ELECTRONIC TEXT

JOSEPH BEUYS AND ANDY WARHOL REFLECTING EUROPE AND THE US

A dialogue between Holly Walsh and Thorsten Scheerer

Beuys: Raising interest in the US

I believe that from a German perspective Beuys was a truely important person forcing the development to bring German art back to a highly appreciated international level.

After World War II German culture was on its knees. In Germany there were many problems that had to be solved and art was not one of them. At least, art had no priority. While the winners of WW II, especially the US, succeeded in art by the works of the abstract expressionisms (e. g. Newman, Rothko), the German equivalent "informel" couldn't beat this - most of all, because Germany was not able to conquer a leading position in art.

While the US became more introspective in the following years and pop art became popular (Warhol, Lichtenstein), Beuys came up with high self consciousness and an expressive mixture of European myths and symbols that reach back many, many hundred years. Most important: There were no pretenders. Beuys claimed a truely unique position in the international art scene, and you just could not compare him to anything or anybody before.

This was something the US must have been interested in an fascinated by: There is no such history of culture in the US like it is in Europe, but Americans are fascinated by all this (I believe). Going to America, Beuys managed to combine his style of dealing with history and myths with the American culture by the "Coyote". So he provided an unique European view on the American world that never could be provided by artists like Warhol.

I think what made Beuys so successful was that he was a true individual with a "self-made-man"-approach, highly convinced that all success and failures are a matter of his own capabilities. He acted in a very American style but still provided this slightly different point of view. While Warhol was "introspective pop", Beuys was "spiritual depth". What a great mixture!

Nevertheless, anything that was going on in Germany was obeyed by the rest of the world. Surely the main motivation to keep an eye on Germany origins from WW II. But while obeying Germany aimed to keep things calm in this country, Beuys was in the lucky position to benefit from this attention.

In the times of the cold war he did not decide to be on the Germans' side, not on the US' side, nor on the Eastern Block's side. He pointed to totally different things with a political claim that irritated Germany and Europe as much as the US. And this irritation caused fascination on both sides.

What makes Beuys so important for Germany is that he did bring this country back to the top of the arts. [2]

Penetrating the art market

On Tue, 24 July 2001, "Holly Walsh" wrote:

Also, to what extent do you think that his fame and cult-status was cultivated by the dealers etc. who recognized that by promoting his personality, they could really sell his art?

I am convinced that it was Beuys who was the "sales manager" of his works and himself. He was very tricky and smart in making himself heard and pushing himself into high and visible positions.

It is not easy to explain this briefly, but the more you read, the more you see that the only person that was really important for his success was Beuys himself. Of course, there were many who helped him, but in fact he was the master mind. Sometimes Beuys' career reminds me of the marketing and sales strategy of Jeff Koons' artistic activities regarding the marriage with former porn star Cicciolina from Italy:

• Do something that really irritates the basic believes of the society you are living in.
• Get involved and be a part of it so that people cannot accuse you of keeping your hands clean and only being in it for the money.
• Blurr the thin line between art, life, and your very own private life totally. [2]

Curators are always one step behind (except at the documenta or the Ars Electronica) ... I do not have the exact timeline in my mind, but I think that Beuys' success all over the world came rather quickly. He was not a young man anymore when he decided to change to all these symbolic materials and hermetic performances. But from that day on everything came (more or less) quickly.

Anyway: It's the gallerist's task to deal with contemporary art and conquer markets together with their artists. And it's the curator's task to take the artists into the museums when they have proven to stand the tests of time and market.

Thorsten Scheerer [3]

Beuys and Warhol: Perspectives on Europe and the US

I think the relationship is pretty simple: Both - Beuys and Warhol - made art regarding aspects of social life. Both were great marketing strategists and sales men (selling and promoting themselves often more than their art).

But while Warhol provided the pure surface of things and beholders could just say "Great!" with the first look at his works, Beuys forced the beholder to enter a deep space of theory, myths and symbols. This is in my opinion what differenciates Beuys (European style) from Warhol (American style): surface vs. depth.

Do you think that Warhol used this oppertunity to comment on aspects of German culture that Beuys and his contemporaries were unable to touch?

No I don't, because there were many artists dealing with these aspects, but Beuys and Warhol were among the most popular and had the greatest visibility on the art market.

Why do you think Beuys and Warhol met in the public arena of a gallery etc.

