Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to October.
http://www.jstor.org
PETER OSBORNE
Flaubert, Dictionaryof
Received Ideas
Of all the issues raised by Richter's paintings, perhaps the most intractable
is that of where to place them within a critical history of contemporary art. For
it is a paradox of Richter's work that while it derives both its force and its
modernity from the consistency of its address to a single problem-the problem
of the continuing possiblity of painting as a historically significant activity-it
is precisely this consistency that threatens to cut it off from the wider history
of which it is a part, to enclose it within the horizon of a self-contained will to
paint and thereby, implicitly, to block off that very future for painting which it
might otherwise be thought to have opened up. There is something exceptional,
something historicallyexceptional, about Richter's work that has yet to be fully
clarified. And this is not because it avoids or is in any way displaced from the
issues of its time, but rather because of the specific form and, indeed, the
peculiar successof its engagement with them. Furthermore, it would seem to be
Stesomething about the particular temporal logic of this engagement-what
fan Germer has described as its "dialectical mediation of proximity and
*
An earlier version of a part of this essay was published in Art and Design, "Profile on
Contemporary Painting," vol. 7, no. 3/4 (1992).
This essay, and the three essays on Gerhard Richter that follow, derive from talks given at
the conference "History, Photography, Memory in the Paintings of Gerhard Richter" at the Tate
Gallery, London, December 7, 1991. The conference was organized by Andrew Benjamin and Peter
Osborne in conjunction with the Richter exhibition, curated by Sean Rainbird, that was held there
between October 30, 1991, and January 12, 1992, and it was sponsored by the Tate Gallery and
the Goethe-Institut, London.
vvU
r alas sein Vorn Stelle er ge.
iat die
Zeichen
bis 1500 ccm
lesenkt, dabei
auf 12 Monate
n 1100 D der
England und
Einliter-Wagen
Cardinal, MorM) begegnen.
fur die NeuFiat hat allen
n ausgereiftes,
)laren zur Zuiufendes Autogenerellen Exorgesehen und
- . --
104
OCTOBER
106
OCTOBER
107
The purpose of these paintings, Richter has maintained, was not to use
photography as a means for painting, but "to use painting as a means for
photography"5-as a means, one might say, for the interrogation of the photograph as a cultural form, even perhaps, paradoxically, for its elevation. Photopainting acts to add a moment of cognitive reflection, of historical and representational self-consciousness, to the experience of the photographic image. It
creates a space and a time for reflection upon that image which is qualitatively
different from that of the photograph itself, haunted as such experience is by
the trace of the object. Every photograph, Barthes has argued, is "a certificate
of presence": the presence of the past within the present.6 Every photo-painting
is also a certificate of presence, but of another kind: thepresenceof the photograph
in representation.This is a presence that can only be marked beyond the photograph itself, by a different representational form. It is this presence of photography within the paintings that, to return to Germer's phrase quoted above,
establishes them as a "mediation of proximity and distance": proximity and
distance to the photograph (the presence of the past within the present), proximity and distance to history (the social power of the photographic image). It is
this dialectical mediation, in turn, that makes photo-painting in some way emblematic of the dilemma of contemporary painting: the dilemma of its relation
to the history of its negation.
Photo-painting is an affirmation of photography by painting. Yet it is also,
thereby, a form of painting: an affirmation of painting in the face of photography. For all their acknowledgment of the hegemony of photography as a
means of image production, for all their participation in the negation of painting's function of naturalistic representation by photography, Richter's photopaintings remain, insistently, paintings. If the use of photographs as the subjects
of the paintings, along with the quasi-photographic aspects of their form, signifies a recognition of the historical negation of painting by photography, such
pictures nonetheless enact a painterly negation of this negation, a reappropriation
of photography by painting, that would seem to seek to rescue painting, as
photo-painting, from its fallen position-however little this may have been the
original intent of these pictures. The question thus arises as to the meaning of
women, or that these women have often been the subjects of violent deaths. The point is illustrated
by the following works: Lovers in a Forest (1966), Emma (1966), Helga Matura (1966), Student (1967),
Olympia (1967), Eight Student Nurses (1971), Portrait of a Young Woman (1988), Confrontation(1988),
Dead (1988). The idea of an intrinsic connection between photography, death, and identity, established by the temporality (or extratemporality) peculiar to the photographic image, has been central
to much recent work on photography. See in particular Roland Barthes, CameraLucida: Reflections
on Photography(1980), trans. Richard Howard (London: Fontana, 1984) and Philippe Dubois, L'acte
photographique(Paris: Nathan and Labor, 1983).
