[artinfo] pourinfos.org [apostils] : The artist and his “models”. |Jean-Claude Moineau|
cahen.x at levels9.com
Thu Apr 27 11:46:39 CEST 2006
[apostils] [apostils] [apostils] [apostils] [apostils] [apostils] [apostils]
The artist and his “models”
By Jean-Claude Moineau
Facing the crisis that not only political art or critical art, (two
totally different concepts), but contemporary art itself are
experiencing, (knowing that “the state” of crisis has always been the
“normal” state of art, that art has always been in a permanent state of
crisis, a crisis that has recently increased, even accelerated), some
people intend to go back to the old polemic (relevant to the various
avant-gardes) between documentary-art, or rather, documentary form that
inspired Kassel’s last Documenta. What art couldn’t do, documentary, or
rather, documentary art, could. As if the so-called “objectivity” or the
so-called “transparency” of the document were not suspect, as much as
the good old notion of aesthetic experience, here and now,
non-mediatized, that most detractors of the document form such as
Nicolas Bourriaud in the catalogue of the last Biennale de Lyon ,
That context created at the time of Documents, Georges Bataille’s
review, the extra artistic reference to science, and especially to
anthropology, the search for extra artistic models through art,
especially for the anthropological model, or rather the “anthropological
paradigm”, even though the notion of paradigm has something too
exclusive to be used without care (which, according to S. Kuhn
himself, would be abusive). The two following articles also aim in
The first article, Artist as anthroplogist , was written in 1974 by
the neo avant-garde conceptual artist Joseph Kosuth,. The piece is
really not clear, like most artists writings, especially conceptual
artists. It intends to establish a break (in a quasi-Althusser sense)
between an “anthropologized art” and the “forms” preceding it what he
calls “naive”, relating to artistic activity including the forms of
earlier conceptual art. According to Kosuth, earlier art was based on
what he called a “scientific paradigm”, and was related to scientism,
when, on the contrary, anthropologized art would break from this paradigm.
Kosuth believes that the anthropologist is a man of science, and
therefore positioned himself outside of the culture he’s studying; he
calls this attitude “un-committed”. But the artist as an anthropologist
operates inside his own socio-cultural context and finds himself totally
submerged (Kosuth doesn’t see the de-contextualizing character which is
that of the museum within which, as an neo avant-garde artist, he
continues to mingle), the artist as an anthropologist is an artist that
Kosuth would consider “committed” (with the intentional character this
implies), but will not use political discourses or bring any aesthetics
in the political action as the “protest artist” will.
Kosuth believes that while the anthropologist tries to understand other
cultures, the artist, on the contrary, “interiorizes” his own
socio-cultural activity. Therefore, the artist as an anthropologist is
able to accomplish what the anthropologist has always failed to do. For
Kosuth, this paradoxically implies the superiority of the artist as an
anthropologist over the anthropologist, his “model”.
The second article is written by the American critic, Hal Foster. The
author is both the theoretician of what he calls the neo avant-garde
second generation (Daniel Buren, Michael Asher…) who tries to carry on
the criticism of artistic institution from the inside, and the road
companion of what he calls, at the time, radical Post Modernism -
represented by Pictures Artists around Douglas Crimp and Rosalind Krauss
- by opposition to the trans-avant-garde and other artists representing
what Raymonde Moulin called art for the 80’s Market. The article is
called The artist as an ethnographer or does the “end of history” mean
the return to anthropology?. One will notice that the title of the
article refers to the Post-Modernist crisis of history - ancient
continuity history as well as dis-continuity, “structuralism” history,
or even still history - to the temptation of what was then a
post-history. History is opposed, not like in Michel Foucault’s,
whatever his dues to “new-history” are, but to archeology - even though
an archeological paradigm appeared in recent art (or rather, a candidate
to the title of paradigm), but to anthropology, in reproducing entirely
the opposition prevailing in the 60’s between history and structure, as
Foster intends in his demonstrations to show an anthropology that would
no longer be only Claude Lévi-Strauss’s structural anthropology. In his
text, Foster does not praise anthropology or even less so, the artist as
an anthropologist or as an ethnographer, but intends to have a truly
critical view, both on anthropology (with the internal debates inside
the anthropology field, that he calls an auto-criticism practice from
anthropology, in a somehow modernist fashion; auto-criticism that,
according to him, could have contributed to make it appealing to the
artists’ eyes that have adopted the artist as anthropologist paradigm),
and on the artist as an anthropologist. I will not only use Foster’s
article as my own - as inescapable as could it be - but I will attempt
to make a critical reading of it.
