Luther Blissett on Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:29:42 +0100

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Syndicate: Luther Blissett in solidarity with Piero Cannata

>From La Repubblica on line (<>, the digital edition of
the national daily paper, as well as the most visited Italian website)  3
February 1999, Wednesday:

A provocative letter: Must "mainstream" art be inviolable? And who decides
what is genius?


[begin staff preface]
ROME - Of course it is a provocation, but it is also more than that. The
letter which Luther Blissett - the collective identity that has accustomed us
to many coups (verbal and not) in the recent years - sent to struck us and roused our curiosity. It expresses a feeling that
many people certainly got a week ago, when the vandalistic smearing of a
Jackson Pollock work hit the news. It was not a rational thing; rather, a joke
people uttered, or just thought, by instinct: "Which one is the smear?". A
superficial question that was restrained by cultural awareness and indignation
for this assault on contemporary art and its dignity. In his/her letter,
Luther Blissett turns the joke into a lucid provocation.
One may agree or not, but it would not be just to throw this text away. Our
correspondent and art expert Paolo Vagheggi replies to Luther Blissett at the
linked page.

On 26 January 1999, Piero Cannata operated on Pollock's painting "Undulated
Paths", exhibited at Rome's National Gallery of Modern Art. I challenge anyone
of the journalists that covered Cannata's action to tell the smear from any of
the other scribblings. Cannata's intervention is the best tribute ever to the
artist. The only difference between the American Abstract Expressionist and
the Italian performance artist is that the former used to express his madness
within an "artistic context", and consequently found the theoretical and
financial support of critics and art-gallery managers. Most likely, without
such a support, Pollock would have entered a lunatic asylum, nurses sneering
at his "works" on the walls.
Jackson Pollock didn't paint: he dripped, smeared and soiled. On his canvases
one can find saliva, cigarette stumps, matches, anything. One day Pollock
urinated into Peggy Guggenheim's hearth. Yeah, he pissed in it, before the
eyes of several onlookers. He was probably drunk. This immediately became one
of the best known "performances" of the great genius, whose life was
punctuated by such acts. That fireplace is still in one of the rooms with a
view on the Canal. If Piero Cannata or any other anonymous visitor of the
present "Peggy Guggenheim Collection" pissed into the same hearth, what would
the keepers do?
Of course they wouldn't deem the guy as a genius, at best he'd be denounced.
However, are you sure that Pollock's performances are more important than
Cannata's? Are you really sure that Pollock wouldn't like such a "betterment"? 
Why should an art work hang on a wall with people only allowed to look at it,
since it is obvious that eyesight is just one of the senses roused by whatever
work? One should be allowed to touch and smell. This would quickly wear out
the paintings? So what? What do you need a sacred and infinitely inviolable
object for? Don't you know that museums keep Calder's sculptures in narrow
rooms, though they were created for being exhibited in the open air and shaken
by the wind? Don't you know that museums bar the way to Beuys' and Tinguely's
works, though they were projected for interaction with the public? *This* is
If the most important thing is the artist's intention, than Pollock's painting
was not destined to a reliquiary, and Cannata's intervention is licit and
particularly well-aimed. But museums and galleries are driven by other
factors, such as money. This is commonplace, then why keep schmoozing about
art being sacral and untouchable? Talk about commercial value. If the word
"artist" has ever had any meaning, then Piero Cannata is the real artist.
Unlike Pollock, Cannata never compromised himself with the art establishment,
never strived for the critics' and gallery managers' appreciation. He couldn't
care less, he's got better things to do. Mind you, this is not the first case:
people like Van Gogh were never understood at their time, only to be
re-estimated after several years. It?s funny to recall the blindness of Van
Gogh's coeval critics. Oh, they were so obtuse! Oh, those were such
obscurantist times! Nowadays it's different, art is free of prejudices...
Isn't it?  
Tomorrow Piero Cannata will go back to the madhouse that hosted him during the
past two years, and it's gonna take decades before he's acknowledged as a
well-deserving performer. Not only Piero Cannata will get entries in art
history books: he'll get them as one of the most radical and innovative
artists of the Nineties. This is one of the tasks we leave to our posterity. 

(2 February 1999)


A Reply to the "pseudo-Futurist" provocation: Pollock was a self-conscious
artist, values cannot be annihilated


