Hans Haacke, Seurat’s “Les Poseuses” (small version), 1888–1975

[0:00] [music]

Dr. Steven Zucker: [0:06] We’ve been talking about whether or not the art is contained in the object, or the art is contained in the things that surround it. What’s really interesting is that in the late 20th century, artists started to make art that was explicitly about the way that society frames a work of art.

[0:23] One of the great examples of that is by Hans Haacke from 1975, a work of art, which takes a small painting by the famous Neo-Impressionist painter, Georges Seurat. Everybody knows his painting, “The Isle of the Grand Jatte.”

[0:38] But what Haacke did is he centered his work of art on a small sketch by Seurat. This work of art had gone from the artist’s studio through many, many hands until it ended up partially owned by an investment firm and actually put in a bank vault.

[0:55] He frames a series of pieces of paper that says who the owner is. Each framed object on the wall shows the history of the collecting of this painting.

[1:05] It went from being this object in the artist’s studio to something that was now in a bank vault, whose price had increased dramatically, from something that had no price associated with it when it was first produced as simply a sketch to something that was worth in excess of a million dollars by 1975.

Sal Khan: [1:22] This is the sketch that we’re looking at, right? Is that this sketch? This looks like a painting.

Dr. Zucker: [1:26] Well, yeah. The sketch itself is actually a painting. It’s the small version in full color of the painting itself.

Sal: [1:33] When you’re saying sketch, it’s just a small…

Dr. Zucker: [1:34] Exactly. It’s a model for the large scale.

Sal: [1:37] This was done by Seurat.

Dr. Zucker: [1:38] Exactly.

Sal: [1:39] And Haacke, he actually in his piece of art or I guess installation, whatever we call it, he took the original piece of art or it was literally a photocopy?

Dr. Zucker: [1:51] He didn’t have access to the original because the original was now in a bank vault. I think that was part of his issue, but now this was something that was out of circulation.

Sal: [1:59] Like it’s owned.

Dr. Zucker: [1:59] It had become an investment as opposed to a work of art that existed in the world.

Sal: [2:03] This is interesting. I struggle a little bit because at minimum I’m willing to say that this is definitely interesting. It’s interesting to even have that. It feels like something we would do at Khan Academy in terms of just “look at this piece of art and look at how — who’s owned it. Isn’t this something to think about?”

Dr. Zucker: [2:20] It’s almost a grasp of its financial value.

Sal: [2:23] Exactly. The reason why, going back to the art/not art or traditional notions of art and modern notions of art, and this is definitely a very modern notion of art. It’s not 500 years ago.

Dr. Zucker: [2:37] In fact, the original work of art is absent.

Sal: [2:39] Yes, what I actually really like about it and I feel is to some degree almost more consistent than a lot of what we’ve looked at is that he did not feel the need to do it on oil and canvas, that he felt that “Look, that’s not a…”

[2:53] I do like the fact that he just said, “Well, look. If we’re just gonna go really pushing the envelope, why am I stuck to this mixing paint and all the rest?”

[3:02] That general idea is actually a very good idea, and you almost hope that you could have a whole museum of that, of people documenting what these pieces of artwork are, where they’ve been…all these things that are no longer accessible to the public, and where are they? What’s their history? I think that would be a fascinating thing.

Dr. Zucker: [3:17] But also, it really documents the way the object’s meaning has changed, so it’s not just the financial value that’s at issue but it’s also the way in which it began as something that was intimate and that was really a stepping stone towards another major finished painting and then becomes almost a simple monetary instrument. Is something gained? Is something lost?

Dr. Beth Harris: [3:38] It goes from being something personal to the artist to being a commodity.

Sal: [3:42] That’s what everyone to some degree cares about. That’s their fascination. What is this worth? What is someone willing to pay for it? I’m conflicted because I’ve asked those same questions when I’ve see it. I’ve asked you all those same questions. [laughs]

[3:54] What is this worth, or what’s the history of it? I really like the idea of what Haacke did. It’s both a little sad. It is taking art, and a lot of this art is this very personal thing.

[4:05] It’s really just pointing out irony or hypocrisy or something, but at the same time, I actually think it’s almost really healthy, and maybe every piece of artwork should have that where you see it, you actually see where it’s been.

Dr. Zucker: [4:17] It’s interesting that it’s an artist doing it as opposed to an institution. It’s not a museum or a curatorial perspective, but it’s actually seen as the more subjective, radical positioning of an artist.

Sal: [4:29] Yeah, and that’s interesting. Because it’s a one-off piece, it looks like a…I know this was the intention [with] this work of art, but it does fall into curation and a really good curation idea. For me, it’s just an interesting curation idea or provocative idea, can that be considered art?

Dr. Zucker: [4:49] In fact, there’s an entire movement that developed from the 1960s through the ’70s and ’80s up to the present, which is known as institutional critique, where artists have used art to point out some of the politically more sensitive issues that surround the exhibition of art. There is this interesting antagonistic relationship that can exist.

Sal: [5:09] This is really art as a tool for social commentary, which I guess is what it always was. [laughs]

Dr. Zucker: [5:16] I think that’s…

Sal: [5:16] I said that it’s a statement and interesting. This is so different than…but I was like, “Well, maybe not.”

Dr. Zucker: [5:20] A lot of the discussion that we’ve had talks about the complex relationship between the market, between institutions, and between art and artists. This kind of institutional critique really puts a spotlight on that.

Sal: [5:33] But it doesn’t seem to be a good strategy overall. I actually really appreciate that he’s doing that. It’s very honest and not hypocritical.

Dr. Zucker: [5:42] What does it mean even when the market has absorbed the avant-garde to try to remain outside it?

Sal: [5:47] What do you think the lesson has been learned from the art market?

Dr. Harris: [5:50] Well, now artists are specifically invited to museums to do a kind of institutional critique.

Sal: [5:57] Really? [laughs]

Dr. Harris: [5:57] Yes, because now we actually know that there’s real value. There’s market value in it, and there’s other kinds of value in it. There’s a kind of inviting of artists into the space of the museum to do that kind of critique.

Sal: [6:09] Well, that cheapens it in a strange way. How do the benefactors or the sponsors view this?

Dr. Zucker: [6:16] That’s a really interesting question. I’m not sure that all corporate entities are open to that, but I think that the ones that are take a kind of enlightened position that I think is seen in a very positive way.

[6:25] [music]