the boss: on the unresolved question of authority in joseph beuys’ oeuvre and public image by jan...

8/7/2019 The Boss: On the Unresolved Question of Authority in Joseph Beuys’ Oeuvre and Public Image by Jan Verwoert

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-boss-on-the-unresolved-question-of-authority-in-joseph-beuys-oeuvre 1/16

Jan Verwoert

The Boss: Onthe UnresolvedQuestion ofAuthority inJoseph BeuysÕOeuvre andPublic Image

To be certain, art offers answers. Its strength,however, often lies in its unresolved problems. Inhis statements about his own work, JosephBeuys absolutely inundated his listeners andreaders with answers. As a consequence, theinner tensions and unanswered questions at theheart of his oeuvre are scarcely recognized. Anunconditional acceptance of BeuysÕ interpretiveauthority over his own practice has caused the

discourse surrounding the oeuvre to fail to touchon a central unresolved question within it: thequestion of authority itself. In order tounderstand the significance of BeuysÕ work in thecontext of the artistic and political debates ofthe 1960s and 1970s, however, it is crucial tograsp the inner conflicts and unresolvedcontradictions that run through it, as well as theway Beuys publicly performed the role of theartist with regard to this question of authority. Onthe one hand he incessantly attacked traditionalnotions of the authority of the work, the artist,

and the art professor, with his radical, liberating,and humorous opening up of the concept of artwith regard to what a work, an artist, or a teachercould still be and do beyond the functionsestablished by tradition, office, and title. On theother hand, however, it seems that in thepresentation of his own interpretative discourse,Beuys regularly fell back on the very tradition ofstaging artistic authority with which he wastrying to break.

I Like America and America Likes Me, 1974. Photo Copyright CarolineTisdall / Courtesy Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, New York

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊWhile he abolished the commonunderstanding of the artistÕs role anddemonstrated in his own practice that an artistcould be not only a sculptor or painter but also aperformer, politician, philosopher, historian,ethnologist, musician, and so on, he nonethelesshad recourse to a traditionally established rolemodel when projecting an image of himself to thepublic through the role of a visionary, spiritual

authority or healer in full agreement with themodern myth of the artist as a messianic figure.

01/16

08.20.10 / 16:20:52 UTC



Kukei , akopee Ð Nein!, 1964. © 2008 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn

08.20.10 / 16:20:52 UTC



While at one moment he provoked free and opendebate through perplexing, if not deliberatelyabsurd, actions that left himself open to attackas an artist, at the next moment he would bring adiscussion on the meaning of these provocationsback to orderly paths by seeking the seamlesslyorganized worldview of anthroposophy as anideological justification for his art practice. Onthe one hand, he gambled on everything that

traditionally secured the value, claim to validity,and hence authority of art and artists, while onthe other hand he assumed the traditionalpatriarchal position of the messianic proclaimerof ultimate truths.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThat Beuys sought such a role is affirmed inthe artistÕs own words. The style and content ofhis programmatic statements Ð the ceaselessexplanation of his art, the world, its problems,and their solutions Ð appear to be consistentwith the image he projects of himself as ashamanistic healer: he speaks with the authority

of a man who knows all the answers, and in doingso consolidates his auratic authority as an artistwith his message of salvation. Orthodoxinterpretations of BeuysÕ work accept thisauthority without reservations, and this makes acritical understanding of his work more difficult,if not impossible. In the following section, I willuse the example of one such orthodoxinterpretation to delineate the artistic andpolitical impasse that inevitably results fromsuch an understanding of BeuysÕ oeuvre. Incontrast to this, I will subsequently try todevelop an approach to understanding theproblem of auratic authority in BeuysÕ work andself-image through a close reading of selectedworks. Using several performances as examples,I intend to argue that the artistic quality andhistorical significance of BeuysÕ work are not, asthe common view would have it, based upon arealizing of his declared intentions, but ratherupon his staging of an unresolved conflictbetween the urge to demolish authoritariandefinitions of what artists are traditionallysupposed to be and the need to recoup certainaspects of fascination with the auratic authorityof the artistic act and the artistÕs role.

1. The Questionable Authority of the Artistas Healer

One revealing example of an art historicalinterpretation of BeuysÕ oeuvre that is whollyunder the spell of the artistÕs authority is foundin The Cult of the Avant-garde Artistby theAmerican critic Donald Kuspit. 1 Kuspit readsBeuysÕ entire practice through the image of theshamanistic healer that Beuys projected to thepublic, portraying him as the last representative

of the venerable tradition of avant-garde artistswho believed their task to be one of helping

humanity to heal the alienation of modern life (inKuspitÕs view, WarholÕs consent to alienationsealed the decline of that tradition). As evidencefor this interpretation, Kuspit quotes twoprogrammatic statements by Beuys: ÒMyintention: healthy chaos, healthyamorphousness in a known medium whichconsciously warmed a cold, torpid form from thepast, a convention of society, and which makes

possible future forms.Ó2

And in conclusion: ÒThisis precisely what the shaman does in order tobring about change and development: his natureis therapeutic.Ó 3 Now, the concept of healingraises a series of questions: whom does Beuysclaim to heal? And of what? By what means, andby whose authority? Kuspit answers thesequestions succinctly: the Germans, of thetrauma of national collapse, and through thehealing energy of an original, pagan creativitythat he taps, for them, by virtue of his authorityas healer.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊKuspit then proceeds to interpret NationalSocialism as an expression of exaggerated faithin technocratic rationality (and hence as anexemplary symptom of modern alienation),arriving at the conclusion that recovery from thepathologies of this strain of rationalism can onlybe achieved by liberating a Dionysian creativity ofthe very sort Beuys claimed to have released.Kuspit writes: ÒThe Germans had to be cured oftheir pathological belief in the authority ofreason, which they readily put before life itself.Ó 4

Beuys, the shamanistic healer, is thereafterportrayed as the antithesis of Hitler, thetechnocratic dictator: ÒBeuys was warm whereHitler was cold.Ó 5 This interpretation is bizarre.Nevertheless, it unfolds the logical implicationsof the concept of healing that Beuys established.The figure of the healer is messianic in nature,and is therefore of the same ilk as the messianicleader of men. A direct comparison thereforeseems obvious. On somewhat closer inspection,however, this juxtaposition necessarily leads to aresult that directly contradicts KuspitÕsinterpretation. The messianic goal of healingmodern man of his alienation by tappingprimordial forces does not distinguish Beuysfrom Hitler but links them. The assertion that theGerman people could be cured of the maladiescaused by the decline and decadence of modernculture through the rediscovery of their mythical,pagan (allegedly ÒAryanÓ) creative powers was,after all, the core of the ideology by which theNational Socialists justified their claim to power.The motto Ò Am Deutschen Wesen soll die Weltgenesen Ó (The German spirit shall heal the world)was taken to articulate the association of theidea of healing with just such an ideology. 6