5.
Rolf Schon, "Interview with Gerhard Richter," in Gerhard Richter: 36. Biennale di Venezia
(Essen: Museum Folkwang, 1972), p. 23, quoted by Roald Nasgaard, Gerhard Richter Paintings
(London: Thames and Hudson, 1988), p. 47.
6.
Barthes, CameraLucida, pp. 87-88.
108
OCTOBER
110
OCTOBER
sciousness of that purported end, but he does not thereby begin painting anew
so much as keep it alive in the steady, uncertain state that it has gotten into, by
exploring the state within painting itself. In painting the negation of painting,
however, Richter cannot but paint (enact) another negation as well: the negation
of that negation by painting. His pictures are thus double negatives, acts of
negation in which, as Hegel puts it, "posited as affirmative," negation becomes
determinate." If Richter's paintings are philosophical explorations in paint of
the state of contemporary painting, then they do not so much transcend this
state as register it, immanently, in a series of diverse and innovative ways. It is
from this stance-at least up until the late 1970s, when there is a definite
change in the balance of Richter's work-that the paintings acquire their
strangely distanced melancholy quality. (Furthermore, the gray paintings and
constructive works, I would suggest, stand in the same relation to other, selfnegating episodes in the history of painting as the photo-paintings stand to
photography.)
Richter's paintings mark time, the historical time of their production, the
time of the crisis of painting, and they mark time with paint. Reflectively
exploring the sources and dimensions of this crisis through their acts of painterly
appropriation, they cannot but contest it, even as they confirm it; cannot but
confirm it in the very act of their contestation. Yet this is not to say that Richter,
through cunning, merely postpones a predetermined end to painting.'2 Rather,
it is the interpretation of negation as an end (finis) that the paintings contest.
"What is negated is negative until it has passed." What, then, is the status of
this negative painting, this painting that keeps painting alive, marking time; this
painting that, as Germer puts it, however much it may seem to begin painting
anew, "can only take place on an individual basis and in a purely intellectual
sense"?'3 What is the force of these qualifications? It is at this point that it
becomes necessary to return to the question of the readymade.
PostconceptualPainting
The effect of the readymade on the concept of art cannot be denied. "For
more than thirty-five years, what has been most significant in modern art has
worked at the interpretation of the readymade's resonance, sometimes through
compulsive repetition, sometimes through violent denial, but also sometimes
through a meaningful rethinking of it, and in any case, always through a
recognition (even if only an implicit one)."14 It is harder, however, to specify
the precise modality of this effect in different places at different times, and
Ibid.
11.
12.
Germer, "Retrospective Ahead," p. 24.
13.
Ibid., p. 25.
14.
Thierry de Duve, Pictorial Nominalism:On Marcel Duchamp'sPassagefrom Painting to the Readymade (1984), trans. Dana Polan (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991), p. 188.
