Chats fpeis 5 On ‘A Portrait of V. I. Lenin in the Style of Jackson Pollock’ “A Portrait of VL. Lenin inthe Seyle of Jackson Pollock’ isthe title of a painting, or, more precisely, it is a ticle given to some individual paintings within a series produced by Art & Language (see plates [and 1. An exhibition of ‘Portraits of V. I. Lenin in the Style of Jackson Pollock’ was held at che Stedeliik van Abbe Museum, Eindhoven, in 1980." The title is also the title of an essay published by Are 8 Language, and itis the title of a song with words by Art & Language and music by Mayo Thompson, which was socorded by The Red Crayola in 1980. Before it was any ofthese things, however, ie was a linguistic description, an ironie proposal for an impossible picture, a kind of exasperated joke mean to explore the conditions under which the impossible piceure was possibly painted, o trace it back through the various significa- tions ofits ttle, and in the process to review some aspects of the att of the later 1970s and some attendant problems of inexpretation and evaluation. Ido so in awareness that those kinds of picture we dignify with the name of ‘painting’ share one important feature with those kinds of utterance we understand as jokes: both are supposed in the Jase instance to be resistant co investigation of theie aetiology. Alike, the unironic arthistorical theorization of the artistic image and the ‘unironic psychoanalytical theorization of the jake lead to that dark ‘wood where Alice stared, outfaced and solemn, ata catless grin Readings and readers It is not hard to conceive forms of image which raise — as it were explicitly problems which attend upon the perception or ‘teading’ of images. A review of the illustrations of Gombrich’s Art and Illusion" (ou! y uy Songun) Mwockrey PER sy130 On ‘A Portrait of V.I Lenin... ‘would throw up several examples. Broadly speaking, these examples are of two kinds: those which suppose the possibility of a cons between a picture and what it depicts (for instance, trompe Voeil Perspectives integrated into architectural setings); and those which ‘contain internal ambiguities and discontinuities and inconsistencies (fom Holbein’s Ambassadors to the izttating graphics of Martin Escher) Iisa notable feature of those studies for which Gombrich's is ‘the model chat, though highly iluminating about the traditional skills and problems ofthe artist, chey tend to be relatively conservative with respect to the problems of modern art. Imean by this not situply that a ‘concern for the nature of illusion fails to address the kinds of cultural and art-eritical problem which seem distinctively to be raised by the att of the modern period. Why should we, afterall, expect that forms ‘of art which explicitly question the centrality of mimetic skill will be satisfactorily dealt with by types of theory which accord those skills briori status? The point is rather that the more substantial cognitive activities and dilemmas aésociated with modern act, and the move intractable problems of evaluation which attend upon them, seem not {0 be addressed, ot to be only tangentially addressed, by those forms of approach which treat visual images solely as pictures, There is a sense in which such approaches are too ‘microscopic’ to notice those features of modem works of art in virtue of which they may be said to bear upon significant problems of perception and reading, (Which is ‘otto say that those wino would engage in analysis of such problems can safely disregard the kinds of practical hypothesis upon which Gombrich’s work is built.) ‘A second problem with the normal study ofthe problems of percep- tion is that it has tended to be pursued as the disciplinary opposite of the social history of art. Work on the psychology of artistic represen tation tends to assume a singie and universally applicable model: the figure referred to in Richard Wollheim’s formula as the ‘adequately sensitive, adequately informed, spectator’ Yet even if we restrict our interest in paintings to their iconic (picearing) aspects, and our under- standing of representation to the matter of how pictures are graphi- «ally connected to the world, we will sill have to acknowledge (pace Flint Schier) that pictorial systems are individuated in terms of com> ppetences, and chat competences are relative The *how’ of how pic- tures are connected to the world, that is to say, is dependent upon who it is that is making the connection and upon the abilities that that ‘person brings to bear. The wiring-diagraen which isa kind of system= atie picture for one peeson is a meaningless pattern for another. Fur- thermore (Schier again), ‘the iconicity of a symbol is aspect-relative; itmay be iconic gua one content and non-iconic qua another’? Matis, e's Blue Nude of 1907 is a form of iconic symbol. In thatthe blueness of the figure appears to contribute nothing to its iconicity, however, the colour may be assumed to be an ‘expressive’ (and, in Goodman's terms, a metaphorical) property ofthe painting On the other hand, to an observer apprised of the relationship between colonial(Om ‘A Portrait of V.I. Lenin...” 