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ

e-flux journal #1 Ñ december 2008 Ê Jan Verwoert

The Boss: On the Unresolved Question of Authority in Joseph BeuysÕ Oeuvre and Public Image

03/16

08.20.10 / 16:20:52 UTC



ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHowever, the fact that, in the course ofhistory, the idea of healing came to be associatedwith this particular ideology does not discreditBeuysÕ approach to it per se. The motif ofmythical healing Ð the notion that a rediscoveryof a mythical creativity would offer a cure to thealienations of modern society Ð has occupied acentral position in modern social criticism sinceearly Romanticism (at the latest). 7 In this form

and function the motif can be found in the workof many modern thinkers artists, including (asRŸdiger SŸnner has shown) Friedrich Schlegeland Nietzsche, as well as Helena Blavatsky (oneof the key figures of modern occultism, thefounder of theosophy, and an inspiration forRudolf Steiner). 8 If Beuys was enthusiastic aboutCeltic myth, for example, and saw James JoyceÕsFinnegans Wake to be the expression of theburied mythical, spiritual creativity of Ð as heliterally says Ð ÒIndo-AryanÓ culture, it iscertainly reasonable to assume that his use of

the term stems from authors such as Blavatsky.9

Channeled through authors such as Adolf Lanzand Guido von List, BlavatskyÕs teachings were,however, also a source of inspiration for Hitlerand Himmler, who developed the racial doctrineimplicit to some extent in theosophy into ajustification for their ÒvšlkischÓ (racist andnationalist) doctrine of national recuperation. 10

One application of the concept of healing cannotbe directly reduced to the other. Nevertheless, itcannot be denied that, seen in the context of thehistory of ideas, the idea of modern cultureÕsreturn to the supposedly mythical powers of apremodern culture was the impulse behind bothRomantic projects to reform life and NationalSocialist ideology. That this ideological aspect isnever really questioned or even acknowledged byBeuys and his orthodox interpreters (such asKuspit) exposes the limits of the interpretivediscourse Beuys established: he never submittedhis own key concepts to a critical, historicalanalysis.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊWhile he frequently dipped into the historyof ideas for his discourse, Beuys did notapparently feel compelled to consider the factthat ideas have specific histories Ð ones that, incertain instances, might make it necessary toreject them, and the traditions they have come tostand for. In his artistic practice, however, thecritical reconsideration of traditional forms wasat the heart of his approach. The postcard workManifest (Manifesto, 1985) offers a poignantslogan for this. In handwriting it reads:ÒManifesto the error already begins whensomeone is about to buy a stretcher and canvas.Joseph Beuys, November 1, 1985.Ó The absenceof a similarly critical approach to tradition in

BeuysÕ use of theoretical concepts may notultimately be that problematic in terms of the

content of the particular ideas he cites. Whatdoes have a significant bearing on the politics ofBeuysÕ overall practice is his adoption of aspeaking position that is inextricably bound tothe articulation of certain ideas preciselybecause this position is traditionally justified bythese ideas: the position of the messianicspeaker whose mythical authority is justified andauthenticated by the invocation of the idea of

primordial healing powers. The use of theconcept of healing is thus synonymous with thecreation of an unquestioned Ð and, by virtue ofits superior justification, also unquestionable Ðposition of power. However, if BeuysÕ liberatingapproach to conventions of sculpture and to thepossibility of art in general is understood asevidence of a critical attitude, it seems only fairto assume that the creation of such anunquestionable power position can hardly havebeen his primary concern. In positioning himselfas a speaker, then, it would even appear integral

to BeuysÕ practice to distance himself from thepower mechanisms at play.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊNo doubt, the desire for healing was animportant motif in BeuysÕ oeuvre. The question iswhether the specific way in which he dealt withthis desire in his work does indeed have aconsiderable artistic and historical significance,not because Beuys succeeded in being orbecoming the healer he purported to be, butprecisely because he (whether consciously or notis hard to say) allowed the inherentcontradictions of the concept of messianichealing to become manifest within his work. Oneexample to start with is BeuysÕ complexinterpretation of the motif of the Messiah inZeige Deine Wunde(Show Your Wounds, 1976). Inthe Christian tradition, the act of showing thewounds is the gesture by which Christ revealshimself to his disciples as the resurrectedMessiah. Strictly speaking, therefore, there canonly be one person who is entitled to show hiswounds: the Savior himself. The title of the work,however, is an appeal addressed to anotherperson. Beuys here effectively changes themonologue of messianic revelation into adialogue and thus multiplies the availablespeaking positions: anyone who feels addressedby the appeal is here invited to adopt themessianic position. This moment ofmultiplication is in fact also the primary formalcharacteristic of the installation. All of itselements are doubled. The central elements inthe work are two stretchers on wheels,underneath each of which a zinc box and anempty glass vessel are placed. Anyone whoencounters death or healing here does not do soalone. Death or convalescence is presented as an

existential experience in which our lives come tomirror each other. The claim to uniqueness



04/16

08.20.10 / 16:20:53 UTC



associated with the role of the Messiah is thuseroded linguistically in the title and literally inthe space of the installation.

2. The Problematic Reversal of the Roles ofPerpetrator and Victim

Admittedly, there may not be many moreexamples of Beuys so openly breaking away fromthe exclusive singularity of the Messianic role.

Still, the way in which he deals with the notion ofthe Messianic in his artworks never lackscomplexity. In fact, he continued to dwell on oneparticularly irresolvable ambiguity at the heart ofthe Messianic: to the extent that the Messiah ofthe Christian tradition redeems humanity bytaking its suffering upon himself, he becomesboth victim and savior, both sufferer and healer.It was precisely this double role that Beuys tookon in the performance I Like America and AmericaLikes Meof 1974. The performance began (if thereports are to be believed) with Beuys being

picked up at the airport in New York by anambulance and transported to the RenŽ BlockGallery. There he spent three days with a coyoteand, wrapped in a felt blanket and holding awalking stick upside down like a shepherdÕscrook, played the shamanistic healer andmessianic shepherd. As the patient or victim ofan unspecified accident, he had arranged to havehimself delivered to a space where he would thenturn himself into the healer.

I Like America and America Likes Me, 1974. Photo Copyright CarolineTisdall / Courtesy Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, New York

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAgain, the crucial question is: who isclaiming to heal whom of what (and by virtue ofwhat authority)? Since patient and healer are thesame person, one obvious way to understand theperformance is as an attempt at self-healing. Inthis sense, KuspitÕs interpretation of Beuystrying, as a German, to heal German culture by

tapping mythical sources of energy (representedhere by the coyote) would seem justified.

However, the highly problematic question thatthis interpretation leaves unanswered is: by whatright does this German claim to be not onlyhealer, but also patient and sufferer (if not evenvictim)? Victim of whom? Why would a German Ðin the historical wake of GermanyÕs responsibilityfor the crimes of the Holocaust and itsinstigation of two world wars Ð ever be entitledto play that role on an international stage? BeuysÕ

statements on the performance are no help: ÒIbelieve I made contact with the psychologicaltrauma point of the United StatesÕ energyconstellation: the whole American trauma withthe Indian, the Red Man.Ó 11 (The symptoms of theAmerican trauma, according to Beuys, manifestthemselves in the alienated culture ofcapitalism, represented in the performance byissues of The Wall Street Journal spread out onthe floor on which, as he recounts, the coyoteurinated now and again.) Despite the change ofgeographical context the problem with this

scenario of trauma and healing remains thesame. By interpreting the trauma of the genocidecommitted against the Native Americanpopulation as a trauma for the modern UnitedStates caused by this genocide, Beuysessentially declares perpetrators to be victims.In this picture, the supposedly painful alienationof the United States from its roots is given thesame status as the suffering of the victims ofgenocide, which fall out of the picture entirely.Though surely unintentional (and neverthelesseffective), murder is equated with a regrettabledestruction of nature. The historical victims haveno voice here. The coyote cannot complain.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAlmost inescapably, one feels compelled toread this constellation as a parable of theGerman situation and the exchange of roles asthe expression of BeuysÕ notoriously unclearposition in relation to the historic role and guiltof his own generation. Benjamin Buchloharticulated this criticism with all possibleharshness. In his essay ÒBeuys: The Twilight ofthe Idol,Ó Buchloh in principle accused Beuys ofdeliberately blurring the historical facts bymythologizing the concepts of suffering andhealing, thus of avoiding the question ofresponsibility. 12 The evidence that Buchloh offersof Beuys reversing the role of perpetrator andvictim is a particular passage from BeuysÕ often-cited wartime anecdote in which he describes hisrescue by Tartars after his bomber had been shotdown over the Crimea in winter 1943. Canonicalinterpretations of this story focus on the detailthat, as Beuys recounts, the Tartars rubbed himwith fat and wrapped him in felt to warm him,and therefore these materials (and warmth ingeneral) came to stand for the mythical principle

of healing found in his work. However, a crucialturn in this narrative that Buchloh concentrates

05/16

08.20.10 / 16:20:53 UTC



I Like America and America Likes Me, 1974. Photo Copyright Caroline Tisdall / Courtesy Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, New York

06/16

08.20.10 / 16:20:53 UTC



on is the TartarsÕ proposal that Beuys remainwith them: ÒÔDu nix njemcky Õ [You not German]they would say, Ô du Tartar Õ [you Tartar] andpersuade me to join their clan,Ó Beuys reported. 13

In this story, Beuys not only changes his identityfrom being a bomber pilot to a victim of the war;part of his healing is the absolution from hisorigin offered by the members of a mythicalpeople. Buchloh reads this scenario of

absolution as the symptomatic expression of acertain emotional condition in postwar Germany,namely the need of the German people to acquitthemselves of their recent crimes and of anunscrupulous readiness to do just that: ÒIn thework and public myth of Beuys the new Germanspirit of the postwar period finds its new identityby pardoning and reconciling itself prematurelywith its own reminiscences of a responsibility forone of the most cruel and devastating forms ofcollective political madness that history hasknown.Ó14

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIf we take the messianic role adopted byBeuys at face value, this criticism touches a sorespot. Surely, one could object that both Buchlohand Kuspit assume Beuys was acting as arepresentative for an entire nation, whereas formany years his actions de facto stood in crasscontradiction to the dominant cultural climate inGermany, which was aggressively hostile towardshim. This objection, however, would immediatelyhave to be countered by observing that, when headopted the messianic role, Beuys simplyconferred on himself the mandate to expresscollective needs. This position was affirmed first(as KuspitÕs book demonstrates) by hisinternational reception as an exemplary Germanartist (which also consolidated after some timein German academia). Against this backdrop, itwould indeed seem justified to see BeuysÕ oeuvreand the way he chose to play the role of anexemplary German artist in public as indicativeof a struggle to come to terms with Germanidentity. It remains nonetheless problematic thatneither Buchloh nor Kuspit makes any distinctionbetween his public image and his oeuvre,considering BeuysÕ position instead as anintegrated whole. They do not take intoconsideration, however, that more often than notin his work Beuys fails to fulfill the programmaticclaims that he asserts in his commentaries, ashis works always remain, in their crude materialspecificity and inner tensions, at least partiallyresistant to conclusive interpretations. Thisspecific failure is so crucial because it makesclear (if one is prepared to see it) that Beuys didmore in his art than simply illustrate, and thusconsolidate, preexisting ideologies.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊI Like America and America Likes Mestands

as an example of such a failure. Upon closerinspection, one would have to admit (despite

BeuysÕ own statement that he successfullytouched on a point of trauma) that his ritual ofhealing has carnivalesque, exaggerated features.The old European is delivered to a New Yorkgallery incognito and proceeds to emphaticallyperform obscure ceremonial gestures, posing asa pagan sorcerer wrapped in felt as if wearing acomplete carnival outfit. Meanwhile, the coyote,unmoved, just does as coyotes do Ð BeuysÕ

meaningful posing does not concern him; heinhabits a different world. This clearly delimitsthe allegorical meaning of the performance.Through everything he does, the coyotedemonstrates his utter indifference to theartistic allegory being constructed around himand, in doing so, destabilizes it. Thephotographic documentation of the performanceis somewhat misleading in that it makes theanimal look as if it were an integral part of onesingle overarching allegory. If, however, theperformance is understood as a performance Ð

that is, as a process that unfolds in space andtime Ð then this picture falls apart. It is only thenthat the particular fascination and comedicquality of the coyoteÕs presence during theperformance begins to emerge. The comedy liesin the situation: two unequal characters, forwhom communication constantly fails, somehowfind a way to deal with each other and with thefailure of their communication simply becausethey live together in close proximity. Anglo-American sitcoms about modern family lifefunction in much the same way. This comedy ofliving with the failure of communication,however, also has its tragic aspects. Itdemonstrates the impossibility of a symmetricalexchange between two divided worlds ofexperience. Yet still, a trace of utopia resides inthe pragmatism of the arrangement: whatcollective violence destroys, one person alonecannot heal. At best, one small thing or anothermay be resolved on the level of daily coexistence,but only if one side is prepared to face and livewith unclarified conditions.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe fact that Beuys exposed himself to, orprovoked, such unclarified situations could beunderstood in this sense to be precisely whatmakes up the quality of his art, irrespective of itsprogram. The fact that the boundaries betweenthe role of the perpetrator and the victim alsoremain unclarified is impossible to deny. Yet, ifone is prepared to see this confusion not simplyas a desperate attempt at self-vindication, itcould in fact also be read as a sign of the times.Consider for example the complex implicationsof the iconic pose Beuys adopted at the end ofthe out-of-control action Kukei, akopee Ð Nein!(Kukei, akopee, no! recorded in an eponymously

titled photograph by H. Riebesehl): during theFestival der Neuen Kunst in the auditorium of the



07/16

08.20.10 / 16:20:53 UTC



Technische Hochschule Aachen on July 20, 1964,a group of students (whom Caroline Tisdall hasdescribed as right-wing) stormed the stage toput a violent end to the Fluxus performanceBeuys was engaged in; during the ensuing scuffleBeuys received a bloody nose. His reaction to theviolence was to strike a pose in which heprovocatively embodied both victim andperpetrator. With a defiant stare and bloody

nose, he holds up a small crucifix to the audiencein his left hand while he extends his right arm ina Roman salute. It is not necessary, thoughpossible, to see this gesture as a variant on theNazi salute.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn one sense, BeuysÕ pose has an accusatorycharacter: he holds a mirror up to the students,interprets their violence as tendentially fascist,and presents himself as their victim. In anothersense, however, the pose is also clearlytriumphant. In combination with the Romansalute and the defiant gaze, the crucifix in his

outstretched arm conveys the message thatChrist shall be victorious. In the end, the martyr,here embodied by the bleeding artist, willprevail. Beuys thus intuitively drew on severalregisters of body language at the same time toproduce an impromptu pose of auratic authority,presenting himself as accuser, victor, and martyrall at once. The impromptu character of the pose,in turn, shows how Beuys, through freeimprovisation, managed to orchestrate the chaosthat he had himself provoked. The example of theevents in Aachen thus demonstratesimpressively the extent to which BeuysÕ artisticpractice is based on his intuitive ability toimprovise freely in unclarified situations, toabsorb the energies released in the situation,and manifest them in strong Ð if contradictory Ðgestures. Yet, the example also shows that thegestures he uses to manifest the absorbedtensions are taken from a repertoire of posturesfor the staging of auratic authority. One possibleexplanation of this may be that, whenimprovising, Beuys intuitively fell back onfamiliar gestures of authority that enabled him tocontrol the situation for the moment. If, however,we take into account the observation that Beuyswas not just displaying his own emotions but infact reflecting the tensions inherent in a givensituation, this suggests another conclusion:namely, that Beuys channeled the violentenergies of collective conflict over thefoundation of authority that was in the air at themoment.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe art of provocation lies in forcefullybringing about a debate over the legitimation ofauthority. Fluxus cultivated this art ofprovocation as a method. So did the incipient

culture of student protest in its successfulattempts to expose and dismantle the

authoritarian structures on which the NationalSocialists based their power, and which had notreally disappeared from daily life after thecollapse of the regime. The conflicts at theFluxus festival in Aachen thus marked ahistorical juncture in which particular artistictendencies coincided with general politicaldevelopments. The contestation of thelegitimacy of traditional structures of authority

and the question of the origin of fascist powerwere on peopleÕs minds. In a commentary on theevent in the Aachener Prisma newspaper thatyear titled ÒEine gutgemeinte PanneÓ (A well-meant mishap), the author Dorothea Solleaccordingly interpreted the events as a flaring upof fascist violence brought on not only by therampaging students, but equally by theaggressive irrationality of Fluxus performersÕactions. 15 Still, it would be too simplistic tointerpret the outbreak of violence as a momentof cathartic release. This interpretation would

suggest that something had been resolved in thesituation when, ultimately, the reverse seems tohave been the case. After the festival had ended,Beuys apparently discussed what had takenplace with students until two in the morning. 16 Itseems unlikely that they arrived at a conclusion.Nevertheless, a collective experience had beenarticulated. On the one hand, BeuysÕ actionstherefore need to be seen in the context of thecritique of dominant structures of authority thatthe Fluxus performers gathered at the festivalput into practice by destroying the conventionsof authoritative (in the sense of being awe-inspiring) musical stage performances. On theother hand, BeuysÕ martial poses also reflectedthe desire of the rioting students to see authorityrestored. They got the FŸhrer-savior theywanted, if only in the form of a reflexive,inherently contradictory theatrical pose.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIf one takes the Fluxus festival in Aachen asexemplary, one could argue that the manner inwhich Beuys made his contribution to thehistorically powerful critique of traditionalstructures of authority was more intuitive andimprovisational than most. The quality of thiscontribution could then be understood to lieprecisely in his capacity to improvise inunclarified situations and, in this process, toevoke, absorb, and manifest the prevailingtensions. This surely is not an excuse for hismythmaking and the afore-cited confusedstatement concerning the trauma of theperpetrators (in the North-American context).Still, it might help to explain the role Beuys mayhave played for his generation by articulating in asimilarly improvisational way its collectiveexperience of not being able to determine the

relationship between their own share in theblame and their trauma suffered during the war.



08/16

08.20.10 / 16:20:53 UTC



Beuys was equally incapable of resolving thisproblem. Whether it has ever been resolved, or ifit can be resolved at all, remains doubtful. Onemight actually go so far as to argue, withBuchloh, that not only was the mythologizing ofwar trauma an expression of the desire to grantoneself absolution, but that, mutatis mutandis ,the German postwar intelligentsiaÕs emphaticallyconscientious manner of reckoning with the past

may have equally been such a technique, as ifserious reckoning would enable one to make aclean break with the past and switch from theside of the accused to that of the accusers. Areal effort to grapple with the experience of thevictims of the crimes this is not. In general, itworth exploring at what point exactly Germanartists and intellectuals began to go beyond self-criticism and self-mirroring and instead activelyconfronted the outside perception and criticalassessment of German history and identity inother countries. BeuysÕ later travels and

discussion workshops in Europe and Americamay have offered a forum for precisely that. Butwhether he listened long enough to others inthese discussions to absorb their experience orsimply propagated his own truths is a differentquestion altogether.

3. The Strategic Debate over InterpretiveAuthority on the Threshold of a NewUnderstanding of Art

Seen in its historical context, BeuysÕ positionmarked a crucial threshold precisely because ofits inner contradictions: politically, Beuys foundinspiration in the incipient culture of studentprotest to challenge the attitude of his owngeneration and to attack the structures ofmythical authority that made Nazi Germanypossible, though without being able to overcomethem entirely. Artistically, he also stood at anepochal threshold that he was never really ableto fully cross. Buchloh describes this set ofproblems very accurately as well. In ÒBeuys: TheTwilight of the Idol,Ó he locates BeuysÕ work in thecontext of the decisive artistic developments ofthe 1960s Ð by incorporating everyday objectsand industrial materials into his repertoire,Beuys, parallel to Minimal and Pop art, took astep toward the radical materialist aesthetic thatwould influence contemporary art from the1960s onward. At the same time, however, asBuchloh convincingly demonstrates, Beuys didnot draw the same consequences from this stepthat his contemporaries did. In finally realizingthe implications of Marcel DuchampÕs use of thereadymade, Buchloh argues, Minimal and Pop artcontributed, in the spirit of a criticallyreductionist positivism of Anglo-American

provenance, to the disenchantment of the workof art and dismantling of myths Ð myths that, in

the tradition of Old Europe, had ensured artÕsaura. Yet it was precisely this tradition thatBeuys revived by tapping its mythologies in orderto provide his art and persona with their magic.About to cross the threshold to the present,Beuys, it seems, turned his back to the futureand stepped back into the lost past of OldEurope.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBuchloh thus takes the nature of BeuysÕ

self-interpretations as evidence of a reactionaryposition within the framework of the artisticdevelopments of the 1960s: instead ofdeveloping a contemporary analyticalunderstanding (based on DuchampÕs findings) ofhow artifacts obtain significance in art via thecontext of their presentation, intertextual cross-references, and the open play of theirinterpretation, Beuys, according to Buchloh,restored the traditional one-dimensional modelof the authoritative attribution of meaningthrough the declaration of the artistÕs intention:

Ò[Beuys] dilutes and dissolves the conceptualprecision of DuchampÕs readymade byreintegrating the object into the most traditionaland naive context of representation of meaning,the idealist metaphor: this object stands for thatidea, and that idea is represented in thisobject.Ó 17

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThis criticism of BeuysÕ interpretivediscourse is no doubt completely justified. Again,however, the question remains: to what extentdoes the problematic character of BeuysÕ self-interpretations truly affect his artistic practice?One could even go so far as to accuse BuchlohÕsown critique of clinging, in a sense, to the verysame one-dimensional model that he attributesto Beuys. After all, Buchloh himself alsopresumes an identity of intention and artworkwhen he dismisses the work in the name ofBeuysÕ stated intentions rather than subjectingthe work to a more precise reading irrespectiveof what the artist may have said.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThis is by no means an isolated problem. Inrelation to the artistic practices of the 1960s, therelationship between artistsÕ statements abouttheir work and the actual work has generally notbeen investigated as critically as it probablyshould be. Beuys is far from being the only artistwho intentionally sought to impose a certainmeaning on his work. In fact, particularly in thecontext of early conceptual art, artistsaggressively used interpretation as a strategy.The interpretative practice of Art & Language andthe artist Joseph Kosuth, who was for a timeassociated with the group, is symptomatic in thisregard. The performative contradiction betweenthe content of their statements and the way theyrelate them to their work is even more flagrant

than it is in BeuysÕ own practice. Kosuth and Art& Language legitimized their work and imbued it



09/16

08.20.10 / 16:20:53 UTC



I Like America and America Likes Me, 1974 (arrival by stretcher). © 2008 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn

with an awe-inspiring air of authority by citingnot myths, but the entire tradition of analyticalphilosophy (of language), only to declare Ð inutter contradiction with the complex semanticmodels that this tradition offers Ð a one-to-onecorrespondence between this philosophicalcontent and their artÕs meaning. 18 They identifiedcritical theory with the literal meaning and thecontent of conceptual art with the same na vetŽ

that Buchloh detects in BeuysÕ discourse.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIf anything, the crude Neo-Platonism thatKosuth propagates when he claims in his essayÒintension(s)Ó that conceptual art can make anartistÕs intentions immediately transparent cancertainly be considered naive. 19 At the sametime, the insistence on the authority of the artistto determine the meaning of his or her work is,for Kosuth, part and parcel of a critical reflectionon the power politics of interpreting art. Heidentifies the practice of artists makingstatements about their own work as a strategic

practice geared towards disputing theinterpretive authority of critics and historiansand shifting the power balance in the artistÕsfavor. Kosuth writes: Òart historians and criticsplay an important role in the struggle of theworkÕs Ôcoming to meaningÕ in the world. But thatis the point: they represent the world. That is

why a defining part of the creative processdepends on the artists to assert their intentionsin that struggle. One of the greatest lessonsdefending the primacy of the intention of theartist, and the increasing importance of writingby artists on their work, is provided by this periodof the sixties.Ó 20

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊMotivated by power politics, the mainreason for artists to offer their own

interpretations would thus be in the interest ofeliminating the middleman. In this spirit, Kosuthquotes one of his own statements about the workof Art & Language in the journal Art-Languagefrom 1970: ÒThis art both annexes the function ofthe critic, and makes a middlemanunnecessary.Ó 21 It seems fair to assume thatBeuys Ð perhaps less consciously, but all themore effectively for that reason Ð realized thehistorical opportunity which Kosuth articulatesto use the propagation of his own interpretationsas a means to reinforce his own position of

authority vis-ˆ-vis critics and historians. Theincreasing media interest in (his) art offered him(and not only him) an excellent platform for that.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAgainst this backdrop, viewing BeuysÕpractice of interpreting his own work as astrategic gesture can perhaps enable us to moreaccurately describe its function in relation to his

10/16

08.20.10 / 16:20:53 UTC



other artistic activities Ð namely, as a praxis inits own right. As such, it is not situated on somemeta-level but on the very same level as theother manifestations of BeuysÕ work Ð as aparallel practice. In this context, BeuysÕparticipation in the founding of various politicalinitiatives and utopian institutions, such as theFree International University he cofounded withHeinrich Bšll in 1971, for instance, could equally

be seen as a gesture that matters in its own rightÐ as an expansion of the concrete possibilities ofartistic practice irrespective of any ideologicalprogram. 22 Founding institutions thus becomesone artistic medium among others. Seen in thislight, BeuysÕ practice of speaking publicly shouldbe treated not as a metadiscourse on his art butas an artistic medium sui generis. BeuysÕstatements could therefore be regarded ashaving the status of material that he produced inparallel with other material. The chalkboardswith scribbled lecture notes strewn on a stage

constructed of wooden pallets in the installationRichtkrŠfte (Directional forces, 1974Ð77) offer agraphic example of this. Discourse becomesmaterial, loads of material. And, because of thesheer number of chalkboards and the simple factthat some boards cover others in the pile, thesheer accumulation of material makes it partiallyillegible. The fascination with the material thencould be seen to lie less in its ideological contentthan in the immanent tension between itslegibility and its opacity as material.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊOf course, this defense of the installationcontradicts BeuysÕ own interpretative discourseand declared intentions in its application of aconcept of material derived from the school ofAnglo-American criticism. Against the backdropof KosuthÕs reflections, this interpretation couldsurely also be read as a criticÕs strategic attemptto reclaim some ground in the battle for theauthority to interpret a work. If interpretation isunderstood as an antagonistic practice, thenindeed no speakerÕs position within this field isneutral. It therefore seems necessary toexplicate, if it is not already obvious, the positionfrom which the author of this essay speaks: incontrast to the apodictic gesture of BeuysÕ ownstatements (and the statements of his orthodoxdefenders and intimate enemies), the gesture ofthis essay is probably more that of unfolding aform of reflexivity from a position of historicaland rhetorical distance. In terms of style, thisreflexive speaking position may be typical of a(my) generation, whose experience of thepatriarchal artistic gestures of BeuysÕ generationis already mediated by the interveninggenerationÕs struggle with the same gestures. Inother words, a more distanced reflection seems

possible today because the need and necessityto position oneself ÒwithÐalongsideÐagainstÓ 23

Beuys is no longer as strongly felt as it may havebeen by the previous generation, which wasimmediately confronted with his persona.Buchloh belongs to the latter generation, as doesmy father, Walter Verwoert, who was one ofBeuysÕ first students. While Buchloh seems tohave experienced ÊBeuysÕ manner of embodyingthe role of the (German) artist in the internationalart world as unbearably reactionary, my father

describes his experience with Beuys as a teacherat the Kunstakademie DŸsseldorf in the early1960s as radically liberating in artistic, personal,and political terms. The reasoning in this essay isborn out of a desire to reflect on these opposedpositions rather than from a need to take oneside or the other.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe freedom in approaching his workcreated by the distance of one generation is of apeculiar nature. You could liken it to the situationof the coyote in I Like America and America LikesMe: Beuys is present. That is undeniable. But

because the horizon of a common language hasdisappeared, there is no prescribed protocol forengaging with that presence. In this situation,critique could perhaps be a medium forcreatively developing a certain form ofconviviality Ð that is, a way to live in the presentwith the spectral presence of a figure whocontributed decisively to shaping this presentbut did so without ever fully entering it. This formof conviviality need neither be peaceful norintimate. Photographs of the action show thecoyote biting BeuysÕ felt robe and tearing at it inone moment, only to accept his presence in theroom and return to going about his own businessin the next. Perhaps this could serve as a modelfor the further reception of BeuysÕ work.

4. The Still Unresolved Question ofAuthority in Artistic Practice: The Boss

Independent of this experience of historicaldistance, however, certain unresolved questionsin BeuysÕ work have not lost their relevance, andneither have the artistic means through whichBeuys channeled these questions andmanifested their problematic implications. Thequestions concern the foundation for authorityitself: have we ever fully understood whatgenerated the fascination with the auraticauthority of the messianic leader that madefascism possible in its various manifestations inGermany, Austria, Italy, and Spain? To whatextent have we succeeded in distancingourselves from a fascination that enduresdespite all we have learned since? This is athorny issue not only in art but very much also inintellectual discourse. It could be argued that inthis field (even, or perhaps especially, in the

tradition of leftist political engagement), theability to project a certain auratic authority is a



11/16

08.20.10 / 16:20:53 UTC



basic prerequisite for making your voice heard inthe public debate. To the extent that the claimnot only to act and speak in oneÕs own name butto also hope to act and speak for others is acondition of artistic practice and intellectualdiscourse, this form of practice and discourse assuch will necessarily generate an aura ofexemplary action or speech. The question of whyÐ by virtue of what authority Ð someone could

legitimately hope to act or speak on behalf ofothers (on behalf of the general public or simplyon behalf of an unknown number of people whoperhaps have similar feelings) is therefore aquestion that persistently haunts artisticpractice and intellectual discourse Ð especiallysince certain catastrophes of modernity calledthe legitimacy of auratic authority into question.On a constitutive level, the justification for oneÕsown practice and discourse as an artist andintellectual is challenged by this unresolvedquestion.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊWith particularly pointed humor, Beuysacknowledged the implications of this questionin the performance ……-Programm(1967). At anorientation event at the KunstakademieDŸsseldorf, he welcomed the new students bytaking a stand at the microphone, an ax in hishand, uttering inarticulate sounds for minutes.On the following day the DŸsseldorfer Expresstitled its report on the event ÒProfessor bellt insMikrofonÓ (Professor Barks into theMicrophone). 24 Short and succinct, thatdescribes the situation. 25 By turning the officialoccasion of an address by the academy staff intoan absurd event, Beuys deliberately subjectednot only himself but also the office andauthoritative speaking position of the professorto mockery. At the same time, however, he alsoexposed the foundation of this authority: as aprofessor it was within his power to do suchthings. By carrying an ax, he intensified thisambiguity even further. If one recognizes the axas an attribute of power, it is impossible not tosee the parallel to the axes wrapped in rods thatthe lictors (the bodyguards of Roman consuls)carried as a symbol of their authority. The namefor these rods Ð fasces Ð is considered to be onepossible origin of the term fascism. If we alsotake Òbarking into the microphoneÓ to be anexpression that describes the style of HitlerÕspublic addresses conspicuously well, BeuysÕaction could indeed also be understood as acaricature of the dictator. Rather than deny thestructural authority that accrued in his role asprofessor (for example, by appearing as anemphatically liberal pedagogue), Beuys exposesthis structural authority in a deliberatelyexaggerated way and demonstrates its

complicity with forms of mythical authority.Given the obvious absurdity of the presentation,

it seems fair to assume that he did it with theidea of pushing his authority to its limits andthus instigate resistance Ð for example, byprovoking laughter.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAs its title makes unmistakably clear, theperformance Der Chef (Fluxus Gesang)(The Chief[Fluxus song], 1964), was another occasion onwhich Beuys openly addressed the question ofauthority, here adding a particular twist. The

length of the performance was specified to equalthe duration of an ordinary workday, and over thecourse of eight hours from 4 p.m. to midnight heperformed the job of embodying authority. Heappeared, rolled up in a felt blanket, in one of theexhibition spaces of the Galerie RenŽ Block inBerlin. The space could be looked into, but notentered, from the adjoining room. Hidden insidethe blanket, Beuys could not be seen, only heard.He had a microphone with him, and at irregularintervals would make inarticulate sounds thatwere amplified via a PA system. This noise

performance was interrupted periodically by acomposition by Henning Christiansen and EricAndersen played from tape. Two dead hares layat either end of the rolled up felt blanket. Otherprops from BeuysÕ repertoire (copper rod, fatcorner, fingernails, etc.) were placed all over theroom to identify it as a space for ceremonialactivities. In the announcement for the event,Beuys stated that Robert Morris would carry outthe same performance simultaneously in NewYork. To my knowledge, it has never beenconfirmed that this actually happened. Theannouncement may well have been a joke madeat MorrisÕ expense, since MorrisÕ own elegantlysober, analytically self-reflexive use of felt wascertainly being undercut here by Beuys, whosubjected the same material to a protracted,wearisome, and on the whole not very elegantprocess.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn accordance with BeuysÕ own mythology,the performance could certainly be interpretedas an attempt to relive the experience of hishealing on the Crimea. Yet this interpretationneither accounts for the title of the action, nor itstime limit based on a workday, nor the centralrole that the PA system plays in the performance.If we take into consideration the historicalresonance that the act of Òbarking into themicrophoneÓ had in the action ……-Programm, itis perhaps not too farfetched to see a parallel inDer Chef : the performance is centered aroundthe experience of loudspeakers giving theguttural voice of an unseen speaker an uncannyphysical presence in a room. This experienceeffectively resembles that of hearing propagandaspeeches on the so-called VolksempfŠnger , theÒpeopleÕs radio,Ó introduced into the German

family home by the Nazis, the novelty of whichvery likely made for a formative media



