STUDIO EXHIBIT - WHEN ATTITUDES BECOME RE-FORM

Faculty of Design and Art -Unibz July 2020

Studio Exhibit SS 2020

When Attitudes become Re-form Collective invention and the courage to copy Wenn AttitĂźden Re-form werden Kollektive Erfindung und der Mut zum Kopieren Quando attitudini diventano ri-forma Invenzione collettiva e il coraggio di copiare

An Exhibition sponsored by Free University of Bolzano - Bozen

Index

PROFESSORS Stephan SCHMIDT-WULFFEN

A

Gerhard GLÃœHER

B

Stefano RIBA

C

STUDENTS Luca BESSI

1

Filippo CONTATORE

2

Sara CORTESI

3

Elisa FALLETTI

4

Luca GORI

5

Sophie Agnese KRAUSE

6

Chiara MARTINI

7

Katharina Theresa MAYR

8

Elisabeth PFEIFAUF

9

Lilian Cora POLOSEK

10

Lisa Maria PUTZER

11

Irene Sabine RAINER

12

Giacomo Manlio TURRA

13

PROFESSORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

A

What can you learn about the exhibitions? Climate? Light?

Transport? When I think about curators I admire their themes, visions, selection of artists make their fame. A curator is a translator: Observation and personal contact allow for an exceptional understanding of contemporary art. Without much ‚theory‘ the curator can translate these intuitions into an assemblage out of significant work and influential artists. The visitor will engage in this flux of images, surprised and refreshed by new impressions.

Therefore, the Studio Exhibit deals less with technical issues, but about judgment and translating these judgments into an experimental situation in which trajectories can be grasped.

What is essential to learn in the primary artistic education of three years? The teaching in all the four studios – image, space, interact, exhibit – is organized by assignments, smaller ones at the beginning, and larger ones later. These assignments are like a crutch to lead students to a self-organized, self-commissioned practice. But it turned out that many of them forget about the secondary character of the assignment. Students might lose sight of the actual aim: to become a self-reliable artistic practitioner. The Studio poses a danger: It invites a distancing from one’s practice.

It asks for a ‘distanced’ look on art. It offers a seemingly neutral position – the curator – in the artistic field. We are aware not to interrupt the practice the other studios try to establish. Therefore to follow one’s production also during ‘Exhibit’ is a substantial claim.

The structure of the Studio offers specific support for that. First: You should learn to patiently and persistently look at your work.

You should be a sovereign interpreter of what you did. Second: You should become modest and opportunistic in the way you develop.

Students develop through continuous study of other artist’s work.

It seems complicated for them to learn from their own actions – a severe defect to their practice. Before investing in a new idea, an artist should be able to judge if the design fits into the trajectories of the oeuvre. You need a narration connecting earlier works. You need an intuition of your unique timing and sensitivities. This is what we want to do in ‚Exhibit‘: Force students to study their own works.

To create a portfolio, suggest a narration from one work to the other, and become versed in their oeuvre.

In contrast to the visionary creator in front of times, ‚Exhibit’ believes in cooperative art: During shut-down, many students experienced the lack of comment from their comrades. Students’ work grows in community, by random views on neighboring practices, listening to spontaneous feedback, observing provoking example. This is, however, not what we mean by ‚cooperative’.

Instead, we suggest that whenever you try to do a sculpture, you inscribe your work into a decade of spatial practice; whenever you try to paint, you will meet all the painters’ efforts before you.

Never will your work, also without you knowing, be completely new. It will always have a reference to what has been done before.

(Apart from the fact that the work must have a significance for what is done by your contemporaries). This is what we mean by ‚modest’. And we recommend students to be opportunistic and ‚steal’ whenever it makes sense. Honestly, we think that nobody will ever succeed in producing a recognizable copy. The concept of stealing helps to cure the inhibition of the beginning.

We did not know all this when we started the Studio four years ago.

The intention of 2016 was indeed to do an exhibition of the late and by now unknown artist Fritz Rahmann. Apart from the fact that

Stephan SCHMIDT-WULFFEN

he had been a friend, it seemed feasible because the estate ended in only two institutions. So to lend the works would not be a significant effort and because the work did not have much attention, insurance would be cheap – I thought. When we found out that the Berlinische Galerie would charge a 200 Euro loan fee for a single photograph, we had to change concept. Following the example of ‚Triple Candy,’ we decided to reproduce Fritz’s works. Debates now dealt with the smallest detail, training precise perception. In case specific materials were unavailable, they had to choose for a replacement in the spirit of the artists. As plans were missing, sizes had to be estimated. The Rahmann-experience became a hands-down form of art history. Students created a historic order among the many works of Rahmann; they established a narration that again allowed to come to a more precise judgment.

In the following Studio, we invited three renowned artists and recruited students to be their fictional ‚assistants‘. Again the work started with an intense study of these artists’ work. Now it was also possible to interview the partner to find out more about motivations and aims. Later the students were asked to do a work that could function in the oeuvre of the artist they were working with. In this way, students learned to apply a new visual language, and – in contrast to the Rahmann-project - they were able to do a work of their own afterward, evaluated now by their respective ‘master’-artist.

Faced with a dilemma between reproduction or new own work this year, we split the assignment: Reconstruct a work from the influential exhibition ‚When Attitudes become Form’, and do a work of your own later on, in which the input of the reconstruction would have an impact. We took care that the choice of the artist related to the sensitivity manifest in the earlier work of the student.

After two meetings, the close-down split up the group, everybody was secluded in his or her room, isolated, materials challenging to get workshops out of reach. We had to change the program.

Instead of demanding a material reproduction, we asked for a visual manual – a la IKEA – to possibly rebuilt the piece. (Some artist of ‚Attitudes’, unable to travel, did precisely the same: they sent a plan on how to perform the piece). When it came to building a new work, the impact of the Corona shut-down was even sharper. Students had to cope with little space; they had to use simple materials – paper, pen, photo, and video of the mobile.

