Artist: Robert Wiens
Venue: Susan Hobbs, Toronto
Exhibition Title: –
Date: 19 May to 2 July, 2016
In her groundbreaking text, The Body in Pain, Elaine Scarry defines war as a contest, a contest whose main purpose is to out injure your opponent(s). Each of these interior facts about war seems self-evident. And yet, both are methodically undermined and suppressed by a military apparatus that has increasingly become a synthesis of state-power, mainstream media, and mega-corporate interests. The centrality of these two, self-evident, facts tend to slip from view, displaced by the theatricality of representation. Rather than focus on the massive horror of injury and pain that contests of war produce and enable, modern warfare is staged as twin spectacle of power and technology ― a simulacra that sublimates evaluation.
Throughout the 1980s and into the mid-1990s, Robert Wiens produced work that deconstructed the simplified imagery of war in combination and the toy-like appeal of advanced weaponry. Both subjects continue to assert resonance and are exemplified by the remote video-game technology of drones and the reductive ideological binary continually enforced to separate East from West. Two seminal works from this period are Little Boy (1986) and Desert, Jet (1994). Named after the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima, the root of the former is located in 1945. While, no doubt, this event signaled Japan’s surrender in WWII, it also precipitated the nuclear arms race between the USA and Soviet Union – a conflict in which Canada played an important role, particularly via financial support to develop guidance systems for long range cruise missiles. Wiens encapsulates this contest within his bomb-cum-roadster. An ironic and outsized embodiment of the fantasy implied within the playthings of our youth, the sculpture examines the quixotic appeal of constant innovation and accelerated progress.
In Desert, Jet, Wiens’ fabricates post-Cold War power relations as miniaturized diorama. With this work, we wade through the massive sociopolitical fallout that the first Gulf War heralds. Following the collapse of their corresponding superpower, this techno-TV-war demonstrates America’s continued willingness to assert their—now unparalleled—strength on an international arena. With growing insistence, we watch military, political, and economic interests converge. We begin to realize that ongoing conflict is a necessary condition of power. We recognize this condition’s artificiality. We understand that the media plays an explicit role in propagating this delusion. And yet, as viewers, the pleasure we yield from visual representations of warfare produces a latent relationship in which we willingly suspend belief, preferring deception to moral confusion. Despite all evidence to the contrary, we try to believe what we see. We watch it happen. And then we watch it happen again.
Artist: Matthew Zivich
Venue: What Pipeline, Detroit
Exhibition Title: Empires & Enclaves
Date: February 10 – March 25, 2017
What Pipeline is happy to present Empires & Enclaves, a selection of paintings and sculptures by Matthew Zivich. Works include the “Architectural Model” sculptures from the late 1980s and the caulk painting series, “Leviathans,” from 2000-2009.
“The five architectural models date from approximately 1987 to 1989 and appear to be typical examples of preliminary, scale-model buildings. Included are representations of iconic modern structures such as Mies van der Rohe’s 860 Lake Shore Drive and Phillip Johnson’s Glass House; and an anonymous government building from Munich during the Third Reich. Fictitious structures include a cenotaph for Mussolini made for an imaginary competition sponsored by the city of Milan, Italy celebrating the 50th anniversary of Il Duce’s death; and finally, Enclaves is an urban depiction initially inspired by the bombardment of Sarajevo during the breakup of Yugoslavia.
The caulk paintings in the “Leviathan” series represent warships that were instrumental as precursors to revolution or invasion, created using a non-traditional medium such as household caulk. Included in this series are Untitled (Potemkin), Untitled (Aurora), Untitled (Maine), and Untitled (Mystery Sub).” – Matthew Zivich
Matthew Zivich (b. 1937, East Chicago, IN) is a Professor of Art at Saginaw Valley State University. He has been a frequent exhibitor and prize winner in regional exhibits including at the Work:Detroit and Work:Ann Arbor galleries, sponsored by the University of Michigan, and has been a winner of several U of M Alumni Show juried prizes including most recently one of the three top awards at the 2016 alumni show.