131 exploitation and erotic tourism, che painting might Gust) be readable 4 piture ofa Taureg woman, her skin tinged with indigo dye? The matter of whether the blueness of the gute is metaphoric or iconic ppears to berelative to assumptions about the content ofthe psinting Ziesumptions about whar tis hat ies of Who, chen, i competent to decide what a painting tepresens? How does one decide, on the tvidence of the picture itself, to what quantifiable range of com- petenoes ~ which isto say, to what sore of competent person ~it i paradigmatically addressed? "The upshot of these remarks and rhetorical questions isnot that atcention 9 the icone features of works of artis necessarily ceaction- any of itrelevan, but rather that we may aeed to review the frame- ‘work of expectations by which this attention is normally supposed to be directed. To do this is to open to inguiry a ange of assumptions about the kind of experience whichis an experience of art. One way t0 do this to ask whose experience itis ypicaly supposed to be. A related question i, for whom are the problems of perception prob Jems, orn whose image ace these problems framed as problems? Its, in expec ofthis range of asus that Art 6c Language’s Lenin-Pollock paintings may be seen a polemical. This polemical aspect isin no way Inconsistent with the opportunities they offer for the ‘innocent enjoy ment of traditional illusions. ‘The painting inthe series ‘Portraits of V. I. Lenin in the Style of Jackson Pollock’ were made by Michael Baldwin and Me Ramsden in 1979-80, in preparation for the exhibition at Eindhoven, where several lige rooms had been zeserved fora substantial display of Art ‘Se Language work. The projet asa whole commenced witha number ‘of tlatively small pictures, in which appropriate techniques were de- vised and practised, and culminated ina series of six paintings in oil and enamel paints on papes, each measuring approximately 7 by 8 feet {210239 cm.}.® See Plates Land land plate 7.) "To anyone familar with the work of Pollock the reference co his style is likely co be the most immediately noriceable aspect of these paintings. Infact each painting inthe series draws more or les diretly fon the appearance of some specific painting by Pollock. In che cas of “V1. Lens by Charangovitc (1970) in the Sil of Jackson Pollock, for instance, certain fortal and technical characteristics ~ notably the colour, conisteney and distribution of the paint ~ are derived from Polloci’s Mural of 1950, in che callerion of the Tehran Museum of Modem Ar (se plate 64. To those unfamiliar with Pollock’ work, howeves, the Art 6¢ Language painting is likely to sem an irrational ress, unless, that is they successfully read the picture of Lenin (by Charangovteh) which the painting recomposes or reproduces or somehow contains, “The problems of analysis ofthe image commence with problems of description. These latter problems ae relative to the competences of spectators. A set of four notional but conceivable spectators wil give ‘ou different possible dents forthe painting, The fist spectator isPlate 64 Jackson Pollock, Mural (1950), it, enamel and aluninin paint on tama mounted on Wood, 183 % 244 om. The Museum of Modern Art, Tern, OARS, New York, 1990, 132 (On ‘A Portrait of V. 1. Lenin ‘not familiar with the style of Pollock and eannot see the picture of Lenin, For this spectator the painting is en arbitrary and virtually meaningless thing — or, at least, the painting's meaning is largely independent of its intentional character. ‘The second spectator is familiar with the style of Pollock and cannot see the picture of Lenin, For this spectator the painting isa painting by Pollock, or itis a more or less competent, more or less intresting pastiche or fake, depending, ‘on the spectator’s own competences as a connoisseur of Pollock's work, his or her disposition towards that work, and so on. The third spectator is not familiar with the style of Pollock but can see the picture of Lenin (and sees it as a picture of Lenin) (ee plate 63). For {his spectator the painting is an ingenious or exotic or perverse Portrait of Lenin. The fourth spectacor is familiar with the style of Pollock and can see the picture of Lenin (and sees i as a picture of Lenin). For this spectator the painting i an intentionally paradoxical