Katharina Mayr, f.e. invested a lot of energy and discipline in re-doing a wall-drawing by Sol LeWitt. She allowed her powers to spread all over paper webs, which were too big to handle in her small space.

Filippo Contatore remembered Gordon Matta-Clark’s cuts into the floor or ceiling of vacant apartments in Brooklyn. He mimicked the experiment to break out of the secluded space and turned the video into a painting. A completely different reaction from Luca Bessi retreated into the even smaller area of his bed – dressed in a dog’s coat he tailored out of the bedcover. Walking inside or secretly outside the border created by the shut-down, became an important issue, symbolized by footsteps in the video by Lisa Putzer. Elisabeth Pfeifauf would explore the architecture of her student home by performing an ex-centric ballet in hallways, staircases, or (empty) dining rooms. Some students returned home and had the privilege of a garden. Sara Cortesi watched the lizards resting in the sun and tried to share their experience. (She could

A

not finish the video in time, but experimented, inspired by her studies of Keith Sonnier, with home-made latex and created some colorful sculptures.) Some students secretly walked outside the borders defined by the shut-down. Elisa Faletti ventured into the Winegarden in front of her window to look for a place to position a mirror – as Robert Smithson did it for the Bern-exhibition 51 years ago. For her maps, she used the leaves of plants in her room. Sophie Krause, by trying to repeat a walk of Richard Long, even arrived at Oberbozen.

Then it became clear that we would not be able to meet for a final exhibition. We decided to do it in the virtual space and add a virtual ‚catalogue’. The virtual became another influence on the works. Why would you do a real drawing if you would have to digitalize it later? Why would you do a real sculpture if you would have to do a 3-d rendering for the exhibition? We all learned through translating into the virtual: Would we need something to protect the reconstructed floor piece by Eva Hesse? This time visitors could step on it without any damage. And the fire Robert Morris suggests with his scatter piece would not do any harm, neither to other works nor to visitors of the exhibition.

When Irene Rainer began to ‘reconstruct’ a piece by Hans Haacke, proposed by him for ‘Attitudes’ but not realized, she already dealt with the realities and un-realities of the virtual. Irene tried to translate her feelings about the shut-down into an installation: An isolating curtain and projected images. But it proved impossible – taken into account the time frame given – to simulate the piece in the virtual exhibition space. She had to improvise. Chiara Martini’s sound piece also proved resistant to digital reconstruction: Her calculus defines a potentially endless ‘lifetime’ of a user, who would press a button. But how could the ticking be ended in virtual space?

In actual space the distancing of the viewer would complete the procedure. For the virtual, we could not find an equivalent for the process. We could not develop a software doing the same job in virtual space.

On the other hand, more ‘conceptual’ pieces were appropriate for the virtual space from the very beginning. Giacomo Turra liked to play with digital identities already before. Inspired by Ruppersberg’s ‘Where is Al?’, he collected selfies of people close to him. ‘Who is Giacomo?’ tries to define identity by looking at the people around. Also, Lilian Polosek’s fictitious meeting with the late artist Bill Bollinger - a sound piece - proved to be easily adapted to the virtual space.

And then we switch off the computer and all the works disappear.

Hopefully, the work might endure.

Stephan SCHMIDT-WULFFEN

B

“Leben im Kopf - und alles wird Kunst” so lautete die Überschrift eines Artikels in der Zeitung “Berner Tageblatt” vom 22. März 1969, welcher die Eröffnung der Ausstellung “Live in Your Head – When Attitudes Become Form” kommentierte, die am gleichen Tag eröffnet wurde. Der Kurator der Kunsthalle Bern, Harald Szeemann – in jenen Jahren noch nicht berühmt, sondern am Anfang seiner legendären Karriere – hatte das höchst riskante Ausstellungsprojekt gegen deutlichen Widerstand des Vorstandes der Kunsthalle durchgesetzt und innerhalb von nur zehn Monaten konzipiert, finanziert und realisiert. Riskant war es erstens wegen der revolutionären Idee, nämlich “Attitüden”, also künstlerische Haltungen (wahrscheinlich würde man heute den Begriff Positionen anstelle von Attitüden verwendenden) ausstellen zu wollen, die genau genommen überhaupt nicht ausstellbar waren. Zweitens, weil Szeemann hier eine neue Tendenz der zeitgenössischen Kunst öffentlich machen wollte, die Arbeiten und Konzepte einer jungen Generation von Künstlerinnen und Künstlern zeigte, die in Europa und den USA praktisch zeitgleich auftauchten. Szeemann wollte sie erstmals in einer europäischen Stadt, der Kunsthalle Bern, konzentriert gegenüberstellen. Diese Ausstellung stand an und auf der Grenze zwischen vielen künstlerischen Strömungen, denen Kunsthistoriker und die Künstler selbst Begriffe wie concept art, Land Art, Minimal Art, Arte Povera, environmental art, anti-form und so manche mehr gegeben haben.

