Bruce Hainley on the early performance work of Sturtevant

| March 13th, 2012, 7:52 PM


Get $10 (U.S.) and run to the next bookstore, Kiosk or Koenig to get Artforum‘s March 2012 issue. Open it to page 226, and read Bruce Hainley on Sturtevant. Since being exposed to Seth Price’s texts on production technologies (in my opinion, the objects he produces are “just” (great and disturbing) footnotes to these texts), I haven’t had such an addicting, inspiring, and disturbing reading experience. Following Hainley’s words, you are able to experience what this means: “The dynamics of the work is that it throws out representation” (Sturtevant, 2004). It becomes almost tangible that her practice of “mise en abyme” indeed makes thought visible.

And then you stumble into paragraphs like this: “Even without knowing, definitively, what Sturtevant danced, consider why she might have rendez-voused with Rainer at all, since Sturtevant was always already dancing, as Nietzsche said everyone must—always already thinking not across the art of the 1960s but into the structures that make such art, such thinking possible. She was manifesting instead of writing manifestos.”

Oh yes, and where else, in what kind of other text on art you can read something like this:
“And then there was Jill Johnston.
Jill fucking Johnston.
On the beat, doing her job, brilliantly, tweakily.”

To which I can only add: “And then there was Bruce Hainley. Bruce fucking Hainley. On the beat, doing his job, brilliantly, tweakily.”

Tags: ,