Art of the 1980s

Patrick Frank

Art of the 1980s

As If the Digital Mattered

Photo credits

Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12–19, 27–32: Photo courtesy the artist.

Fig. 9, 33: Photo by the author.

Fig. 11: Photo courtesy Lynn Hershman Leeson.

Fig. 20–26: © Gretchen Bender Estate, courtesy of Sprüth Magers.

ISBN 978-3-11-138463-4

e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-138469-6

Library of Congress Control Number: 2024930575

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Cover image: George Legrady. Koppel, from the series Authority of the News. Photo courtesy the artist.

Cover design: Katja Peters

Typesetting: 3w+p GmbH, Rimpar

Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck

www.degruyter.com

Contents

Acknowledgments VII

Introduction:Rethinking 1980sArt 1

JosephNechvatalandtheEcstasyofCommunication 5

LynnHershmanLeeson:OutofPlace 38

GeorgeLegrady:Newsand/asNoise 59

GretchenBender, ComputerGraphics,andFascism 84

NancyBurson:Digitizingthe Non-Visible 109

Conclusion:VaryingFortunesAfterthe 1980s 132

BibliographyofPrintedSources 144

Index 150

Acknowledgments

Manypeopleassistedintheresearchandpreparationofthisbook,anditis apleasure tothankthemnow.Firstofall, Iacknowledge theartiststhemselveswhoarethis book’sprincipalsubjects:Gretchen Bender,NancyBurson,Lynn HershmanLeeson, George Legrady, andJosephNechvatal.Theircreativityinspiredthisbook’screation. Allfouroftheartistspresentlylivingwereveryforthcomingininterviews,andwillingly sharedresources.OnbehalfoftheGretchen Benderestate,MarieRedetzkiandRyan MullerofSprüthMagersfulfilled asimilarfunction.All generouslysharedtimeand expertise,withoutinquiringintothisbook’smethodsorconclusions.

Severalotherpeoplegrantedinterviews. IthankStuartArgabright,AmberDenker, Paul Heckbert,WilliamIshida,Noel Korten,ThomasLawson,TomLeeser, MichaelLinder,RobertLongo,andAlanNortonforsharinginformationthatdecisively impacted thisbook’scontents.

Inaddition,LeslieJones,Priscilla McGeehon,andCharlesPhillipsfacilitatedaccess toresources.CopyeditorSimonSmith gave themanuscript athoroughreading.ElisabethRochau-ShalemhelpedsteerthisprojecttoDeGruyter.TheeditorialandproductionteamsatDeGruyter,ledbyAnjaWeisenseelandLuzieDiekmann,wereexcellent collaborators.Finally, IthankElizabethEastforearlyreadings,andfor generalwonderfulness.

Introduction: Rethinking1980sArt

The1980swasanimmenselyfruitfuldecadeinart,withmanymovementsand tendenciesincludingthePicturesGeneration,appropriation,neo-expressionism,graffitiart, AIDS-activistart,earlymulticulturalism,EastVillage,neo-geo,andsimulationism,to name afew.Througheachofthosemovementssomeexceptionalcreatorsbubbled up,artistssuchasCindySherman, BarbaraKruger, AnselmKiefer,Jean-MichelBasquiat,DavidWojnarowicz,JauneQuick-to-SeeSmith, KeithHaring,andothers.Also, agreatdealofartinthe1980srespondedtooneoranotherpublicissue,suchas AIDS,nucleardisarmament,sexism, racism,environmentaldegradation,andthepowerfulinfluenceofmassmediaoncultureandpersons.Theexhaustionofthemodernist enterprisesometimeinthe 1970sleftinitswakea highlypluralisticandfertileartenvironment,markedbymany competingtrends, eachsupportedbytheirrespective criticsandcurators.Lookingbackoverthedecadein 2012,onenotedcuratorlabeledthe 1980s “almostimpossibly heterogeneous.”¹ Thepurposeofthisbookistocomplicate thatpicturefurtherandeventoimpela revisionofit.