The title of the article is, of course, modeled over Walter Benjamin’s
L’Artiste comme producteur . In this text, Benjamin sustains that the
artist who “shows solidarity with the proletariat” - according to the
terms used then - wouldn’t only spread “a politically-right content” –
when possible - but must be “artistically right”. “Before asking myself:
what is the position of a work of art in relation with the means
production at that time, I would like to ask: what is its place within
these same means? This question directly aims at the function of the
“oeuvre” within the literary production means (or broadly artistic
means) of the works of art. In other words, it directly aims at the
literary (or artistic) technique of a work of art”.
No Economism in this, since, according to Benjamin, art is not only
super-structural unlike orthodox Marxism, but includes what Benjamin
calls literary or artistic production links (even though Benjamin avoids
technical determinism, whatever dialectical links are being maintained
by “the technical production forces” - non specifically artistic - and
“the artistic production means”).
What Hal Foster interprets in a totally contestable manner from the
Productivist conception as it was defended by USSR right after the
revolution launched by the Constructivists, who became later the
Productivists, is a conception based on the idea that the avant-garde
artist (both in an artistic and in a political sense, that are
inseparable anyway) cannot limit himself “to back up the proletariat”,
but must become himself a proletarian, must assimilate into a producer
in the strong sense of the word and must resolve the artist/producer
contradiction. Productivism generally brought back this conception to
the engineer/artist conception; the Dadaist Raoul Hausmann and his then
companion, Hannah Höch would make a point in reproaching the
Productivist conception to carry on praising “expertise” - here again,
in all senses of the word – and would oppose to it the conception of the
artist as an assembler who only puts pieces recuperated in the
industrial production together, without trying to reconcile them in
anyway, therefore without being concerned with how they are joined
together (that conception was generalized later on by Ernst Bloch ,
without the proletarian reference).
At the same time, Foster allows himself to rediscover – totally out of
context, in my opinion – some remains of “Productivism paradigm” in the
sculptural action as re-understood – enlarged – in the 60’s by a Richard
Serra, and of the notion of “textual production” championed by Tel Quel
during the same period.
Foster starts then to relate criticisms held against the productivism
paradigm happening at the same time, mainly, he says, from Jean
Baudrillard, even if Beaudrillard’s criticism was not aimed at
Productivism, but rather at Fonctionalism, which is totally different.
According to Foster, these criticisms would have lead the way from a
Productivist paradigm to a “Situationist paradigm”, still badly defined
even when Baudrillard’s criticisms do not spare the Situationists
In any case, according to Foster, would we be witnessing the coming of a
third paradigm since the second half of the 80’s, the artist as
anthropologist, or as ethnographer, since we’re dealing here with a
field investigator rather than a office anthropologist (even though
Foster seems to hesitate with an other paradigm which would be the
artist as a cartographer, or rather as a geographer). An ethnographer
paradigm, which oddly enough, would be launched at a time when a crisis
would start, not only between ethnography criticized by structural
anthropology and structural anthropology itself, just as relates Foster,
but anthropology as such, mainly due to - no matter what the
anthropologists are saying about it - the fall of the colonial era and
the ambiguities of the post-colonial era, if it’s true that there ever
was a post-colonial era. At the same time, the anthropology in-crisis
could claim itself, unlike the anthropologist as an artist paradigm, as
Clifford Geertz  and James Clifford  did, who are dealing -
without falling into obvious aesthetics - with anthropologists writings
as literary or artistic texts, of the fictional texture of anthropology,
Clifford going as far as talking about “ethnographic Surrealism”
(Foster, being ironical about that, also starts to talk about the
anthropologist as a collage artist, multi-cultural collage artist, that
is). Deconstruction - if not abolition - of the opposition between art
(and literature) and anthropology. At the same time, as Foster relates,
that anthropology - in this case, cultural anthropology – can present
its subject of study, culture, as the result of some collective artists
creativity, could assimilate nations to artists. Geertz  has been
able to handle cultures themselves as texts similar to written texts, to
“textualize” non written cultures themselves, with a (questionable) goal
to de-contextualize them from their discursive enunciation situation (as
well as from the agents’ intentions) to finally consider anthropology as
a meta-text, a hermeneutic, when, according to Geertz, the meaning of
studied facts is generally not concealed, native people are not cultural
idiots, but are spontaneous anthropologists (without any derogatory