Es wäre ganz falsch, diese Ausstellung einzig dem Konzeptualismus zuordnen zu wollen, denn die Mehrzahl der gezeigten Arbeiten waren sehr stark am Material orientiert, das den in situ hergestellten Kunstobjekte eine fast schon körperlich erlebbare Rauheit und physische Aufdringlichkeit im Ausstellungsraum verliehen. Dies ist offensichtlich, wenn man einmal auflisten würde (niemand hat das bisher unternommen), welche Stoffe, Waren, Halbzeuge und Substanzen die Künstler einsetzten, um ihre Positionen darzustellen. Schnell würde es sich herausstellen, dass es technische und industrielle Massenobjekte (z.B. Metallrohre, Neonröhren, Armierungsstahl, Draht und Seile), flüssige und weiche Substanzen (z. B. Baumwollflocken, Blei, Margarine, Latex, Wasser, Schaumstoff, Stoffe, Wachs usw.) oder Zufälliges und Weggeworfenes (ich denke hier an die Arbeiten von Neil Jenny und Robert Morris, aber auch Ruthenbecks Aschehaufen) gewesen sind, die sich laut und deutlich als Diskussionspartner den Besuchern dargeboten hatten. Umso stärker drängt sich der Vergleich mit dem Dialog auf, der hier beileibe nicht als intellektuelles gelehrtes Gespräch unter Kunstkennern und unter Zuhilfenahme von Kunstvermittlern stattgefunden hatte, sondern als ein kontrovers geführter Disput mit sperrigen Werken. Sie wollten keinen konventionellen ästhetischen Genuss bieten, sondern die Frage nach dem Werkcharakter laut und deutlich artikulieren. Die Rezeptionssituationen vor Ort im Ausstellungshaus werden deutlich, wenn man die Situationsfotografien ansieht, die während der Ausstellung aufgenommen wurden. Durch die relativ kleinen Räume und die ungemein dichte Bestückung der Wand- und Bodenflächen in den Kabinetten sowie der Treppenhäuser gab es praktisch kaum Abstände zwischen den Exponaten. Der Betrachter stand “in” den Werken, weniger ihnen gegenüber, weil sie sich in die Räume ausbreiten, sie geradezu besetzen durften. Nein, noch mehr: die Besucher mussten sich zwischen den Objekten vorsichtig bewegen, um sie nicht zu berühren, über sie hinwegsteigen (dies war der Fall zum Beispiel bei den Werken von Bollinger, Raetz, Sonnier, Flanagan, Serra), sich unter sie stellen, sie benutzen (De Marias Telephon durfte

Gerhard GLÜHER

man benutzen, Ruppersbergs Zeitungen lesen?, Morris’ “Specification for a piece from combustible materials” sollte nach und nach verbrannt werden) und sich ihnen aussetzen (ich denke hier an die Feueraktion “Torce” oder dem Starkstrom in “Giunchi con arco voltaico” von Zorio). Distanzlosigkeit, gesteigert zum offensiven Appell, erzwang eine Rezeptionssituation, die man als penetrante Präsenz bezeichnen könnte. Natürlich war diese Ausstellung ein Spektakel: spectaculum, eine Ausstellung als Aufführung nämlich, in der die Künstler und die Kunstwerke ein Spiel mit sich selbst, mit den Betrachtern und letztlich mit den Ausdrucksformen sowie dem Begriff zeitgenössischer Kunst spielten. Ich folge allerdings nicht der Idee Germano Celants, dem Kurator der Ausstellung “When Attitudes Become Form. Bern 1969 /Venice 2013”, der so weit ging, die gesamte Ausstellung als ein Kunstwerk zu re-inszenieren. Ich tue dies deswegen nicht, weil Szeemann so respektvoll und offen genug gewesen ist, den Künstlern größtmöglichen Freiraum einzuräumen und die kuratorische Regie nur vorsichtig übernommen hatte. Bern 1969 war natürlich von Szeemann mit konsequenter Idee konzipiert, dies ist offensichtlich, wenn man sie mit den nachfolgenden Ausstellungen in Amsterdam, London und Düsseldorf vergleicht, doch war konzeptionell so perfekt ausbalanciert, um den Künstlern und den Werken sehr gute Chancen, Räume und Situationen zu bieten, sich als sie selbst darstellen zu können. Das Ausbalancieren beziehe ich auf die Autorenschaften des Ausstellungsmachers und der Ausgestellten. Es war eine Ausstellung gegen den Galerieraum, gegen den White Cube, gegen die “Reinheit” des Werkes als einem formal ästhetischen Phänomen, welches dominant die Pose eines überhöhten Dinges beansprucht. Im Gegenteil: Szeemanns Attitude war eher eine “demokratische”, eine solche, die zwar als Provokation beabsichtigt war, aber letztlich offen, subtil und auch verletzlich die Werke und Künstler zeigte. Dieses Risiko sollte ihm gleich nach der Ausstellung seine Position als Kurator kosten, doch es brachte ihm seine Berühmtheit ein. Die Infragestellung, möglicherweise die Demontage des Museums als Institution und Gehäuse, als Schutzraum für Kunst war schon bei der Planung der Ausstellung mitgedacht, zwar nicht als der Leitgedanke des Ausstellungskonzeptes, aber mit den vielfältigen Treffen und Gesprächen, die der Kurator zur Vorbereitung der Ausstellung führte, wurde dieser Aspekt immer evidenter.

Szeemann hatte diese Ausstellung mittels eine Art von Tagebuch dokumentiert (es ist als Aufsatz mit dem Titel “Wie entsteht eine Ausstellung” in seinem “Museum der Obsessionen” nachzulesen).

In seinen Aufzeichnungen zeigt sich immer wieder, dass es kein vorgefertigtes Ganzes einer Ausstellung gegeben hatte, die einen neuen “Stil” bilden wollte, sondern das spontane Moment einer Realisierung der Werke vor Ort, das Moment des Zufalls und der Unplanbarkeit essentielle Antriebskräfte der Ausstellung gewesen sind. Szeeman hatte genau genommen nur ein gutes Dutzend Künstler als notwendig für die Ausstellung im Kopf (darunter zum Beispiel Morris, Oldenburg, De Maria, Merz, Sonnier, Artschwager, Heizer, Walther, Ruthebeck, Hesse, Dibbets, Beuys), als er sich auf die Suche nach neuen Namen und interessanten Positionen machte. Interessant ist hier, dass ein erheblicher Teil der Werke sechs Monate vor der Ausstellung noch nicht existiere, bzw. sie waren explizit dazu ausersehen, ganz kurz vor der Ausstellungseröffnung vor Ort und am Ort hergestellt zu werden. Damit meine ich nicht den traditionellen “Aufbau”, die Installation oder die Arrangements der Werke, sondern die tatsächliche Anfertigung der Objekte ad hoc und unter Gegebenheiten, die kaum planbar

B

waren. Hier wird noch einmal ganz klar die Situation des Museums als Studios, als Diskursraum, als Werkstatt deutlich, die Szeemann mit den ausgewählten Künstlern beabsichtigt hatte und man kann sagen, dass er damit einen Grundstein legte. Den Grundstein dafür nämlich, den Begriff und das Selbstverständnis des Werkes und seines Autors dahingehend zu erweitern, dass der konzeptionelle Begriff, das Tun und die Reaktion auf die kulturelle, soziale und geografische Situation zu einem komplexen Prozess wurde (oder man ihn als solchen akzeptiert hatte), der den Werkbegriff erschütterte.

