Chicago Art Journal
Telos Spring 2000
Art Outside the Box: Life, Death, and Morality
A Conversation with Michael Aurbach
This conversation with Michael Aurbach took place in his studio at Vanderbilt University on
September 10, 1999. Aurbach has exhibited
his sculptures in galleries, museums, and universities nationally. In his earlier work, death and
identity were major themes. I wanted to focus
on his process and ideas, and to talk about the
newer work, which he says is about secrecy. I
was also interested in Michael's thoughts
regarding the nature of art and the place of art
in contemporary society. What emerged in the
discussion were a number of questions about
the role of art, art history, and art criticism, as
well as some insight into this very intelligent and
passionate artist and educator.
Interview by Barbara Fontana Yontz, an artist
and an art educator teaching at Watkins
College of Art in Nashville, Tennessee. She
completed a Master of Arts Degree in Art
History from Vanderbilt University in May, 1999.
B. You have said you start with words, that you
make word lists often while driving. What is it
about words that intrigue you?
M. It was a family thing. Bad puns were part of
our tradition and also both my parents spoke
Yiddish in their homes. There are some things
that only Yiddish can capture since often one
word can communicate complex ideas. In
Hebrew school, too, I learned to read right to left,
so I got very adept at reading backwards. I
was just amazed that the words used to describe the acts of creation were
synonymous with those used to describe acts of
destruction and violence. I thought that was very
strange so I kept building on it. Pretty soon I
saw how the process could take me to another
level. For example, in graduate school I stuffed
some coyote feet and made a pyramid form to
house them. When I used the Egyptian motif and
wrapped the feet in gauze I realized that once
the feet were wrapped, I didn't need them any
more. I was just symbolizing the feet. I no longer
needed the real animal. Just the act of producing the work shifted the focus but it took the words
to launch me. The words were only a
springboard.
B. Your Final Portrait series seems to be about
death because they are constructed as sarcophagi and I have read other writers state that
they are a parody of the Western funerary tradition. It seems to me they are more about
immortality and I am very interested in the relationship between life and death as a cycle. They
seem to be a monument to the dead and as
such, a way to continue life.
M. When I first started giving slide talks about
this work, people thought I was preoccupied with
death. I'm really not but I realized that if you
notice the number of references to death you
hear on a daily basis you will be overwhelmed.
Watching or listening to the news is just one
example. [But] you couldn't cross the street if
you thought about death too much.
B. So you can completely accept the finality of
life?
M. Intellectually, reincarnation is more organic
for me and actually probably parallels things like
the plant world. The Jewish tradition is more
abstract because it is willing to accept finality.
Yes, you are remembered by others who are living and in that way you live on. I suppose the
residue of your life be it art or whatever, makes
you live on.
B. What about the size of your work. It seems
that the monumental aspect and even the materials could ensure that the work lives on.
M. The monumentality is an artistic choice. I
think human concerns are best represented at human scale. Less than a human scale, the work becomes more
of a model. As far as the longevity of the work goes, if the work survives five years I'm happy since the work is not saleable--it's frequently vandalized and I can't pay to store it any longer than that.
B. That touches on something that seems to be
part of the nature of our times in relation to art,
which is viewing art as a commodity. Your work
is not really about that. It is not presented as an
item for sale?
M. No, I want my work to be a barometer of my
existence on this planet. It indicates that
between this month and this month I was working on this. That is another reason I work alone.
I like the one-to-one. [My work is] very individual
in that it's a direct extension of me. So it's a celebration of life even though it comes in the form
of a topic like death.
B. By viewing the work as a celebration of a life, the death/life cycle continues.
M. Well, I think anybody who makes are is celebrating life.
B. Some people would say it was self-indulgent though, a form of therapy.
M. Yes, but it's one of the few things in my life I
can maintain almost total control. I have some
physical and financial constraints but basically,
it's a chance to play god.
B. What about the role of art as a communication form? What is the social role?
M. For me it is a way of venting anger . . . an elevated tantrum I suppose.
B. But that's still about you. What about . . . the
viewer?
M. I do want to manipulate you to a point, but
I've got to admit that when it comes to the subject of death what I thought I could manipulate I
could not. Everybody brings too much baggage
to the experience.
B. But do you think that is because death is
such a loaded subject?
M. It is incredibly loaded but it permeates our
life. I see the behaviors of children as predominantly destructive because their creative nature
is not nurtured. It is so much easier to destroy
than create. I don't know if it is some kind of primal thing for us to maintain our power or what.
B. I still want to get back to the viewer. I know
that individually we are all going to come to the
work and we are going to bring our own ideas.
How do you view your role as an artist in society? Is it important to communicate?
M. My work is very elitist. I probably exclude
ninety-five percent of the population anyway
because I'm relying on art historical precedents
to make my message. So I know most people
right off the bat are not going to get it.
B. One of the things I noticed about the early
pieces and even the new work is that because of
the way they are constructed there is an animated quality to them. They are human scale
with architectural and fantasy references, but the
surfaces are not the same--they are like armor.
M. That's right because the newer work is meant
to be insular...in the case of the Witnesses, I
have specific documents that are being housed
inside. These are like safe deposit boxes. They
need to be insulated or protected because I
know what would happen if these documents are
released.
B. So there is something almost like a spy novel, a mystery?
M. Yes, these are clandestine. They are underground pieces and I want the surfaces to reflect
our bad behavior as humans; they're cold, insular
and inhuman.
B. This gets back to the elitist aspect you discussed. I think most people who experience
your work find a fantasy quaiity because they
look like facades from Disney World.
