Photo credit: Todd Eberle
Photo credit: Todd Eberle
In 1962 Dan Flavin introduced his first aesthetic experiments
with electric light art: square monochrome paintings with attached
fixtures and bulbs, which he deemed "icons." He used
the term ironically in relation to its traditional religious context,
explaining:
...my icons differ from a Byzantine Christ held in majesty;
they are dumb-anonymous and inglorious. They are as mute and indistinguished
as the run of our architecture. My icons do not raise up the blessed
savior in elaborate cathedrals. They are constructed concentrations
celebrating barren rooms. They bring a limited light.1
By 1963 Flavin had come to eschew any form of painting or collage
in favor of simple, unadorned, commercially produced fluorescent
light fixtures and tubes, and has worked exclusively in that medium
ever since. And by 1965, he had effectively summed up the major
components of his art:
In time, I came to these conclusions about what I had found in
fluorescent light, and about what might be done with it plastically:
Now the entire interior spacial container and its parts-wall,
floor, and ceiling, could support this strip of light but would
not restrict its act of light except to enfold it...
Realizing this, I knew that the actual space of a room could be
broken down and played with by planting illusions of real light
(electric light) at crucial junctures in the room's composition.
For example, if you press an eight-foot fluorescent lamp into
the vertical climb of a corner, you can destroy that corner by
glare and doubled shadow. A piece of wall can be visually disintegrated
from the whole into a separate triangle by plunging a diagonal
of light from edge to edge on the wall; that is, side to floor,
for instance.
...What has art been for me?
In the past, I have known it (basically) as a sequence of implicit
decisions to combine traditions of painting and sculpture in architecture
with acts of electric light defining space...2
Despite his dedication of each untitled work to a person or a
personal reflection, and his own deep awareness of the overwhelming
historical symbolism of light in art,3 Flavin
has always refused to attach any symbolic or referential significance
to his works:
It is what it is, and it ain't nothin' else...Everything is
clearly, openly, plainly delivered. There is no overwhelming spirituality
you are supposed to come into contact with. I like my use of light
to be openly situational in the sense that there is no invitation
to meditate, to contemplate. It's in a sense a "get-in-get-out"
situation. And it is very easy to understand. One might not think
of light as a matter of fact, but I do. And it is, as I said,
as plain and open and direct an art as you will ever find.4
Having employed generic mass-produced light fixtures in order
to deny his light art any transcendental significance, and having
also denied those same light fixtures their simple utilitarian
function by calling them art, the irony of Flavin's gestures and
use of terms like "icon" is obvious. Less obvious is
the almost limitless plastic potential the artist devised and
has demonstrated over the past thirty years in his systematic
application of the limited vocabulary of commercially available
light fixtures and light bulb colors and sizes: four basic lengths:
two, four, six, and eight feet; and nine possible colors: blue,
green, pink, red, yellow, and four variations of white. The circular
fixtures constituting untitled (to a man, George McGovern)
were added to Flavin's vocabulary in 1972.
Flavin's simplified formal vocabulary can be related to the work
of his contemporaries, such as Donald Judd, who have been labeled
Minimalist artists for their reduction of formal devices, and
their emphasis on serial and rational rather than gestural forms,
and phenomenological rather than symbolic or narrative results.
Flavin also proclaims respect for the work certain Modernist abstract
artists such as Constantin Brancusi, Piet Mondrian, and the innovators
of the Russian avant-garde, particularly Vladimir Tatlin, to whom
his most sustained series of work-"monuments" for V.
Tatlin (1964-1982)-is dedicated. Far from incidental, the relationship
to Tatlin's art illuminates both formal inventions in Flavin's
work and its context within the history of art.
Displayed in a 1915 exhibition with Kasmir Malevich's painting
Black Square, Tatlin's first major public work was his sculptural
corner installation of collaged industrial materials. Both works
were installed in corners of a gallery, thereby claiming the unused
margins of their exhibition space, while making overt reference
to the traditional religious icon hung in the corner of a room
in a common Russian home. Tatlin and Malevich's occupation of
the corner with their new abstract "icons" was an attempt
to create an entirely radical, unique, and dynamic artistic vocabulary
that expressed the human aspirations of the impending industrial
and social revolution of the twentieth century. Flavin's career-long
preoccupation with the corner of the gallery implicitly echoes
the Russians' gesture to engage space usually not utilized for
traditional painting and sculpture; nevertheless, his corner works
deny the religious symbolism and utopian social ambition of the
artistic avant-garde epitomized by Tatlin's work.
Tatlin's greatest work was his unrealized spiral tower The
Monument to the Third International, for which Flavin's "monuments"
are named. Yet, Flavin notes, "I always use 'monuments' in
quotes to emphasize the ironic humor of temporary monuments. These
'monuments' only survive as long as the light system is useful
(2,100 hours)."5 The artist's appropriation
of commercial light fixtures-a quintessential product of our highly
industrialized society-is presented not as a timeless celebration
of a revolutionary culture as Tatlin's was, but as ontological
fact: tangible and temporal.
Flavin employs a humorous, historical reference to Tatlin precisely
to separate his work from the kind of artistic symbolic significance
Tatlin ascribed to his own work. Yet, at the same time, he clearly
reveres the tragic human person of Tatlin and his "frustrated,
insistent attitude to attempt to combine artistry and engineering."6
The eight corner works dedicated to European couples, also featured
in this exhibition, were selected from a series of nine corner
pieces (in the nine commercially available color tubes). These
works maintain a similarly ironic relationship to their context
as art, as light, and as objects dedicated to eighteen actual
people (nine couples). The embedded irony serves to underscore,
by contrast, the sincerity of the works' unadulterated, radiant,
ephemeral presence as phenomenal objects.
Notes
1. Dan Flavin, in Dan Flavin: three installations
in fluorescent light (Cologne: Wallraf-Richartz-Museum and
the Kunsthalle Köln, 1973-74), p. 83. This commentary is
taken from a "record" book entry dated August 9, 1962.
2. Dan Flavin. "'...in daylight or cool
white': an autobiographical sketch," Artforum 4, no.
4 (December 1965), p. 24. Flavin later revised and republished
this text in several exhibition catalogues.
3. Flavin attended a Roman Catholic seminary;
although he rejected that path, he began his art education with
religious art. Flavin is also a knowledgeable collector of art
past and present.
4. Michael Gibson, "The Strange Case of the Fluorescent Tube,"
Art International 1 (Autumn 1987), p. 105.
5. Quoted in Suzanne Munchnic, "Flavin
Exhibit: His Artistry Comes to Light," Los Angeles Times,
April 23, 1984.
6. Ibid. Quoted from a wall text written by
Flavin for The Museum of Contemporary Art's Temporary Contemporary
exhibition "'monuments' to V. Tatlin from Dan Flavin"
(1984).