I read this review in the Times for Banks Violette's double barrelled summer blast. I found it interesting that the author says that the idea of innovation is tied to the practices of quotation and reconfiguration. In postmodernism the term "innovation" seems to have developed a new definition for itself. The old definition was a new idea, method or device - which seems to be at odds with this new POMO definition. Quotation and Reconfiguration are the basic tools of Postmodernist practice - but how it is innovation is beyond me. Black is white, white is black and 2 + 2 = 5.

Mr. Violette is innovative in the way many younger artists tend to be these days. His work might be judged — or enjoyed — by how effectively he quotes and reconfigures art from previous decades. The minimalist box is turned into a road case; process materials like lead or latex reappear as cast and dripped pewter.

This quoting tendency is most obvious in the Gladstone show’s centerpiece, a large sculpture conjuring a collapsed stage, with Flavin-esque fluorescent tubes, connected to dozens of thin black wires, that tumble over a deconstructed Sol LeWitt-type frame. The sculpture sits in what feels like a significant place: just where a large sculpture by Matthew Barney stood last year.

Today if you stand in the presence of the proven and the successful somehow you gain cred by quoting it correctly? Hmmm. The review also fails to mention Cady Noland's work from the late 80s and early 90s where most of this kind of scatter thing was perfected. Without her there wouldn't be a Matthew Barney or a Banks Violette. Cady stopped - hasn't shown for a long time - so some folks tried to recreate her work in a show not too long ago. There was a lot of grousing about involvement by the artist etc. etc., but I think those days are done as well. In Venice this year Gonzalez Torres showed in the American Pavillion, and he's been dead for years. The curator simply recreated his works. It seems the extended field extends all the way past an artist's involvement, and straight into the cut-and-paste curatoral roadshow.
The truth is reconfiguration and quotation is also endemic to the entertainment industry (just watch TV for awhile - biggest circle jerk going.) And as we've already discussed, entertainment now defines the art world. It's easier to digest, easier to sell and easier to live with - no heavy ideas to tax one's perspective. The search for a philosophic push, an innovative idea about art no longer matters to artists, curators, critics, collectors or theorists. We have become entertainers - and this difference between art and entertainment can be understood by comparing Hendrix to Prince, Pollack to Marden, or Welles to Spielberg.

I'll see the show later this week and probably enjoy it. I like theatrics and piles of cool stuff - who doesn't? Will it change my aesthetics? Absolutely not. Will it be interesting before lunch? Yes. Will I remember it next week? Not in the least. Entertainments are for watercooler conversations and lunch dates. Ideas are for late night drinking and sweaty sex - actvities that demand one's involvement and attention. Unfortunately most of us don't have time for that anymore - we're too busy texting to talk with the person directly in front of us....