Maybe that of the pseudo-Luther Blissett is nothing other than a nice
pseudo-Futurist provocation. None of us has forgotten Filippo Tommaso
Marinetti's 'incendiary violence': 'We want to destroy museums, libraries and
whatever kind of academies', we want to set Italy free from 'its fetid
gangrene of professors, archaelogists, cicerones and antiquarians'. Therefore,
long live Piero Cannata, let's promote him to the rank of artist. Long live
the David hammer-freak and Pollock smearer. 
But what if this, instead of being a pseudo-Futurist provocation, were just
the opinion and belief of an ignorant (ignorant being for 'he who ignores')?
In this case, we should tell them the difference between a rash gesture caused
by madness and a conscious, advised, pondered and researched artistic deed. We
should tell them that Jackson Pollock, no matter what the nazis would have
thought of him, was not a dauber, nor was his art 'degenerate'. His strokes
were not felt-tip scribblings. His technique, "Dripping", was sharp and
pondered. As Dora Vallier explained, the canvas was placed on a level surface,
even on the floor; and a few holes drilled through the bottom of a color box
allowed the painter to work moving about and letting the color drip on the canvas.
There was no fortuitous act, as explained by Pollock himself, who died in 1956
at the age of 44: [...what follows is a Pollock's quote which I won't
re-translate from Italian back into English. It's about the control of the
drops' trajectory, T.N....]
I could go on for so long telling stories about Pollock, who studied
philosophy and psychoanalisis (as well as native-American painting), who was
Picasso-wise and always lived between anxiety and the rapture of his work.
This rapture was provoked by his quest for a personal existential style: he
identified himself with his artworks, which gradually expanded and absorbed
all his energies.
As Palma Bucarelli noticed back in 1958, during the NGMA Pollock Exhibition,
'thus, independently from any analogical reference, painting itself can
express the most profound movements of the soul; the more the canvas reflects
the "quantity" and the "length" of painting action, the clearer is the
expression of emotional intensity.'  
Jackson Pollock is not Pietro Cannata [sic]. Pietro Cannata is non Jackson Pollock.
Maybe someone dreams of an annihilation of values in order to say: 'I can do
that as well!'. Things are not like that. There will not be any Night of
Crystals, no matter what Luther Blissett believes.

(2 February 1999)


[Luther Blissett replied, but Repubblica didn't run the piece. Luther put it
into circulation as the issue #39 of their anti-art newsletter called
"Epistola Ex Vaticanis Museis". Here it is:]

Luther Blissett replies to Paolo Vagheggi about the Cannata affair

At best, your response proved that you didn't even read my press release.
At worst, you read it but didn't understand. I didn't say 'I can do that as
well!' nor did I call Jackson Pollock a worthless dauber. Maybe that's really
what I think, but I am not so naive as to give you the opportunity to splutter
the usual reply: 'You are ignorant, you don't understand contemporary art',
which means, as you said yourself, that I ignore it. 
I promoted (or degraded, which depends on the point of view) Piero Cannata to
the rank of artist. At this point, customary language would require a large
amount of terms like 'Post-Modern tension', 'Empathy', 'Genius',
'Intemperance', 'Existential Drama', plus a few quotes (preferably taken from
some mate?s book). Mix up, ferment for one month, and the artist is ready. Is
the vernissage scheduled?
It goes without saying that I won't do that, because I'm no respectable
critic. My tool box does not contain catalogues and invitations to
exhibitions, but a hammer, a knife and a few permanent markers.
If I'm no respectable critic, that's precisely because I'm not able to ignore.
Unfortunately, those who 'ignore' are people like you, journalists, critics,
gallery managers, collectors... You and the majority that you represent are
ignorant. You're ignorant because you think it's possible to
separate the "beautiful" from the "ugly", "art" from "madness", you have the
power to put a man into an asylum, that is the power of ignorance. I belong to
a minority that rely on their own "lack of culture" and (luckily or
unfortunately) couldn't even hurt a bug. Maybe I'd be able to hurt a hack...
You're so keen on defending Pollock's art from the charge of being
"degenerate", a charge that nobody pressed. Don't you find it bizarre? You are
supporting the improsonment of a 'mad vandal', a 'fanatic', while you try to
convince me that Pollock, who was praised in life and died a millionaire,
expressed a profound existential tragedy!
'He identified himself with his artworks, which gradually expanded and
absorbed all his energies'. Aren't these words perfectly suitable to the life
of Piero Cannata?
'There was no fortuitous act'... Yeah, you think that Cannata's is 'a rash
gesture caused by madness'... And yet, for more than 9 years, Cannata has gone
ahead with such a lucid project that even Fontana would envy him! Cannata
plans his actions months in advance, and is determined to carry on for the
things he believes in. No, Piero Cannata is not mad (nor does madness exist,
but this is another story). He's just mad enough to go a few inches beyond the
sacred and unpassable boundaries of Art, enough not to long for the support of
critics and galleries.
Paolo Vagheggi, Maurizio Calvesi, Achille Bonito Oliva and all the others:
you're precisely that kind of persons that in 1909 were shocked at Futurism,
and in 1917 were indignant because an urinal was exhibited in a gallery,  and
in don't-remember-what-year because an artist was selling his own shit. It's
too easy, after more than half a century, to organize Dada and Surrealist
retrospectives, dish up monographs on the likes of Marinetti, Breton and
Tzara, people who died and were enterred long ago.
You just recuperate; when will you *propose* anything? 
Here's my answer: your descendants will do it for you in a few decades, as
time pours oil on today's troubled waters, as Piero Cannata is gagged and
stuffed with thorazine, Alexander Brener grows old and suitable for museums,
Luther Blissett become a spectre (s/he already is). I look forward to those
banquets, revaluations, essays, exhibitions, catalogues, T-shirts and CD-roms.
No, it's not you that make history. Maybe it's not me either. Piero Cannata is
trying to do it.
Things are like that. There will be a Night of Crystals, no matter what Luther
Blissett believes. 

(5 February 1999)


Anti Art Web Site:
The Ultimate Luther Blissett Website: