artists

The Original: Doing the Elastic Tango With Sturtevant

She put art history on repeat, now she has the Internet on shuffle
mg 5065 e1336515393456 The Original: Doing the Elastic Tango With Sturtevant

Installation view of "Elastic Tango" (2011) by Sturtevant. (Courtesy the artist and Gavin Brown's Enterprise)

LAST WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, a slight woman with grey hair styled in a short, spiky, pixie-ish cut was sitting on a sofa at the West Village gallery Gavin Brown’s Enterprise, overseeing the installation of a three-part video piece she made that features short clips from television and the Internet, including flags waving, preachers preaching, Betty Boop singing, a frog jumping and a couple ballroom dancing. She is 82 years old and commanding. Her name is Elaine Sturtevant, but she prefers to be called Sturtevant. That’s what it says on the announcement card for her exhibition, which features a close-up of the face of an inflatable sex doll. Sturtevant.

When Sturtevant tells you to write something down, you write it down. “You should write that down!” she said to us. Here is what we wrote down: “It’s trying to give power to words and to articulate visibilities.” She was talking about the video installation, called Elastic Tango. “I decided that taking video and producing that into a theater piece only by visuals would create a very dynamic piece of art,” she said. “There are three acts; it’s very classical.”

It’s strange listening to someone talking about words when you’re writing. “So you take words and you make them thought,” Sturtevant continued. “My show at the Museum of Modern Art in Paris did that extremely well, so that the visuals carried all the weight, and they articulated the thinking.” Sturtevant lives in Paris. Things are going well for her in Europe. She currently has a retrospective at the Moderna Museet in Stockholm; it’s the latest in a number of major European museum exhibitions she has had over the past decade.

Sturtevant is a thief, and a very wily one. Ask people about her, and this is what you’re likely to hear: an interviewer once demanded Warhol reveal how he made his silk-screened paintings. “I don’t know,” he deadpanned. “Ask Elaine.” He wasn’t joking. Sturtevant made Warhol flower paintings shortly after he did, in 1964, using screens that he willingly supplied. She did his Marilyns soon after. She went on to repeat pieces by Duchamp, Lichtenstein, Oldenburg, Beuys, Stella.

Recently, one of Sturtevant’s early films, a 1972 work called Warhol’s Empire State, has been screening nightly on the High Line. It’s a refilming of Warhol’s eight-hour film Empire, a static shot of the Empire State Building. You watch the Sturtevant film on an outdoor screen, so that if you move a bit you see the actual Empire State Building. Watching Sturtevant’s film, High Line curator Cecilia Alemani wrote over e-mail, is “like being lost in a hall of mirrors, in a continuous play of refractions between different time zones and different levels of reality and fiction.”

STURTEVANT IS A HALL of mirrors. She remains little known in New York, where she lived and worked for years. She hasn’t had a full American retrospective in nearly three decades, even though she is a clear, if peculiar, forebear—by decades—to the so-called appropriation art that has been the subject of a great deal of courtroom drama lately. “She’s as much a mystic and as mysterious a character as you’d want to find in the art world,” said James Harithas, who organized her 1973 retrospective at the Everson Museum of Art in Syracuse, N.Y. “I don’t know any details of her life.”

Neither does this newspaper, despite our best efforts. During our interview she asked to go off-record when we asked such questions; usually, she simply declined to answer. Relatively recent attempts to interview her have been Dadaist exercises. In 2009, she appeared onstage at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis with curator Philippe Vergne and recreated an interview published in Frieze magazine in 2004, when she was in her mid-70s. “What film has most influenced you?” Mr. Vergne asked. “Any film by Quentin Tarantino,” she replied nasally. “Because he is a concrete example of a vast, barren interior man—a big-time cyber jerk.” A few minutes later, he asked who was currently her favorite musician. “Notorious Big.” She used the word “big,” instead of the rapper’s acronym, and drew it out to a whine.