Criticaljudgmentswereissuedthickandfastinthe1980s,aswedecided veryearly whothemostimportantpractitionersofeachtendencywere.Thiswasespeciallytrue inthecasesofneo-expressionismandappropriation,ascriticsseemedtodivideinto politicalpartieswhichnotonlydefendedtheirartistsbutattackedtheworkofothers. Oneofthedecade’smostfamousartistsrecalled: “Bytheearlyeighties,theartscene becamegangwarfare theAthenianideaofhavingcombatoveraestheticissues.At onepointitfeltlikeweshouldhave hadleatherjacketswiththenamesofourgalleries ontheback;itfeltlikethereshouldbestreetfightsbetweenartistsofdifferent galleriesandsensibilities.”² Favorablecriticaljudgmentsoftenpredictedmarketsuccessfor manyartists,ascontemporaryartcollectingboomed.Forbetterorworse,thelistof artiststhuscanonizedhasremainedmostlystablesincethen, avariegatedlandscape thathas apparentlyfertilized arichgardenofcreativity.Thiswasanorganicprocess, asinmostperiodsofarthistory,hardlyworthyofcomment.However,mostofthecritics,curators,and collectorswhoenactedthiselevationdidsofrom apositionofblindness. Perhapsitcouldnotbeotherwise,becausetheywerecommentingagainstthe backdropoftheworldthattheyknew,a worldfraughtwithissues, problems,andquestions;mostoftheartthattheychampionedrespondedinoriginalandpowerfulwaysto thosequestions. Thefactis,however,that mostartcriticsatthattimesimplyignored digitalcreativity.³ Somedidsobecausetheysawthecomputeras adeviceofcontrol. Central to some conceptsofpostmodernismwasthebeliefthatwearenowin apost-

1 Helen Molesworth, This Will Have Been, 16.

2 Robert Longo, quoted in Richard Hertz, “Jack Goldstein and the CalArts Mafia,” 173.

3 I count myself among those critics.I wrote a master’s thesis on postmodernism in 1984, and for several years thereafter contributed regularly to The New Art Examiner, almost never commenting on any art that used a computer.

industrial age,inwhich “powernolongerresideswiththosewhocontrolthemeansof production.Powernowresideswiththosewhocontrolthenetworksfortheprocessing, retrieval, and transmission of information. In this sense IBM and AT&T have it all over anyindividual government.”⁴ Artistswhousecomputersthusdonotescapecomplicity inthisview.Whatsuchcriticsthencouldnotforesee,whetherwillfullyornot,wasthe massive digitizationofourculturetoday, thetriumphofthenetworkedcomputer,the riseoftechnologicalmonopolies,andalloftheimpactthatithashadonoureconomy, relationships,institutions, culture,andpowerstructure.Thepremiseofthisbookis thatifwelookbackatthe1980swhiletakingthedigitalseriously, wewillfindartists whoused,engagedwith,orcommentedonthisincipienttechnologyinoriginaland powerfulways.

Thetitleofthisbookcomesfrom SmallIsBeautiful: AStudyofEconomicsasifPeopleMattered,firstpublishedin1973.⁵ Thesubjectofthatbookdoesnotoverlapmuch withthisone,buttheybothshare adesiretoreorientthinkingthroughrenewedattentiontofactorsthathave alwaysbeenpresentbutneglected.

Inthehistoryofdigitalart,the1980sis atimeinbetween,almost aMiddleAges. Accordingtoonehistorian: “Atthebeginning ofthisperiodthegraphicaluserinterface was anovelty,theInternetbarelyexisted,thewebwas adecade away,andinteractivity wasanintriguingconcept.Theproductionofacceptablyhigh-resolutionillusionistic digitalpictures(stillframes)wasanactive researcharea,and amegabyteofRAM wassomethingluxurious.”⁶ The1980sfollowsthe generationofthedigitalartpioneers whoworkedafterhoursininstitutionalsettingsathuge mainframemachines.Atthe sametime,the1980simmediatelyprecededthesuddenaccessibilityoftheinternet, whichoccurredintheearly1990swiththeadventofthewebbrowser.Thatinvention, coupledwiththegraphicaluserinterface,revolutionizedhowweinteractwithcomputersandsetoffthecultureofconnectivitythatweallstillinhabit.Theexistinghistories ofdigitalarttend to neglectartistsinthe1980s,becausetheyarenotthepioneers, yet theypredateinteractivityandtheweb.⁷ Thesefactorsmakethe1980sripeforre-examination.

Tobesure,thisisnot abookaboutcomputerart,whichisartwhoseprimarypurposeistoexplorewhatsortofimagesa computercancreate.Thisarthasalreadyreceivedanunfortunateshareofopprobrium: “Alotofcomputerartthatgetsmade todayisbypeoplewhoarethrilledtodeathbythemachinebutdon’thavea rigorous artistic agenda,” saidaneditorof ArtinAmerica.⁸ Evenmembersofthe “digerati” expresseddoubt duringtheeighties: “It is genuinelyunclearto me whetheranyartusing

