anselm kiefer and the shapes of time

8/12/2019 Anselm Kiefer and the Shapes of Time

1/13

Anselm Kiefer and the Shapes of TimeAuthor(s): CHARLES MOLESWORTHSource: Salmagundi, No. 82/83 (Spring-Summer 1989), pp. 78-89Published by: Skidmore CollegeStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40548048.

Accessed: 29/03/2014 09:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Skidmore Collegeis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Salmagundi.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 182.178.169.33 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:30:15 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=skidmorehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40548048?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40548048?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=skidmore


2/13


3/13

QO

I2 Sli

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


4/13

80 CHARLES MOLESWORTHonlyway t canbewarped disdainfully.But it is not timepure and simplewith which Kieferwrestles rsucceeds, t is more pecifically ith rt historicaltime, hat pecialconstructhat sopento thewinds f hange,celebrity, ediaexposure,nd a dozenother orces ven moredifficultoharness.Fromtime otime, rt historicalchemesreturn ackto the histories f ociety nd politics romwhichthey pring,omewhat s a prodigal hildreturns. utis it outof duty or instinctthat such returns occur? And is thehomecoming he occasion of rejoicingor retribution? utKiefer'swork ccurs, r at least is famously xposed, t a timewhenart historys back amongthehistorical onstructs f-fered n the larger anvases ofsociety nd politics. t is thispainter's ribute,nd his specialburden, hat his workraiseswithnew force hequestions f howand why rt should dealwith real ife ubjects, uch as historicaldeologies, ersonalwill, nd emotional ualities, s opposed o the formaliston-cern with purely painterly ssues. In fact,Kiefer's artengages everal ssues,butthey an be grouped nder t leastthreeheadings: ocial and emotional ontent, isualpleasure,and technical bilities.A fullresponse o hiswork, fcourse,would ry o ntegratehese ssues nto omecoherent iew.Kieferhas executed everal argecanvases that featurecultural,historical, nd mythicalheroes of Germany, ftenposed against grand, even grandiose, backgrounds,andlabelledwith script etteringhat uggests,npart, he sortofhand one sees in thework f dmiringchool hildrenopy-ing out the lesson of the day. One person's patriotism sanother's hauvinism; neperson'sburgeoning ationalism sseen bysomeone lse as incipient ascism.Kiefer, fcourse,fully ealizesthatGermannationalism,ince Nazismand thehorrors f WorldWar II, is not ust anothernationalism. owhat s theviewer,specially henon-Germaniewer,omakeofKiefer'swork n thisvein?Havingraisedso explicitlyhe s-sues of historical nd politicalvalues and responsibilities,what anheexpect heviewer's esponse obe? n onepaintingthenames and portraits fRilke, hemystical oet, nd vonClausewitz, he hard-nosedheoreticianfwar, mong everalothers,represent;n a differentainting, ffigiesinthe form



5/13

ili



6/13

82 CHARLES MOLESWORTHofflaming orches nsconced n an emptyhall) representingJoseph Beuys, the radical artist, nd RichardWagner,thegreat composer nd notorious nti-Semite,ppear togetherwithfamousGerman ulturalfigures.n a post-structuralist,post-modernworld,we mightread such juxtapositionsasironic, utforgivinglyronic,s if hetarget r buttof he okewerenotany particular erson rgroup, utratherhistoryt-self. fanynation rgroup anproduce uchdisparatefigures,Kiefermight e understood osuggest, nd stillcall itself nepeople, neentity,henthe boundaries f elf-delusionre in-finite,ndinfinitelyomic.But is it all a joke?Perhapsthe visual pleasuresof theworkhelpus answer hisquestion, houghgainKiefer s andis not painterwhooffersuchpleasuresreadily.ndebted npartto the same impulses hatproduced rtePovera,with tsuse ofcrude, everyday aterials, he canvasesare startlingin a waythat combines eductive extures nd details withbrusque un-painterlympatience r directness. o the ques-tions return n another ontext. o the darkpaletteand theroughened extures, he burnt-outook of the canvases andtheirharshelementarity,ompletewithpaint-encrusteday,stretches fpaintthickenedwith sand and clay,often n abackingof lead plating, uggestdestruction nd historicaldesolation?Or do theyrather uggest omenearly ilentbutproudreaffirmationf a national oul,a volkish pirit, hatsurvives nspiteof ts ownself-destructiveness,nspiteofun-endingbrutalityrom oth nner nd outerforces,n spiteofmodernitytself?Kiefer'smentorwas the late JosephBeuys,and Beuysdrew considerable influence fromthe modernistattack,elaborated y Duchampand others, n retinalpleasure.Thiswouldaccountfor he moreor less directlysemantic ide ofKiefer. ut he never llows uch nterestnconceptual r ntel-lectual ssuestooverwhelm is concernwithpigment,exture,and plasticvalues. Yet evenheretheissues are complicated.Byusingseveral mpractical echniques,uchas painting nclumps fhayandfasteninglobsofpoured ead onto he can-vases,Kiefer reates curatorial ightmare. uch recent on-cernhas beenairedaboutthe tate ofmany f heworks f he



