Interview with Michael Asher, March 1981 - Part 3
Web Video Text Tracks Format (WebVTT)
WEBVTT
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:12.000
Michael Asher: There's nothing—there's nothing idiosyncratic, there's nothing to engage me at that point, ah, in the work, and I—
00:00:12.000 --> 00:00:34.000
Jan Butterfield: Ah. But why does that have to be different every time? I mean, God knows I've seen plenty of that work, but, but the thing that was interesting to me about it- Now, I'm probably more critical of everyone's work than almost anybody; besides, I've been following it very closely, right? What's interesting to me that I could still-after 10 years of looking at the work- respond newly, okay? And then it was interesting for me to examine, for me to examine okay?
Michael Asher: Hmm, hmm [[affirmative]]
00:00:34.000 --> 00:01:01.000
Jan Butterfield: Then you have to ask yourself - I thought at the same time when I heard he was gonna do that, I thought okay, that's too easy. You know why didn't he could do scrim piece again. But I was really pretty sure he wasn't gonna do - he didn't have any more scrim pieces in him, because he was just going on to other - he was involved in a whole other thing. Then you have to, I mean - because that also gets into the issue of why did [[Trulevel?]] repeat the pieces, [[Verstalachen?]] at the, at the Whitney.
00:01:01.000 --> 00:01:11.000
I'm not sure new pieces have to be done all the time. You all get so few opportunities. You know, all of you could use more places, okay?
00:01:11.000 --> 00:01:14.000
Michael Asher: No, I, I just -
00:01:14.000 --> 00:01:18.000
Jan Butterfield: Your vocation is to always do a new piece. At least I under-
00:01:18.000 --> 00:01:33.000
Michael Asher: No, I just - I don't think there's so few places. I really think that there's too much, there's too much for me to do right now. I would even - I'm to the point of even turning things down, I mean, I can't - I don't have that kind of time. Um.
00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:47.000
Jan Butterfield: Okay alright, but - yes, and I understand that, I probably would tend to do new pieces too if that's the kind of thing I did. On the other hand, there may be lots of people who haven't seen the others and it would be perfectly acceptable if -
00:01:47.000 --> 00:01:49.000
Michael Asher: Are you getting into works of... [[crosstalk]]
00:01:49.000 --> 00:01:51.000
Jan Butterfield: I mean new isn't better.
00:01:51.000 --> 00:02:06.000
Michael Asher: Yeah, I know that, I know that. Are you getting into the idea of ah, work in situ, and if so, then you better state that, and say that - because we're on tape here.
00:02:06.000 --> 00:02:08.438
Jan Butterfield: That's what I'm trying to do [[crosstalk]]
Michael Asher: And um...
00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:35.000
Michael Asher: Also, if that's the case then, umm, I would say that none of Irwin's works have been predetermined by the architecture. He has manipulated the architecture in order to--
00:02:35.000 --> 00:02:38.000
Jan Butterfield: Interesting point, no, it's an interesting point.
00:02:38.000 --> 00:02:43.000
Michael Asher: Yeah, he has manipulated the architecture in order to embrace his work. Whereas if, --
00:02:43.000 --> 00:02:44.000
Jan Butterfield: That's an interesting point.
00:02:44.000 --> 00:02:52.000
Michael Asher: You come into a room like this it's predetermined there are windows all the way around and you just take out the windows.
00:02:52.000 --> 00:03:06.000
Okay, okay you say, well okay that's a manipulation of architecture. Perhaps it is, but in fact you're, what you're doing what you're pulling in and pulling out are architectural components.
00:03:06.000 --> 00:03:16.000
You're not pu- you're not imbuing the work necessarily with-with um--
00:03:16.000 --> 00:03:28.000
Jan Butterfield: Well given the simplistic devil's advocate question is, is that enough? If you are an artist, why do you choose to enhance the work of the architect instead of doing your own, that's the simplistic--
00:03:28.000 --> 00:03:29.000
Michael Asher: Enhance the work of the architect?
00:03:29.000 --> 00:03:30.000
Jan Butterfield: Sure
00:03:30.000 --> 00:03:31.000
Michael Asher: Because it's an issue.
