Collaborating Couples by Georgia Museum of Art

LLABORATING C?UPLES'*i:{::,,tru&r

, ,l

,i" ,

,.i

i,,"

tt"

lll l'ill

l,ll

'i.

rrrl;

, ,:l

,,1 t"ta' ,1,

lli

Lizzie & oavid zucker saltz

phil auslnnder

DenwM sirlin

susrtilr..oh(rts

*. uichnel

siwon

LeeAnn uitchell & 1im truonnccorsi

oebornh Mcclnry

anunt clwk

rtists have always collaborated, since the building of the pyramids to the present; however, the modern museum in the late eighteenth century and particularly in the twentieth century brought about exaltation of the master artist, who works

in his studio to create unique works of art that miraculously convey insights into eternal truths. Artists' biographies nearly always stress the creativity of an extraordinary (usually male) individual struggling alone to find artistic self-expression. ln

the 1970s this concept of the lone artist creating unique works of art began to lose its grip as its validity was challenged and soon debunked. Buffeted by the tenets of Post-modernism, readily available and easily reproducible images, artistcooperatives, and feminist ideology, the art world began

to (re)connect with the work of art as a collaborative effort.

During the 1950s, Happenings, earth art, installation art, and performance art brought new acceptance and recognition to the importance of many hands and minds contributing to a work of art. While Andy Warhol's Factory may have given collaboration a bad name, Judy Chicago and Miriam Shapiro,

inthe

197Os,

forged new models for collaborative working methods. The monumental achievemenlof Einstein on the Beach (1976) cannot

simply be ascribed to Philip Class's music and words without recognition of the deslgn/direction of Robert Wilson and the choreography of Andrew de Croat and Lucinda Childs. In the late nineteenth century it became possible for women to do "serious" work, and consequently, an increasing number of women decided

to become professional artists. Often choosing to

use the new medium of photography, they began creating important, innovative, and successful

works of art. The independent woman of the early twentieth century became a growing presence in the rough-and-tumble competition of the art

world; she did not feel forced to work in her studio after the housework was done and the children were cared for. Ceorgia O'Keeffe may be the best known of these modern women artists, but she is hardly unique. As more women became professional artists, the previous contributions of women began to emerge as new scholarship revised canonical

art history. As these women achieved recognition for their collaborations with their husbands, a new appreciation for the give-and-take of the creative process emerged. Many couples only have temporary partnerships, either because the personal relationship is brief or the individuals' collaboration lasts only for one or two projects. Moreover, collaborating couples need not be of the opposite sex and may include less traditional partnerships. Although post-war McCarthyism in America made it difficult for American women to get out of the house or out from behind the secretary's desk, supportive communities coalesced, particularly in San Francisco and New York. ln the late 1950s JasperJohns and Robert Rauschenberg made

significant contributions to each other's art, even though they continued to create their own works. While their relationship was very private, Johns later acknowledged Rauschenberg's contribution:

. . we were very dependent on one another. There was

people fed into that but it was basically a two-way operation."

that business of triggering energies. Other

It seems natural for artists to have close personal relationships, whether in or out of marriage, because they have broad common interests. This is not to say all are collaborative; indeed, many married couples, including Susan Rothenburg and Bruce Nauman, Leon Colub and Nancy Spero, and Nancy Rubin and Chris Burden, work independently from each other. For other married couples, including Ceorgia O'Keeffe and Alfred Stieglitz and Frida Kahlo and Diego Rlvera, the effect each had on the other's work is more subtle and has only recently been acknowledged and investigated. ln

other marriages one contributes to the work of the other-often without acknowledgment-as, for example, Annie and Joseph Albers and David Smith and Dorothy Dehner. More recently, collaborative work, along with the emergence of non-traditional relationships, has gained acceptance and even some renown, as for example, the designers Charles and Ray Eames, sculptors Ed and Nancy Redding Keinholz, Christo and Jeanne-Claude, the