7/13

Anselm iefernd the hapesofTime 83Abstractxpressionists Rothko'sanvases, or xample,havealready egun ofade ess than dozenyears fter isdeath.Fora painterikeRothko, hose ommitmento thequalities f olor pproachedomethingike religiousevel,suchfadingepresentsvirtual estructionf he piritual.fKiefer ants monumentalrt, s hissense f caleandcon-tentwould learly mply, is use ofephemeralnd brittlematerialsuggestst the ame ime n attack n thevery o-tion f urabilitynd triumphver ime.By using ead sheeting or hebackgroundf severalpaintings, iefer ndulges n a modernistxplorationfmaterial. hepropertiesf eadaresuch hat tcanseldom erolledbsolutelymooth,o itcreates n effectimilaro thatofcolor ield bstraction,here light ariationntone ndsurfacereates isual nterest.ometimes iefer cores heleadwithcid, ut venhere heres almost chaste esult,sthe orrodedurfaces not ll thatgougedr discolored.heblobs f ouredead,generallysed npaintings ithcorchedorroughenedackgrounds,re ttachedo he anvas y mallstaples; pparentlyhe ead is notpoured irectlynto thepainting,ut dded ater ncollage ashion.uchuses of eadmightery ell onnoteomenterestn ndustrialechniques,a wayof ignalingomemodernmpulset worknKiefer'smind. utbecause f he oftnessnd ts nterestingexture,the ead also connotesmalleabilityndelementariness,ndthussuggests medieval r alchemical ontext.t is as ifKieferwereharking ack to Mime, he dwarfVulcan-likefigureromheNiebelunghomans he oundryhat roducesSiegfried'sword. iefer as been uoteds sayinghat sym-bols reate kind f imultaneousontinuityndwerecollectourorigins. uchconcern ith riginsxtends eyondhesemanticontentothematerialshemselves.Theuse ofhay nthepaintingss combinedith olymerpaint,mulsion,ndshellac; raditional edia uch s oilpig-ments re notprominentlyeatured nd somethingiketemperasnoticeabley ts bsence. n at leastoneoccasionthehayconnectsn a challenginglyiteralwaywithKiefer'suse of andscape.n a paintingntitledMarch eath,MarchSand, he coversarge reas in a photographicmageof a



8/13

84 CHARLES MOLESWORTHlandscapewith rregular trips f andgluedonto he surface.The literalnesshere is almostcomic, s if he weretryingoplowupthe mage.As it turns ut, hetitle efers o a patriotictune usedfor nspirationalffectyHitler, nd,furtherack,the area depicted s a locale inBrandenburghatfiguresm-portantlys a battlegroundn Prussianhistory.hethematicsofplowing nd regeneration ould seem to suggestthe pos-sibilityf new tart, utthey ouldust as well uggest,withtypical quivocality,hepenchant o plowunderunpleasantepisodes nd the resultantrruptionfunresolved estructiveimpulses.f the atter uggestionsdominant,hen hepicturecouldalso be taken as a sort of iteralized un,representingthe real area beneath all the associationsofmemoryndmisusedhistory.Such literalizing fmetaphors nd puns occurs n thework of some Pop artists.Kiefer s perhapsas far removedfrom Pop sensibilitys one couldbe,at leastat first lance.But thenwe remember is use ofwords, ften or he sake ofidentification,s part ndparcel f hevisual mages, nd wemight ecall hework fJimDine,oreventheMagritte f cecin'est pas un pipe. And Kiefer'ssculpture, Palette withWings, s a metalconstructionverninefeet all,composed fa paletteboard a favoritemotif) lanked ya pair ofwings(with n elevenfoot pan),and a lead snakeentwined roundthepiece's supportinginglepole.The snake is both symbolof roublenEden,and a caduceus, uggestingmedicalhealth.The artist's ool ansoar,Kiefereemsto tellus,butonly fweadmit hat uchsoaring s either ubject ocorruption,r s it-self putative urefor urfallenness. ut the toneof hispar-ticular quivocal onjunctionas about tsomethingike Popplayfulness.ven thenotion f culpting pairof ead wingsechoes n aesthetic ispositionhat tretches rom uchamp'smarble ugarcubes to Johns's PaintingwithTwoBalls, withitswittymockeryfmacho ttitudes.And s theraggedness fthewings'feathers gesture owardsmimetic aturalism,ran ironic end-up f t?There s some ndicationhatKiefer smoving wayfroma narrowGerman ocus, s recentworks eal with he FrenchRevolutionnd themyth f sis and Osiris. But the atter n-