4 CraigOwens, “Post-Modernism: ASymposium,” 93.

5 E.F.Schumacher, SmallIsBeautiful: AStudyofEconomicsasifPeople Mattered (NewYork:Harper, 1973 andmanylater).

6 SimonPenny, “TwoDecadesofInteractive Art,” 55.

7 ChristianePaul, DigitalArt.

8 AmySlaton,quotedinArielleEmmett, “ComputersandFineArts,” 72.

computersistrulysignificant,” saidaneditorof Leonardo.⁹ Perhapstheseareunjust opinions.Infact,artistssuchasMarkWilson,DavidEm,andVictorAcevedorigorously tested the machine’simage-making capability during that decade.Itisimportant that theseandothercreatorsinteractedwith technologywithouttheusualmilitary,commercial,orscientific goals.Recognitionoftheirworkshouldbethesubjectofanother book.Thisislikewisenot abookaboutartistswhousedcomputersfor abriefperiodin the1980sandthenstopped.Someofthesecreatorsarequitewell-known,suchasAndy Warhol,Philip Pearlstein,David Hockney,and KennethNoland.Forthemostpart,the digitalworkthattheseartistscreatedresemblescloselytheirotherwork,astheypursuedaestheticaimsconceivedatearliertimes.

Finally, thisbookisnotaboutculturalphenomenafromthatperiodthatappear tobedigitalbutarenot.MaxHeadroomwas atelevisioncelebrityinthe1980s: “He’scool.He’shot.He’shandsomeandwitty ...Max Headroomissoperfecthe seemsalmostinhuman,which,infact,heis,” enthused Newsweek in1987.¹⁰ Whether hewas arealpersonorsophisticatedCGIwasdebated,usuallywithwinksand nods,but,infact,hewas aCanadiancomedianinprosthetics.¹¹ ManyconsiderLaurie Andersontobe adigitalartist,butherengagementwithcomputersissporadic.Oneof hermonologuesfrom HomeoftheBrave includes adiscussionofthezeroesandones thatmakeup “thebuildingblocksofthemoderncomputer age,” butsherejectsthe digital dyadastoolimiting. “There’snotenough rangebetweenthem,” shesays.¹² Her1984video Sharkey’sDay includesdigitalimagerycreatedbytechnicianDeanWinkler,butthe message ofthatworklieselsewhere.Mostofhersoundmediaduringthe 1980sareelectronic ratherthandigital,includinghermodified voiceandsynthesizers. Shetoldaninterviewerthatshefirstused acomputerforherworkin1989.¹³

Rather,thisbookwillattemptto raise awareness aboutfive artistswhousedadvanced technologytocreateworksthatengagedwithissuesinwaysthatparallel “theconcernsof acriticalpostmodernism,” asoneofitsleadingtheoristssummarized it: “strategiesof appropriationandpastiche,itssystematicassaultonmodernistorthodoxiesofimmanence, autonomy, presence,originality,and authorship,itsengagement withthesimulacral,anditsinterrogationoftheproblematicsofphotographicmass mediarepresentation.”¹⁴ Mostoftheitemsinthat agendamotivatedthesefive artists atonetimeoranother,and many ofthoseissuesremainrelevantforty-plus yearslater. Other,moretopicalissuesofthe1980salso appearintheworkofthesefive creators,as theydidintheworkofmanyartistsatthattime:theAIDShealthcrisis,nucleardisar-

9 DavidCarrier, “TheArtsandScienceand Technology,” 341.

10 “Mad AboutM-M-Max,” Newsweek,April 20,1987, 3. He also appearedonthe cover.

11 OnMax Headroom,seeBryanBishop, “Max Headroom:TheDefinitive Historyofthe1980sDigital Icon,” TheVerge,April 2, 2015.https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/2/8285139/,accessedSeptember 7, 2023.

12 LaurieAnderson, “ZeroandOne,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTYEVabkoDM,accessedSeptember 7, 2023.

