and “normal” to devalue, marginalize and overlook
the life-activity of blacks. This is what is meant when it is said that the discourse speaks
through Krauss- black art like black experience becomes invisible to consumers of this
discourse. This sort of discursive consciousness is what “Foucault calls, the
„archaeology‟ of the episteme.3 Conditions that lie below perception–they are not always
explicit– so the episteme is a kind of epistemological unconscious for the age.”3 To view
the “Other”/ blacks as individuals not as type, is to view the human object on merit alone
or outside the discourse. Thus, self-consciousness provides the only escape from the
epistemological unconscious.
Finally, Adrian Piper synthesized and expanded conceptual art and Minimalist art
motifs and methodologies, creating a catalyst code that can potentially help postmodern
subjects with self-reflexivity. Piper‟s works erect an art platform that can sustain the
weight of enriching discussions about timeless and significant art concepts. Perhaps it is
finally time for her place in the sun, as she ascends into the realm of the Saints.
DeShawn Lamar Dumas
Piper, Adrian, Out Of Order, Out Of Sight Volume 1, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1996.
Piper, Adrian, Out Of Order, Out Of Sight Volume 2, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1996.
Butler, Christopher, Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Morgan C, Robert, Art Into Ideas, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Wark Jayne, Conceptual Art and Feminism, Woman’s Art Journal. Vol. 22, No. 1, pp 44-50,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/135873
Schopenhauer, Arthur, Essays And Aphorisms, London, England: Penguin Press, 1970
Krauss, Rosalind, From “Cindy Sherman: Untitled” (1993)
http://www.mariabuszek.com/kcai/PoMoSeminar/Readings/KraussSherman.pdf
Matthews, P, Art Since 1945 Allen Memorial Art Museum, Oberlin College
http://www.oberlin.edu/amam/Sherman_UntitledFilm.htm
Hooks, Bell, “Postmodern Blackness,” from Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics, Boston,
Massachusetts: South End Press, 1990.
http://www.mariabuszek.com/kcai/PoMoSeminar/Readings/hooksPoMoBlckness.pdf
Piper, Adrian, ArtForum International, September 2010, pp 269-270
No comments:
Post a Comment