intention), they are the first interpreters of their own culture, so
that anthropology appears - far from the “simple description”, the
“return to the real things”, far from Harold Garfinkel’s 
ethno-methodology - as a second class interpretation, “an interpretation
of an interpretation” which aims to remain next to the populations under
study. This allows Geertz to build a disparity in the anthropologist and
in the “informant” status, a hierarchy between first class and
second-class interpretations. The anthropologist’s information is not
meant to be read by the concerned populations, but only by “the
anthropologists world”. The hermeneutic exchange between the
anthropologist and the “anthropologized” resembles the exchange between
settlers and colonized peoples, a deeply unequal exchange. This leads
Clifford  to question the authority of the ethnographer, “his
authority and his author-ity” to demand, following Roland Barthes 
path, the author’s death, at least the individual author if not the
collective author, and the reader’s accession to talk, here again, the
collective reader, plural, rather than the anthropologist as the author,
and ask for the “anthropologist account” as a literary piece. At the
same time that appears a new paradigm - not as much for the
anthropologist as for anthropology - the paradigm of negotiation (based
on the negotiated portrait in photography), of dialogue, of
conversation, of inter-subjectivity, of sharing (and not only “exotic
sharing”), between anthropologist and “anthropologi-zed”, of even an
effective reciprocity, every one ethnography-ing and starting to
interpret “the other”.
Nevertheless, one also has to take into consideration that the arrival
of the paradigm of the artist as an anthropologist is to be connected
with the coming -that we can deplore, alongside with Adorno, without
being trapped in a heavy reactive modernism - of art in the broader
field of culture - as Krauss is talking about the “broader field” of
sculpture when referring to Serra and others - that anthropology is
traditionally meant to “control”, although its monopoly is nowadays
being threatened by the competition of cultural studies.
Yet, at the same time, what seems to give the art base on anthropology,
a more ethical than political character, when political reflux is
allowing an ethics come-back, that is not at all the same thing, (let’s
not mistake ethics and morality), and even though, as mentioned by
Gilles Lipovetsky , it would only be “light” soft ethics, without
any deep commitment. Deconstruction, as the old sublime category already
was, of the aesthetic-ethics distinction.
We do not have here the consensual neo-humanistic, egalitarian, “Family
of Man” style of ethics, but rather the ethics of the Other, of the
Other with a capital O, ethics of the difference and anthropology
defining itself now by opposition to sociology, not as the investigation
of man, but as the quest of the Other. Not so much the social Other, but
the cultural Other. A passage from a subject defined in terms of
economical relationships - perhaps political relationships already - of
political exploitation (producer and worker) to a subject defined in
terms of cultural identity, representing an “oppressed”, “subjugated”
sub-culture. This goes together with the growing interest in the problem
of identities in the age of globalization (what Foster rightly links to
a definite recent come-back of the subject- and even to a substantial
subject-following the Structuralism and post-Structuralism period with
the death of the subject and the death of the man, primarily, the death
of the author – including also the liberal subject, non substantial,
even if the on-going rise of the identities does not reject
globalization as much, since it does not belong there. Yet, this would
be a pre-defined subject rather than a subject in progress).
And with the idea – as it was the case for the paradigm of the artist as
a producer - that the artist generally only has a limited access to this
Because of the anthropology crisis itself, which for its part,
necessitates a re-conversion, otherness non only of the old “primitive”
(although this otherness was reduced by its re-conduction to a previous
state of “the evolution” of the Same) -otherness that modernist
primitivism had already sought in the past -, otherness of the faraway
(with a part of exotism), that otherness of the close-by, with,
according to Foster, the risk of being self indulgent like Michel Leiris
in his search of the Other within himself, in the interiorization of the
Other, in the “auto-ethnography” (just like psychoanalysis had rejected
the practice of auto-analysis), to project in the other one’s own ideal
– or should we say in one’s ideal of the self?-, and to negate the Other
as such. Where ethnography used to be in competition with psychoanalysis
(the Lacanian Other). Foster sustains that anthropology has now replaced
psychoanalysis as the science of the otherness. Anthropology of the
close-by can be multi-facetted, from the anthropology practiced by the
artist as the anthropologist of his daily routine, of his family, of his
friends, to the anthropology practiced by the outlaws, the homeless, and
other nomads, migrants or illegal aliens, rejected by the “system”…
those who are now taking the status of the proletariat in the past.