12/16

08.20.10 / 16:20:53 UTC



experience for an entire generation. If we assumethat the distortion of the speeches by poor radioreception would have been a regular feature ofthat experience, then the indistinct mufflednoises from the PA system (and its irregularinterruption by music) would be,phenomenologically speaking, an echo of thisexperience. The ÒChefÓ is in that sense also theÒFŸhrer.Ó

Der Chef , 1964. © 2008 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / VGBild-Kunst, Bonn

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn a grotesque and highly pointed manner,Beuys thus frames the experience of the auratic.Walter Benjamin characterized this experienceas one of Òproximity with simultaneousdistance.Ó It is precisely this fascinatingcontradiction that Beuys foregrounds on severallevels in his performance: his voice filled theroom, while the source was nowhere to be found.The artist was the focus of attention, yetremained invisible, rolled up in a felt blanketthroughout the duration of the event. Due to hisprevious appearances in the media, the Der Chef performance brought a number of visitors to thegallery, according to contemporaneous reports. 26

For the duration of the exhibition, these visitorswere, however, forced to stay in the neighboringroom. They could see what was happening butremained barred from direct physical access tothe event. The partial closing-off of theperformance space from the space for theaudience created distance, and at the same timeincreased the attraction of the artistÕs presence.He was present acoustically and physically aspart of a piece of sculpture, but he was alsoabsent, invisible, untouchable, and this stagingof simultaneous presence and absence made hisstage presence particularly auratic.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe title further reinforced this ambiguity ofproximity and distance. On the one hand, it

designates the leader at the top of a hierarchy.On the other hand, however, in colloquial German

the word Chef Ð like jefe in Spanish and boss inAmerican English Ð is equally used to joviallyaddress a coworker. This double entendre lent ahumorous quality to the title. Still, it did notreally deflate the authority associated with theterm Chef but, when seen in conjunction with theperformance, rather auraticized Êit: on the onehand, Beuys was the highlighted artisticpersonality, art professor, and incipient media

star who could only be perceived from afar. Onthe other, he was also the ÒcoworkerÓ who Òdidhis jobÓ for eight hours and made it knownthrough moaning and groaning noises how hardhe was Òslaving away.Ó That was bound to createsympathy and proximity. This simultaneity ofdistance and proximity gave the artist his auraticauthority in his role as ÒChef.Ó Political leaderstraditionally create an aura Ð that is, theappearance of absolute credibility Ð in ananalogous way by presenting themselves asidealized, powerful paternal figures and

simultaneously as approachable Òmen of thepeople.ÓÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe crucial thing, however, is that Beuys didnot simply produce an aura of authority but thathe also exhibited the material conditions of itsproduction in all their crudity, and exposed thecontradictions inherent in this process in all theirobvious absurdity. In this way, Beuyssimultaneously constructed and dismantled anaura of authority. The performance constitutedan event. Its eventful qualities were, however,simultaneously also reduced to a minimum Ð notmuch happened. A man lay wrapped in a blanketbetween two dead hares and made strangenoises for hours. The scaling down of theperformance to an activity that could scarcely beperceived as an activity at all, the stretching andexpanding of time, the death rattles from underthe blanket, and the overall gravity of the mise-en-sc•ne in general creates a peculiar regressiveatmosphere. Very much in line with the analysisof auratic authority that Werner Herzogdeveloped in his films, Beuys here tooforegrounds the peculiar regressive pull(Freudians would call it the Òdeath driveÓ)inherent in the peculiar gravitas of auraticauthority Ð a pull that equally also creates itslimitation, in that its own weightiness sooner orlater weights auratic authority down and brings itto the point of collapse. And indeed, in Der Chef Beuys staged the mechanisms producing thisauratic authority together with the event of itsslow collapse.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊDer Chef could thus be understood toexpose and exorcize, in a pointed manner, thefascination with auratic authority thatconstituted a crucial historical condition for the

possibility of fascism. Admittedly, Beuys did notperform this act of exposing and exorcizing from



13/16

08.20.10 / 16:20:53 UTC



a distanced position. Rather, he lived through itphysically and thus, in a symptomatic way,manifested its unresolved contradictions.Beyond the discussion of historical conditions,however, the fact that Beuys chose an immanentposition from which to work through theproblems of auratic authority brings us back tothe question raised earlier, namely, whethercertain structures and contradictions of the

auratic are not structurally inherent to artisticpractice. A structural feature of art practice, forinstance, that Beuys deals with in Der Chef , isnot only the adoption of the position of an auraticspeaker but also the ascription of that positionto the artist through the expectations of theaudience: Beuys came to Berlin and peopleexpected an event. By appearing in public, butmaking himself invisible, Beuys both satisfiedand frustrated their expectations. The aura thatBeuys generated around himself by virtue of thisstrategy became a means as well as a medium to

both protect himself against and play with theseexpectations: to throw them into relief andchange them.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe fact that this attempt to renegotiate therelationship between artist and audience is,moreover, formalized as an eight-hour workday,potentially turns the performance into a parableof the constitutive tensions between the privateand public that define artistic or creative work ingeneral. As is a form of work that traditionallytakes shape under conditions marked byextremes of self-isolation (in the studio, at adesk, in nature) and the act of making oneselfpublic (in exhibitions, actions, publications),certainly there are other approaches to artpractice based on participation. But experienceshows that they too require a certain moment ofisolation and concentration that allows forcollective action to be planned and forces to begathered. A fascinating aspect of Der Chef is thatBeuys does not in fact treat isolation andpublicness as polar opposites, but asinseparable qualities of a single action. The self-isolation inside the felt roll takes place in public.Kept at bay spatially on the one hand, andaddressed through the loudspeakers on theother hand, the public is simultaneouslyexcluded and included. In this situation, themicrophone and PA system become the mediumthat establishes the relation between isolationand a publicness. In this sense, Der Chef can beread as a parable of cultural work in a publicmedium. The authority of those who dare Ð or areso bold as Ð to speak publicly results from thefact that they isolate themselves from the gazeof the public, under the gaze of the public, inorder to still address it in indirect speech,

relayed through a medium. What is constituted inthis ceremony is authority in the sense of

authorship, in the sense of a public voice. In Der Chef , Beuys stages the creation of such a publicvoice as an event that is as dramatic as it isabsurd. He thus asserts the emergence of such avoice as an event. At the same time, however, healso undermines this assertion through thelamentably powerless form by which this voice isproduced: in emitting half-smotheredinarticulate sounds that would have remained

inaudible without electronic amplification. Thisperformance offers no answers. But it articulatesthe unresolved crux of a question that deeplyconcerns both art and politics: by virtue of whatauthority is it possible to embody a voice in thepublic and for the public?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ×