British installation and performance artists Cilbert and Ceorge, the American photographers Mike and Doug Starn, and the Soviet exiles Komar and Melamid. These partners nearly always create and are acknowledged as one entity, although the work of the designer Charles Eames and the painter Ray Kaiser Eames exemplifies the changes that have taken place over the last thirty years. During World War ll their plywood experiments were used

by the military, but after the war, Charles had an exhibition of his work at the Museum of Modern Art. Only in 1960 did their collaborative work receive recognition in the form of the Kaufmann International Design Award. Another example of this change can be found in the role accorded Coosje van Bruggen and her work with Claes Oldenburg, recognition that was denied Hannah Wilkie, his earlier collaborator. Computer artists Ed Hill

and Suzanne Bloom have gone so far as to create a new identity/name, Manual, under which they present their work. The work of the five couples in the present exhibition runs the gamut of collaboration. For Susan Roberts and Michael Simon collaborating is new. Sculptors LeeAnn Mitchell and Jim Buonaccorsi only occasionally work together. Deanna Sirlin and Phil Auslander seldom work together and

indeed work in what might in other circumstances seem incompatible media-he with words as an art historian and critic and she with paint. Lizzie

and David Zucker Saltz also work in different media, she as sculptor and critic and he as a theater director. Their collaboration results in installation sculpture. Sculptors Hunt Clark and Deborah McClary have nearly always worked together, although often not on a single work. lnterviews with each couple reveal another truth about collaborations: the personal relationship is often the most difficult part of working together. What happens when you reach an irreconcilable point of opposite opinions? How do you keep from letting one person dominate? lf one person is expert in one medium, can the other become competent enough to make meaningful suggestions for change? None of these questions is easily answered, but the effort often infuses the art with an energy and creativity that one person working alone may not often achieve.

DowLld.D. Kry$ cLLYntoY

vnintinns

Grcrlin Uuseum olArt

Ltznezu&ff snkfunvrlza&ersaltz

;ffiffi;::

; ;";ff

ductions. ln 1984, after graduating from college (Barnard and Yale, respectively), they collaborated on a video, with Lizzie on camera and David directing. Late[ as David began to utilize his computer programming skills to create theatrical experiments during his graduate studies at Stan{ord and as

rhe ureriltring crnb, zooo PVC, aluminum, fabric, LEDs, DC blower, electronics, audio recording, sensors, Macintosh computer, and audio speaker

30 x 19 x 19 inches Artisls' statement: An obiedvagtely evocalive of a uab lies dormant until human participants approach, at whidt time it begins to breathe audibly. The closer the participants gelto the crab, the faster and more fully it breathes. As the viewer moves away from the crab, its breath slows, then becomes painfully ragged, and finally ceases.

Lizzie integrated perfornance elements and audience interaction into her sculptural installations Eufrnuces

during graduate studies at San Jose State, they decided to focus on merging the dramatic potential

&Elits, z0a0

of theatrical scenarios with the physical presence and interactive potential of a sculpture setting.

Wood, metal, stepper motors and drivers, electronics, video projector, video recording, headphones, and digital prints 85 x 33 x 56 inches

After belng involved with each other's ventures, they decided to collaborate in 1996, this tirne cre-

Mechanical design consultants: Jason Lake and Richard Cassada Mechanical implementation assistance: Ollivier Bonamy

Actress: Carolyn Blackinton

ating FLEICO: The Fluid ldentity Electronic Companion, a life-scale figure of indeterminate race or gender, whose reactions varied depending on audience members' physical interactions, and whose

personality changed periodically. While teaching at SUNY-Stony Brook, New York, David created Beckett Space, an environmental theater experience involving simultaneous short plays that resembled a gallery experience in which the audience could wander in a large space from one play to the

Artists' statement: This "sculptural animation" performs a three-minute play based on Samuel Beckett's shofttext "Come and Co." The play is performed oglically with the characters trapped in a relentless perpetual motion machine. Within a puppet theater-like proscenium ctpening, viewers see three

images that move up and down to simulate characters. The images have bas-reliefs of the three female characters, with a blank area where the faces are a video image of the acbess, who performs all three roles. Fixed images of the character's

next. Many of the performances used interactive eiectronic devices to actualize Samuel Beckett's

arm gestures rokte into position for specific lines, as specilied by the stage directions. The dialogue is heard through three pairs of headphones.