This is still true when the ethics of the Other seems to always copy
this Other, absolutely Other as close as could it be, on the absolutely
Other without any expectation of the divine, the transcendence, the
Other being always caught in a “double bind” between subordination to
the Same which denies him (consensual ethics) and absolutisation (ethics
of the Other).
In particular, a field investigation, on what Marc Augé  calls the
non-sites, (wastelands, fallow lands… which, more than surrounding our
cities (with all the threat intended), distinctions center/suburbs
established to reproduce colonialism and post-colonialism, being less
and less pertinent appear and pierce the urban space. Art meant to
rehabilitate more than to denounce these non-sites, rehabilitation not
in the usual urbanism sense, but tending to transform these non-sites
into a true anthropologist place according Augé’s definition (that he
borrowed from Certeau  ).
Nevertheless, this represents a risk to (eco) museum-ize them, to show
them off, to turn them into new reservations or new attraction fairs,
even into new human zoos, and to make a show, mythical-ize or hero-ize
the outcasts themselves, to make a show of the other’s distress just
like the so-called humanitarian photography does.
This is the reason why Anthony Hernandez, a Los Angeles photographer,
photographed for Landscapes for the Homeless the “homes” of LA
“homeless people”, choosing, thus avoiding any voyeurism, by not ever
showing homeless people themselves, but only showing the traces they
left behind. Camp traces, basic and temporary set-ups, with the goal of
not forging a better utopia world (utopia is now taking refuge in the
micro-utopia found in the trendy openings at the Palais de Tokyo in
Paris ), but with the idea of resisting as much as possible and going as
far as to elaborate, in other countries, a sort of infra-architecture,
similar to the traces left behind on the land by nomads and similarly to
the favelas (they were the inspiration for Japanese artist Tadashi
Kawamata’s Field Works - “field works” being the term used in
anthropology to designate work in the field - and his own “favelas” that
he built himself particularly in Houston at the bottom of high tech
modern sky scrapers designed for wealthy individuals as a type of
architectonic montage. Transient traces themselves of transient
developments that photographic traces are trying to perpetuate in
documenting them. Those who left the traces are never seen and have
disappeared “for those remaining”. That is the reason why Régis Durand
 said that, in fact, Hernandez didn’t pretend to be an
anthropologist since he never directly dealt with the concerned
populations, unlike traditional anthropologist field investigations
which looked for subjects, or rather, some of them, “the informers”,
like in the Chicago School, see the anthropologist as an active-observer
who mingle with the populations he is studying. In fact, Hernandez’s
photos always tend to magnify the non-sites that they are reproducing in
putting them back, as the title of the series indicates, in the great
tradition – genre – of the American West landscape photography, which is
filled with spiritualism.
During the winter of 97-98, Jacqueline Salmon in Chambres précaires 
searched for rooms in the shelters provided by good will organizations
for the homeless people during the wintertime. Rooms that, unlike what
Virginia Woolf  claimed as “a room of her own”, have to be entirely
vacated at dawn, by body and personal effects, in order to get people to
“work” at looking for jobs, or at least, for food. The spaces shown by
Jacqueline Salmon are emptied of their transient occupants, unlike the
fallow lands photographed by Hernandez that are free of all marks of
appropriation, with the added inconvenience that the outcast finds
himself excluded twice; he’s excluded both from the non-sites that
precarious rooms are themselves (even if Marc Augé’s notion of non-site
can be too open, too vague, since it includes waste grounds, 3 stars
hotel rooms and precarious rooms, supermarkets, as well as highways and
their surroundings) and he is excluded from the image, he is off-site.
