Lacan Web Télévision s’entretient avec Nathalie Obadia suite à la parution en février 2023 de la deuxième édition de son ouvrage “Géopolitique de l’art contemporain”.
Nathalie Obadia est galeriste, spécialisée dans l’art contemporain, à Paris et Bruxelles. Elle assure également un enseignement à Sciences Po Paris sur l’analyse du marché international de l’art contemporain.
Entretien mené par France Jaigu, psychanalyste membre de l’ECF et de l’AMP.
Sous-titres en espagnol, anglais, portugais, italien et français.
LWT speaks with Nathalie Obadia FJ: So, Nathalie Obadia, hello. Thank you very much for accepting our invitation to Lacan Web TV. I’ll introduce you quickly, even if it’s not really worth it. You are a renowned gallery owner. You opened your first gallery in Paris in 1993. About
Fifteen years ago, you opened another in Brussels. And 2 years ago, so in the fall of 2021, you opened a new space in the Matignon-Saint-Honoré district in Paris. So, you exhibit contemporary, emerging and recognized artists from the
International art scene. And your gallery also participates in the rediscovery of missing artists. I am thinking in particular of Seydou Keita, an African photographer who died in 2001, whom you are currently exhibiting on rue du Cloître-Saint-Merri. You will perhaps say a word to us, but at the end of this interview,
About the choice of the artist that you exhibit in your second Parisian gallery, rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré. This is Robert Kushner, an American artist of a somewhat particular style, who demonstrates an openness that is perhaps not entirely American, and founder – well,
One of the founders of the Pattern and Decoration. You also defend many French artists. I think of Fabrice Hyber, Luc Delahaye. And finally, you have teaching at Sciences Po in Paris on the contemporary art market. And we welcome you today
To talk with you about your work, which is already in its second edition, published by Le Cavalier Bleu, Géopolitique de l’art contemporain. I wanted to get you to react to the title, because it has a side, not provocative but a little surprising let’s say, since we are a little…
It’s a myth, obviously a received idea, which does not correspond not at all reality. But we rather have the idea of an artist, solitary, glorious artists, completely impervious to the political context of their country. However, it is really an image that you completely detract from with
This title and with this fascinating book, and which plunges us into the geopolitics of contemporary art. NO: First of all, thank you very much for your invitation. This book arrived practically after 25 years of presence in the art market, through contemporary art fairs and trips to meet scenes different
From ours. That is, traveling to Asia, the United States or the Middle East. And it’s true that little by little, we realize that things are much more linked. That is to say that artists are part of a system, we are all part of a system which is linked, between
The exhibitions in museums, the fairs in which we participate; sometimes with galleries and artists who are exhibited; the choice of collectors, the fact of calling on certain art critics or curators as they are called today, to host biennials and major international exhibitions. And finally we realize that it is not trivial,
It is not just an artistic statement, and that it really has geopolitical implications to the extent that countries, for example we saw it in Korea. Korea, at a given moment, after the period of dictatorship, understood that it was necessary to develop not only its economy
But also its artistic influence. And that this was done through the creation of biennials in his country, to call on certain foreign or national curators, to exhibit certain artists. Since it effectively raised them onto the international artistic scene,
And this meant that there was influence and that art participated in the soft power of Korea against Japan and China, and of course at a much higher level. international. FJ: Exactly, you use this term soft power. Moreover, in your book, there is a whole new vocabulary for people who are not as versed
In contemporary art as you are. All this vocabulary which is a vocabulary of this new system, of something very organized. You just gave the example of Korea, but in fact, perhaps we could go back a bit to the beginning—let’s say the middle of the 20th century—with
What is happening in the United States, and how the United States won the war, and this war allowed them to become the first economic and military power. They demonstrated their military power, but also ideological. It is the free country,
And as such, Paris – sorry, slip of the tongue! – New York, the Americans will export their artists as artists of this free world. So it starts in an organized way at that point. NO: It starts at that moment! We must not forget that the United States won
The First World War. It’s a short period. And they understood that they were now in the international circuit and that, somewhere, the Monroe doctrine – “we stay in our continent” – is over. Now there is an alliance between the United States and the
Western world, well, Europe. And then World War II arrives. But, already in 1940, even before the United States returned to Europe, there were characters who were very messianic, like Henry Luce for example, who was also the son of a pastor, who was at the head of a large
Media group, and which in 1941 ran a cover of Life saying “the 20th century will be American!” “. It’s very clear. There are really characters: like Walt Disney, for example, was used by the American government in the 1940s — and then later, during McCarthyism. We use its influence in Latin American countries and
Even in the United States to continue to propagate this image of a free world through culture, obviously more popular cultures. We also see it with cinema. F. J: Yes, cinema, everyone knows that! But not for art… NO: For art, it happens in a perhaps less visible way! Well, less visible,
In any case, less popular indeed, but it happens very quickly. Where the United States uses… well the United States: the CIA, very political members. Like Rockefeller, who is both a politician, but also a great collector, a great patron, who gives a lot of money
To MOMA, understands that art can indeed serve as a vector of freedom from the world in Europe, with this break with the Soviet world. And all of a sudden, with the complicity of curators – we call them curators – art critics, like Greenberg, like Rosenberg,
Who use artists to explain to them that there is a possibility for them to to expose, and to be able to conquer a territory other than American territory. And that’s how there will be exhibitions that will be organized from the end of the 1940s, especially in the 1950s
, in Italy, in Belgium, in the FRG. France will stand a little aside at that time for political reasons as well. And indeed, financial aid from the government and major patrons will mean that very large format paintings by these American artists – such as
Jackson Pollock, Franz Kline, or Rothko – will find their way onto European territory, and will be able to become known, will be able to be purchased by major collectors. There are some in Germany, in the FRG at the time; there are also some in Italy. And inevitably,
We will find them in museums, and we will accept them, and they will, like that, actually make themselves known more widely than if they had remained in the United States. FJ: That’s it. In fact, you are extending — because we will see, it is a historical reminder — you
Are extending the work that Serge Guilbaut had done, who had written a book in which he showed that in fact, until 1945, after the war we will say, the center of the avant-gardes was Paris. He bluntly says that New York steals the idea of the avant-garde from Paris, and that therefore,
It is New York, thanks to people like you say, Greenberg, and Greenberg especially for that matter. NO: Greenberg and Rosenberg, there you go! So, it’s interesting because Greenberg is a Trotskyite! So, we must not forget that at the time, on the other side, it was Stalin. And Stalin
Effectively put aside the entire Trotskyist movement. And in a way, these American intellectuals are playing the game of messianic America against Stalinism. So, that’s what’s interesting because most of these artists are rather very left-wing, rather very activist at the time. But they’re playing the game against the Soviet Union, the Iron Curtain,
All the other countries that are in the Soviet system at the time. But to actually return to the book, to Guilbaut’s thesis, which is really very interesting, New York stole the idea of art, finally the art scene from France, from Europe – well we have to don’t forget that
There are also many artists who have emigrated, for political reasons. The Jews, people who are not Jewish, for political reasons, from Vienna, from Germany, from France, almost everywhere, they emptied Europe, Europe emptied itself of many creators and of artists who found themselves in New York. And inevitably, artists – like
Gorky, Rothko (but he left well before) of course, Masson, Dali – form a creative breeding ground. The youngest American artists will still watch them. New York is becoming an extremely important place for creation. And then afterwards, we will say that nature,
I always like to repeat that, “nature abhors a vacuum”. It is obvious that in 1945, that in Europe, things were still much more complicated, and that it was no longer easy for the American force to establish itself. We see with the Blum-Byrnes agreements, already on the cinema,
But that is recorded. But what happens with art is not acted upon, but happens in the same way. That is to say, we give you money, we came to help you, we continue
To come to help you, but in a certain way, we are going to let a certain part of the art prevail. FJ: We discussed it briefly yesterday, the question of the format of American paintings. Since what is spectacular, let’s say – among the Pollocks for example, the De Koonings,
Of this whole abstract expressionist era – is indeed this format which is not a European format, but it will be marketed like that the format American! So immense, like the American territory is immense, and reading your book, you remember that. And indeed, it brings to mind this whole question of the border,
Doesn’t it? The United States was built on this notion of border, always pushing back the border. Except that in 1945, their territory was conquered, if I dare say, and it was a matter of exporting elsewhere. Would you agree to say that, ultimately, before 1945, American art was provincial, still
A bit of an imitator of the great European masters? That they haven’t, in fact, found their paw? NO: Exactly. They are looking for. American artists still go to Europe on what is called “the grand tour”. So, there is always this desire to go towards Europe,
To see what is being done. To talk about a break, which was in any case very good… we made it a myth! We’re going to talk about Jackson Pollock for example. Jackson Pollock is, on the contrary, like a kind of very primitive American person, that’s it, who comes
From a state completely in the Midwest, which is very influenced by the culture of the native Americans, the Indians of the time. There really is this very wild, very wild, very primitive side of American culture. And that, I think, is a bit like that break. For now,
We can say, yes, he looked at Gorky, he looked at the French surrealists; that’s not really the case. This is something to sophisticate Pollock’s point. But it is much more in the American authenticity, of this American territory. And indeed,
We see it afterwards, with this dripping. It’s the fact of working on the ground, there is really something very conquering about the territory, as you say. It’s true that Americans are very marked by this! This term “the end of the frontier” in 1890, which was theorized by this
Gentleman called Turner, is something that had a huge impact on them. And so, they will seek new frontiers, whether in art, whether in territories, whether in literature. That was something that had a big impact on them. FJ: In rockets. NO: In space, of course, and we still see it today with
Artificial intelligence. It’s always pushing back this myth of the territory. But coming to Jackson Pollock, it’s a bit like that. And it’s true that these large formats, then we can talk about the large American territory, of course, but there are also much more pragmatic reasons. And that is also
The great strength of American art. They built their myths, they built their history, and after that, everything becomes very pragmatic. It’s also commerce. Very early on, Americans realized that their art could be bought by Americans, the nouveau riche Americans, the big industrial families, who were going to abandon European art to
Buy precisely Expressionist abstracts. And they also had very large houses, which are effectively linked to this territory which is much larger than others. And there were merchants. The first, moreover, is less well known but he is an absolutely brilliant gentleman. His name is Samuel Kutz, who initially made his fortune in advertising in
Hollywood. So he knew very well what marketing was, what it was to put forward, the notion of stardom. He opened a gallery in which he showed American abstracts in the 1940s. And he said to these artists: “You know, our collectors, my buyers are rich people, have very nice upstate houses (outside the
City) . city). Make very large paintings, we will sell them! “. There you go, there’s that too. FJ: And they sold them! NO: Indeed, they sold them. They made very large paintings. And then afterwards, this whole notion of very large formats was found very quickly in Europe. Well,
I talk about it a little bit in the book. FJ: Yes, but it’s very interesting! NO: So, in Europe, especially in the FRG, which was still very marked by the American presence – both economic, financial, and creative. They joined the resistance quite
Quickly, and they created this famous exhibition which has existed since 1955, called Documenta in Cassel, which was a way of standing out both from the United States, but also to stand out from the camp. Soviet. And so, he is an art historian of the time – well, sorry artist,
Who is an artist! – whose name is Bode, who created this enormous event in Cassel to show German, European creation. But the Americans understood that it was still a very important vector of communication for them. And at the second Documenta
Which took place in 1959, still with Mr. Bode, American emissaries went to see him saying: “Listen, there you go, if you want to put American artists – who were already known after all, there had already had this exhibition cycle in several
European cities with all the American abstracts — we can help you finance the transport. » It was very interesting because obviously, they were very proud to be able to have the greatest American artists alongside the Europeans, especially the Germans. And finally the plane
Arrived. They simply hadn’t thought at all that the Americans would bring huge canvases ! Jackson Pollock… when you look at the photos from the Cassel exhibition, the second Documenta in 1959, it’s absolutely extraordinary to see all these large paintings, and so
The organizers said to themselves: “But what is ‘we will do ? » They were therefore obliged to move all the European, French painters, who had nevertheless remained on much more European formats: a little small. They put them at the top and they put in the
Stage Notes, that is to say on the ground floor and the first floor all the very, very large paintings. So, there you have it, the visitor who arrived there, they had in front of them absolutely spectacular, because the size means that, inevitably, the visual impact is still very
Important. And besides, some of these paintings can be found at the Kunstmuseum in Düsseldorf, because the German curators were able to buy these paintings, we can clearly see the years of acquisition. Even at the Kunstmuseum in Basel where I was not very long ago, I looked at the years of acquisition: 1959, 1960…
FJ: That’s the moment! NO: These paintings, these famous very large American paintings which have returned, most of them, there are some which have entered very prestigious museums and, inevitably, they have spread. FJ: So we come to the heart of our subject. But — just to finish on Pollock and the rupture — you
Say: this is the first cut. Indeed, Pollock prided himself – which actually pleased Clément Greenberg somewhat because he was an extremely cultured man – he prided himself on never having set foot in Europe, he did not do the usual tour,
Total self-taught! There’s this famous bon mot — it’s Clement Greenberg who says it himself. He says that once he was showing him Rubens, and Pollock’s reaction was to say, “I can paint better than this guy.” And Clement Greenberg said: “I was devastated and I still am.” Indeed, when you say cutting,
The United States was built on that, on the idea of cutting with the Old Continent. NO: Abstraction became like the language of freedom in the face of painting – notably Soviet but which also existed among artists like Fougeron or Italian artists – of socialist realism, which remained on very narrative things. Abstracts, however
, were initially not appreciated by American political leaders who saw them as something very disruptive. They said to themselves: “if it is good for the image of America and with that we manage to establish ourselves in Europe, and it is the continuity of our policy of soft
Power, of soft diplomacy, It’s okay, we’ll let it go.” But initially it was frowned upon. FJ: So, it is an all the more relevant vector, abstract expressionism, precisely because it is abstract in contrast to what is done in the USSR. So it’s really the pictorial language of freedom.
NO: Moreover, in the United States, they sidelined painters who continued – like Benton – to create very narrative paintings. Even I remember that I discovered this painting late while touring American museums, particularly in the Midwest, in Minneapolis, in Kansas City, where I saw a painting in museums that
Had not yet been seen in major New York museums. And it’s been very recently, notably thanks to the reopening of the new Whitney, that there was an exhibition which showed all this realistic and figurative painting which was a little hidden because it was reactionary, in any case don’t did not serve America’s interests.
FJ: Thomas Benton was one of Pollock’s masters, one of his teachers I think. So that ‘s the first cut. To get to talking about Europe and the reaction, resistance, response — or not — of Europeans. Because we can clearly see that European countries
Have not reacted in the same way. You just talked about Germany. The French did not react the same. There is finally a second rupture, which you analyze very well in your book, which is 1964, the Venice Biennale,
And the Golden Lion which is awarded to Rauschenberg – an artist who announced pop with some codes of expressionism abstract. This is a very important tipping point. NO: We could see it coming. We always say – to repeat Guilbaut’s thesis – “they stole,
They imposed themselves on Venice”. Indeed, he won the Golden Lion in 1964. But in 1960 it was Mark Tobey, an American painter who won the painting prize. So obviously, it was an American painter who chose to end his life in Europe, but it was still a small sign to give
The painting prize to Mark Tobey in 1960. So the shock of 1964 is interesting because the vote was done a bit like at the UN, it was very political. For example, Poland did not vote for France for political reasons. Italy was very annoyed by the fact that France
Always had a lot of prizes, so they let it happen. Apart from the quality of Rauschenberg – in any case it was obvious that he had to be awarded one day or another – we realize that these are very political things. There is a wonderful book, which was
Written by an American researcher from Harvard, which tells the whole story of Rauschenberg. It’s really very political, we know that. Everything was actually done for him to win this prize, but the paintings must be in the American pavilion, that’s the rule. While these paintings
Were on display at the consulate, and therefore late, the dealers Leo Castelli, Ileana Sonnabend, the curator of this exhibition as well as the responsible people in the United States, during the night moved the paintings from the consulate to the American pavilion, on boats. We have
All the photos, it’s very interesting. We see these famous paintings by Rauschenberg which today would cost 30 million, 50 million since they are in the biggest museums in the world, we see them on these boats heading to the American pavilion
To be able to compete and obtain the Grand Prix . What is especially interesting here too – this is why America worked – is that there has always been a complicity between politics and economics, with the creators. We saw it with Clément Greenberg, Trotskyist, who worked
Hard to build this movement of American abstracts. The American abstracts, most of them were really people who were very politically engaged against the American governments – well, they let it happen, because it served them. It’s the same thing,
Rauschenberg, when we see the content of these paintings, we have the impression that it is for the glory of America, even though in 1964 we are in the middle of the Vietnam War and many American artists create paintings that are very controversial. Rosen Quist will
Too. We see a painting with a parachute, and on the other side it’s Kennedy, everyone thinks it’s for the glory of America when it’s not that at all! This is to condemn the United States’ involvement in Vietnam. But he lets it happen, he doesn’t say anything. It is very
Well explained in the book, the misinterpretation that is made about his work, he lets it be said. FJ: He lets the storytelling happen. NO: So indeed, this famous Golden Lion of 1964 in Rauschenberg is the installation of America’s soft power in the Venice Biennale and which we see today. When we look closely,
All the societal demands that may seem disturbing to American soft power are on the contrary digested by intellectuals. They are included in the participations of the artists who are invited to the American Pavilion. As they are still present in today’s world
, they still manage to win the Golden Lions and be very present. FJ: 1964 is a tipping point for the reason you have just explained to us. It is also the consecration of a pop artist, therefore an artist who reintegrates the figure into his paintings,
Where ultimately it had become almost a swear word, since it was the fact that the painting was abstract which was considered avant-garde. People like Greenberg were furious because he considered Pop art to be completely retrograde and rubbish. So from a pictorial point of view there is also a break there. But what
You also show in your book is that the French defended themselves very poorly, they didn’t know how to respond, that’s why it’s not “stolen”, too bad for us! NO: Yes. While writing the book I told myself that things were much more complex.
Some people had already told me that. I remember Annie Cohen-Solal who wrote this wonderful book One Day We Will Have Painters, who wrote the biography Leo Castelli. Finally, she knows her extremely well and I often talk with her. Once she told me: “you know,
Guilbaut’s thesis is much more complex and it’s not that at all.” Then I understood what she meant. Coming back to France, in 1945, then a little later in the 1950s and 1960s, we always thought that we dominated, that this
American abstract art was no big deal, we weren’t very concerned about everything. that. Afterwards, it was marked politically: on the one hand, there was a strong Marxist presence among the conservatives, the decision-makers of the time; or they were rather Gaullists who
Were – we’ll talk about Malraux perhaps – very proud of the independence of France and who did not want to be attached to the Soviet side, certainly, but not at all to the side either. American. This is De Gaulle’s entire policy of independence. So there were
Errors that were made, and in particular the fact that, from 1958 to 1969, the Minister of Culture who had all the powers – it was still Malraux – let people decide – because the visual arts was not really his specialty — and remained very conservative. Today, we can really criticize this policy,
Because in the early 1960s we had avant-garde artists. And they had even shown in private galleries in the United States: Klein, Tinguely, Nikki de Saint Phalle, César, Armand – I’m talking about the best known. They were there, since the first works were at the end
Of the 1950s. The new realists, with Restany, were a very well-known movement. FJ: But then, why didn’t it work? We have the new realists and the Pops opposite, why doesn’t it work? NO: During the Biennales — since there were every two years, so 1960, 1962,
1964 — there were in any case several Biennales under the aegis of Malraux and people who were close to him, who should have invite these artists to the French pavilions. Well no, they were not invited and we continued to show painters
From what we call “the second schools of Paris”. So, at one point, we let ourselves be completely overwhelmed. I am convinced that if we had made a pavilion with several of these New Realist artists, we would not have
Marginalized ourselves in the same way. And even if Rauschenberg had won the prize in 1964, it wouldn’t have been as big a cut. We say “well, ok, he won, maybe it’s the Americans’ turn, but in France, they still have an avant-garde”. This one
We didn’t show. Whereas the Venice Biennale was an extremely strategic, political place, as contemporary art fairs subsequently became. It’s not trivial to put countries in what we call gardens with its artistic embassies. It’s not trivial, you have to take it seriously because others do it seriously.