Here is how critic Nancy Princenthal put it in Art in America magazine seven years ago: “[S]he is nothing if not scrupulous about deflecting personal scrutiny, having long since turned herself into a more or less ageless, stateless androgyne.” This much is on the record: she was born in Ohio in 1930, got her B.A. at the University of Iowa and moved, in the 1950s, to New York, where she earned an M.A. from Columbia. “I’m never going to tell you,” she replied in a whisper, when we asked her what she studied. Then she told us. Sort of. “Basically it was seeking out the base of language. … Seeking out the power of language,” she said.

“THERE ARE CERTAIN artists I call ‘the rumors,’” said Bill Arning, reached by phone at the Contemporary Arts Museum Houston, where he’s director. He mentioned the late post-Minimalist sculptor Bill Bollinger (whose comeback retrospective is at New York’s SculptureCenter right now), Japanese outsider Yayoi Kusama and the indefinable Lee Lozano—all of whom were once known only by a handful of artists and art historians, but who now are achieving various degrees of fame. “Sturtevant was one of the great rumor artists.”

In 1986, when Mr. Arning helped organize a Sturtevant show at the New York alternative space White Columns, she had just begun showing again after a break that began in 1974, a year after her Everson retrospective. (“I was writing, thinking, playing tennis and carrying on,” is how she described that hiatus to the critic Bruce Hainley in a 2003 interview.)

At the time, appropriation was in full bloom, with artists like Richard Prince and Sherrie Levine taking other artists’ works and making them their own. Mr. Prince rephotographed commercial imagery such as Marlborough ads, and Ms. Levine rephotographed iconic photographs by Walker Evans. “When the appropriationists came, it gave me negative definition, which is great because it gives you the ability to come in,” Sturtevant said at Gavin Brown.

She wasn’t copying the works—at root, a photographic process—but instead repeating them, mastering the actual techniques involved in their creation in order to make works that would look and feel as close as possible to the real thing. “She adopted style as her medium,” is how MoMA PS1 curator Peter Eleey explained it to us when we called him. “At least early on, most of her work looks like other people’s work, which makes it very challenging to describe and discuss.”

Pro-appropriation critics pulled out their Walter Benjamin texts and argued that the art signaled that originality itself was on the wane. Sturtevant has never bought that line. “There’s a difference between probing originality and saying it is the death of originality,” she has said, explaining the thrust of her work. “You’d have to be a mental retard to claim the death of originality.”

Sturtevant’s work was, in its way, original, and it terrified the art trade. “Commercial galleries really didn’t want to go near it because it was going to be threatening to all the things about scarcity and originality that they made their money on,” Mr. Arning said.

She showed steadily in the 1960s and ’70s, until her decade-long break, but it was never at the top galleries, even though she ran in the circle of Johns, Rauschenberg and others. When a Johns flag that was part of Short Circuit, a 1955 Rauschenberg combine, mysteriously went missing, Rauschenberg asked Sturtevant to produce a new one.

Though the era’s most powerful dealer was a fan, he never decided to represent her. The artist and collector Doug Davis once recorded story about when Leo Castelli, dealer to Rauschenberg, Johns and Roy Lichtenstein, came to his home and saw a Lichtenstein study he didn’t recall selling to Davis. “When I told him it was a Sturtevant, he gleamed with joy,” he wrote. “We spent the entire lunch talking about her.” In 1969, Castelli showed Richard Pettibone, who paints iconic Pop works (Warhol soup cans, Marilyns and Brillo boxes), often in miniature. Pettibones are illustrations of other works, not the result of actual repetitions. Sturtevant, on the other hand, “was doing Pop squared—taking these images that were already free-floating images and redoing them and thereby changing their authorship one more time,” as Mr. Arning said.

But she wasn’t only making waves with her repetitions. Being an outspoken woman likely didn’t help her cause. “She took the swings and barbs out there in the ’60s and early ’70s,” said Mr. Harithas. “The truth of the matter was that unless you were a white man, you didn’t get a break. Women didn’t get a break.”