He is not so much put at a distance, “distanciation”, than kept in
“Rooms without a soul” but paradoxally, the photos bring back the
presence of the passing occupants, those who went by and disappeared in
the urban material, as a transcendance. There is a sacralization of the
homeless, in the excessively religious side of Jacqueline Salmon’s usual
architecture photos (that are, in fact, the content of Chambres
précaires, as in Hernandez’s pictures are landscape photos). There is no
longer an aesthetic representation, but an aesthetic presentation, where
the homeless replace divinity. Sublimation of the excluded where a
religious character, that too often the characterizes humanitarian
photography, Dorothea Lange’s Migrant Mother, (which appears to be
humanitarian photography before the term was coined in the United States
by the FSA during the Depression but, since it was de-territory-ized
could also, later be used as a symbol for other causes, for instance for
the Spanish Civil War), Georges Mérillon’s Piéta de Kosovo, and Hocine’s
Algerian Madona (sic), despite some differences.
Aesthetics – or ethics – of the presence-presentation (rather than, as
sustains Thierry de Duve , presence-absence) can, in some cases,
come down to a simple pull back (rather than a total absence) like in
Jacqueline Salmon’s other series of photographs called Le Hangar 
taken in 2001 in the now dismantled Sangatte Center (that can rather be
assimilated to Michel Foucault’s  heterotopia than a non-site or a
counter-utopia). If here again, homeless bodies are mostly absent,
photographers show only makeshift beds, like here, folding beds, but
also, in order to prove that the place has been occupied, some drying
laundry, some strewn items of clothing and shoes. A few sleeping men are
appearing furtively in the shot. They are mostly hidden under their
covers, they have no faces, they are not identifiable - that was
probably necessary for security purposes – and they tend to lose all
human characteristics and therefore they become a thing. De-speculation,
de-dramatization (like in Edouard Manet’s L’Exécution de l’empereur
Maximilien where “the main event”, the historical event, the subject of
historical painting, becomes de-dramatized, unlike Goya’s Trois mai
1808), indeed, against “shock aesthetic” – if only there is a “shock
aesthetic” – as found in humanitarian photography, risking to bring back
the scene from an historical event to a less important event, to bring
back the scene in total indifference.
Wouldn’t it be just then, to give back the illegal alien or the outcast
his right to the image, rather than keeping him in the absence of image,
in the exclusion of image?
Andres Serrano tried to do that in his series entitled Nomades where he
photographed homeless people in an improvised studio set in the New York
subway; but, in using too much Caravagio’s chiaroscuro (Caravagio also
picked street guys as models), he monument-ized (here, opposition
monument-document) those he was photographing.
Jens Haaning, the Danish photographer, attempted also to capture first
generation immigrants in Copenhagen, in a trendy fashion photo style, as
if they were famous top models, with detailed list of their clothing,
showing labels and prices, just like in Bret Easton Ellis’ novel,
American Psycho. At the same time, he was preparing The refuge Calendar,
in 2002 where he used asylum seekers in Finland instead of the usual
This takes us away from the anthropological model, and leads us to many
more models coming from high culture or low culture. Gabriela de Gusmao
Pereira is precisely the artist who comes closest to the anthropologist
model. In Invention Streets , she photographed in the streets of Rio
de Janeiro, and everywhere else in the world, including in France, not
the condition of the destitute, but their resourcefulness, their
inventiveness, “the art without art” of the homeless - often effectively
visible in her photos – in founding shelters, building themselves rest
areas, carrying their burden or selling various small items, non only in
order “to survive” - survival being the last resort, a sub-life – but to
actually live their lives. Similar gimmicks found in Michel de Certeau
 show, in their own way, how the homeless resist to being crushed by
the so-called consumer society. This is different from “la pratique de
la perruque” studied by Michel de Cerneau, where working people are
using their work tools for a personal use; we are dealing here with
unemployed people who are diverting various consumer society reminders,
such as supermarket trolleys. We are far from Krystof Wodiczko’s
homeless vehicles or “aliens staff” which, if they were ever available
to the outcasts, with the pretense of introducing them to the
passers-by, not only would keep them in their otherness, but would also
isolate them in their otherness even more. In this case, the fact that
homeless people are often visible in the photos is not a problem, since
they are neither presented in a victimized way, which would tend