thing: a work which achieves an ironic stylistic détente between sup pposedly incompatible aesthetic and ideological worlds, It is not simply that the style of Jackson Pollock is supposed to eliminate the possi- bility of portraiture in general and of porteaits of such a V. I. Lenin in particular. More broadly, that estimation of iconie Realisin which is associated with the state culture of socialism is generally seen as semantically and ideologically incompatible with those forms of pi ority which are accorded in Modernist culture to abstract art, to avant-gardism, to individualism and to spontaneity. ‘These different possible responses have the somewhat bloodless (or swatch-like) quality of philosophers’ examples. ‘They are easily animated and complicated in che mind, however, by considering how the vatious processes of seeing’, 'seeing-as’ and ‘seeing in’ might work in practice in front ofthe painting." Knowledge or ignorance of theOn ‘A Portrait of V.T. Lenin..." ete vl fols lela yelalieln balistiepe ta rrielabbla bay painting's ttle is one obvious variable which will effect how its seen and what itis sen as. Someone who sew the picture of a face in the painting might or might not recognize or see it as the face of Lenin Someone who did not intially recognize the face of Lenin might still be persuaded to see the picture as a picture of him. More significantly, considerable flesh can be added to the bones of our imaginary spec” tators if it is allowed chat different dispositions towards Pollock, or modern art, or V. I, Lenin, oF the Russian Revolution are forms of competence or incompetence which will determine reading of such works of art as these, Thus a semantically competent reading of the portrait of Lenin will end de facto co ule against the possibility of a semantically competent reading ofthe style of Pollock, and vice versa ‘We might say that the ‘adequately informed spectator’ of the paint: ing will be one who is familiar both with some discourse within which significance is attributed to Pollock's style and with some discourse Within which significance is attribured to V.1. Lenin. After all, without Plate 65 Are Language, Mop for "Vel Lenin’ by CCharangoritch (1970) ‘he spe of Jackson Pollock (1980). Pencil on paper, 23.7 x 20 Belg.134 On ‘A Portrait of V. I. Lenin. “some acknowledgement of the supposed cultural incompatibility ofits two principal referents, che technical ingenuity of the painting is a relatively tivial matter. Another way to put this might be to say that the painting i not competently regarded unless it is seen a8 issuing from a form of second-order discourse within which the expression- claims of artistic Modernism and the idealizations of Soviet Socialist Realism are both treated as first-order.” This may be where the requirement of sensitivity is made ofthe ideal Wollheimian spectator. ‘That is to say, he or she will need to be disposed to make relevant ‘empirical distinctions between the expressive use and the ironie men- tion ofa style, and between the expressive mention and the ironic use ‘of an iconic image. Furthermore, he or she will need to be responsive to the expressive tention. The problem is that the Wollheimian spec- ‘ator exists co celebrate the frst-orderishness of ar. A monstrous détente So far I have concentrated on the problems of reading which the ‘Portrait of V. I Lenin inthe Style of Jackson Pollock’ can be used t0 demonstrate. It is not my intention, however, co suggest that the painting should be regarded as a merely polemical puzzle-piture — form of duck-rabbit with cultural and politcal ramifications. Ie was not designed simply to make a point abour the relatvities of perares to the competences and interests of readers and tothe worlds in which those pictures are read. Certainly it serves to anate that universe of dichotomies whichis the shetorical dilemma of Modernist culate: lineas ot painterly, Apollonian ot Dionysiac, descriptive or expressive, plastic oF decorative, figurative or abstract, effective or aesthetic, zealst or empiricist, collective or individual, East or West. It does so, however, by vrs of its own palpable emergence from withia this "universe, not by attempting to establish some Archimedean point out- side tor by privileging one set of terms over another. As represented in and bythe painting, thavis to say, the dichotomies are not the mere topicalizations of an artistic practice. Within the world which the painting presupposes, they ate the very terms by which modern cultural existence is delimited and defined ~ defined, at least, within the liberal world of modera Western art, for there s no pretence symmetry in Art & Language’ paintings, no intentional claim that these aze works which could conceivably have been produced in the ax, or thatthe modernistc appropriation ofthe icon of Lenin could be logically counterbalanced by a Socaist-Realistaccountof the style of Pollock. (eis of interest in this connection that, when three ofthe paintings from the series were selected fora British Council tour of Eastern Europe, they could not be admited under thee prope ites, and instead were catalogued as Portrait of a Mant. Portrait of ‘Man in Winter 1920... and Portrait of a Man in Disguise, respectively)(On ‘A Portrait of V. I. Lenin...” 