00:03:31.000 --> 00:03:32.000
Jan Butterfield: Work in concert--
00:03:32.000 --> 00:03:34.000
Michael Asher: I don't know. I don't I don't know if I enhance it--
00:03:34.000 --> 00:03:36.000
Jan Butterfield: Why do you feel that--
00:03:36.000 --> 00:03:41.000
Michael Asher: I don't think I- I don't think I, I always enhance it. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't.
00:03:41.000 --> 00:03:44.000
Jan Butterfield: Or but at least you desire would be to. For some reason you might not.
00:03:44.000 --> 00:03:46.000
Michael Asher: Uh-huh, I think it-- I--
00:03:46.000 --> 00:03:49.000
Jan Butterfield: Or might not enhance, maybe work in concert with or-or come in at an angle--
00:03:49.000 --> 00:03:51.000
Michael Asher: I think this is a very subversive work.
00:03:51.000 --> 00:03:53.000
Jan Butterfield: Okay, the document[?] piece.
00:03:53.000 --> 00:03:54.000
Michael Asher: Yes. No, no.
00:03:54.000 --> 00:03:57.000
Jan Butterfield: I mean the uh, yes, the really huge piece.
00:03:57.000 --> 00:03:58.000
Michael Asher: No, no.
00:03:58.000 --> 00:03:59.000
Jan Butterfield: Which one is that?
00:03:59.000 --> 00:04:05.000
Michael Asher: This work here. This is from Chicago. And I did that before. I knew, I--
00:04:05.000 --> 00:04:08.000
Jan Butterfield: Why do you feel that the Chicago work is that subversive?
00:04:08.000 --> 00:04:09.000
Michael Asher: Subversive?
00:04:09.000 --> 00:04:11.321
Jan Butterfield: I mean, I think the other Chicagoan was more subversive.
00:04:13.000 --> 00:04:17.000
Michael Asher: subversive, because only because, well, okay the fact is that I--
00:04:17.000 --> 00:04:23.000
Jan Butterfield: We have about 3 minutes if you're--How close is your watch to being right? Sorry to be bad, but I--
00:04:23.000 --> 00:04:24.000
Michael Asher: Uh, it's 5 minutes fast.
00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:25.000
Jan Butterfield: 5 Minutes but [[Inaudible]]
00:04:25.000 --> 00:04:29.000
Michael Asher: It's 5 minutes, it's 5 minutes fast. Um--
00:04:29.000 --> 00:04:37.000
Jan Butterfield: Maybe, I think the other Chicago piece with removal of George [[inauduble]] is perversely subversive and I like it for that reason. It's just so on the money.
00:04:37.000 --> 00:04:51.000
Michael Asher: Well, okay. Yeah. It did deals with a double negation which this doesn't totally deal with this, though it deals with the negation of, of um or the question of why?
00:04:51.000 --> 00:05:04.000
Why do you take the planning of the architect and showcase it? And you tell me you tell me that that's not if that is your term of perverse, that's kind of strange.
00:05:04.000 --> 00:05:11.000
But, how come it works so well once it's showcased and all you see out here are, are bricks?
00:05:11.000 --> 00:05:24.000
You know, and tell me tell me then where, where did the declaration come from that the architecture, that the architect is using? Where did the ornament come from that the, that the architect is using?
00:05:24.000 --> 00:05:41.000
It's a question, sure. It came from that dis..., the architectural discourse, but it certainly falls back on the art discourse, on the discourse of art because it fits in so beautifully with the art discourse. And it was just the wrong--
00:05:41.000 --> 00:05:42.000
Jan Butterfield: No it's not true. It's a nice piece that one.
00:05:42.000 --> 00:05:45.000
Michael Asher: It's the wrong building to design for this particular usage.
00:05:45.000 --> 00:05:47.000
Jan Butterfield: No, it's not true.
00:05:47.000 --> 00:05:50.000
Michael Asher: [[laughs]] Because this is like, this is like a grid, like so lit or[[inaudible]] or like,
00:05:50.000 --> 00:05:53.000
Jan Butterfield: Uh-huh, oh for sure. Yeah, yeah--
00:05:53.000 --> 00:05:58.000
Michael Asher: or like um, these are just flat pieces of aluminum or even uh um--
00:05:58.000 --> 00:06:00.000
Jan Butterfield: alright well go back to the other question because it's an important question.