Der These Lucy Lippards zu folgen, die zu zeigen versucht hatte, dass die Zeitspanne zwischen 1966 und 1972 von einer “Dematerialisierung des Kunstwerkes” geprägt war, ist werkimmanent gesehen zwar richtig, doch sie berücksichtigt eben nicht diese neue Dimension der Erweiterung des Werkes. Es gibt keine Immaterialität eines Kunstwerkes, denn dann wäre es schlichtweg nicht wahrnehmbar. Selbst solche, intelletuell auf die Spitze getriebenen Arbeiten, wie Sol Lewitts “Sentences on Conceptual Art”, Stanley Brouwns Handlungsanweisungen, Robert Barrys Umweltbegasungen oder Hans Haackes Windvisualisierungen und Kondensationsvorgänge brauchen das Artefakt – irgendein Artefakt – um überhaupt die Existenz des Werkes zu kommunizieren. Auch trickreiche rhetorischen Figuren wie zum Beispiel Sol LeWitts Aussage: “Alle Ideen sind Kunst, wenn sie sich auf Kunst beziehen und innerhalb der Übereinkünfte (conventions) liegen”, sind nur auf den ersten Blick immateriell und arbiträr, aber sie sind eine litararische Form und sie setzen ein ganzes System voraus, in welchem sie überhaupt stattfinden und Gültigkeit haben können. Übertragen auf die Ausstellung in Bern kann man durchaus behaupten, dass Richard Long am 18. März 1969 lediglich eine Wanderung im Berner Oberland machte und diese Wanderung als Kunstwerk deklarierte, was für sich genommen ja schon provokant war. Jedoch er hat tatsächlich diese Wanderung unternommen und ein immerhin 2,50 Meter langes und 50 Zentimeter hohes Banner, gedruckt im Offset-Verfahren, informierte als Wortbild die Besucher darüber, dass Richard Long vom 19. bis 22. März eine Wanderung im Berner Oberland unternommen hatte. Das Problem, ob das Werk wirklich nur eine Information oder ein Artefakt war, das ohne zusätzliches Wissen lediglich selbstbezüglich ist, muss andernorts disktiert werde, weil es den Rahmen dieses Textes sprengen würde. Daher kehre ich noch einmal zum eben erwähnten System zurück: das Banner war ausgestellt, prominent an eine weisse Wand montiert, diese Wand befand sich in einer Kunstinstitution, die Kunstinstitution veranstaltete diese Ausstellung. Und weiter in diesem System: Richard Long war ein vorausgewählter, also positiv sanktionierter Teilnehmer, was ihm das Attribut des Künstlers verliehen hatte, daher musste dieses Banner entweder das Kunstwerk sein, oder der Künstler hatte damit darauf hingewiesen, dass er ein temporäres Kunstwerk ausgeführt hatte. Somit ist es bezeugt, dass die Tat ein Werk der Bildenden und der Darstellenden Kunst gewesen sein musste ein Werk der Bildenden und der Darstellenden Kunst gewesen sein musste. Die “Attitüde” des Wanderns bildet die Grundlage und die Wanderung wurde zur Form. Sie selbst – als menschliche Bewegung im Raum – kann als ausgestelltes Objekt nur abwesend sein, doch ihre konstituierenden Komponenten sind anwesend, selbst der Autor, den man durchaus hätte befragen können über die “Existenz” seines Werkes. Verdeutlichen wir die beschriebene Situation in die aktuelle Situation, die Sie gerade als Lserein und Leser meines Textes haben: beim Lesen dieses Textes über die

Gerhard GLÜHER

Wanderung von Richard Long erscheint ein Bild, ein imaginäres zwar, aber immerhin ein Bild, im Gehirn der Leser und Leserinnen.

Es beginnt ein Denkprozess, der so oder in anderer Weise auch ausgelöst worden wäre, wenn Long sich bei seiner Wanderung im Bild gezeigt hätte. Als Fotografie, als Fotoserie zum Beispiel, wäre das leicht möglich, denn eine Wanderung kann man nicht abbilden.

Ein zweites kunsttheoretisches Phänomen des 20. Jahrhunderts ist somit aufgetaucht, das ebenso hier nicht erörtert werden kann, doch es stellt den einen Pol der Ausdrucksvarianten und auch der Attitüden in Bern dar. Der Gegenpol ist durchaus handfester, denn es handelt sich um wirkliche Eingriffe, Beschädigungen und Zerstörungen der Bausubstanz der Institution. Sie reichen vom Werk “Bern Depression”, den tonnenschweren Schlägen, mit denen Michael Heizer das Gebäude erzittern liess, als er mit einer Abbruchkugel einen Kreis in den Asphalt vor der Kunsthalle schlagen liess, über die Zerstörung des Wandputzes in Form eines Quadrates durch Lawrence Weiner und die funktionslosen Elektrokabel, die Alain Jacquet quer durch das Ausstellungshaus über und unter dem Putz verlegte. Die Blei- Fett- und Latexablagerungen auf Boden und Wänden, welche die Arbeiten Serras, Beuys’ und Sonniers hinterlassen hatten, dürften auch nur unter erheblichen Kosten wieder zum Verschwinden gebracht worden sein. Szeeman bringt die Aktivitäten der letzten fünf Tage vor der Vernissage in seinem oben genannten Ausstellungstagebuch auf den Punkt: “Das Ein und Aus beginnt. Die Kunsthalle wird zum Bauplatz.” Dem Bauplatz ist eigen, dass dort gerade etwas entsteht, das aber noch nicht vollendet ist. Geplant ist wahrscheinlich schon Alles und Etwas ist im Entstehen begriffen, doch so manche Unwägbarkeit kann nicht geplant werden und muss spontan vor Ort von den Künstlern gelöst werden. Dies ist ein Aspekt, der andere, wesentlich spannendere, ist das Element des Ephemeren, des Vorübergehden, Instabilen und Situativen.