135 ‘To say this much, however, is not to locate the work securely within the framework of Modernist painting, Ina painting of 1980, reference to the work of Pollock ie refecence to an established stereotype of ‘Modernist style (among other things) ~ as reference to the head of Lenin is reference to a hackneyed political symbol." The ‘Portrait’ is almost not @ painting — in any sense consistent with Modernist theories of painting in the wake of Pollock’s supposed example. Iti almost to0 self-conscious and too knowing — almost the travesty it appears to be. The illusion of purity which was the asymptote of the ‘Modernist reduction was the illusion of an absolutely unmediated expression. In Greenberg's account of Post Painterly Abstraction —his ‘owa term forthe zenith of late Modernist style~ pictorial eloquence is firmly decoupled from pictorial imagery and associated instead with “euch to feeling’. The authentically late-Modernist work of artis proposed as the paradigmatic oratio recta, the ideal first-order lurerance. Arts ‘the least habit-bound of all human activities’. Art {& Language’s ‘Porta takes this aspiration to absolute expressive: ‘ness and absolute spontaneity as one of ts terms, but only in order 0 represent it a5 a kind of convention of form of culture; thats to say, ‘oly in order to represent it with a disposition which chat culeut itself ‘must condemn 38 inauthentic. Inthe world of the painting ~ or within that form of second-order discourse whichis (almost) not a painting ~ the culture of authentic feelings is confronted with the spectral representation ofits historical opponent. Ifthe paintings are not simply representations of two opposed and independent systems, nether do they exemplify some ideal resolution between them. I suggested that the therorcal dilemma of Modemist cenlture defines the world from which these paintings emerge. But a dilemma is not such a condition as may be resolved dialectically ox by thinking the solution to an equation, The culture of Modernism itself is not ‘overthrown’ by the arguments of Realism, any more than it is transformed by the ironies of Conceptual Art or succeeded by the interests of Postmodernism. In the last instance each of these terms reduces 0a form of redescription of an opposing face. In a world of dichotomies, the opposing face of the status quo is a mirror image ‘What is required for the resolution of dilemma is chat the opposing terms be brought into collision so that the whole circumstance is changed, But the change involved is not then within the control of the individual agent. Acton in the fae of dilemma involves commitment to a more-or-less unpredictable outcome. ‘The representational materials of the LeninPollock paintings are organized into an allegory of collision. The mythology of individual risk attached to Modernist painting is most compellingly associated with the style of Pollock," while the mythology of historical riske associated with class struggle isa component in the aura of Lenin. To paint the ‘Porteat of Lenin in the Style of Pollock’ was to force these incommensurable mythologies into momentary coexistence upon a single and synchronic surface.136 (On ‘A Portrait of V.1 Lenin...” ‘There was no sense at the time that any eestheric vite would be axtributable to the results. Indeed, the project was pursued in condi- tions of alienation from regulative concepss of the aesthetic and of painting. The aim. was that painting as a high modeen art should be referred to, not ‘made’. Ifthe component parts of the Lenin-Pllock paintings are possessed of considerable and complex cultural ramifica- tions, the components themselves are classically simple as types: a single image and 2 consistent style, No more was needed, Ie could be said with the advantage of hindsight chat Arc & Language was redu- ced to painting in the later 1970s, as it were involuntarily, because there was nothing to lose; because anything was betes than going-on living, with those dichotomies by which all forms of artistic work appeared to be defined; or, perhaps, because if there was nothing to lose, painting offered the best possibility of symbolizing that