precise, algorithmic scenarios. One of the pieces in the present exhibition is a continuation of that

vekt, zoo0 (futnil illustrnted)

experiment. At the same tirne, Lizzie has continued to incor-

Three moclified vintage 1970s ventriloquist's dummies attached to three wooden children's chairs, with yellow,

porate audience participation in her work as well place small electronic devices into body-oriented

forms. The new work they have developed specifically

for this exhibition

represents an

extension of their joint interest in merging the

cloth-covered wires ascending to ceiling rafters; wood platfornn, mic stand with vintage Astatic D-'!04 radio rnicrophone casing, computer m!crophone, "1960s Cenerai Electric television, two speakets, Macintosh computer, fabric, servo motors, and interactive electronics 56 x 80 x'160 inches Atilsts' statement: Three ventriloquist's dummies - a white male, a white female, and an African-American male - sit in a semicirde. Their heads are extended above their bodies by long red velvet necks. The piece is mute until aviewer speaks into the microphone, which activabs the mount of a randomly chosen

traditional worlds of theater and sculpture with

the nascent field of computer-driven, interactive, and mechanized art events.

dummy, whose mouth will move in sync to the viewer's N the gallery participant has finished, the lwo

speech. As soon

other dummies will attack the first, using hate speeches alled from numerous web sites. A television displays the author of the quote and the web address where itwas found. Two participants may then continue the dialogue with the dummies,

defendingtheir dummy as they wish. After an interval a different dummy will be activated by miaophone input, with the two other dummies attackingthat character.

mwn

sirlnfuttit austander ;:;': J :

Elut

-:::,";:,;:;TTi:

married. Deanna is a painter; Phil is a cultural critic. They began by talking about art, includ-

zaoa (detntl illusLrnted)

Digital transparent prints One large piece, 257 x J05 inches, and 18 small pieces, 14 x 14 inches each, set in windows Fabricated by Colorchrome Atlanta

ing Deanna's paintings. For the work in the exhibition Phil used a brush for the first time on one of Deanna's paintings. Their first collaboration was a book, Disappearance, about the past, present, and future of Piedmont Park, in Atlanta. This thoughtful work demanrJed a lot

of research for the visual and written components. They collaborated fr:r the second time 1998,

Looking Forward, Looking Back,lor the Northeast Spruill Oaks Regional Library, in

Alpharetta. They wanted to make a work that reflected the changes that were taking place

in Fulton County and the area. They maintained a division of labor, with Deanna conceptualizing the visual aspect of the piece and Phil writing the poem l-hat was etched onto the visual

work. lfi the present works, the small paintings were scanned so that they

became

sections of larger concepts, a microcosm of fragments. ln the paintings the grid (of the win-

dows, for example) provides a structure for the swirling paint. The words are similar fragments, pieces that have been woven together. The first idea for each work is the visual; then

they progress, with the finai form determined by the way the text works with the painting.

Flul.

11, 2rJO0

Digital print 95 x 398 inches

Artists' statentent: tloth artists made paintings that were scanned, digitized, and printed. Phil, in consultation with Deanna, juxtaposed warCs and phrases derived from his

work as an art critic. By transforming the non-obiective paintings into large-scale transparencies and then placing words next to the images, the artists address issues of scale, rnedium, and function as the paintings take on the characteristics of stained glass, which traditianally contairts narratives, that Deanna and Phil have chosen to create thrctugh images and words.

susnkk0herts$g,tich"nelsrmon:::"#ff

;::"::;..*:T,ff

Susrtn Roherts

Photography, printmaking, and painting, 1997 -2OOO Oil and acrylic on canvas and oil on silver gelatin fiber prints

Their collaborative work germinated from conversations as they made suggestions about each other's art. They found that this give-and-take was and had always been crucial for their

personal relationship. They have discovered an honesty in their conversations because they have no reason to lie to each other. Their art appears throughout their home, and they feel each needs to have faith in and respect what the other mal<es in order to live with it. They

do not work together on one piece, but rather they contribute to an unseen, inherent structure of the work. They have found, however, that each needs to maintain autonomy and freedom. While they share responsibility, ihe final work results from one person making the object. The collaboration also means that they have to trust each other to make it work. Their collaboration started almost accidentally. First, Susan included images of Michael's pots_ in " her -' t'_ paintings, but then she began to request jars that she saw in her mind, so he began making pots that she requested. She kept them after incorporating them into her worl<, and then he began to develop them further. Now Michael includes imagery derived from Susan's paintings in his pots.

uichntl

simon

Jars, bowls, beakers, pitchers, vase, and platter, i987-2000

Salt-glazed stoneware

Aw MitcheW

LeeAnn and Jim met

lmBuou

or si

in 1987; they

worl<ed together briefly and devel-

rhu sr

criled.

rquiS, nu atfutctiv e Nusrmce, 799 9

@tnilihtstnted) Steel and mixed media

oped a relationship shortly thereafter. The nature of their work made collaboration easy because sculptors working on a large scale often collaborate, especially if they work in steel. Even

though they had worked together for nearly nine years, the Pig lron: Art Cookers exhi-

25 x 25 x 14 teel Artists' statement: This piece examlnes the fallacy of certain politically correct attitudes in professional and personal situations. The chain link and barbed wire fences with no entance restrict the viewer from attempting to ascend the American ladder.

bition was the first time they worl<ed as one. Their collaboration is one in which they both do all the 1obs, from start to finish: welding, conceiving, polishing, and moving, Both have the same skill level in many areas. Even when collaborating, they retain their individual, and quite

different, styles..lim's work

very geometric; LeeAnn's is more chaotic and messy, what she

calls "country aesthetic funk." Since they work on a large scale, they need others

help

them; thus, their collaboration extends beyond themselves, which makes it more expansive than the collaboration of the other artists in the exhibition, Nevertheless, they maintain an active exchange of ideas and work tirelessly on the conceptual basis of each work. First, they develop a concept, for example, the decline of American farming from the domination of mechanized farming and the corruption of foods that have been engineered, genetically or otherwise, issues about which each expresses passionate opinions. From there, they begin to fabricate the piece.

peucil to the enyer, zooo Steel, sheet metal, wheat, barn wood

9x9x14feet Artists' statement: This piece consists of a barn structure

with a suspended King disk plow unit within. Bags of wheat are underneath with comparative data reflecting production costs versus commodity prices over the past thirty years. With agricultural prices at athirty-year low and personal wealth of Americans at an all-time high, this work investigates the current plight of the independent farmer and the disappearance of that way of life.

OdrOfAh UCekfV$ tYLLo.u4't L)LL'utntt

)fifuwtclnrk

Their relationship began on a personal level in

1992. Thereatter, they assisted each other

emotionally and physically with their individual works of art. Not until recently did they start

truly coilaborating" Now they ofien work collaboratively, even though their individual styles have evolved in distinct directions as each experiments with new media. The true collabora-

tinn comes in the conceptual phase, made easier because they share studio space, which

is,

in practice, their living space. They live in an isolated, area without a telephone or many of the trappings of Post-moderrr/industrial society. As a resr-rlt, their art constitutes a great part of

their life.

wwillutg ruerulils $uytry( flryjests flyud cmltililnl dts cr1,line, zooo (d,etrfil illustr nte d) Wood, slidE and video proiection, Polaroid lift transfer lnstallation with three sculptures: 7 0 x 1 4 x 13; 29 x 18 x B; and 58 x 15 x 24 inches Attlsts' statement This installation comments on a multifude of experiences and obser.tations of social behaviors. lt is an exploration of the metaphysical world and science. lt makes visible what exists in reality u well as in our subconscious.

Georlifi, Museum of

verformtug

Art

nndvnnl xrts comylel

GEORGIA 706.5+2.GMOA

MUSEUM

d U

OF.ART

3 Partial support for the exhibitions and programs for the Ceorgia Museum of Art is provided by the Ceorgia Council for the Arts through appropria-

c d

il !

tions of the Ceorgia Ceneral Assembly. lndividuals, foundations, and corporations provide additional

support through their gifts to the University of Ceorgia Foundation. The Ceorgia Museum of Art's hours are 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday; 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Wednesday; and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m' on Sunday.

Visit our website at wwwuga'edu/gamuseum'

h! .B

f E