00:06:00.000 --> 00:06:08.000
Michael Asher: Okay, well what was the ques--. I'm not working in concert with the architect.
00:06:08.000 --> 00:06:18.020
Jan Butterfield: Okay, why isn't that a... um ... a factor which lessens the impact? In other words, if you are fun--
00:06:20.000 --> 00:06:29.000
Jan Butterfield: Ah, in your contribution to...
Michael Asher: I'm not working in consort, I, I mean I think-- [[CROSS TALK]]
Jan Butterfield: Why isn't it more and more build a piece of your own?
Michael Asher: I could have anything[[CROSS TALK]]
Jan Butterfield:
00:06:29.000 --> 00:06:36.000
rather than to er, work I'm trying to get at the morality of listening to the residents of the building.
00:06:36.000 --> 00:06:42.000
Why is that more of a building extraordinary piece of your own, given the fact that two pieces might be equally extraordinary, okay?
00:06:42.000 --> 00:06:52.000
Michael Asher: Yeah. [CROSS TALK] It's not possible
Jan Butterfield: Ah, When the general historical-- connotation, connotate of what a difference does this make? [CROSS TALK] Okay?
Michael Asher: In other words, [CROSS TALK]
00:06:52.000 --> 00:06:57.000
Michael Asher: In other words, in other words a painting, a painting can't illuminate this discourse.
00:06:57.000 --> 00:07:10.000
Jan Butterfield: Oh, I know it can't, no, no I know it can't but I'm trying to get you to say why as an artist you are more interested in that, than this thing of building your own object, which doesn't relate to the building?
00:07:10.000 --> 00:07:14.000
Why is--
Michael Asher: It, it does relate to the building though [CROSS TALK]
Jan Butterfield: The context. [CROSS TALK]
00:07:14.000 --> 00:07:21.000
Jan Butterfield: No,no but I mean if you built, lets suppose you built a room and some stuff [[inaudible]]
Michael Asher: huh, huh
Jan Butterfield: Lets suppose that happen
00:07:21.000 --> 00:07:28.000
Michael Asher: That's like making your, that's exactly like making a painting.[[CROSS TALK]]
Jan Butterfield: So that's what you're saying. Okay. Without saying...
Michael Asher: That's precisely what I think.
Jan Butterfield:
00:07:28.000 --> 00:07:42.000
Jan Butterfield: Suppose you did these little, you could do this...
Michael Asher: But I thought I pretty much said that? [CROSS TALK] I just--
Jan Butterfield: [CROSS TALK] I'm mean I honest to god was asked by a curator who should remain nameless who was going to do a so called night in space show, would I do the catalog and we talked about it blah, blah, blah and this particular curator said.
00:07:42.000 --> 00:07:57.000
Michael Asher: Leave it nameless to me.
Jan Butterfield: I'm gonna leave it nameless, this particular you won't run into him I guarantee it.
Jan Butterfield: And he said that they wanted to travel the show, they had it figured out they could just build unitary rooms
00:07:57.000 --> 00:08:08.000
they could put on a truck. And I thought I could, thank you very much but I doubt it, that any body else would either.
Michael Asher: I know the curator,
Jan Butterfield: Oh,
Michael Asher: She talked with him.
Jan Butterfield: No, no this was not a she
00:08:08.000 --> 00:08:22.548
Michael Asher: Oh. Well then he had the same idea. [[Laughing]] as she.
Jan Butterfield: That's a complete miscomprehension, but lets take that wonderful, I mean it's like the little lady at the bank behind - in front of me one day that was having trouble with her statement. She finally said to the guy okay just bring me my [[inaudible]] to count my money. [[bangs fist on table]]
00:08:28.000 --> 00:08:31.000
Jan Butterfield: ...Still gotten the drawer. I mean this is that simplistic a concept
00:08:31.000 --> 00:08:33.000
Michael Asher: Sure
00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:57.000
Jan Butterfield: with relation with the art, oh they just do white rooms, you know. Alright, assume that what you did could be done with a white room. Assume that the only intent was the effect within that particular piece. And that the importance of the impact momentarily for getting the whole dialectal thing when you get through it...was equally strong.