13 Catherine Texier, “LaurieAndersonSingstheBodyElectric,” 41.

14 AbigailSolomon-Godeau, “LivingwithContradictions,” 125.

mament,civilwarsinCentralAmerica,theIran–Contrascandal,andthearrivalofthe year1984inrelationtoGeorge Orwell’snovelofthesamename.Inaddition,theseartists also engaged with other questions that have arisen since and remain persistent: celebritystatusandfunctions,thechangingdemographicsofadvancedsocieties,female agency,andthetruthvalueofphotography are afew.Specifically, JosephNechvatalcreatedexpressive digitalimagesforprintingwith technologydevelopedforbillboards,andtheninfectedthemwithcomputerviruses.Lynn HershmanLeesoncreated thefirstinteractive workforvideodisk,creatinga bridge betweenartandgaming through astoryabout awomanincrisis.NancyBursonforesawmulticulturalAmerica whenshedigitallyblendedfacialcharacteristicsofdiversepersonsintochallenging portraits.George Legrady’sdigitalimages,amongthefirsttobeofferedasart,explored issuessurroundingmediaandrepresentation,newsandnoise.Gretchen Benderis amongthebetter-knownofthisgroupofartists,buttheuniqueroleofdigitalimagery inherworkhasneverbeenadequatelydiscussed.Noneofthesefive artistscouldhave beenconsidered “unknown” duringthatdecade;theyallexhibitedregularly, oftenreceivingsomeimmediateattentionbutnotcanonicalelevation.Thefive donotconstitute amovementinthetraditionalsense,becausetheirmediaandstylesdivergewidely.TheyworkedindisparateareasoftheUnitedStatesandFrance,andtheydidnotall knowoneanother.Ofthefive,onlyBender’sworkhasbeenroutinelyincludedinmuseumsurveysofthedecadethathave appearedsince.Butthewayinwhichourcontemporaryculturehasbeenswallowedbydigitaltechnologyinthetwenty-firstcentury shouldmotivateustolook againforcreatorswhointerrogateditinantecedentdecades.Thisbookclaimstohave foundtheminthe1980s.

JosephNechvatal andthe Ecstasyof Communication

ThoughJosephNechvatalemergedfromthe1980sEastVillageartscene,hisworkwas nottypicalofthegraffiti-basedandbrashlyexpressioniststylescommonlyassociated withthatneighborhood.Rather,hecreated aunique versionofpostmodernism,based on abesiegingwelterofmass mediainformation,inwhichthecomputereventually playeda crucialrole.BorninChicagoin1951,hestudiedartatSouthernIllinoisUniversity,earning aBFA in1974.¹ Amongtheelectivesthathetookwas acourseinFORTRAN.HecametoNewYorkCitythenext year,asheundertookgraduatestudiesin aestheticsatColumbiaUniversitywhileworkingasanarchivistattheDiaArtFoundation.Hewasaffiliatedinthelate1970sandearly1980swiththeartists’ cooperative Colab,participatingintheirgroupexhibitionsandaidinginfoundingtheABCNo Riogallery.Hispaintingsfromthattime,whichdonotsurvive exceptinpoorphotographs,weremostlywhite.Undertheinfluenceofhisphilosophicalstudyandthe Colabenvironment,hebegan to movehisworktowardgreatercomplexityandpolitical commitment.

DrawingprovidedthebasicfoundationformostofNechvatal’sart.Between1979 and1989, hecreated asteadystreamofdensegraphitedrawingsoneleven-by-fourteeninch(28× 35.5 centimeter)sheetsofpaper.Theseworksshow agenerallyarousedand listlessemotionalstate,alliedinsomewayswiththeneo-expressionismthenattracting attention,mixedwithsurrealistinfluences. Agreatdealoftheimageryinthedrawingswasderivedfromthemassmedia.Overthecourseofthatdecade,thedrawings evolvedtowardgreatercomplexityandcontrast.

WeclearlyseethedenselayersofNechvatal’sdrawingsin BarbarianDemonology (fig.1).Fromthisgnarledmassoflinesandshading,severalheadsemergesufficiently foratleastpartialrecognition.Intheleftcenteris ascowling,skull-likehelmetedhead withmouthagape,resembling ademonfrom asciencefictioncomicbook.Twosmall, bat-likewingsemerge fromthebaseofitsneck;theoneontheleftis morevisible. Below,twowell-groomedpersonsappeartoshare ataskastheylookdown.Nearer theloweredge atthecenteris amanin amilitaryuniform,viewedfromjustbelow. Inthelowerleftcorner,a solemnfacestaresbacktowardtheviewer,muchlarger. Aboveandtotheleftofthesci-fiheadisthebustof apersonholding ahandover botheyes;theartistreportedthatthisrepresents Abraham about to sacrificehisson Isaac.Fromtheupperrightemergesa puffyheadwiththicklipsand ahighcrown thattheartistdescribedasa cryingbabybutwhichalsoresemblesoneofthecolossal stoneheadsfromtheOlmecculture.² Inthelowerrightcorner,a steppedmotifderived

1 Biographical data from Joseph Nechvatal, Selected Works, 45 ff; interview with the artist, Paris, November 29, 2018.

2 Both descriptions, Joseph Nechvatal, email to the author, March 19, 2019.

JosephNechvatal. BarbarianDemonology. 1984.Graphiteonpaper.11×

Whereaboutsunknown.

fromSouthwestNative Americanculturejostlessimilarlyshapedneighbors;thispatternispartially echoedintheupperleftcorner.Otherfigures,lessvisible,swimina seaofdrawnlinesandshadedzones.Inventoryingthevisual motifsinthisdrawing doesnottakeusfartoward rationaldeciphermentof acohesive message,butthisis partoftheartist’sintent.

