A place to locate art
By Øivind Storm Bjerke
Confronting a work by Mark Harrington does not evoke a creeping feeling of looking at someÂthing we mistook by chance for a painting; we are not even in doubt that we are facing a work of art. The challenge posed by Harrington is not to decide if the object in question is art or a nervous breakdown, a dustbin or a radiator smeared with paint. Recognized as art the work adheres to the practices of a particular kind of art; painting as an art, an artform based on the distinction between art and everything else. Looked upon in such a manner, this is a kind of art: an art which confirms conceptions of what painting as art can be. One such conception is that a work of art is not an arÂbitrary artifact, but the materialization of an amÂbition to be revealed, through the test of time, as a masterpiece.
In the aftermath of post modernism, the inÂtention of making a masterpiece is a radical deciÂsion on behalf of painting as an art, connecting the actual work of art to concepts of, and ideas about art that most members of the art community are turning away from. This is an art that declares itÂself to belong to the family of classic painting and high modernism - not considered as oppositions- Â but as branches of the same family tree.
The first distinction we are confronted with is the surface of the painting as an object versus the surroundings. The way Harrington is handling this surface is to mark the picture plane as a place of aesthetic choices. The individual painting preÂsents a place for locating art. The painting becomes a statement about art: art is not the white wall, but the marked surface of a particular type of obÂject on the wall.
But Harrington goes further, stating that what makes this marked surface art is not the deÂcision to baptize it as art, but the way the marks have been brought into place. The individual paintÂing becomes meaningful as art, as a marked locaÂtion inside the total field that sums up the history of painting as art.
Inside this total field of painting as art, the position of Harrington grows out of an idea of high modernism, having its high tide from the early 19th Century until the end of the 1960's and underÂstood as the continuation of a classic tradition in European painting, distinguished by an investigatÂing mood, where the object of investigation is the field of painting as art.
Harrington's art represents not a particular trend or movement, but a method. The method consists of commenting upon and questioning the artistic heritage of painting as art, not in words but in new paintings. The marks of Harrington are to be understood as remarks upon the history of painting. These are remarks saturated with knowÂledge of particular paintings; artists; ways of hanÂdling the medium - as a physical substance and as color. It also includes knowledge of how to forward knowledge and information through symbols. The actual painting stands out as a refraction of comÂmon and individual experiences, insights, comÂments, questions and adds up to a point of deparÂture into unknown land.
The historical orientation in question should not be understood as a glance backwards, but as the basis for an overview that makes possible a colonization of til now unmarked territory. In a supplementary way, this orientation gives the opÂportunity to recognize and pass judgement upon the claim of making new territory.
The art of Harrington is probably not blind to the ideological, economical, sociological or ethical dimensions of art, or even the idea of 'art as... 'art as economic'; 'art as sociology'; 'art as philosoÂphy'; 'art as therapy'; 'art as politics'; 'art as fashÂion', or even of art as an instrument for gaining status, power and money. But these aspects of art and games of art are certainly subordinated to the challenges posed by the idea that art has its histoÂry, and the need for coming to terms with the aesÂthetic parameters involved in judging art within the dependency upon a certain kind of installation aesthetic.
The paintings of Harrington address an open discussion of the work of art where a knowledge of the history of art provides a common ground that enables all those who may make the effort, to offer his or her own interpretations, comments and judgements. His proceedings are not a sign of haughtiness, rather they are an invitation to a disÂcussion on painting independent of any esoteric knowledge of the currents or politically correct attitudes of the moment, avoiding ritual member ship of one or another artistic tribe.
The individual painting does not present us with a riddle to be solved, but is an invitation to a discussion on the discourse and history of painting as an art form. A pleasant side effect of this is that the person Mark Harrington recedes into the background. We do not need to involve knowledge of his life and whereabouts to admire his paintings - or even in the event that we find the painting ridiculous, borÂing or simply bad.
As onlookers we can be blinded by the surÂface of these paintings and overlook the many layÂers contained in what meets the eye. But it is per fectly legitimate to reduce the layers of meaning of the paintings to the impression we get from this level of sensual beauty. Before these beautifully crafted works one is tempted to forget the abunÂdance of aesthetic choices that are implied in the final result. The artist's thick layer of culture that expresses itself through a demonstration of his familiarity with artistic conventions and control of the materials involved in the process of painting, can be confused with an academic art where aesthetic choices are substituted by formulas.
Besides being a type of painting where the depth of content is connected to the surface qualÂities, those elements of format, the extent of the painted area, measure, scale, relation to the pictoÂrial space, the border between the painting and its surroundings, the illumination and the installation of the painting must all be registered as elements of great importance to the interpretation of each painting as a work of art. It is a type of painting where decisive borderlines form important aspects of the work. It is not an art where life has wormed its way into the work of art and disintegrated the art object into one more piece of reality - art. The distinction between art and life is still valid in this kind of art. The actual work of art becomes a prism revealing influences from a tradition of painting where the meaning of the work is to be extracted from intrinsic qualities and content is inseparable from the way each work formulates, reflects, con firms, distinguishes and refracts impulses.
The marks on the picture plane can function as a reference to something on the outside of the rectangle of the painting, as well as being marks within the borders of the picture plane.
The singuÂlar mark or particular formal entity, is not read able as something definite and unambiguous - in this way the paintings of Harrington are much less minimalist and conceptual than expressive in a discreet manner. Central to the references conÂnected to the markings of the picture plane are associations to pictorial art in general. The paintÂings can be understood as comments on aspects of art we connect with the names of Klee, Toby, Rothko, Twombly, Tapies, Hantai, Dahmen, Pijuan, Green, the late work of Richter, Marden, Ryman, Scully not to mention those younger artists in dialogue with this genealogical line of artists.
The family of painters Harrington belongs to treat the surface of the painting as a hybrid beÂtween a blackboard, on which you may draw, write and erase before starting anew, and a picture plane where you work-up the painting from the ground in layers - rather than a mirror bearing the reflection of an image or an idea. In this type of painting nothing is a reflection of something, but a reflection upon something.
Narration in such paintÂing is often a by-product of the construction of the painting as an actual object having its specific materials and structure. When a painting is divided in two parts, this is not to be looked upon as a purely practical matter It is a way to create a certain kind of formal order, where the two parts are either in dialogue or discussion; where diÂchotomies like left and right, up and down invite interpretations on genetic, historical and psycho logical levels.
The type of painting indicated by the afore mentioned canonical artists and family of painters constitutes a common ground of references for all those who still cherish a serious interest in art that is motivated by an idea of art as a meaningÂful and distinct subject, with its own varied history and praxis, symbols and institutions.