In response to:
The Green Universe: A Vision from the October 13, 2016 issue
To the Editors:
In “The Green Universe: A Vision” [NYR, October 13, 2016], Freeman Dyson considers topics from the costs of space exploration to the propagation of life in outer space.
Comparing “Big Space” (large-scale specialized enterprises on behalf of government programs like NASA) and “Little Space” (smaller private sector efforts using widely available technologies) he asserts that NASA’s approach increases cost six hundred fold. But space systems are complex and must work very reliably. The Soviet Union lost many of its early missions, while the US invested heavily in expensive equipment and approaches, to achieve acceptable safety to put a man on the moon while the Russians abandoned their manned lunar program. In missions like Virgin Galactic, failure in the first fifty to one hundred launches—similar to the achieved level of reliability of the shuttle—will be considered too risky and fail.
Professor Dyson finishes with some speculative and fantastical ideas. His vision of a future universe teaming with “life” is one of the more fanciful. He imagines future space ventures where “the purpose is no longer to explore space with unmanned or manned missions, but to expand the domain of life from one small planet to the universe.”
We take issue with some of Professor Dyson’s assumptions and assertions. One is the limited sense he gives to “life.” It is unrealistic to think “life” in space is something we would recognize. Another fundamental objection is to the belief that the universe is open to mankind. Considering humans’ degradation of earth’s environment, failure to avoid pollution, climate change, and the inequality between people, which makes the days of the pharaohs seem positively philanthropic, this seems preposterous. We should have learned from the devastating impact of introducing species into new environments on earth.
As early as the 1960s it was recognized that space needs as much protection from earth-bound elements as the earth does from alien substances of outer space. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits space activities that cause harmful contamination of space or adverse changes to the environment of the earth. Effort is made not to pollute other planets with earthly bacteria, and the term “planetary protection” is now commonplace in space agency circles.
We also take issue with the term colonize. A fundamental principle of the 1967 treaty is that no state may appropriate any part of space by occupation, claim of sovereignty, or any other means. If mankind settles in space it cannot be claimed as a colony by any country.
Too many voices currently promote exploitation of space, with no concern for the havoc that could be wreaked on our planet as a result. We know virtually nothing about what exists in space, particularly beyond the solar system. A human-designed outer space “teeming with life and action” sounds like a nightmare out of Joseph Conrad.
London Institute of Space Policy and Law
Mullard Space Science Laboratory
University College London
Freeman Dyson replies:
My view of the future universe and the view expressed by Altmann, Mosteshar, and Smith show an interesting clash of cultures. Long ago, Shakespeare showed us the same clash of cultures in a more dramatic setting in his play Twelfth Night, Act 2, Scene 3.
Sir Toby Belch and his friends are disturbing the night with a loud celebration. Malvolio comes downstairs to silence them. Malvolio: “Do ye make an alehouse of my lady’s house, that ye squeak out your coziers’ catches without any mitigation or remorse of voice?” Sir Toby replies: “Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?”
In our views of the future universe, I see myself in the role of Sir Toby and my critics in the role of Malvolio. Two facts about our situation are indisputable. Life is infinitely adaptable, unpredictable, and uncontrollable. And the universe is unimaginably large. So there must always be small patches controlled by local Malvolios with their laws and treaties and enforcers and tax-gatherers. And outside there must always be huge stretches of ungovernable wilderness where Sir Toby and his friends are free to wander.
The finite speed of light ensures that no bureaucratic authority can be effective over large distances. Once life has escaped from this planet, it will be free to evolve and diversify as it pleases. We are a part of nature, and we will have the same freedom.
I am happy to hear views contrary to my own. I hope there will always be clashes of cultures. I hope there will always be Malvolios to engage Sir Toby’s wits. With thanks to my critics.