Violence without Caprice in ‘No-Art’

Leoartardo, Vol. 7,pp. 343-344. Pergamon Press 1974. Printed in Great Britain VIOLENCE WITHOUT CAPRICE IN ‘NOIART’ Boris Lurie* Lincoln Rothschild has written an article entitled ‘Violence and Caprice in Recent Art’ [l] in reply to ‘NO-Art: An American Psycho-social Phenomenon’ by Emmanuel K. Schwartz and Reta Shacknove Schwartz [2]. After reading his article, I, a NO-artist, wrote him a letter dated 17 January 1973stating: ‘...I do find that on severalquestions relating directlyto that movement your information is not fully correct. ...I would be most happy to meet you and give you some additional information on the subject.’ I received the following reply from him one week later: ‘As an artist who has extensive personal and organizational associations with other artists, I am highly respectful of what an artist does professionally and how it is motivated. It would be impossibly painful for me to challenge his creative practices, since they are so laboriously developed and deeply based in his personality. For the same reasons, however, the explanations he may offer sometimes do not fully explain the meaning of what he does, at least in terms of broad social contexts. As a careful student and teacher of art history, I have been especially interested in working out these relationships and patterns of influence. It may sound arrogant for me to say, from this knowledge and experience, that I understand what an artist is doing in ways he may not; but in view of modern discoveriesabout subconscious levelsof motivation, I believe it is perfectly justifiable. I would never try to alter an artist’s convictions, but as an art historian or critic, as well as an individual with my own inclinations and emotions, I can only write about what appear to me to be the realities, and point out misleading contradictions between what artists do and what they or their apologists say they are doing. It is very generous of you to offer your time in which to convey to me “some additional information” on the subject of your “movement”, but I have a fairly full schedule, and a discussion starting from scratch on a complex matter like this might not get very far. Perhaps, * Artist living at 543 East 6th Street, New York, NY 10009, Y.S.A. (Receivcd 22 Fcbruary 1973.) if you would write me some sort of outline indicating where my views are in error, the basis for a profitable discussion might appear.’ In reply to his letter I wrote: ‘Please let me emphasize that I by no means criticized your right and ability to write on art, but that I merely feel your article in Leonardo, as pertaining to the New York NO-artists, lacks certain purely factual information , in particular as to these artists’ relation to the art establishment with its fashion tendencies. ...Should you at any time be interested in meeting, I would be available.’ Since I have received no further reply from him, I have decided to list the following quotations that concern or interest me in his article and offer my comments for Leonardo readers : ‘Repeated insistence on the part of some contemporary artists that they have no explanation for the source or meaning of their impulsive productions would seem to favor the suggestion of a childish throwback‘ [3, p. 3251. There is no doubt from the context that NO-artists are included by his term ‘contemporary artists’. He is misinformed when he states that ‘they have no explanation’. NO-artists have made frequent statements on their thoughts, methods and aspirations in articles [4-51, published interviews [6-81 and exhibition catalogs and brochures [9-111. They are totally against mystification. ‘Reconstruction of society cannot be accomplished successfully by individuals who have not outgrown self-centered infantile emotionalism and are incapable of recognizing the need for disciplined patterns of productive cooperation’ [121. Here again he is misinformed. The NO-artists were highly organized: they held planned exhibitions on themes collectively decided upon in advance [13-151; they collaborated in producing works; they collectively pronounced their ideas [13-181. They never claimed to be actually reconstructing society. ‘But until the truly revolutionary character of the problem is recognized in terms...