nothing, In the sections which follow I shall explore the conditions under which this tentative conclusion was reached. Black propaganda In face the “Porerait’, though they turned out to be paintable picures, ere not atthe outset intended or envisaged as paintings at all. To be ‘more precise, they were nor produced to be seen as paintings. Indeed, st seemed at the time of their production tha, if the manipulation of pictures were to play any defensible part in che cognitive activity of ‘modeen world, the kinds of aesthetic disposition which were associ- sted with the viewing of paintings would have somehow to be sup- pressed or circumvented. In che wake of Minimal and Conceptual Art, views on the status of painting have tended towards one of other of two contrasting posi- tons. According to the first, identifiable with some forms of Semi" of ‘Semiological Art’, painting is now an iredeemably unmodern cultural medium. As with other surviving crafts its practice requites the exercise of outmoded and redundant technologies. Furthermore, it is time-consuming, specialized and individualistic. It follows that its products are expensive lnxuries, bound toa certain system of distribu tion and exchange and thus implicated in am inequitable and indefen- sible economic system. The special status accorded to painting as a ‘high are’ is simply a function of those ideological mechanisms wich ‘maintain distinctions between ‘high’ and ‘populax’ cultural forms in general. For these various reasons, painting is ineffective in the cause ‘of emancipation and enlightenment. From the point of view of the constituency of the oppressed and the marginalized, its meanings are fotms of mystification. The conjunction of photography and text, on the other hand, is a modern medium ~ indeed, it might be argued, itis ‘the modern medium. Because itis potentially distributable through the same channels as advertising and propaganda, the work of the Con: ceptual-Artist-as-photographer can be critically engaged, as the workOn ‘A Portrait of V.1. Lenin...” 137 of the painter cannot, wth the forces of exploitation and mystification in society. The artist hus qualifed is in a position to intervene in ideology atthe point of is generation, in the ‘gap’ beeween the world and pictures: “A job for the artist which no one elie does isto dis ‘mantle exiting communication codes and to recombine some oftheit clements into struccues which can be used to generate new pictures of ‘the world."® According to this view, if we agree co dispense with those incidental aspects of visual representation which depend upon the ‘employment of the individual hand, and with those proprietory forms ‘of evaluation which serve to mystify the single unrepeatabe image, no barrier remains co acceptance of photography-and-text, in place of paincing, asthe paradigmatic medium of a estical) visual art.‘ Jefe ‘at practice (then) becomes a mater of practical workin semiodey!” ‘According to the second view, the attribution of modernity to photography and printing rather than painting is symptomatic of a trivial sense of modernity ~ one which privileges a simply technologi- cal development. Artis not like advertising, whichis actually primi- tive. Semio Art renders at client roan arty form of philosophy, which is itelfovercenchanted with the world of images. This isa form of betrayal of the project of Conceptual Art, which was to annex che authority of philosophy in suppressing unteflected content, and thus to render philosophy client to art. The rejection of painting as unmodern because undistrbutable smacks of the MeLuhanite delu- sion that books become redundant in the global village. If there is good reason to abstain from painting, itis that the practice has become regulated by a specific and contingent set of expectations, and bbeeause itis only by ruc abstinence that these expectations eat be frustrated and changed. The business of such expectations aparg, the aim of any competing practice should be to meet those requirements of intensional depth and complexity which have traditionally been made of painting, The evaluation of intensional depth and complexity in painting needs not tobe conflated with the diagnosis of such mystifica- tions as may be involved inthe concept of high att ~ which is not to say that evaluation and mystification are not connected. To establish public persuasiveness, effectiveness oF transparency as alternative criteria for forms of atistic practice is to substitute the practical falsehoods of journalism for those rsks and contradictions which are the stuf of meaning, Indeed, a theory of art which advances such criteria as more ‘modern’ will be rejected on the grounds that the ‘operative concept of