On the one hand they had the chance to meet and surely were interested in meeting each other (Wouldn't you be interested in meeting Warhol, too?), and on the other hand this was a great story for the press. I once read that allegedly they didn't have much to talk about when they met. So maybe the story the press made of it was larger than the event itself. But I am not sure about this.

It wasn't like either of them needed each other to boost their fame, or was it?

No, I think they didn't really need each other to boost their fame, but surely it helped to proof that they were the number one artists of their times.

They both cultivated their personality and had a large and enthusiastic following, but what do you think the relationship was really about?

Hm. That is hard to say. Being (originally) European, Warhol perfectly adopted the American way of life and put the focus of his work on that. In an interview his brother once said, that Andy was never really happy in the US. So aspects of German and European culture may have interested Warhol ever since. But Warhols "surface & glitter" approach was so different from Beuys "myths" approach that personally I do believe that the relationship was only about what you call "personality" and "enthusiastic following".

These are the obvious parallels. Anything else is pure interpretation and make believe.

I do not remember any personal statement of Beuys, commenting his relationsship to Warhol. The reason surely is that for their work of art they did not need each other in any kind of way. Allthough there is a German publication about the event when they met, I am convinced that this is part of the press story and not of the real story.

I am also interested in the way you write "...he acted in a very American style, but still provided a slightly different point of view."

In this case, the word style should point to the behaviour of Beuys to promote himself and his art. Beuys did not only trust in his talent and thought that success will come anyway if only he provides good works of art for long enough, but he knew that marketing and sales efforts are neccessary to successfully move forward. This awareness of "business needs" is not very European but something very American. So he lived in this gallery somewhere over the ocean for a couple of days together with a coyote, revealing all the (American) myths and symbols that are related to this animal.He knew he could not conquer the American market by sticking to European stuff.

So the point of view towards his art remained the same, but the symbols changed (e.g. a coyote instead of a hare) in order to provide a kind of American adoption of his work.

By this, do you mean that 'performance' art is in tune with much of American culture,

No. Wasn't it an European invention? :-)

or that the concept of a 'self made man' fits in with the idea of the American dream?

Yes! [5]

Aftershocks: Warhol responding to Beuys

On Tue, 04 September 2001, "Holly Walsh" wrote:

find this interesting because Warhol was an outsider who was able to confront a particularly sensitive repertoir of motifs that German artists might have struggled with, in a similar way to what Beuys had been able to do with the coyote in New York. Do you think this is true ...

Yes, I share this point of view.

and if so, do you think that Warhol was responding to the challenges that Beuys had set during the 70s?

No. Personally spoken.

I do not think that Warhol needed to "reply" to Beuys. Warhols position in the arts system was outstanding enough to do something unique that was not an answer to anybody or anything - but a statement.

But taking Warhols European background into consideration might be useful. Furthermore there seems to be an underlying fascination for German topics in the US. This is at least true from my German perspective (maybe you can tell me if I am right...). But looking at popular culture, I see pop bands like Can, Kraftwerk (e.g. quoted in movies of the Coen Brothers), and nowadays Ramstein that have major success in the US. Also film makers like Roland Emmerich, Wolfgang Petersen, and film musicians like Hans Zimmer seem to have a large audience in North America.

Warhol did not look at these popular things, but he provided a popular perspective on certain (sometimes serious) topics by the help of his art.

I know that this is not an answer, but I would lie to you if I claimed to have one already. At least I hope these thoughts help.

or is their relationship much deeper than this?

I think your thoughts are pointing to the right answer. I do not believe that there was a deeper relationship. Neither they needed each other nor could they benefit from each one's unique point of view towards art and art theory. There is a gap that cannot be closed. I also do not know any comment of Beuys about this meeting, but there is some literature published about the Warhol/Beuys-event by Beuys' followers. _Their_ interest of pushing Beuys' popularity by the help of his meeting with Warhol was very high (think of the works of art they might own and what pushing Beuys popularity in the US and in Europe could mean to the value of these works of art...).

As far as I know the meeting was very short (just a couple of minutes). They did not talk very much and there seems to be no further correspondence. I mean, yes - it would be great to meet Warhol, but Beuys could probably have met with him in a much less spectacular and public way!