14/16

08.20.10 / 16:20:53 UTC



Jan Verwoert is an art critic based in Berlin. He is acontributing editor at Frieze and writes regularly aboutcontemporary art for magazines such as Afterall andMetropolis M. He teaches in the Fine Arts MA programat the Piet Zwart Institute, Rotterdam.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ1Donald Kuspit, The Cult of theAvant-garde Artist (New York:Cambridge University Press,1993).

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ2Ibid., 93.




ÊÊÊÊÊÊ6The motto comes from a line inthe poem ÒDeutschlands BerufÓ(1861) by the Romantic poetEmanuel Geibel (1815-1884).Geibel invokes here the spirit ofGerman rationalism as amediating force he believes cancreate peace and politicalstability in Europe. In its later,more notorious application,however, the phrase came to beassociated with Germancolonialism and with the Naziideology of racial superiority.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ7The philosopher Jean-Luc Nancydescribes very pointedly thismodern design for self-healingby tapping a supposedlysovereign creativity of mythformation:

Romanticism itself could bedefined as the invention ofthe scene of the foundingmyth, as the simultaneousawareness of the loss of thepower of this myth, and asthe desire or the will toregain this living power of

the origin and, at the sametime, the origin of thispower.... This formulation infact defines, beyondromanticism and evenbeyond romanticism in itsNietzschean form, a wholemodernity: the whole of thatvery broad modernityembracing, in a strange,grimacing alliance, both thepoetico-ethnologicalnostalgia for an initialmything humanity and thewish to regenerate the oldEuropean humanity byresurrecting its mostancient myths, including therelentless staging of thesemyths: I am referring, ofcourse, to Nazi myth.ÊÊÊÊÊÊJean-Luc Nancy, ÒMythInterrupted,Ó in The InoperativeCommunity , trans. Peter Connor,Lisa Garbus, Michael Holland,and Simona Sawhney(Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 1991), 45Ð46.See 43Ð70.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ8RŸdiger SŸnner, SchwarzeSonne: Entfesselung undMissbrauch der Mythen inNationalsozialismus und rechter Esoterik (Freiburg im Breisgau:Herder Spektrum, 1999), 34-35.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ9See Gštz Adriani, WinfriedKonnertz, and Karin Thomas,Joseph Beuys: Life and Work(New York: BarronÕs, 1979), 29.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ10SŸnner, Schwarze Sonne , 36n7.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ11Quoted in Caroline Tisdall,Joseph Beuys (New York:Thames and Hudson, 1979), 228.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ12Benjamin Buchloh, ÒBeuys: TheTwilight of the Idol,Ó originallypublished in Artforum18, no. 5(1980): 35Ð43; quoted here fromJoseph Beuys: Mapping theLegacy , ed.Gene Ray (New York:D.A.P., 2001), 199Ð211.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ13Tisdall, Joseph Beuys , 17n10.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ14Buchloh, ÒBeuys,Ó 203n11.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ15Aachener Prisma 13, no. 1(November 1964): 16Ð17, quotedin Adriani, Konnertz, andThomas, Joseph Beuys , 112n8.


ÊÊÊÊÊÊ17Buchloh, ÒBeuys,Ó 206n11.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ18A perfect example of this is to befound in KosuthÕs text ÒArt afterPhilosophyÓ (1969), in whichKosuth, in the best Hegelianmanner, declared his art to bethe historically necessaryendpoint of the history ofphilosophy since Kant, and hisworks to be direct, transparentillustrations of these lines ofthought; see Joseph Kosuth, Artafter Philosophy and After;Collected Writings, 1966Ð1990,ed. Gabriele Guercio (Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1991).

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ19Joseph Kosuth, Òintention(s),Óoriginally published in ArtBulletin 78, no. 3 (September1996): 407Ð12; quoted here fromConceptual Art: A CriticalAnthology , ed. Alexander Alberroand Blake Stimson (Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1999), 460Ð68.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ20

Ibid., 462.ÊÊÊÊÊÊ21Ibid., 464.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ22These included the DeutscheStudentenpartei (GermanStudentsÕ Party, 1967), theOrganisation fŸr NichtwŠhler,freie Volksabstimmung(Organization for Nonvoters,Free Plebiscite, 1970), theOrganisation fŸr DirekteDemokratie durchVolksabstimmung (Organizationfor Direct Democracy byPlebiscite, 1971), the FreeInternational University (1971)

cofounded with Heinrich Bšll,and his participation in the



15/16

08.20.10 / 16:20:53 UTC



discussions of the founding ofthe German Green Party (1979).

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ23ÒMit-Neben-GegenÓ (With-Alongside-Against) was the titleof an exhibition of works byBeuysÕ students at theFrankfurter Kunstverein in 1976.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ24Express (DŸsseldorf) December1, 1967; quoted from BarbaraLange, Joseph Beuys:

RichtkrŠfte einer neuenGesellschaft (Frankfurt am Main:Reimer, 1999), n. p., fig. 3.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ25After a lecture on the presenttopic, a Beuys discipleinstructed me (with an authoritythat tolerated no dissent) thatthe action ……-Programmwasnot in fact about the question ofauthority but rather, as Beuyshimself had said, ademonstration of (if I remembercorrectly) a Mongolian techniquefor articulation, and at the sametime an illustration of thecreative process of forming thequintessentially unformed byarticulating the still unformed.The only reaction that occurredto me was a standard line by theRhenish cabaret artist JŸrgenBecker: ÒWell, you know morethan I do there.Ó

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ26See Wolf VostelÕs description ofthe action in Adriani, Konnertz,and Thomas, Joseph Beuys ,120n8. Among other things,BeuysÕs provocative statementthat the Berlin Wall would haveto be raised five centimeters toimprove its proportions hadcertainly made him a mediafigure by this time. When he leftthe room at the end of theperformance, that statementwas apparently the subject ofthe first question posed bysomeone in the audience.



16/16

the boss: on the unresolved question of authority in joseph beuys’ oeuvre and public image by jan...

Documents