Kunst als Bildende Kunst findet statt, sie ist nicht mehr beständig und der Teilnehmer – wer immer er auch sein mag – konstituiert das Werk mit. Diese Attitude hat sich bis heute erhalten und sie hat mit kleinen Abwandlungen ihre Gültigkeit behalten, was sich in den neuen Interpretationen durch die Studierenden in unserem Studio gut nachvollziehen lässt. Die Isolation durch die Pandemie erzwang die Isolation, die Kommunikation durch das Internet öffnete indessen unendliche Räume, Studio, Werkstatt, Forum, Galerie schrumpften zusammen und verdichteten sich auf einer immaterielle Oberfläche des Bildschirms. Anwesenheit bei Abwesenheit, wie schon gesagt - Keith Sonnier hat immer noch recht: “Live in your head”.

Literaturhinweise aus dem Text: Szeemann, Harald: Museum der Obsessionen von / über / mit Harald Szeemann, Berlin (Merve Verlag) 1981 Rattemeyer, Christian and others: Exhibiting the New Art. ‘Op Losse Schroeven’ and ‘When Attitudes Become Form’ 1969, Köln (Koenig Books) 2010 Lippard, Lucy R.: Six Years: The dematerialization of the art object from 1966 to 1972, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London (Univ. of California Press)1973 and renewed 2001 Alberro, Alexander and Stimson, Blake: conceptual art: a critical anthology, Cambridge et al (the MIT press) 1999 Alberro, Alexander: conceptual art and the politics of publicity, Cambridge (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) 2003 Celant, Germao (Ed.): When Attitudes become Form. Bern 1969 / Venice 2013. Fonazione Prada.

Ca’ Corner della Regina, Venice, 1 June – 3 November 2013 Honnef, Klaus: Concept Art, Köln (Phaidon Verlag) 1971 Celant, Germano: Ars Povera, Mazotta-Milano / wasmuth-Tübingen 1969 Kunsthalle Düsseldorf (Hg.): Prospect 69, Düsseldorf September 1969

C

Senza la pandemia, il confinamento e la didattica digitale avremmo trascorso questo semestre tra le due stanze al piano terra del corridoio C, le officine al piano interrato e il Centro Trevi, dove avremmo dovuto tenere, in collaborazione con il Dipartimento Cultura Italiana della Provincia, una mostra. Sarebbe stato un periodo impegnativo sia dal punto di vista intellettuale che fisico.

Dopotutto, queste sono le caratteristiche principali di When Attitudes Become Form, la mostra dalla quale siamo partiti per sviluppare il programma didattico del semestre. Avremmo lavorato con materiali eterogenei (lattice, feltro, legno, vetro, ferro, fibre sintetiche, griglie elettrosaldate, juta) realizzando due esposizioni: quella già menzionata al Trevi, mostrando le repliche dei lavori di When Attitudes Become Form, e quella di fine corso dove, negli spazi dell’università, gli studenti e le studentesse avrebbero esposto le loro nuove produzioni.

Questi erano i piani pre-Covid-19. Tutti sappiamo ciò che è successo a livello locale, nazionale e globale. Quel che, invece, è accaduto nel corso del nostro semestre ve lo racconterò ora. Le ore di lezione in presenza e quelle che avremmo trascorso in officina a tagliare, avvitare, stampare, saldare, cucire o al Centro Trevi ad allestire (poi dis-allestire), si sono trasformate in giornate (almeno una cinquantina) passate davanti al pc per la cosiddetta didattica a distanza (esperienza alla fine dei conti positiva). Dal cambiamento dell’ambiente educativo è nata una domanda fondamentale: come passare da un semestre basato principalmente sulla pratica (‘hands-on’ secondo l’efficace definizione anglosassone) a uno del tutto digitale? La risposta è stata integrare (e non sostituire) la digitalità alla manualità.

Per prima cosa abbiamo chiesto agli studenti di attivare la modalità ‘bricoleur’1, cioè di lavorare con ciò che avevano a disposizione (o che fosse reperibile nei pochi esercizi commerciali aperti). I risultati sono i lavori personali dei e delle partecipanti al semestre.

Abbiamo poi osservato come si è modificata online la presentazione e la fruizione dell’arte. Già nelle prime settimane di lockdown, sui siti web e le pagine social di musei, fondazioni, galleria private, collezioni, artist run space e fiere d’arte, sono spuntate pagine di approfondimento, interviste, gallerie fotografiche, sezioni video con tour guidati, visite a studi d’artista, approfondimenti tecnici, iconografici, storici. Questi luoghi digitali sono stati chiamati, quasi unanimemente (soprattutto da parte delle galleria private e delle fiere d’arte), Viewing Room. Le istituzioni, pubbliche e private, e gli artisti hanno fatto fronte alla chiusura delle loro sedi espositive proponendo un gran numero di contributi digitali e testuali per mantenere viva l’attenzione su un settore (la cultura, l’arte) tra i più colpiti dalla pandemia e tra i meno tutelati (vedi la carenza strutturale di ammortizzatori sociali dedicati agli operatori del settore). Tornando alla terminologia scelta per queste ‘stanze’, è paradigmatico come il ricorso all’atto del vedere (to view) definisca il tempo in cui stiamo vivendo: un’era in cui l’atto del vedere è ascrivibile sia la mondo reale che a quello digitale. L’arte si può vedere al museo, ma anche dal sito web (o dai social) del museo, della galleria, dell’artista. Suona come una bestemmia, ma dopotutto, senza fare troppo i puristi, è così da ormai almeno un ventennio (Szeemann, già nel 1969, arruolò cinque fotografi affidando loro la documentazione della mostra bernese di cui ci rimangono oltre mille immagini).