crushing them more, nor in a militant mode, but as a source of great
creativity. We can regret at the most that Gabriela de Gusmao Pereira is
never seen herself on her photos, that whatever room “allocated” to the
creativity of those that she photographs, her work still stays in a “one
The group Stalker (who took over Andrei Tarkovski’s film title) also got
interested in the creativity of the oppressed – the architectural
creativity — and is based in Rome. It presents itself as an “urban art
lab” with swing-wing geometry, whose composition varies according to the
types of projects the group is involved with, and was founded by a group
of architects in association with various other architects, artists,
photographers, video artists, and anthropologists (except that in this
case, the anthropologist is only a model for the artists). They are very
fond of walking and therefore, they become walker-architects who are
nomads themselves, instead of the usual sedentary characteristics of
architecture, and unlike any spectacular-isation, they experiment from
the inside the urban phenomenon through their walking, just like the
walker-sculptors (Richard Long, Hamish Fulton…), widely using
photography, with the difference that Stalker’s walks are on urban
territory and not on rural territory. These walks are also to be
“situated” in the Situationist drift scene, with the difference that
they are not taking place in residential areas, but in what Stalker
calls “current territories” – current in a sense of temporary – a more
limited notion than the non-site notion referring to waste grounds,
fallow lands, and other urban zones, not so much peripheral or marginal,
but in-between zones generated by urban metropolis while waiting for
redistribution and constitute the dregs of urban civilization. Stalker
draws maps of the current territories after the walks, that is a model,
this time effectively a cartographic or geographic models, even if those
maps are meant to help losing usual geographic and tourist landmarks.
Cartography –maps and not carbon copies - to take the term of Deleuze
and Guattari  – of other sites – heterotopia or Temporary Atonomous
Zones (TAZ)  types, temporary themselves – and of other forms of
life trying to escape predetermined rules enacted by architects, town
planners, research departments, politicians and planners of all sorts,
to escape control, and invent all types of new possibilities: squats,
illegal constructions, “wild vegetables gardens”… An architecture
without architects being models for other architects themselves. As it
happened in Pessac , the inhabitant would be accused of
“denaturalizing” architecture –in this case, Le Corbusier’s architecture
– by doing some changes in order to take it over – it has been said that
modernist architecture was not, in fact, a housing machine since it was
not habitable, a piece of furniture brought in a house built, for
example by Mies van der Rohe was perceived as an intrusion-, the
inhabitant is here responsible if not for the architecture, for the
habitat, such as, according to Duchamp, the observer is drawing the
portrait, or in the portraits “executed” by some portraitists, the
portrait-ized is painting the portrait, not the portraitist. Thus,
Stalkers’practices become de facto a modernist functionalism criticism.
Even though Stalker since returned to the conception of artist as an
ethnographer but rather as a social re-mediator, and that is very
questionable, since social re-mediation is almost always an illusion,
because it only soothes the pains without being able to resolve pending
As the cartographic paradigm was also adopted by the architect Stefano
Boeri and his Agency Multiplicity based in Milan, and associated with
various artists (including the photographer Gabriele Basilico), - they
have undertaken researches about “eclectic atlas”, in using
heterogeneous supports without any pseudo-unity stitching up of
contradictions - trying to explore the relationship between land
transformations, vertical regulation systems and the proliferating forms
of local auto-organization.
The artist, rather than talking on the behalf of the proletariat or the
outcasts, could try, if not “to free the speech”, or at least, to give
voice to those who cannot speak out, who does only in a “fixed” way,
like on television during reality shows. It could be another paradigm,
the artist as spokesperson, opposed here again, to Wodiczko’s
spokesperson, who is seen more as a gagging instrument than a true
Paris, November 10 th, 2005
 Nicolas BOURRIAUD, « Time Specific Art contemporain, exploration et
développement durable », Expérience de la durée, Biennale de Lyon, Paris
 Thomas KUHN, Thomas KUHN, « Comment on the Relations of Science and
Art », 1969, The Essential Tension, Selected Studies in Scientific
Tradition and Change, Chicago, University of Chicago, 1977.
 Joseph KOSUTH, «The Artist as Anthropologist», 1975, Art after
Philosophy and After, collected Writings,1966-1990, Cambridge, Mass.,
MIT Press, 1991.