9/13

Anselm iefernd the hapesofTime 85dulges na literalization,s themyth f he catteredimbs ftheEgyptian eity rerepresented y hardsofporcelaincat-tered bouta hugcanvas and tiedback to a centralpointbystrandsofcopperwire.There s also thevantagepointof theviewer ituatedust outside nd a little bovethe horizonine.The revolution ainting s titled The Ladies of the FrenchRevolution, nd consistsof fivepanels coveredwith leadsheets; mounted on the panels in a random order arewildflowersramed nderglass,each namedfor woman n-volved n thehistoric vents.But as with he ronicuxtaposi-tionof German ulturalheroes,herewe have both CharlotteCorday ndMarieAntoinetteoined nthe amework, enyinganyconsistent oliticalpartisanship.What linksthese morerecentworkswith the German paintings is a play withmaterials, sense ofhistoricrony,nd a sense that Kiefer sdevelopingechnicalkillsof xecutiontheFrenchRevolutionwork eing speciallympressive)nder heguiseof xpandinghissubjectmatter.Kiefer s an interestingrtist because such questionsabouthis use ofmaterials ontinue obe asked alongside hequeriesabout his social content nd historical hemes.One ofthemainlegaciesofformalismnpainting nd in arthistorywas the notion hatthese twoareas of rt- matters f tyleand the manipulation of materials on the one hand,metaphoricr thematic r ideational ontent n theotherwere inked n some abstract ense,thoughwhatreallymat-teredwas thefirst rea. Only fthe first rea were accordedsomething ike absolute primacyof aestheticsignificance,would the second area be allowed a place; otherwise,opinionated, ullible, nd temperamentals most of us are,ouropinions, ancies, nd ideas would ead us awayfrom hepurely esthetic.WhileKiefer ets us have opinions nd fan-cies,he still ets us know, nlike heconceptualrtists, or x-ample, hatvisualpleasure s notonly noblebut a necessaryaim ineasel painting.Another aytoapproachKiefer's elation oarthistorysto tracethrough is work raditional rmythicmotifshat hehas himself ent to a personalexpression. or example,heoftenuses landscape frontalityn his work;the viewer s



10/13

86 CHARLES MOLESWORTHpresentedwith a large expanse, generally mpty.Even inthosepaintings hathave a building, oom, rother tructureinthem, hefeelings oneof n empty xpanse.Theviewpointis oftenust above such expansive mptiness, o that Kiefermaybe suggesting hat we are notexactly mmersed n ortrappedbyour historical orizons, utwe are farfrom eingfree fthem nany way.He also often aintstreesor ferns rflowers,venoccasionally ncorporatingctualplants nto hework.These can be seen as emblemsoffrailty,ut also assigns ofeternally elf-regulatingorms;n eithercase, theyseem to serve s somethingf rebuke o theorders f ultureand human ntention hat are otherwise o dominant n thepaintings.Such appeals, through raditionalmotifs, o thethemes fdomination ndfrailtyfresponsibilitynd detach-mentwould ndicate standardhumanistic ttitude, houghonedeeply elt ndsincerely xpressed,hat ellsus weare,asShakespearewouldsay, poor orkedhings, imultaneouslythe victimsndthe observers fourfate.Nowmanyofour historical chemes, nd byextensionour art historicalchemes, re impoverished hen tcomes osetting p polarizeddichotomies.espite manywarningsndgood ntentions,uchpolarities urn ut to have noreallyuse-fulmediatingerm rcategoryhatwillkeepthescheme rombecomingmechanistic r reductive. o Kiefermayturn uttorepresent continuationfformalismyothermeans,or elsehe maybe hailedas a precursorf a return opaintingmadesignificanthroughocialand historical ontent. t is hardtosee himas representingothpossibilitiesevenharder o seehim s representingeither),ecause thetwo parties ,hatofformalismnd that of ocially onscious rt,have noroom oroverlap.The mostcynical eading fKieferwould be that herealizes ll thisbut has chosen oset itagainst tself y ubtlymanipulatingust enoughof thestylisticmarkers rom achcampso as toappear equallyat home n both.For what doesseemunavoidable s theconclusion hatKiefer s nothingfnotself-consciousbout tyle ven to thepoint fbeing tylish.Oneof hewaysthat rthistoricalchemes re drawnupisto attend oquestions f kill, rrather,otry o use levelsofskill, ndeven ttitudes oskill tself,s historicalmarkers. n