modernism is at best superficial, however well dressed that theory may appear to be in the latest Pais fashions. Furthermore, it willbe questioned whether any practice submiting to the ‘alternative exter’ can claim a critical engagement with of independence feom the world of advertising and propaganda, since persuasiveness, effectiveness and transparency are precisely the criteria by which chat world itself is regulated. An artistic practice grounded in the abstractions of semiology is not inherently any more defensible than a practice grounded in the abstractions of Modernist theory.138 (On “A Portrait of V. I. Lenin..." Indeed, the former might be regarded as a form of ‘progressive’ ‘mutation of the later. From the second point of view the status of painting in the long term is simply lee open to question. Forms of both these views were represented within the expanded ‘Arc 8 Language of 1972-6. The fist postion was never occupied by ‘more than @ minority, however, and by the end of the period views of the second type were clearly predominant. It may be that that predominance was a consequence of the leaning of some lessons. It ‘would certainly appear so from the editorial aspect of Art—Language, vol. 3, no. 4 (Fox 4), and from the conclusion voiced in that issue of ‘the journal thatthe Way to reach a wide audience was to turn oneself into .an entrepreneur. Distance from the grounding intellectual principles of Semio Are was clearly macked out in ao article entitled “The French Disease’ ‘Watching the rise of semiology amongst the academic and lumpen intelligentsia is 100, t00 sick-making, ‘The Gallic disease serves the ‘causes’ of mystification perfectly in tha it encourages us to treat actual people land actual products 28 ‘subordinate’ to abstracted zela- tions... The disease was imported in order t sophis cate’ the managerial apparatus of ‘culture’ ‘lm’, ‘art”— that is, r0 sophisticate bourgeois cultural debate. The ‘convenient ‘gap’ between ‘production’ and “consump- tion’ provides shelter fora methodological aberration: it is there to distill actual people and actual products ‘determining ‘general celtions’, analytically. These rela tions are i) treated as if they were prime substances and then i) the ‘gap’ itself is treated as if it were a separate ‘cogaitvity. This means that the search (sic) for what is ‘common or deep to all manifestations of a society does not expose the ‘division between various disciplines’ as, arbiteary nor does it show ‘mind to be common forall ‘men’, On the contaty, the search (sic) merely generates a noetic system: semiology is at one with ‘communica tions’ and ‘media’ ~ it's what appears to happen.” ‘And more baldly in another article: No one has to be taught self-consciousness vis-i-vis ‘advertisements in order to succeed inthe small historical scuffle he might conceive having with an ad-man.* In work exhibited bewween 1976 and 1978 Art & Language had ‘mined the imagery of politcal power and propaganda not in order to borrow its effectiveness, but so as to render it opaque and ironically aesthetic in the context of the modem world of art. Among the materials variously adapted were seventeenth-eentury English(Om ‘A Portrait of V. I. Lenin...” 139 ‘cartoons and broadsheets, examples of Armenian and Chinese Social ist Realisn (gee plate 66}, a poster designed by the Nazis to recruit industrial labour in Vichy France (se plate 78) a fasces lettered with the statements of artists and philosophers (se plate 67), and a‘people- for Rockefeller’ campaign symbol (se plates ITI nd 68). In Modern: ist theory the materials of propaganda are the negatives of the aes thetic: In the practice of the Semio Artist they are the negatives of enlightenment. Are 8 Language’s displays from the period 1976-8 were forms of black propaganda (se plate 69). They were distanced by virtue oftheir ony and their technical blandness or vulgarity from the aesthetic pretensions of Modernist painting, and by virtue oftheir ‘opacity and irresponsibility from the deconstructive and demystifying pretensions of Semio Art. ‘An essay, a conjecture and an exhibition Within this world of intersecting possibilities and foreclosures, the Lenin-Pollock paintings mazk a kind of bridge. Though the project from which they emerged vas one ia which “painting” was sil con- ceived as approachable only by indirect means, and as matter for debate, the paintings themselves mark the beginning of an explicit engagement on the pare of Art 8 Language with some traditional genres of modern high art, Tt was a condition of this engagement that twould have tobe grounded in some adequate theoretical and practi- cal prescriptions ~ adequate, that isto say, to the task of distinguishing ‘where necessary between mystification and intensional ‘depth’. Some relevant theoretical work had been done during 1978 in extension of the critique of fashionable artistic forms of left-wing theory which had been offered in Art-Language, vol. 3, no. 4 (Fox 4). ‘Various forms of inquiry into the relations between ‘art’, society" and ‘politics’ were published in Art-Language and elsewhere.” Ithad been argued in Art-Language, Vol. 3, no. 4, that to propose the revelatory potential and effectiveness of some artistic work as the measure of is Plate 66 Inetallation of Art & Language ‘Dialectical Materialism! exhibition, Galerie Bic Fabre, Paris (1976) Plate 67 Art & Language, Ten Posecatds (1977), Ealion of lthographed postcards, 75 20 om:passive ~ at least as regards that On ‘A Portrait of V. I. Lenin... ‘Seeing-s, Seeing, and Pictorial Representation’; Schier, Desper into Pitures, passim. 12 "Our sense ofthe relative “orders” of dscoutse isa follows. Within any practice a storder discourse characterizes the normal tems in which ‘scussion, business, exegesis, ees conducted. A second-order discourse is conventionally understood as conducted in a ype of metslanguage by ‘means of which the terms and concepts ee. of che fist may be related, Snalysed exc and thelr referents explained. The requiement upon 3 second-order discourse is that i should be capable of “including” the fist (Ge. desribing what it describes and explaining whatit explains) bur chat it should also furnish an explanation of how (and perhaps why) tha describ ing and explaining is done, A second-order discourse thus presupposes 3 potion somehow “ouside” bur engaged with che contexts of the fst Ici Suggested that a cognitively defensible dscoutse forthe recovery of moan ing from art will haves second-order character with respect to the noel ‘and current means of interpretation. To the extent tha this is true the second-order discourse might be expected ro supersede the first, except in to far a itis prevented from doing so bythe agency which invests and ‘maintains the normal order. Attendant upon such a eordering of discourse ‘Would bea eransformation of concepts and categories and of this Bld of ‘reference The relations berween orders of discourse (and there can plainly ‘be more than ewo such orders) may be charscterted in diferent ways according to diferent practices. Ie suggested here shat the relations Derween ‘Modernist aet discourse (or Modernist at) and historical materialist discourse (or some at practice compatible withthe projects of historical materialism and an analysis and eiique of capisalism) may be considered in cerms of the above outline’ ~ Michael Baldwin, Chatles Harson_ond Mel Ramsden, “Manes Olympic and Contradiction: apropos T. J. Clak’s and Peter Wollen’s Recent Arle’, Block, no. § (September 1981) 13 ‘CorcentAMfars: Bris Pinting and Sculpture in the 1980s’, Museum of ‘Modern Arc, Oxford, March 1987, subsequently mounted at Misarnok, Budapest, the Nirodni Galerie, Prague, and Zachera, Warsow, Apri October 1987. Compare the titles given in note 10. This was before che recent thaw, Informed opinion from Poland, howeves, suggests that at the time of weting the paintings would be sil more, eather than less, nadmis- sible under their properties, 14 There are some itonic ewists in the genetic composition of the ionic symbol. The culcually stereotypical image of Lenin isin part derive fromNotes to pages 135-147 279 Eisenstein’ film October that st say, from an actors representation of Lenin, 15 Clement Greenberg, introduction co Three New American Painters: Louis, ‘Noland, Olisk (exhibition catalogue, Norman MeKensie Art Galley, Regina, ask, Janvary 1963), 16 Lawrence Alioway, introduction t9 Modern American Painting (exbibi- tion eitalogue, USIS Gallery, American Embassy, London, May 1961) "This abiliy to lean fom th creative sc, to acive ata point which one recognizes es an acceptable formality, but which one could not predict before beginning, sche central experience of art, the last habit-bound of all human activin” 17 For some exploration of the clichés of risk in at, ace my ‘Modern Art and ‘the Concept of Risk’ and Jackson Pollock: What Kind of Risk? in U2 ‘isk (Open Universiy, Milton Keynes, 1980), unit 27 and TV 10. 18 Victor Burgin, quoted in "The French Disease’, Art-Language, val. 3, 0,4 (ox 4) (Oczober 1976), p. 33. Burgin has been one ofthe most coaisent fand articulate advocates of che point of view here characerzed. See his collected esays Thinking Photography (London, 1982) and The-End of ‘Avt Theory (London, 1986). 19 Burgin, fom Two Essays on Art, Photography and Semiotics (London, 1975), quoted in “Semiotque, Hardeoce', Avt-Language, vol. 3, 90. 