 Hal FOSTER, « L’Artiste comme ethnographe, ou la “fin de l’Histoire“
signifie-t-elle le retour à l’anthropologie ? », tr. fr. Jean-Paul
AMELINE, ed. Face à l’histoire, L’artiste moderne devant l’événement
historique, Paris, Flammarion- Centre Georges Pompidou, 1996.
 Walter BENJAMIN, « L’Auteur comme producteur », 1934, tr. fr. Paris,
 Ernst BLOCH, Erbschaft dieser Zeit, 1935, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp.
 Clifford GEERTZ, Works and Lives : The Anthropologist as Author,
Board of trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior university, 1988
 James CLIFFORD, Malaise dans la culture, L’ethnographie, la
littérature et l’art au XXe siècle, tr. fr. Paris, ENSBA, 1996.
 Clifford GEERTZ, “Thick Description : Toward an Interpretative
Theory of Culture”, in The Interpretations of Culture, New York, Basic
Books, 1973. fr. Daniel CÉFAÏ, ed. L’Enquête de terrain, Paris, La
GEERTZ Clifford, “Thick Description : Toward an Interpretative Theory of
Culture”, in The Interpretations of Culture, New York, Basic Books, 1973,
 Harold GARFINKEL, « Le programme de l’ethnométhodologie », 1996,
tr. fr. L’Etnométhodologie, Une sociologie radicale, Paris, La
 James CLIFFORD, « De l’autorité en ethnographie, Le récit
anthropologique comme texte littéraire », 1981, tr. fr. Daniel CÉFAÏ,
 Roland BARTHES, « La Mort de l’auteur », 1968, Œuvres complètes,
tome II, Paris, Seuil, 1994.
 Gilles LIPOVETSKY, Le Crépuscule du devoir, L’éthique indolore des
nouveaux temps démocratiques, Paris, Gallimard, 1992.
 Marc AUGÉ, Non-lieux, Introduction à une anthropologie de la
surmodernité, Paris, Seuil, 1992.
 Michel de CERTEAU, L’Invention du quotidien, tome 1, Arts de faire,
Paris, Union générale d’éditions, 1980.
 Anthony HERNANDEZ, Landscapes for the Homeless, Hanovre, Sprengel
Museum, 1995 et Landscapes for the Homeless II, Sons of Adam, Paris,
Centre national de la photographie- Lausanne, Musée de l’Elysée, 1997.
 Régis DURAND, « Fils d’Adam », Anthony HERNANDEZ, Landscapes for
the Homeless II, op. cit.
 Jacqueline SALMON et Paul VIRILIO, Chambres précaires, Heidelberg
 Virginia WOOLF, A room of Her own, tr. fr. Paris, Denoël- Gonthier,
 Thierry de DUVE, « Performance ici et maintenant : l’art minimal,
un plaidoyer pour un nouveau théâtre », Essais datés tome 1, 1974-1986,
Paris, La différence, 1987.
 Jacqueline SALMON, Le Hangar, Paris, Trans photographic press, 2001.
 Michel FOUCAULT, « Des espaces autres », 1967, Dits et écrits
1954-1988, tome IV, 1980-1988, Paris, Gallimard, 1994.
 Gabriela de Gusmao PEREIRA, Rua dos inventos – Invention Street,
Rio de Janeiro, Ouro sobre Azul, 2004.
 Michel de CERTEAU, op. cit.
 Gilles DELEUZE et Félix GUATTARI, Capitalisme et schizophrénie,
tome 2 Mille plateaux, Paris, Minuit, 1980.
 Cf. Hakim BEY, T.A.Z. The Temporary Autonomous Zone. Ontological
Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism, Brooklyn, Automedia, 1991.
 Cf. Philippe BOUDON, Pessac de Le Corbusier, étude
socio-architecturale, Paris, Dunod, 1969.
Jean-Claude Moineau’s biography:
After studying linguistic, philosophy, math and music, Jean-Claude
Moineau got involved during the 60’s, in numerous artistic and
“meta-artistic” activities, mostly directed toward conceptual art,
virtual poetry, events, performing pieces, mail art and “art beyond
art”. He participates in various solo and group exhibitions and
performances in Paris, in France and all over the world, and he
collaborates with many French and international magazines. He is the
co-founder of many groups and reviews, and he organizes the first
Festival Permanent in Orléans, France.