11/13

Anselm iefernd the hapesofTime 87some fairly adical versionsof such history here s even ahoped-forquationbetween kill and political ontent. his istrue in otherthan art historical chemes,by the way. Oneslogan,for xample,heardduring he 1960's in Americawasthat goodwritingscounter-revolutionary.heequationhereseems to involve notion hatpleasurecan have a specificclass functionnd a specific lass identity;ertainforms ffripperyra concernwithvariations ather hanwith hemes,forexample, mightbe assumed to be bourgeois. Con-trariwise, ough xternals r a thematics fdisrespect,venresentment,re assumed to be proletarian,r at a minimum,anti-bourgeois.uchequations re rejected y many ritics stoosimplistic,eductive,r tendentious. ut establishinghetruth f suchclaims s tricky,muchtrickier hanthe all-too-ready willingness fmanyto discardthem ompletely ouldseem to warrant. A considerablepart of the excitementgenerated yKiefer,ndalso someof hedismay,s tied o thisrecurrentredilectionomakean easy assumption bout therelatednessof technical nd stylistic uestionson the onehand, nd ideologicalndpolitical aluesandconcerns,n theother.Kiefer'swork ontains number f quivocal spects ndthese makesuch relatednesshard to spellout. In the faceofsuchambiguity,manypeoplewant someresolution. ne im-mediatetemptationmight e toarguethatKiefer, yreturn-ingpolitical ndsocial ssuestopainting,s ipsofacto radicalartist.Another emptationmightbe to add thathis style sdeliberately ough, hat it abjuresnotonlythepolished ur-facesof commercialrt but also the by-now ame standardforms favant-garde utrageousness; ence his projectmustconstitute truly hallenging ewdirection. hesereadings fKieferwould cho the sense of timewarpmentionedarlier,for heywould mplicitlyuggest hathebecomes ruly vant-gardebyoutstrippingheavant-gardet its owngame, hat sby ignoring recedent. he ironyn Kiefer's ase comes fromthatfact hattheprecedents e ignores re thoseof he avant-garde itself.As a friend f mine remarked fter eeingtheKiefer how, After ost-modernismomes modernism. n awaywhatwemight eseeing s theturningack on itself f n



12/13

88 CHARLES MOLESWORTHart historicalonsciousness,nd thatturning ackresults nachallenge even a deconstructivehallenge toarthistoryitself. fthePopand then venmore oMinimalistmovementswere xamples f rt conceivedypeoplewhoknew rthistorybut chose to mock ts truths, hen Kiefer s an artist whoworkswith ndagainstthe tructures f uchhistory.Onewayto understand historyhatturns ack on itselfis to see it as a form fmyth, recursiveness hat wouldbetraceableback to a schemefrom philosopherikeVico,withhis love ofcycles nd completions. iefer s certainly mythicartist, t least in terms fmuch fhis ostensible ontent. ndthe mythic disposition always has a tendencyto mockchronological istory,o see it as an inferioremporal rderthose ying enerations, s Yeats said.What s there y wayofmotifmaybe there yvirtue f guiding ision, hough hatdoesn'tmean thatKiefer as a consistent rprogrammatict-titude owards hecompetinglaimsofmythnd history. utat thevery east it wouldhelp clarifyhemixture ftones, l-lowing hegravehistoricalrony nd thepainterly laywithmaterials nd semantics o coexist. t wouldalso helpus seewhy t is possible, erhapsnecessary,oregardKiefer s bothan historical nd a formalistainter.This maybe the clue to his politicalmeaning s well.Mostof hemajorpolitical evolutionaryovements ave botha forwardnd a backwardooking spect.Thismaycomefroma desire to capture nd evenshape timeby freezingt intoarecurrent attern.Sartre has written f how the Girondinparty n the FrenchRevolution,or xample, doptedRomanvalues,and even wore Romantogas in theirRepublican s-sault on the order f hemonarchy.ut it s not nough osaythatKiefermust ookback norder omove head,or thatwecan trusthis forwardookingnesso decontaminate r ironi-cally orrect hepossible thnocentrismr racialism nhis sub-jectmatter. t is notenough omake sucharguments, ut itmaybe all we are able at this timeto makeofKiefer'swork.History, s the poetsaid, has many cunning orridors,ndmuchmaywelldepend n who swilling o follow iefer ownhisparticular oute.Marx'sfamous emark nTheEighteenthBrumaire, hatmenmake their wnhistoryut not lwaysas



13/13

Anselm iefernd the hapesofTime 89theywouldwish,has beenglossedmany imes.Marxused thepluraladvisedly, or hehistory nyofus makes must n turnbe furthermade or unmadebythosethat follow. ut thisap-pliesto Kieferwith omethingikespecialforce, otonlybe-cause he seemsto have an ability or at least thedesire tomake his ownhistorys hegoes.

anselm kiefer and the shapes of time

Documents