111
especially with regard to painting. As de Duve has brilliantly shown, the effect
of the readymade on the concept of painting was the introduction of a profound
undecidability. In "naming as a possible painting a thing that it is impossible to
name a painting," the readymade seemed to break the bond that tied the name
of painting to the history of its craft, rendering it radically undecidable.15 It
would be a mistake, however, to conflate the undecidability produced by a
particular art within a particular historical conjuncture with the logically constitutive undecidability of the idea of a pure nomination-however
closely the
two may be linked in the conjuncture in question. For while the readymade
may "speak of the conditions for the survival of painting in a society that renders
its craft impossible" (namely, that it sever its links with the craft completely)
while simultaneously registering the impossibility of any such survival (since the
name painting would "no longer designate anything but the exhaustion of its
own naming"),16 the undecidability that it thereby introduces into the name
painting is not left unaffected by the act of its introduction. The readymade
works on the conditions that it both establishes and articulates. As such, despite
all appearances (indeed, despite its own explicit logic), it does not, in fact,
demonstrate the impossibility of painting-or even its absolute undecidability
-so much as serve to delimit its possibilities,by negation. By carrying the logic
of the painterly avant-garde (the successive abandonment of craft-specific conventions) to its absurd conclusion (the abandonment of all conventions and
hence the establishment of an absolute conventionality of pure nomination), "it
grants painting, which it names and does not name, an open-ended reprieve."'7
Painting is not impossible. Only the old conception of painting is impossible:
impossible to justify. Nor is its signifier undecidable, except in the vacuum of a
purely logical space, outside of history. Rather, it is the undecidability of the
readymade that establishes the terrain of the decidability of painting by establishing a divide (an ontological divide) between painting before and after the
readymade. Henceforth, all painting worthy of the name will have to legitimate
itself conceptually as art over, above, and beyond the continuity of its relation
to the history of its craft by incorporating a consciousness of the crisis of that
history into its modes of signification, into its strategic deployment of craft. All
painting that aspires to art must be postconceptual. It is within the terms of this
idea of postconceptual painting that Richter's strategy of double negation is to
be understood and judged.
Photo-painting is one way of painting after the readymade that incorporates a consciousness of the crisis of painting into its constitutive proceduresprocedures which, while they may be tied to the history of the craft through
technique, derive both their extrinsic rationale and intrinsic logic from their
15.
16.
17.
112
OCTOBER
critical reflection on the conceptof painting itself. If painting after the readymade
must reestablish a relation to its craft, this is nonetheless only a condition for
its status as painting, not for its status as art. It is in the dialectic of these elements
(concept and craft), a dialectic of proximity and distance (to painting), that the
conundrum of Richter's exceptionalism connects up to the alleged individuality
and intellectualism of his project. Richter's work, I suggested, is exceptional,
not because it is displaced from the field of contemporary art, but rather because
of the peculiar way in which it seems to distance itself from this field by the
very success of its strategy of dealing with it. Yet is this supposed "exceptionalism" really anything different from the individualism and intellectualism that
Germer associates with the project of continuing to paint at all?
Both the individualism and the intellectualism of contemporary painting
carry the weight of a historical condition. If the crisis of painting is the condition
within which all painting worth the name must locate itself, and from which no
113
painting worth the name can escape (since it is a socially and technologically
based crisis in its collective cultural function), this not only necessitates that all
attempts to negotiate this crisis be individual in character, but it also attests to
the symptomaticsignificance of such individuality. Symptomatic individuality surpasses itself when raised to the power of a historical representation, through
interpretation. Yet what I am calling Richter's exceptionalism exceeds a merely
symptomatic conception of representative individualism. For it derives from the
success of his particular artistic strategy (double negation) a success that everywhere courts a certain failure: that point at which the reestablishment of the
connection to craft would negate the conceptual tension in whose service it is
restoration of beauty.
enacted-the
Richter's work is exceptional, historically exceptional, in that it is produced
at the point of a contradiction that it endlessly (and systematically) mediates,
that it can never resolve, but which, in the self-consciousness of this impossibility,
it is thereby able to render determinate: a contradiction between the end of
painting as a living form of collective representation and its continuation within
the art institution on the basis of a serial ingenuity that, symptomatic in its
individuality, carries the weight of a historical condition. Richter adopts a variety
of strategies to make painting out of the self-consciousness of this contradiction,
and he produces a variety of forms of painting. Yet each derives its meaning
and its importance from this common condition, and from the way in which it
is taken up, replayed, and affirmed within the work, within the very act of
painting. Posited as affirmative, negation becomes determinate. The doubt that
lingers concerns the extent to which the latest works (the abstracts) maintain
the tension produced by such a double negativity, the moment of historical
reflexivity, and the extent to which this is annihilated or suppressed in a merely
affirmative celebration of the possibilities of paint.18
18.
For the beginnings of a critique of Richter's abstracts along these lines, emphasizing their
vulnerability to their conditions of reception, see the final section of my "Modernism, Abstraction
and the Return to Painting," in ThinkingArt: Beyond TraditionalAesthetics,ed. Andrew Benjamin and
Peter Osborne (London: Institute of Contemporary Art, 1991), p. 70-76.