The curator Sylvia Chivaratanond, who showed Sturtevant’s work at Perry Rubenstein Gallery in 2004 and 2005, concurred. “If you look at women artists of her caliber of her generation, they just weren’t being looked at,” she said.

But there she was, repeating the men, and in doing so opening herself up to all sorts of trouble. Mr. Harithas recalled Carl Andre screaming at her in a restaurant. “Her self-confidence was remarkable even though she didn’t have that much of a following at the time,” Bess Cutler, who showed her in New York in 1988, recalled in an e-mail. “She was very proud of her work and her ‘project.’ … And felt she deserved the very best, including a lavish dinner party after her opening.”


STURTEVANT HAS LONG
had her supporters among artists and critics. “I think she is an artist equal to Jasper Johns or Rauschenberg,” the writer Bruce Hainley said. And now the art market is starting to catch up. A painting of a crying girl, one of her Lichtenstein repetitions, sold for $710,500 at Phillips de Pury & Co. in New York in November, far less than the $30 million a prime Lichtenstein original would fetch, but a record for Sturtevant at auction and more than twice the expected price. For her part, she recently signed with Gavin Brown, not exactly a traditional blue-chip dealer. “He’s bright, intelligent and tightly tied into our digital world of cybernetics,” is how she explains the relationship. “He also knows knowledge is not for understanding but for cutting. That’s impressive. Also, don’t forget he’s rather sexy. Voilà!”

Voilà. As for her current effort at his gallery, she wants Elastic Tango to “trigger thinking.” “One of the impetuses has always been to trigger thinking,” she said. “Even in the very beginning when I was doing painting that involved repetition, that was definitely to trigger thinking.”

“I’ve been tracking simulacra for a very long time,” she continued. “One of the higher powers of simulacra is that it’s always concealed. … It’s falsity presented as truth. That is very dependent on our cybernetic, digital world. Working with that for years, simulacra is a very tough nut. It’s not something that you just say, ‘Oh yeah, simulacra, let’s take care of that.’” She continues to read philosophy, mostly Foucault and Deleuze. Foucault is greater in her estimation, but Deleuze is “more playful.” “I keep trying to find other extraordinary philosophers, but I think once you get into Foucault, forget it.”

Her ideas can be obtuse, but her works afford simple visual pleasure. You can see an iconic contemporary artwork afresh, with its brand name removed. Her latest New York show comes, Mr. Brown said, at a “moment when the object is so rarefied and fetishized.” (Think of that Munch that sold for $120 million last week.) Which is not to say that she spurns the market: she is said to demand sizable sums for her repetitions.

“Sturtevant is like seeing double, which means you see more and more intensively,” Ms. Alemani, the High Line curator said, “and that’s quite a beautiful feeling to have in front of artworks.”

A number of years ago, Sturtevant invited Mr. Arning to visit her on the French Riviera. “At noon, she would come out of her studio, lock the door and we would all go have a nice lunch,” he recalled. “I became sort of obsessed with the fact that she never left the door open. We did not know what she was working on in there. She had this sense of privacy: ‘I will show you things when they are exactly ready and not before.’”

Only a single U.S. museum owns a major work by her—a Frank Stella Sturtevant (a Sturtevant Frank Stella?) donated to the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles by the pioneering collector Eugene M. Schwartz, who also owned the Stella that informed it. But that may soon change. “My goal is for the Art Institute of Chicago to be the first American art institution to buy a work of art by Sturtevant,” AIC curator James Rondeau told The Observer.

The museum already has one. Kind of. Last year, the AIC acquired Short Circuit, that Rauschenberg combine with the Sturtevant-produced Johns flag, from the artist’s estate, through the Gagosian Gallery; it’s a Sturtevant, with an asterisk. “It’s a Trojan horse twice,” Mr. Rondeau said, of Short Circuit. Rauschenberg once termed it a “double document,” he said. “First it smuggled Jasper, now it smuggles Sturtevant. And Sturtevant still needs to be smuggled.”

arusseth@observer.com

Follow Andrew Russeth on Twitter or via RSS. arusseth@observer.com