Maybe literature made it more spectacular than it really was ... [6]

The 3rd way

I have read some stuff by Buchloh ('The twilight of the Idol' etc), as well as some stuff by Kuspitt. I am a bit confused as to Beuys' position with regards to Marxism,

For Beuys, simply spoken, Marxism was a "materialistic" theory. It is built upon the thought that without exploitation of the people, and by giving more spare time and money to it, human and social problems could be solved. The argument is that making the materialistic circustamces all right, social circumstances will get better, too. Let us say: "Give them freedom and money and their spirit will follow". Marx' analysis is based on Hegel. Beuys always considered Marx' work as a splendid analysis of the society's state in the times of industrialisation. But he criticized it for being materialistic. He was convinced that human beings origin from the spirit. And by the help of his spirit, man has the ability to give the world and the circumstances he is living in a reasonable form.

Or let us replace reasonable by: true, good, beautiful. These are the aesthetic criteria for the Social Sculpture.

So Beuys thought that Marx' analysis was right, but the theoretic approach re the question "what's next?" was wrong: It should not be the spirit that should follow the prospering body/social circumstances, but it should be the body/social circumstances that should prosper by the help of the spirit which should be creating and shaping a new social environment. This process begings in peoples' minds. Communicating it in a democratic way. Making it fit to aesthetic criteria (good, true, beautiful), and finally making it happen.

So from Beuys' perspective Marxism/communism and capitalism were pretty similar social constructions. Both of start off with labour and money and try to architect the relation of human beings towards these two issues in a way that would lead to better lifes and social circumstances.

Beuys knew that communism had lost the game, but for him, capitalism was suspicious, too. He was looking for a "3rd way" by which the existing political systems should have been overcome. This 3rd way was the approach we know as Social Sculpture. [6]

5 main points that are key to the Social Sculpture

This is a really hard question, because I am convinced that the scientific society could write thousands of books about it and discuss endlessly who's right and who's wrong... But anyway, this is _my_ answer:

1. You should have a look at http://athena.formstreng.net/ep/ep963.html#5 where I explain the drawing "Partitur fuer Dieter Koepplin" briefly. The whole drawing is main point 1.
2. Main point 2 is Nietzsche's thesis "God is dead". "Jesus, too", Beuys would have added ...
3. "Illness" is the 3rd and ...
4. ... related to this, "healing process" makes point number 4.
5. Last, but not least, I would say "creativity".

[8]

Mail Date

[1]
To: scheerer@vogue.co.uk, From: "Holly Walsh" <hollydwalsh@hotmail.com>, Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 09:23:07 +0000

[2]
From: Thorsten Scheerer <thorsten.scheerer@formstreng.net>, To: hollydwalsh@hotmail.com, Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 12:33:19 +0200

[3]
From: Thorsten Scheerer <scheerer@vogue.co.uk>, To: hollydwalsh@hotmail.com, Date: 31 Jul 2001 17:53:41 +0100

[4]
From: "Holly Walsh" <hollydwalsh@hotmail.com>, To: thorsten.scheerer@formstreng.net, Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:31:39 +0000

[5]
From: Thorsten Scheerer <thorsten.scheerer@formstreng.net>, To: "Holly Walsh" <hollydwalsh@hotmail.com>, Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 16:04:38 +0200

[6]
From: Thorsten Scheerer <scheerer@vogue.co.uk>, To: hollydwalsh@hotmail.com, Date: 05 Sep 2001 21:32:29 BST

[7]
From: "Holly Walsh" <hollydwalsh@hotmail.com>, To: thorsten.scheerer@formstreng.net, Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001, 12:39:12 +0000

[8]
From: Thorsten Scheerer <thorsten.scheerer@formstreng.net>, To: "Holly Walsh" <hollydwalsh@hotmail.com>, Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:46:30 +0200

Epilogue

From: "Holly Walsh" <hollydwalsh@hotmail.com>
To: thorsten.scheerer@formstreng.net
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:13:36 +0000

Dear Thorsten,

I am sorry that I have not contacted you for a while, but i have had my head down concentrating on writing my dissertation on 'Joseph Beuys in America'. I hope that you had a fun and relaxing Christmas, and that the new year is going well.

I was writing to ask if you possibly had time to have a quick look at my latest draft of work, as I need a second opinion from someone who is familiar with the material.
Of course, if you are busy, I will look for someone else, as you have already helped me no end!

Thank you again for all your advice so far,

love Holly