As did most 68’s artists, he then stoppes all artistic activity. Unlike
many who started to get involved again, he refuses to resume his action,
as if nothing ever happened before. He continues to be interested in art
and in its apories, but in spite of it all, his thought processes remain
“meta-artitic”, in the sense of “what relates" to (in a critical way) art.
Since 1969 he teaches art theory at Paris VIII University where he
launched and for a long time directed a First Cycle in Art Formation,
while being aware of the on-going art world. He also participates in
many talks and lectures and is curating many exhibitions.
Main recent publications:
- L’Art dans l’indifférence de l’art, Paris, PPT, 2001.
- « La Musique s’écoute-t-elle encore ? »,
Musiques d’aujourd’hui, Actualité en 26 propos, Conseil général de la
- « Who’s Afraid of Video ? », Giallu, Revue d’art et de sciences
humaines n° 5, Ajaccio, 1995.
- « Trop Much », Deuxième mois « off » de la photographie à Paris,
- « After Art After Philosophy », (Easy) Viewing, St. Denis, Musée d’art
et d’histoire, 1997.
- « Paragraphs on Contextual Art », Présenten° 1, Paris, 1997.
- « Le Récit de l’art », Le Récit et les arts, Paris, L’Harmattan, 1998.
- « Habiter le cyberspace ? », Episodic n° 4-5, Paris, 1998.
- « ça va faire mal », Output n 2, Séoul, 1999.
- « Le Réseau de l’art », Output n°3, Séoul, 1999.
- « Au-delà de la valeur d’exposition », Avis de passage, St. Brieux,
ODDC Côtes d’Armor, 2001.
- « ça va ça vient », BERNARDINI, Alain, 1995/2002, Brétigny-sur-Orge,
Espace Jules Verne, 2002.
- « A compte d’auteur » Allotopie n°B, Copyleft, Rennes, Incertain sens,
- « Fluxus : une critique artiste de l’art », Luvah hors série n°29,
Besançon, Luvah- Dijon, Presses du réel, 2004.
- « Une théâtralité post-théâtrale », CORVIN, Michel et ANCEL, Franck,
ed. Autour de Jacques Polieri, Scénographie et technologie, Paris,
Bibliothèque nationale de France, 2004.
- « De la photographie comme opérateur critique à la photographie comme
opérateur d’art », Ligeia, Dossiers sur l’art n°49-50-51-52, Paris, 2004.
- « Qu’est-ce que l’art a à faire des images ? », Art grandeur nature
2004, Saint-Ouen, Synesthésie 2004.
- « Le Concert des nations à l’ère de la globalisation », La Toison
d’or, Laboratoire artistique flottant, Girold, Apollonia, 2004.
- « Pour une nouvelle économie de l’art »,Guy CHEVALIER, Économies
silencieuses et audaces approximatives, Paris, PPT, 2005.
-« Polyrythmie », Urban Rhythms Human Rythms, Pékin, Beijing Film
Academy / Saint-Denis, Université de Paris 8, 2005.
-« Fluxus, un en-jeu géopolitique », 20/21 siècles, Cahiers du Centre
Pierre Francastel n°2, Fluxus en France, 2005.
-« Étant donnés », Checkpoint n°1, 2006.
Translation : Kristine Barut Dreuilhe
L'artiste et ses "modèles"
All text is available under the French license Creative Commons :
non-commercial attribution – no derived work. 2.0. In order to encourage
a free pedagogic or associative usage.
“Small annotations designed to remember things we have seen”.
The word apostil comes from the Latin “post illa”, “after those things”
and is generally written in the left margin, whether it is a legal
document or the note that we added today at the bottom of a page.
The purpose of this column is to publish an original text on a
pourinfos.org wishes to share periodically contemporary thoughts in a
non-synchronized time/news (headlines) relationship with no further
intention to become a magazine or a review.
The articles that you will read in this column will not only debate
matters about visual arts, but also about topics related to society,
politics, techniques, etc…
[apostils] [apostils] [apostils] [apostils] [apostils] [apostils] [apostils]
Direction de la publication
xavier.cahen at pourinfos.org
More information about the Artinfo