Negli ultimi decenni è grazie a Internet e alla fotografia digitale che la documentazione visiva delle mostre d’arte ha assunto un

Stefano RIBA

ruolo fondamentale nella loro fruizione (simultanea nel tempo, ma non nello spazio, o ex-post), nella loro analisi e archiviazione. È questione di numeri: se un’esposizione dura al massimo qualche mese (3-5-6), le immagini digitali che la ritraggono dureranno in eterno (o quasi); se una mostra è visitata da qualche decina di migliaia di persone (nei casi più fortunati), la sua documentazione visiva ha un pubblico (gli utenti del web) infinitamente più vasto. Per approfondire questi temi abbiamo avuto come ospite, rigorosamente in presenza virtuale, l’artista spagnola Cristina Garrido che da anni, nei suoi lavori racconta l’esaltazione – del prezzo e dello status – dell’opera arte al di là dell’opera stessa, cioè come la creazione del valore dell’arte e dalla pratica artistica siano influenzate dagli spazi espositivi, dal mercato, dai curatori, dalla qualità e diffusione (attraverso i media online o cartacei o sui social) della documentazione fotografica, dall’aderenza ai pattern stilistici dominanti.

Un altro cambiamento osservato è stato il ricorso a spazi virtuali.

Siti come Artland (che offre la visita di mostre in 3D ) o il software gratuito online Artsteps (che permette la creazione di spazi espositivi digitali), esistono già da anni, ma è in questi mesi che la loro popolarità è cresciuta in maniera direttamente proporzionale alle nostre limitazioni. Lo stesso modello, che rende accessibile ciò che è inaccessibile (uno spazio espositivo chiuso per il Covid, una galleria a Johannestown, Dacca o Bogotà), è stato adottato da fiere d’arte (Art Basel, Art Dallas), gallerie (De Carlo), festival e rassegne costrette a passare dalla realtà agli schermi (Demo Moving Image, Algoritmi, la Shutdown gallery di Patrik Hübner).

In questo scenario digitale è stato interessante soffermarci ad analizzare il caso del VSpace, inaugurato il 14 aprile con una mostra di John Armleder e Rob Pruitt, della galleria Massimo De Carlo. Il VSpace è il quinto spazio espositivo (che la V, oltre che a Virtual, rimandi anche al numero 5?) del gallerista milanese, il primo totalmente digitale. Con la prosopopea tipica dei comunicati stampa viene descritto così: “E’ il primo spazio virtuale del suo genere nel mondo dell’arte: costruito con le più recenti tecnologie, VSpace è un’esperienza completa e coinvolgente, percorribile e visitabile da casa esattamente come uno spazio reale. Inoltre, grazie alla sua identità digitale, è completamente flessibile e adattabile a qualsiasi scenario espositivo: è il primo spazio architettonico che dipende dalle opere d’arte, e non viceversa”.

La fruizione del VSpace della galleria De Carlo, sperimentata durante il corso, ha fatto emergere molte criticità e domande: in un universo, quello virtuale, dove non esistono limiti di dimensioni, peso, gravità, verosimiglianza, perché ricreare un white cube iper-realistico 2? Perché non essere più speculativi e immaginifici?

Ha senso mostrare opere d’arte ‘reali’ in un ambiente totalmente fantastico? O è più opportuno adottare un approccio di ‘virtual site specificity’ dove opere digitali si adattano all’ambiente digitale?

Qual è il significato di ‘coinvolgente’? Che ruolo ha lo spazio architettonico, reale, nella pianificazione e realizzazione di una mostra? Può l’arte essere virtuale?

Da queste (e altre) domande, dall’analisi delle ‘viewing room’ e di altri esempi ed esperienze (oltre a Garrido abbiamo avuto ospiti Vittorio Mortarotti, il co-fondatore di Weexhibit Giovanni Dantomio, il duo curatoriale Triple Candie, Alessia Salerno e Mario Mainetti della Fondazione Prada), siamo partiti per definire quale sarebbe stato, e che aspetto visivo avrebbe avuto, la presentazione finale del corso. Le parole chiave individuate sono state, riprendendo e integrando quelle presentate nel payoff della mostra di Harald

C

Stefano RIBA

Szeemann: informazione, opere, concetti, situazioni, processi e integrazione. La mostra di fine corso di Studio Exhibit si compone quindi di una parte di ricerca storico-critica e di una parte visiva.

La prima assume la forma di una pubblicazione digitale (in cui vi trovate ora) che raccoglie gli approfondimenti degli studenti e delle studentesse e i testi dei docenti del corso, la seconda consiste in uno spazio virtuale (a cui potete accedere cliccando qui) in cui sono esposte le repliche (digitali e analogiche) di alcuni lavori di When Attitudes Become Form e i nuovi lavori dei-delle partecipanti allo Studio.

Per chiudere spenderò qualche parola - visto che in questa occasione sono anche il titolare del modulo ‘Exhibit Design’ - sullo spazio virtuale creato per la mostra di fine semestre. Le due stanze (programmate da Emma Bonfanti, partecipante aggiunta dello Studio) nascono sulla base degli spazi reali che Bonfanti ha ‘occupato’ durante il semestre invernale (il suo primo alla Facoltà di Design e Arti) e che il nostro corso avrebbe dovuto occupare, in assenza della pandemia, nei mesi passati. A differenza del VSpace di De Carlo, creato ex novo, il nostro spazio virtuale nasce dalla nostalgia dei luoghi che non abbiamo potuto fruire. Come già detto in apertura, anche in questo caso la volontà non è stata di rimpiazzare (fare tabula rasa) ma di integrare (collegando il mondo analogico e quello digitale). Inoltre, la ricostruzione (a onor del vero con qualche piccola modifica) delle due aule prosegue la trasformazione d’uso dell’architettura che ospita l’ala C del campus principale della Libera Università di Bolzano: ospedale dal 1859 e per oltre 120 anni, poi museo (vi aveva sede Museion) tra 1987 e il 2006, infine spazio didattico dal 2008. E ora anche spazio virtuale.