00:08:57.000 --> 00:09:22.000
Jan Butterfield: You know. Let's take Erich Boers Lead Room. Okay, that could happen here, that could happen there, but now what is more moral, not arguing what we mean by moral, just to shortcut it, about not building a piece, but working within that structure? Why are we making that structure sacred?
00:09:22.000 --> 00:09:28.000
Michael Asher: We're not making it sacred. I don't make it sacred here.
Jan Butterfield: Sacred is a bad word and moral is a bad word. But..
00:09:28.000 --> 00:09:38.000
Michael Asher: I don't make it sacred here. I, ah, this is certainly a critique on the building.
Jan Butterfield: Alright, Okay, Maybe we're talking about integrity, not sacred.
00:09:38.000 --> 00:09:46.000
Michael Asher: This is an absolute critique on the building.
Jan Butterfield: Okay. As is the one that Rudy Fuchs was talking about. For sure.
00:09:46.000 --> 00:10:05.000
Michael Asher: And it also, it also takes question of the whole idea of collecting, collection. How, um, this is collectible and how it exists once they purchased it and everything else. So I don't know, I so this is when they first started collecting.
00:10:05.000 --> 00:10:10.000
Jan Butterfield: Oh that's interesting, I didn't realize that. Because I knew them but, I didn't connect the two.
00:10:10.000 --> 00:10:20.000
Michael Asher: Yeah. So, um...
Jan Butterfield: So there's no question in your mind, in your intent is on one level, very political. That's a stated...
00:10:20.000 --> 00:10:34.460
Michael Asher: I don't mind stating it.
Jan Butterfield: Okay. No, no, no. I just don't like to over-read these things, I might see that in somebody's work but I would never say that unless I had discussed it at length. Because I hate over reading it.
Michael Asher: I don't know, I sometimes think it's obvious. But then I ...
00:10:37.000 --> 00:10:43.000
Jan Butterfield: but [[?]] sees political implication in the work of a lot of people and I always get mad at him because in several pieces I know it's not there, you know.
00:10:43.000 --> 00:10:46.000
Michael Asher: Well, I think, but I think everybody--
00:10:46.000 --> 00:10:53.000
Jan Butterfield: but I laugh sometimes when I read his writing because its a very European tact first of all but I just [[??]]
00:10:53.000 --> 00:11:09.000
Michael Asher: Regardless, I think I told you on the tape the last time you taped me I said something like that. I said, uh, regardless of intent, every work of art is political anyway, as its perceived as political anyway.
00:11:09.000 --> 00:11:13.000
Jan Butterfield: See that's Doug Davis's argument and I have trouble buying it.
00:11:13.000 --> 00:11:14.000
Michael Asher: You hate it.
00:11:14.000 --> 00:11:22.000
Jan Butterfield: No I don't hate it I just I am not a political creature and I have trouble seeing everyone as a political creature.
Michael Asher: Its, its, uh, it's a very, very old [[marxism??]]
00:11:22.000 --> 00:11:28.000
Jan Butterfield: Oh I know. No, no, no I understand I can give you the wrap but its, I just don't think that's true.
00:11:28.000 --> 00:11:39.000
Jan Butterfield: I mean, Doug and I have argued for years about that. I just don't see it that way. I have real- I just don't see it that way. I mean, his argument is that you can hardly make an act as a human being that is not a political act.
00:11:39.000 --> 00:11:43.000
Jan Butterfield: Unless you see yourself that way, you're being very naive.
00:11:43.000 --> 00:11:50.000
Michael Asher: Well, I mean that's where I talk about reification because its a-political I mean, er, its not political.
00:11:50.000 --> 00:11:51.000
Jan Butterfield: Why? I mean how?
00:11:51.000 --> 00:11:56.000
Michael Asher: It's not. It divorces itself from being political [[?]]
00:11:56.000 --> 00:11:57.000
Jan Butterfield: Because?
00:11:57.000 --> 00:12:02.000
Michael Asher: Because of a fundamental search for establishing some sort of, uh,
00:12:02.000 --> 00:12:09.000
[SILENCE]
00:12:09.000 --> 00:12:18.000
Michael Asher: Concretion of the complexities in which-
00:12:18.000 --> 00:12:44.560
It sort of yeah, it is sort of like, basically it is a concretion of abstract ideas, you know? And, and, so once you concretize those abstract ideas, you have nowhere to go. You have, here's, there's its sort of like cause and effect and this is the effect.