M. Well, children see my work as playground
equipment. The front door of the Mail Carrier
piece, was used as a slide. They climb up the
box and slide down. On the pieces with the
motion detectors, all they care about is jumping
over the beam or crawling under it. But, I think
most people sense a kind of solemnity because
the pieces are very formal. I keep the ambient
light very dark and there is a sacred quality that
some people pick up on.
B. The other thing I noticed besides the art historical references was that they are very male.
Not just the monumentality and the materials but
some of the symbology.
M. I suppose there is a machismo to the work
but you have to remember that I am making references to professions and societies that were
historically male dominated.
B. So you were conscious of this aspect?
M. Well, not at first. It is just something that
happened. But with The Institution there's a
clear effort on my part to make fun of masculinity
by making a short bell tower and a zipper on the
front door. At Vanderbilt they [picked up on it]
and the person who did the review did as well.
B. But even in the Witness pieces with microphones and such, there are symbols that seem
very male.
M. Perhaps, but it may be the absence of color
too. I don't see color well. I intellectually understand it, but I don't respond to it. I am more
attracted to form and my surfaces are more
about tactility as opposed to color patterns. I
think that has always been the case with my
work.
B. The last time we spoke you discussed how
your early work was informed by your interest in
biology and your use of dead animals.
M. As a lab assistant in both high school and
college I prepared animals for dissection . . . so
most of the animals were dead. At that stage it
was fine with me but I don't think I could do it
now. It was the most immediate way for me to
understand this idea that something had to be
destroyed in order to be created. Going back to
the language, "you execute a piece of art, you
hang a painting." Our language says that something has to be destroyed to be created. The
animals were available and I understood something about them, so it was a baby step.
B. How do you think the older work relates to
the new work?
M. Well, I always put things in containers. I love
boxes because they offer so much. Just the
form itself offers possibilities like interiors, exteriors, and multiple surfaces.
B. And there are metaphors that go along with
that, too.
M. It's loaded. It could be about growth, things
entering, confinement . . . the metaphorical possibilities are exciting. In fact, I get teased about
my obsession. People say to me, "are you still
making boxes?" And I say "are you still painting
on rectangles?" But the container to me seems
almost natural because so much in our life is
contained. You go to work in a vehicle, you start
out in the womb, our bodies are contained by our
skin, you're placed in a box when you die, etc.
B. Now I want you to address...the new piece,
The Institution...You have said that it is about
secrecy. How does that concept relate to your
earlier work?
M. Secrecy is one aspect of it and is easy to discuss but in a broader way I'm concerned about
the loss of "substance" in our society. For example The Institution is all about facades. It's about
illusion. For example the sheet metal with the
brick pattern is mobile home skirting that is used
to create the illusion that the institution has a
foundation. The whole thing is a stage set. It is
just a front. The kind of front that people create
when they lie and lying makes me crazy. [In the
university], we're supposed to represent some
kind of higher ideal. I have other faculty telling to
me I'm a utopian, an idealist. I don't understand
why they are not making any effort to be. I feel
it's okay to be idealistic, as corny as that sounds,
because once you give that up, what do you
have left? Again that's another loss, I'm mourning another loss. I tell my students that it is okay
to follow their ideas. We are set up in our society to self-edit, self-censor before you've even
done anything. I think my job is to give students
permission to be who they are and that is an
incredible awakening for some of them. I think
students come to the art class not as a blank
slate but as people who have real experiences.
They just don't know how to tap it.
B. What do you feel art is in service to? Or is
the power of art that it is not in service to anything? Whenever you know what you are serving
the tendency is to follow the rules. Sometimes in
order to get to the truth . . .
M. ... you have to give up your allegiance otherwise you loose your objectivity. I think art is a
spiritual thing in that it is a mechanism by which
you can become more spiritual. But I see lots of
art that is vapid.
B. The things we talked about earlier like commodification and simplification, even
intellectualization have removed any of the power
[of art].
M. The metaphor is alsP dying. Everything
seems to be literal now.
B. What do you do with the pieces after you
show them and do you feel guilty about adding
more "stuff" to the world? Because it's really
big.
M. Yes, it's really big "stuff" and it's almost a
self-inflicted wound because I can't afford to
keep it. I've destroyed a lot of work that is either
too beat up to show or too expensive to store.
You know, that is part of the cycle of life.
B. I want you to talk a little about how you are
reworking themes in art. You mentioned that you
felt you were working with the big themes.
M. I break it down like the ten commandments.
There are sins against God and there are sins
against other people. A similar phenomenon
takes place with art. There is art about human
interaction. Art about nature and humans. Art
about deities and humans. There is art about
beautiful shapes and textures, and then, of
course, the human emotions.
B. So we just keep working with the same
themes for 50,000 years or more.
M. You have the new computer but you are back
to the same problem. I think my work is
extremely traditional.
B. Well, I want to try to get some closure. Your early work looked
like it was about death but to me it was really was about life...
M. I see where this is going...It's flipped. So
you are saying that the Final Portraits were more
about life and the recent work is more about
death?
B. Well yes. I think it is the kind of death we are
talking about. Your newer work is about a death
of honesty, integrity, commitment...those kinds
of things. The Institution is your way of reconciling or dealing with or maybe fighting the powers
that be, so that in some way the idealism and
honesty does live on.
M. I may be engaged in a lot a self deception
here about what is honest. Yes, I guess I'm
mourning, that sounds arrogant.
B. It just gets down to making a decision, do you want to be part
of the problem or do you want to be part of the solution or do you want
to go stick your head in the sand? My belief is that all of us have a
responsibility to be part of the solution however we choose to do it.
My interest in this discussion was to talk about the role of the artist.
The connecting theme in your work for me is morality.
--Barbara Yontz
A portfolio of Michael Aurbach's sculpture can be seen via Vanderbilt
Department of Fine Arts web site.
|