L’estensione digitale di questi spazi aggiunge quindi una nuova declinazione alla storia dell’edificio. Tuttavia l’intento principale non è l’innovazione, praticare un nuovo modo di fare mostre e di creare spazi espositivi. Anzi, quasi in maniera opposta, lo spazio informatico evoca la malinconia per la mostra che, per cause di forza maggiore, non abbiamo potuto fare: quella nello spazio fisico, con materiali reali, sudore reale, interazioni reali tra opere e persone, tra visitatori e studenti e professori 3. Il V-Space di Studio Exhibit non è però solamente il luogo del rimpianto, ma è soprattutto lo spazio per la celebrazione dei lavori, e della ricerca, che gli studenti e le studentesse hanno portato avanti in questi mesi difficili. Dopotutto, Pontormo realizzò i suoi capolavori alla Certosa del Galluzzo, dove si era rifugiato per sfuggire alla peste fiorentina del 1523.

L’arte è una via di evasione, anche dalle pandemie.

Lo è stata anche in questo caso.

Note al testo: 1 http://storiadellecose.blogspot.com/2017/11/il-pensiero-selvaggio-e-il-bricolage.html 2 Scrive Brian O’Doherty, in ‘Inside the White Cube. L’ideologia dello spazio espositivo’, che nello spazio modernista e ipertecnologico del ‘cubo bianco’: “i legami effimeri di temporalità e località vengono aboliti a favore di un’idea platonica di assolutezza che astrae dalla vita e si proietta nell’eternità”. E cosa c’è di più eterno e astratto se non una mostra virtuale?

3 Per sopperire a questa mancanza abbiamo organizzato due visite guidate che si terranno sulla piattaforma Teams (fruibile anche da browser senza login) sabato 4 luglio 2020 alle 11 e lo stesso giorno alle 17.

STUDENTS’ BIOGRAPHIES, REPLICAS AND NEW WORKS

1

Born in the spring of ‘96, I went from art high school to the faculty of Theoretical Informatics in Pisa, before deciding to become assistant cook in an Italian bistro. I currently attend the Faculty of Design and Art at the Free University of Bolzano.

Although I am dealing with different domains of design, I am particularly interested in production processes applied to the conceptual and speculative field. The rest of the time I work with 3D modelling, web programming and by illustrating small self-referential webcomics.

Luca BESSI

2

Born 1999 Modena. Between 2013 – 2018 studies at Liceo Classico L.A. Muratori in Modena. Lives and studies in Bolzano, Free University of Bolzano (2018 – Present).

Filippo CONTATORE

3

Born 1999 Lugo, Ra. Currently lives between Bagnacavallo and Bolzano where she studies at the Faculty of Design & Art. (2018-present).

Sara CORTESI

4

Elisa Faletti was born in Trento in 1999. After a diploma in printing and graphic design, she started to study at the Free University in Bolzano, where she is still attending the bachelor in Design and Art - major in Art. Her practices focus on photography, through which she uses to explore natural processes. Her works have in common the tendency to abstraction and the traces of personal sensitivity.

Elisa FALLETTI

5

I was born in Montepulciano, but moved with my parents at an early age frequently all over Italy.

After I graduated in electronics and industrial automation in Rovereto, at the age of 20 I arrived at Bolzano, where I now attend the Art bachelor at the Free University. However, my mother’s family and their homeland Sardinia are still on my mind and influence my works in photography, writing, sculpture and installation. Since my first works I always tried to build a community around myself and my practice, perhaps looking for a sense of belonging. I believe in impulsiveness, I think it is the first step to reasoning. To act instantly allows me to work without a prearranged scheme, it is like moving blindly to a city and then understand if I can fit in that new scenario. When I figure it out, I will make a plan.

Luca GORI

Luca Gori, After Jannis Kounellis, Untitled, 1969/2020 7 jute sacks filled with lentils, beans, chickpeas, peas, coffee beans, rice grains and corn

6

Sophie Krause, who grew up between Germany and northern Italy, derived various cultural influences from family movements in southern Italy and the Middle East. Today she studies at the Faculty of Art at the Free University of Bolzano and experiments with the medias of installation and video.

Sophie Agnese KRAUSE

7

Chiara Martini was born in northern Italy, in January 2000. She studied at the Liceo Scientifico Tradizionale Mario Rigoni Stern of Asiago.

Currently she is a 4th semester student at the Faculty of Art of the Free University of Bolzano, working from Lusiana due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Self-taught digital artist and animator as well as hobbyist amateur writer, she is deeply interested in storytelling and character design, aspiring to create captivating personalities and memorable tales to charm the hearts of many.

Chiara MARTINI

8

Katharina Theresa Mayr is an artist and designer, living and working in Bolzano, Italy. She studied object design and techniques of glass processing and treatment. After working in the design field for many years she left her career behind to follow per passion to study contemporary art at the Free University of Bolzano. She strongly believes in processes, the strength of layers, complexity and transformation, combined with a critical eye and way of thinking. She trusts in the intensity of words and in creativity that expresses itself naturally. She is expressing her art through various art disciplines, focussing on large scale drawings, performance and photography.