[SILENCE]
00:12:47.000 --> 00:13:07.000
Michael Asher: Ok, that's a pretty work. Ok now where do we go from there? And this is uh, and that's what I said about I think [[?]] causes entertainment ya know? and uh, I think that thats...
00:13:07.000 --> 00:13:18.000
Michael Asher: He uses reification in that sense, and I think that that's very important that we understand it in that sense, because that's what it is
00:13:18.000 --> 00:13:25.000
Michael Asher: It's a bizarre situation.
Jan Butterfield: I had a very long and similar conversation with Philip [[?]] about the differences...
00:13:25.000 --> 00:13:36.000
Jan Butterfield: Different application of it. But the differences between his abstracts of one working in the late [[?]] is very complicated and difficult work and not easy work for him, especially in the beginning.
00:13:36.000 --> 00:13:45.000
Jan Butterfield: It took me a long time to come around to where that was coming from, but his whole point was that this-- the phenomena of the distraction is a very simple given.
00:13:45.000 --> 00:13:56.000
Jan Butterfield: Their own simple rules, you can make a breaking that's kind of it. And the whole principle of the news [[?]] is doing is because it was reality based, there was input
00:13:56.000 --> 00:14:03.000
Jan Butterfield: But the... the number of solutions so you get the onward thing of making an object.
00:14:03.000 --> 00:14:12.000
Jan Butterfield: you get into an area of something that has uh... uh a more um...
00:14:12.000 --> 00:14:26.000
Jan Butterfield: Effective interface with real human, y'know...
00:14:26.000 --> 00:14:50.456
(SPEAKER name="jan butterfield") but that was interesting to me because i never had [??]and initially i completely disagreed,because i find abstraction much more sensible and not a narrative or a realistic person
00:14:54.000 --> 00:15:04.000
Jan Butterfield: Oh, but why? [[inaudible]] at the same time
00:15:04.000 --> 00:15:11.000
Jan Butterfield: You in no sense consider yourself an object-maker and in some sense mostly as we were talking about an object system right?
00:15:11.000 --> 00:15:22.000
Michael Asher: [[passing vehicle sounds]] Right, go back to the original tape. I said nobody, I didn't talk to anybody that you were dealing with that called themselves a non-object maker.
00:15:22.000 --> 00:15:24.000
Michael Asher: Remember the--
00:15:24.000 --> 00:15:26.000
Jan Butterfield: No, I know, I know.
Michael Asher: For starting?
00:15:26.000 --> 00:15:27.000
Jan Butterfield: I know, I know.
00:15:27.000 --> 00:15:28.000
Michael Asher: I thought I did objects.
00:15:28.000 --> 00:15:29.000
Jan Butterfield: There still is an object.
00:15:29.000 --> 00:15:32.000
Michael Asher: Yeah.
00:15:32.000 --> 00:15:34.000
Jan Butterfield: In some very real way.
00:15:34.000 --> 00:15:41.000
Jan Butterfield: We need to be careful about that, too, because that could be used as an argument to build the case for the fact that this group of people we're talking about are sculptors.
00:15:41.000 --> 00:15:57.000
Michael Asher: I am.
Jan Butterfield: I think that's a two-edge sword. We need to be very careful not to say, "yes, these are still objects" because that begs the point, all together, begs the whole perception [[inaudible]]
00:15:57.000 --> 00:16:07.000
Jan Butterfield: I mean the beginning of the argument, whether something is object or not object I think is old, kind of thin. I mean, too simplistic, not real interesting.
00:16:07.000 --> 00:16:15.000
Michael Asher: Yeah.
Jan Butterfield: That's not really what-- Where the break is, where the real breakthrough is is not in the object-nonobject, it's in the attitude.
00:16:15.000 --> 00:16:20.000
Michael Asher: I think--
Jan Butterfield: In which can be maintained through numbers, you know.
00:16:20.000 --> 00:16:22.000
Michael Asher: Oh, I think I agree with you.
00:16:22.000 --> 00:16:24.000
Jan Butterfield: Because that could get--
[SILENCE]