4 (Gcrober 1976), p. 36. 20 "The French Disease’ ibid, pp. 23-5. 21 “interdisiplinary Studies: Urology, Arachnodidactics’, iid, p. 44. 22 See, for instance "Art for Socesy?” in ArtLanguage 1975-1978 (Bric Fabre, Pais, 1978)5 and Art-Language, vol. 4, no. 3 (October 1978), a ‘ronograph eltion published under the tide "Ways of Seeing” as) & ‘stained crccal examinaon of Jobn Berger’s book ofthat name. 23 See note 2. 24 David Kaplan, ‘Quantifying in, in D. Davidson and J. Hinikka (ed), Words and Objections: Eszeys on the Work of W.V. Quine (Dovdtech, 1968), A name, Kaplan sugaests, may be of is objet (for someone) by virtue ofa relation of resemblance, o descriptiveness o conicity (xi ike its object for por it may be of its objec (for someone) by vstue of 3 ‘causal or genetic connection (x can be traced to its object by p). A mame ‘may also be vivid for someone by virtue of some interest on that person's par, and can be so independently of either descriptive or genetic cone sieratons. Kaplan illusttes his aegumene by analogy with pceues, 25 Ac Language, in Harrison and Orton, Modernism, Critic, Realism, p. 155, 26 ‘lustrations for Art—Lampuage’, Robert Self Gallery, London, May 1977. ‘The materials ofthe exhibition were numerous sets of Ten Postcards, each ‘of which composed the image of a fasces,lnered with appropriate texts, none room ofthe gallery, a completed fasces was mounted on each wal Jn the other, various sets of postcards were sciambled together and tecomposed as ‘abstract composition 27 W. J.T. Mitchell, Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology (Chicago, 1986), p. 208. 28 Note to the author, 1988, 29 Typescript ofan interview with David Batchelor, 1989, Hans Namuth was the author of @ notorious fm of Jackson Polloc at work in 1950. In'My Painting’, Possibilities, 1 (New York, Winter 1947-8), p. 79, Pollock280 Notes o pages 150-162 ‘wrote “When Tam in my pasing, Pm not aware of what Fm doing. eis only alter a soct of “get acquainted” period that I see what ! have been about. I have no fears abou: making change, destroying the image, et bbenuse the painting has a life of te ov Ixy to let come thous Essay 6 ‘Seeing’ and ‘Describing’: the Artists? Studio 1 Frank Sela, Working Space, The Chars Eliot Norton Lectures, University, 1983-4 (Cambridge, Mase, and Landon, 1986), p. 2. 2 Thefall ex of Courber’s leer to Champileuy, fom which this quotation is taken, was published in the catalogue of the Courbet exhibition ‘organized by the Réunion des Masées Nationaus and held én the Galeries ‘Nationales d'Exposition du Grand Pali, Pars, 1 October 1977 — 2 Jane any 1978 3 On the occsion ofthe private exibition mounted by Cousbet following rejection ofthe painting by the selection commie forthe World Exhis tion of 1855, 4 Wrking ofthe painting in 1881, ChampSeury declared that Courbet had “embarked on the treacherous slope of symbolization’ ~ Les Chef ociave du Luxembourg (Pars, 1981). 116 5 Sce, particularly, the forry-ive graphic images of The Sculptors Studion the Vellard Site, 1933-4, {6 This che conventional view of he sextet asinde? as chaactsied by Nelson Goodman in ‘Art and Inguiry, in. Problems and Projects (indianapolis and New ‘York, 1972), p. 103. He continues, “The philosophic fuls and aesthetic absurdities of such a view need hardly be recounted until someone seriously goes #0 far as to maintain that the appropriate aesthetic attitude toward a poem amouncs to grzing at the printed page withoue eadingt” Fora thoroughly serotypicel account of the gene ofthe Artist's Studio, se A. Bllony-Rewald and M. Peppit, Imaginaton’s Chamber: Artists ond tei Studioe (London, 1983). 7 ‘A Neow Spite in Pasting” was the title ofan exhibiion held atthe Royal Academy, London, 15 Jansary ~ 18 March 1981, Although ‘senior area ‘such as Picasso, Bacon and de Keoning were included, ce exhibition was notable asthe first substantial showing in England for 2 new expression istic and angscridden tendency in Earopean painting. 8 Arc & Language, ‘Oa che Recent Fashion for Caring sue (Nottingham, 1. 3 (1979) 9 Francis O'Connor and Eugene Thaw, Jackson Pollock: A Catalogue Raisonné of Paintings, Drawings and Other Works (New Haven, Conn, and London, 1978), no. 765. 10 In conversation with Baldwin and Ramsden, 1981, as reported to the suthor. 11 For a more extensive argument along these lines see Art 8 Language, ‘Abstract Expression’ Art-Language, vol. 5, no. 1 (October 1982), rep. in C. Herison and’ F. Oran (eds), Moderton, Criticism, Realism (London and New York, 1984). 12 The others are Raped and Strangled by the Man who Forced ber into Prostitution: A Dead Woman: Drawn and Painted by Mouth and A Man Battering his Daughter to Death as she Slgps: Dratom and Painted by ward