ThepaperthatNechvatalusedforthisdrawingandmostothersisice-smooth, lackingintooth.Thesurface ofthedrawingsisalso generallyshiny fromrepeatedrubbingswithgraphiteblocks.Theartisttherebysuppressed textureandalloftheexpressive presencethatitcouldbring.Hecreatedmostoftheseworksbylayingthepaperon aplastictabletopwith alightbelowandhunchingoverthebacklitsheets.³ Thisworkingpositionsettheirscaleatthelevelof abookorillustrationandcausedhimtodraw themotifsintheworksat anear-miniaturescale,morelikethatof aprintmakerthana painter.Thismodeofoperationcontributestotheoverallsensethatthedrawingshave auniquerelationshiptorealspace.Ifinclassicalrepresentationalartthepictureplane is awindowintothethirddimension,andinabstractexpressionismthesurface isan arenaforaction,andforRobertRauschenberga dumpingground,inNechvatal’sdraw-

3 JosephNechvatal,emailtothe author,March 26,2019.

Fig.1:

14in.(28 ×35.5 cm).

ingsthesurfaceistheglasswallof ascaled-down,murkyaquarium.Theartisthascreatedtheaquariumbyfillingitwithbrackishwaterandpopulatingitwithspecimens from disparate realms past,present, and imaginary before sealing the surface with anotherpaneofglass.The swirlinglinesandunevenlightinggive afeelingofchurning motiontothecontents,whichcausesfacesandfigures to pushupwardtowardthesurface;theymayrecedesoon, to bereplacedbysomeofthemoredimlylitmotifsthatare lessvisible.Bycompletingthe work,theartistfrozethecontentsintheirpresentconfigurations.

Thiscomplexitycomplicatesourreadingofthework,forcingviewerstopenetrate discursively thehastilydrawnlinesandreflectontheconstellationoffigures.The formalaspectoftheseirrationaloverlays,andtheirconcomitantslowedviewer apprehension,recallFrancisPicabia’sTransparencies.Theseworks,whichtheFrenchartist createdbetween about1928 and1932,havegatheredvariousinterpretations.Picabia’s mostexhaustive biographernotedthattheartistwroteatthetimeof asurrealist-orientedurge tobring forth “resemblanceofmyinteriordesires” into apictorialfield “whereall my instinctsmayhavea freecourse.” Ultimately, thebiographerdeduced, theTransparencies “derivedfrompreoccupationswithsimultaneity duringthe epochof CubismandOrphism.”⁴ Onescholarsawa searchfor ametaphysicalfourth dimension.⁵ Amorerecentscholarfoundintheworks alayeredcritiqueofcinemaas commonlydisplayed,withviewersseatedbetweenprojectorandscreenandimagesreflectedback towardthem.⁶ AllcommentatorsagreethatPicabiapopulatedtheworks withrecognizableorrememberedimagery,andthatslowingdowntheviewer’sperceptionoftheworkwaspartofhisintent.

Nechvatal’sdrawingsseemtoshareboththesecharacteristics.Thebulkofthemotifsthatfloatinthedrawingshave recognizablesources,andconsultationwiththeartisthashelpedtoclarifymostoftherestofthem.Thepictorialspaceinthedrawingsis morechaoticthaninPicabia’spaintings,however;theformershowgreaterdislocationsofscaleanddistance,andtheydraw on awidervarietyofsourcematerial.Specifically,Nechvataldrewlessoftenonthehistoryofart,favoringpopularcultureand theworldofthemilitary.Hisdrawingsalsoshowmorespontaneousexecution,especiallyintheoverlayoffreelines.Moreover,thoughbothartistscouldbecreditedwith expressionsofmood,Nechvatal’sguardedpessimismcontrastswiththe “wistfulness andmelancholy” thatPicabia’sbiographerfound.⁷ Nechvatalwas awareofPicabia’s Transparencies,buthegrewmore awareofthemafterthe MaryBooneGallerystaged anexhibitionthatincludedseveraloftheminthefallof1983, several monthsbeforehe createdthiswork.⁸

4 WilliamA.Camfield, FrancisPicabia,233 – 234; 229.

5 ClaireFontaineHoward, “TracingtheLine:FrancisPicabia’sTransparenciesinContext,” master’s thesis,Universityof Texas,Austin, 2012.

6 MashaChlenova, “TheSecretRecessesofPicabia’sTransparencies,” 188 – 193.

7 WilliamA.Camfield, 229.

8 JosephNechvatal,emailtothe author,March 22, 2019.

AcomparisonofNechvatal’sdrawingstotheworkofsomeofhisneo-expressionist contemporaries,suchasJulianSchnabelorDavidSalle,isfruitfulbutincomplete.All three artists populated complex surfaces with imagery bubbled up from media-fueled memory. Nechvatalis,perhapsfortunately, lessdrivenbyovercookedexistentialangst thanSchnabel,whoactuallytoldaninterviewer: “There’sa momentwhenyouunderstandwhatcompletenon-existenceisaboutandit’shorrifying.Nomatterhowrichyou get, it’snever going to changethisterminalcaseofexistencethatwehave.”⁹ Nechvatal isalsolessdecadentthanSalle,whoselayeredworksatthattimeconjureda “deliciously unwholesomenightclubatmosphere,” inthewordsof anotedcritic.¹⁰ Thecomparisonisincompletebecausethedrawingsbecamethebasisforothercreative pathways ashe tookthemintoothermedia.Thedrawingsareneo-expressionistintheirorigins, buttheyleadtoworksthatarepostmodernintheirultimateform,asweshallsee. Nechvatalisalso amoredirectlypoliticalartistthanmostoftheneo-expressionists, ashetransformedsomedrawingsintopoliticalposters.Duringtheearly1980s,Nechvatalbecameconcerned abouttheissueofnuclearproliferationandthethreatof atomicwarfare,andthisledhimtocreateananti-nuclearposter(fig.2).Hecreated theinscribedsloganusingdrytransferlettersoverlaidatop adrawing.Thelatteris typicalforitswelterofvisualquotationsdeployedacross afieldofslashingdiagonal lines.ThecentralfigureisastandingFrankensteinmonster,recognizablefromthe squared,flat-toppedheadandlarge hands. Heappearstobegforforbearance.Probably noteworthyinthiscontextisthefactthatthemonsteristheproductofscience gone wrong, asymbolofhumanfolly, justasNechvatalregardednuclearweaponsthemselves.Onthisfigure’schestis agroaningface,mouthagape,seeninprofile,facing upward.OntheleftisthedogGoofyfrom aWaltDisneycartoon,smiling comicallybelow bulgingeyeballs.Thisfigureprobablyrepresents apolitician,perhapsRonaldReagan, blithely stumblingalonginsupportofnewweaponssystemsascatastrophelooms. Less recognizable,neartherightloweredge oppositetheword “will,” is asad,masklikeface under aheaddress.Thisfigurerecalls aMayaaristocrat,whoseexpressionbetraysa senseofthegravityofthethreat;perhapsitshowssaddenedwisdomgleanedfrom theexperienceofwarfare.Inthelowerportionofthe posterisa gryphon,probably representingmartialvirtues,holdinginitstalon adevicethatemitssparksandflashes. Thisfigureisa directappropriationof asmallmotifin alarge engravingof atriumphal archbyAlbrechtDürer.

Duringtheearly1980s,shortlyaftertheelectionofReagan to the US presidency, concernsaboutnuclearweaponswerewidelyshared.Withinmonthsofhisinauguration,Reaganrestartedproductionofthe B-1Lancernuclear-armedbomberafterthe precedingCarteradministrationhadcanceledit.InMarchof1983, thepresidentannouncedtheStrategicDefenseInitiative,asystemintendedtoshootdownincoming missiles,therebyscrappingthepreviousdoctrineofmutually assureddestruction

9 JulianSchnabelquotedinElizabeth Tenant, “RebelExpressions,” 7.

10 DonaldKuspit, “DavidSalleatMaryBooneGallery,” 123.

Fig.2: JosephNechvatal.Untitledposter.1985.Printedsize8½×11in.(21.6 ×28cm). Unsound,Vol.3,No. 1(1985),13.

whichhadformedthebasisofnucleardeterrencesincethedawnoftheColdWar. ReaganalsoinstalledPershingnuclearmissilesinWestGermanyforthefirsttime laterthat year.OnAugust11,1984,hejokedintoanopentestmicrophonebeforehis weeklyradiobroadcast, “MyfellowAmericans,I’mpleased to tellyoutodaythatI’ve signedlegislationthatwilloutlawRussiaforever.Webeginbombinginfive minutes.”¹¹ Thisaccidentalrecordingleakedout afewdayslater,settingoffbothdenunciations andmilitaryalertsinMoscow,asEuropeanalliescomplainedthatthecommentset backtheirdiplomaticefforts.

Aninformalanti-nuclearmovementgrewupinparallelintheartworld.Nechvatal,by1979,wasalreadymakinganti-nuclearpostersthatincludedpassagesfromhis drawings,forpastingaroundtheEastVillage.¹² OnJune12,1982, ahugecrowdestimatedatup to onemillionpersonsmarchedinNewYorkCityinoppositiontonuclear weaponsandtheirproliferation.¹³ Nechvatalmarchedinthisprotest, whichcoincided

11 HedrickSmith, “Reagan’sGaffe,” A4.

12 JosephNechvatalPersonalArchive,Paris.

13 PaulL.Montgomery, “ThrongsFillManhattan,” 1.

with aUnitedNationsspecialsessiononnucleardisarmament.Healsoparticipated, alongwithapproximately40otherartists,intheAtomicSalongroupexhibitionatRonald Feldman Fine Arts at the same time.The Village Voice published aspecial issue on thethreatofnuclearwar,whichlayonnewsstandsduringtheweekoftheprotest. Yearslater,herecalled: “Ifeltatthetimethatitwasan apocalypticmoment.”¹⁴

Nechvatal’santi-nuclearconcernsalsounderlaysomeexperimentsinmultimedia thatheundertookthroughoutthedecade.Aninstallationhecreatedforthealternative spaceTheKitcheninearly1982,titled When ThingsGetRoughonEasyStreet, wasdescribedbytheartistas “apleafordisarmament.” Anaccompanyingstatement said: “I’mworried aboutnuclearwar,accidental,limited,orall-out.”¹⁵ Theexhibition invitationcardincluded aportionofthedrawing(theFrankensteinmonster)thathe alsousedintheanti-nuclearposter.Theexhibitionin adarkened galleryincluded drawings, avideoprojectionofanotherdrawing,andfour televisionmonitorsshowing staticimagesofdrawings,alongwith apairofmasks.¹⁶

Intheartist’spursuitofsensoryimmersionoroverload,projectingthedrawings intoenvironments morecomplexthan aflatwallseemedthenextlogicalstep.In March1984,hehad asologalleryexhibitionthatincludedphotosofhisdrawingsprojectedontonudebodiesinhisdarkenedstudio.¹⁷ Thenext year,heboughtat alocal santeríabotanicalshop astatueof Babalú-Ayé,aboutforty-twoinches(107 centimeters) inheight,whichfiguredinseveralworksoverthenextfew years.Thestatuedepicted thetraditionalorishaassociatedwithdiseasesandsuffering,who goesabouton crutchesandisassociatedwithLazarusinsyncretic modesofsantería.¹⁸ Nechvatal coveredthisstatuecompletelyinpapiermâchéderivedfromphotocopiesofhisdrawingsandstooditnear awallalongsideotherfiguresofanimals,whichmayincludethe dogsthatoftenaccompanytheorisha. Behind,hehung alarge-formatsilkscreenofa 1984drawing.Overthissceneheprojectedanotherdrawingbeforephotographingthe wholeandgivingitthetitle SublimatedMaleficarum Technology (fig.3).Herewesee thethree-dimensionalobjects,includingthepaperedstatueandtheanimalshapes. Theprintonthebackgroundwallwastitled TheScabof Time;itscentralimageis theheadoftheIndianspiritualteacher Meher Baba, to theleftofthestatue’supper arm.¹⁹ Thedrawingthatisprojectedoverthesceneisdominatedby afaceofsome importanceinthehistoryoftechnologyinmovies: It is aheadbasedonthe Master ControlProgram(MCP), asynthesizedcharacterpicturedas aheadthatservesas theeviladversaryinthe1982movie Tron. Thisheadwasoneofthefirstexamples ofcomputergraphicsto appearincinema.Inordertocreatea three-dimensional

14 JosephNechvatal,interviewwiththe author,Paris,November29,2018.

15 JosephNechvatal,pressreleasefromTheKitchenCenterforVideoandMusic,NewYork,January 7, 1982. JosephNechvatalPapers,NewYorkUniversityLibrary.

16 TheKitchenArchive,http://archive.thekitchen.org/?p=20757,accessedOctober 6, 2022.

17 ReviewedinWalterRobinson, “SlouchingToward Avenue D,” 149.

18 DavidH.Brown, SanteríaEnthroned,370.

19 JosephNechvatal,email to the author,March 28,2019.

headon acomputer,thedesignerusedwireframeanimation,theleadingedge oftechnologyinthosedays. Becausecomputerslackedthecapacitytoanimatefullyrounded surfaces,wireframing ordrawing alineforeachedge made abelievablesimulation possible.