Katharina Theresa MAYR

9

I grew up in Innsbruck in Austria which is about two hours away by train from Bolzano. Being able to go over the Brenner pass was never this big event and it also never felt like I passing a border. When the lockdown started I decided to stay in Bolzano and not to go back to my mother’s place. It was the right decision but it often did not seem like it. From one day to the other the place I grew up in was so far away. The stricter the rules got the bigger the world seemed. At some point walking down the street was an expedition to foreign lands. I was small, alone and living on my own planet. The world outside started to vanish and time stopped existing. Inspite this life without a friend who can take me in their arms and let me forget the outside world, I had a second feeling stuck deep inside me, defiance. I was not ready to just let my life slide by and wait in my cage

Elisabeth PFEIFAUF

until it all was over. I did not know how I could express this. I was angry and sad and desperate for something but the only thing I could do was waiting, existing and keeping on living. So that’s what I did. It was an active inaction. I was not shouting or punching around. I was not running away. I was living, taking my space, not looking down, but persisting and sometimes that needs to be enough.

10

Lilian Polosek is a photographer and artist currently based in Bolzano, Italy. After her studies at the Ostkreuzschule fĂźr Fotografie und Gestaltung in Berlin, Germany, she decided to study fine arts at the Free University of Bolzano, in order to explore her boundaries. Her dedication to analogue photography, leads her away from mass consumption and arbitrariness, towards quiet and contemplative states. The decelerated way of working forces her to make conscious decisions and to be constrained to concentrate.

This approach also seems to be reflected in other projects and pieces that she has been working on since the start of her new studies. Besides photography, she is involved in various disciplines ranging from music projects to installations and performance.

Lilian Cora POLOSEK

11

I was born in 1999 in a small city near Vienna, where I grew up until I graduated with a diploma in interior and object design at the HTBLuVA Mรถdling. After graduating I had the desire to expand my creativity in a completely different environment. Therefore, I moved to Bolzano, where I am currently studying fine arts at the Free University of Bolzano. Biased by my background in interior design I am expressing myself between minimalistic and formal language. However, I am thrived by expressing my art in a personal manner in which I confront my personal issues, which are negatively affected by Social Media in regard to self-idealized presentations.

Lisa Maria PUTZER

12

Irene Rainer (*1995, Germany) is working with a variety of media, ranging from photography to installation, painting and drawing. Her work is often drawn from memory or observation of the now, in order to create poetic images. Irene currently lives and works in Lana, Italy.

Irene Sabine RAINER

13

Giacomo Manlio Turra was born in 1997 in Milan, where he grew up until his family moved to Trento. After graduating at the humanities high school, Giacomo began his studies at the Faculty of Art & Design of the Free University of Bolzano. In his artistic practice, Giacomo is always interested in moving between different cultural fields and in carrying on his research in social sciences by investigating how new digital media and their communication systems are influencing the way we perceive ourselves and the others, becoming the main place for socialization and identity construction. For this reason, Giacomo’s projects are united by the idea of building something together with the audience, requiring the presence and intervention of the viewer to be completed.

Giacomo Manilo TURRA

13

Giacomo Manilo TURRA

ORIGINAL WABF WORKS

Mel Bochner

Alighiero Boetti

Bill Bollinger

1969 // Thirteen Sheets of 8 ½’’ Graph Paper (From a Nonfinite Series) // 13 sheets of ink graph paper, stapled to the wall // Each element: 28 x 21.2 cm Overall dimensions: 28x 281 cm

1969 // La luna // (The Moon) // Chalk on slate // 90 x 120 x 1 cm

1968 // Pipe Piece // Aluminium pipes, plastic //Pipes: 200 cm length; 5 cm diameter //Angle variable

Eva Hesse

Neil Jenney

Jannis Kounellis

1968 // Augment // Latex, canvas // 17 elemnts // 198.1 x 101.0 cm each

1968 // The Siegmund Biederman Piece // Wood, cloth, neon // 90 x 450 x 300 cm

1969 // Untitled // Juta sacks of coal and peas // 47 x 137 x 63 cm each // installation may vary

Robert Morris

Allen Ruppersberg

Robert Smithson

1969 // Specification for a Piece with Combustible Materials // Mixed media // Variable dimenions // Site-specific

1969 // Untitled Travel Piece, Part 1 // Various dimensions - 4 newspapers: Desert News, Salt Lake City, December 17, 1968; Omaha World Herald, Omaha, December 18, 1968; Chicago Tribune, Chicago, December 19, 1968; The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, December 19, 1968

1969 // Bern Earth - Mirror // Displacement // One of several photographs of mirror placed in locations around Bern // Inkjet print on archival rag paper, printed from original black and wihite negatives // 79.32 x 99.85 cm

Keith Sonnier

Sol LeWitt

Richard Long

1968 // Mustee // Flock, latex rubber, string // Size dictated by the wall area available // Site-specific

1969 // Wall Drawing #12: Drawing Series | 1 (A&B) and ||| 1 (A&B) // Black pencil // Size dictated by the wall area available // Site-specific

1969 // A Walking Tour in the Berner Oberland Offset poster // 50 x 250 cm // Site-specific

Hans Haacke 1968

COLOPHON STUDIO D2 - EXHIBIT 19 CP · 97124 PROFESSORS Stephan SCHMIDT-WULFFEN Curatorial studies Stefano RIBA Exhibit Design Gerhard GLÜHER Artistic research STUDENTS Luca BESSI Filippo CONTATORE Sara CORTESI Elisa FALETTI Luca GORI Sophie Agnese KRAUSE Katharina Theresa MAYR Chiara MARTINI Elisapeth PFEIFAUF Lilian POLOSEK Lisa-Maria PUTZER Irene Sabine RAINER Giacomo Manlio TURRA EXTERNAL STUDENTS Emma BONFANTI 3D modelling, virtual space programming Naima GAETANI & Teresa CARRETTA Main catalogue layout EXTERNAL GUESTS Alessia SALERNO (Fondazione Prada) Mario MAINETTI (Fondazione Prada) Cristina GARRIDO Triple CANDIE Vittorio MORTAROTTI Giovanni DANTOMIO (Weexhibit) AWI ART WORKERS ITALIANA