Rauschenberg Cubism Futurism Van_Gogh

Critique of Robert Rauschenberg's Retrospective @ the Gugenheim
By: Tarek Fahmy

"Satisfied that the sequence of men led to nothing, and that the sequence of their society could lead no further, while the mere sequence of time was artificial, and the sequence of thought was chaos, he turned at least to the sequence of force;..." (Adams, Henry."The Virgin and the Dynamo". p. 1069.)

This quote is taken from the Virgin and the Dynamo. I believe that it has a strong connection with Rauschenberg's work on the basis of its logical irony. This oxymoronic contradiction explains the artist's work and also points to the relationship between Kitsch and High Art.

Robert Rauschenberg is the painter of modern life. He sticks almost dutifully to Beaudelaire's description of the artists' role in "The Painter of Modern Life". Since modernity is about force his artwork deals with that energy. His subject matter is filled with practical objects, the sort that belong to popular culture. Ironically, his Kitsch infested subject matter has become what they call 'High Art'. This is precisely the strength of his work. He combines elements that are thought of as separate and unites them successfully under the guise of art.

Let me clarify the terms High Art and Popular Art (what Greenburg refers to as Kitsch). High Art is formalized and structured. The artist is trained in these forms and is expected to follow them. This art tends to be elitist and divisive in the artistic, social, and political senses. It excludes the people who aren't trained to perceive it and understand it correctly. Obviously, this would include the majority of the public. Kitsch or Pop Art, on the other hand, is made for all. It is watered down in the sense that the higher faculties are not required in its perception (Greenburg, Clement. "Avant-Guarde and Kitsch"). These two styles are a recent development of the industrial revolution. Massive urbanization led to an increase in the demand of cultural supplies; entertainment, art, goods, etc... Kitsch satisfied those demands. According to Greenburg, it is High Art minus the mental complications and layers. In the past, elitist art was balanced by the enforced and obvious dichotomy of aristocrats and plebeians. After the industrial revolution and massive urbanization that followed, people expected and were deceivingly promised of equality. This is exactly where Rauschenberg enters the picture.

Robert Rauschenberg is a very sensitive and observant man. I hardly knew of him and his work before I saw his retrospective at the Gugenheim, NY NY. His work fills me with strong feelings because of its basic cultural truths and strong visual and emotional presence.

Where does he relate in the supposed dichotomy of plebeian and elitist art. Well, aesthetically his subject matter, way of handling the materials, and the materials themselves comment about high and low art. In my opinion High Art is Kitsch and vice versa. The separateness of high and low art is a result of our cultural "divide and conquer" mentality. This dividing mentality is not part of Rauschenberg's artistic arsenal. In a sense, Rauschenberg attached the tail back on the cat. He did what was natural and obvious. Ironically, our culture tries to defeat this naturalism to give us the illusion of control and power.

Rauschenberg used a variety of every day material in his work (Brooms, car tires, newspapers, threads, closets, hair, cloth, nails, etc...). He was not the first to do this collage like work. Picasso and Braque, according to Modern Western History, were the first. Although Rauschenberg continues in their collage footsteps, he incorporates the collage elements more successfully and infuses them with unmatched energy. Photography and silk screening were used extensively in his work. He basically included a variety of elements from all of the different artistic branches. Some of the previously mentioned materials historically and academically belonged to Kitsch. He incorporated them in his work and was successful in maintaining a High Art flavor.
His subject matter was modernity and every day life. His photos of Kennedy, the Statue of Liberty, and New York City street corners are part of the physical world. Academically they represent popular culture. Another thing that struck me about the subject matter was its intended confusion of academic classification. Some of his sculptures were painterly and his paintings were sculptural.

The most interesting part of his work is how he handles the material. For example, the two untitled red paintings include newspaper, oil, canvas, and wood. He laid out the newspaper in a crumpled and wavy manner covering the entire surface. Instead of using the natural characteristics of the newspaper he covered the entire surface with red paint. This painting/sculpture looks like an Abstract Expressionist work with a major difference_the wood and the newspapers. He used those objects as part of the composition and yet the work resembles a painting. I said resembles because I am looking at the work with a formal and academic bias. If I could turn of the preconceived and distracting formal concepts I would have never used the word resembles.

I believe that this confusion on my part was intended by Rauschenberg. The overriding theme of the exhibition is the combination of unorthodox and culturally popular materials that are High Art in execution. In other words, the found objects in his work give the illusion of paint on canvas. This is the complete reversal of formal painting in which paint resembles and creates the illusion of those found objects. Some objects that he used were not even interfered with aesthetically and they still resemble paint and painting.

What it is is what it is not. What it is not is what it is. That is the relationship of Kitsch and High Art. They are one, but separated. They attract and repel each other. They help each other, feed off of each other, and define each other. Robert Rauschenberg demonstrates that by using Kitsch related topics and materials that give off supposed High Art characteristics. He is using the left to define the right and vice versa. Also his use of positive and negative images in his silk screens and photographs address the dichotomy that is and is not. He involves the spectator in this reproduction of sorts. In his piece called Washington's Egg, the spectator reproduces himself through the work. The reproducing agent is the reflective aluminum that is the background, or maybe the foreground of the piece. This reflective aluminum reflects the objects in a distorted fashion_Kitsch reflect High Art in a distorted fashion. I was more interested in my reflection than the work itself. In a sense I was reproduced in the work. This connects to the relationship of Kitsch and High Art. Who is reproducing who? Is the reproduction the same as the original? Was my distorted image in the aluminum me or someone else? Should there be a conceptual separation between the reflected and at times distorted image and the source of that reflection? That distorted image on Rauschenberg's aluminum was not me; it helped redefine me. It is also me since I was being reflected. These are the issues that were brought up in your class Mr. Denton, of Rauschenberg's work, of life and of culture. That is what I love about his work. It is universal and personal; subjective and objective; existential and material; political and emotional. Should all of these categories be divided? Don't they all address the same thing?
My answer to that is yes and no.

Closing Quotes:

"one is inside
Then outside what one has been inside
one feels empty
because there is nothing inside oneself
that inside of the outside
that one was once inside
once one tries to get oneself inside what
one is outside:
to eat and be eaten
to have the outside and to be
inside the outside." (R.D.Laing. KNOTS.)

"That is why. When one twin dies, we snap the other and we find
the dead twin again. Then, if the second twin dies, we just snap the snap."
(UN) CIVIL SIGNS IN SENEGAL.p.123


Rauschenberg Cubism Futurism Van_Gogh

Robert Rauschenberg, 1988.
"Braggard, (Shiner)". Acrylic, metal, rubber on mirrored aluminum.