Nechvatalreportedseeing Tron twiceon alarge screenat atheaterinTimes Square.²⁰ TheMCPplays aroleinthemoviesimilartoitsfunctioninthepresent work.Thescaleofthedrawnfaceissimilartothatofthemovie,inwhichtheMCP controlsmassive electronicresourcesanddictatesnefariousdeedsasitsubjectsthe innersoftwareworldtoitswill.Thefacefillstheframeinthemovie,astheMCP givesordersin adeep,stentorian voice.Thischaracterrepresentsevilscience,because the MCPbeganlifeas achess-playingprogrambeforeteachingitselfincreasingly higher-levelskills.AsinthecasesofnuclearweaponsandFrankenstein’smonster, technologytakeson athreateninglifeofitsown.Inthiswork,asin Tron,thewireframeface dominatesthecomposition.Theorishastatue,gazingdownwardandsupportedon crutches,looksweakincomparisondespiteitsoriginalstatusas adivinebeing.Humanity,asrepresentedbytheorisha,ishandicappedandbeleaguered,trappedina roledictatedbytechnology.

20 Ibid.,February 17,2019.

Fig.3: JosephNechvatal. SublimatedMaleficarumTechnology. 1985.Photograph,dimensionsvariable.

Addingsoundandactorson alivestagewasthefinalstepbeforeNechvatalbegan using acomputer.HecollaboratedwithcomposerRhysChathamon amultimediatheater piece titled XS:The Opera. With help from arts patron Elaine Dannheiser,they premieredpartsofitatseveralEastVillageclubsincluding8BC,thePyramidClub,and Danceteriainlate1984.Afteraninstallation versionwasexhibitedatEastCarolinaUniversityinearly1985, theartistsreceiveda grantfromtheMassachusettsCouncilforthe Artstostagethefullseventy-minute versionattheBostonShakespeareTheaterinApril 1986.Thecomposerdescribedthemusicstyleof XS asnowave,whichmeantthatelectricguitarsandnoiseblendedwithshoutedandwhispered vocals.Severalshortsegmentsofmilitarybrassmusicindottedrhythmandbrisk4/4timewerepre-recorded forusein afewkeyscenes.²¹ Performersonthestageincludedthreesingersandseven dancers.Theplotof XS treatsthethemeofpoweranditscorruption.After agirlhasa vision to rightthewrongsoftheworld,shejoinswith apoliticalleadertorealizethe vision.Thisleadstowarfare,conquest,defeat,andmassive self-doubtandremorse.According to asynopsis: “Intheend,botharedestroyedbytheirdesireforpower. But bothhave alsoconfirmedsomethingasprofoundastheirbeliefintheother.”²²

Thismultimediawork mayshowinfluencefromRobertLongo’s SoundDistanceof aGoodMan,premieredin1978atFranklinFurnace;it,too,used aprojectionandthree slowlymovingperformers,backedwithmusicbyChatham.ButNechvatal’s XS ismore chaoticandimmersive.Performersonthestagemovedbeforeprojecteddrawings,as theydidin SublimatedMaleficarum Technology. Nechvatalusedtwoprojectorsthatcoveredthedancersandthewallswithimagesofthedrawings,andsimilarlyimmersed the audienceinmusic,visuals,and movementbythetenperformers.Judgingfromreviewsoftheperformance,thework’smessagewassomewhatunclear.Onecriticsaw theworkas “Noplot,noaction,buttrippyindeed.” Anotherconfessedbafflement: “Whateveritis,itisn’tenjoyableanditisn’tinteresting.”²³ Nechvataldescribedtheintendedimpactoftheworkascausing abreakfromtheusualpathwaysofthought, whichthereviewersperhapsmissed: “Herethe mindiswrestled away fromAristotelianlogicbytheuseofelaboratepolystructures,sothatwecanglimpsetheimageof massannihilationwroughtbymilitarized technologywhichnowprovidesthemajor contextforourartandourlives.”²⁴

Despiteanyapparentsuccessorfailureofthework,itrepresents aculminationof multimediaexpressionbyNechvatal.Hedidnotattempt asequel,buttheworkgivesa clearviewofhisaestheticofexcess.Heenvisionedsuchexcess (and XS)transcending thelogicofthecurrentculture,whichhesawasbothunderanimmediatenuclear

21 Two audioexcerptsathttp://www.ubu.com/sound/chatham.html,accessedSeptember15,2023.

22 RichardFlood, “XS:The Opera ASynopsis,” typescriptinJosephNechvatalPapers,NewYorkUniversityLibrary.

23 Larry Katz, “XS: ACollage ofContrasts,” BostonHerald,April12,1986;RichardBuell, “XS: Highon Visuals,LowonMusic,” BostonGlobe,April11,1986;clippingsinJosephNechvatalPapers,NewYork UniversityLibrary.

24 JosephNechvatal, “TheLookof XS, ” 10.