FJ: The one who also understands and who is furious – you were talking about Gaullists – is Cordier, the companion of the Liberation who became a gallery owner, who was Jean Moulin’s secretary, and who writes a note, a letter to express his dissatisfaction in 1964.
NO: He opened an art gallery in which he showed Rauschenberg, Dubuffet… It was truly an avant-garde gallery. Indeed, he realized, in the mid -1960s, that France was completely outside a certain economic and artistic reality, fixed on this second school of Paris, which did not want to open up to anything else
. . So he chose to close his gallery, to write this letter in which he accuses France of not understanding that there are other fights – in any case, he was a fighter, he remained one until at the end. He even opened a gallery afterwards in the United States.
It’s interesting because it’s a letter that was written from a person, a resistance fighter, who tried after the war to say “France is going to rebuild something”, who was moreover open to contemporary American avant-garde creation, but which was not successful.
FJ: So, we’re going to move on to Germany, because they’re doing better than us. There is all this sinister Nazi past which stigmatized so-called “degenerate” art. After the war, the Germans were keen, on the contrary, to take up the torch in terms of art and you show…
NO: So it will happen gradually, but we will say that from 1963, 1967, we see the first galleries which began to openly show a new German art by saying “well, okay, there was Nazism, it’s tabula rasa; but we can leave.” So
These are dealers, like Michael Werner who will show Baselitz. We have to go back to 1963, Baselitz made paintings of very wounded soldiers from the war. It’s not nostalgia, but it tells a story, what Germany was, rebuilding something. At the time,
Many Germans did not want to see this painting. That’s why it was easier for artists afterwards, like Beuys who, while talking about this destroyed Germany, the fact that he didn’t paint, it was easier to accept, to understand than a painting where
We saw head-on what all this suffering, all these horrors of Germany could have been. So there were merchants. As we have seen, in 1955, Documenta was created, that ‘s very good. But they did not only close themselves to German art, they opened up to the whole world,
Finally to the Western world of the time, obviously Europe and the United States. They are merchants from Cologne, because at the time Berlin being cut in two, it was a bit difficult. It is the Ruhr which is still very rich, it is between Cologne and Düsseldorf that the market is structured.
The art schools are there too with all the artists who teach, the breeding ground is there. And so dealers joined forces in 1967 by saying “listen, the best way to bring foreigners, especially Americans, to show them that we have a nascent school
And that we are not just here to receive art American is getting together for 4, 5 days in one place.” There were I think 18 merchants at the beginning. So the German merchants set out there, but the Americans came very quickly. They understood that they had to go there,
Because they saw clearly that in Germany, there were all these great fortunes, powerful companies. So they came, and very quickly this Cologne fair showed that there was a new German school. But on the other hand, collectors bought German, and then they bought American. The best way is to go see the Ludwig collection
In Cologne which was in Aachen. It was typically this German collector who bought German, but who very early on went to the United States to buy American Pop. Moreover, the museum today rightly shows these concomitant purchases, and shows that Germany had very important painters at the time.
FJ: In fact, they understand that to resist you have to form an alliance. NO: Exactly. And the artists too, among themselves, together they have moved forward. Moreover today, we are talking about German painters: Richter, Baselitz, Penck, Rupert, Polke — because Kiefer is much younger. Right away,
There are 4-5 names, it’s a bit what happened with England, is that at a given moment you have to have a group of artists to found something. FJ: France had a fair but a little later, 1973, the FIAC. NO: here it is, 1973. FJ: The FIAC. NO: 1967, then, it’s Cologne and Switzerland.
FJ: Basel. NO: Yes. Switzerland said “wow! Germany found a very, very good idea” and in 1970, thanks to the great merchant Beyeler and the federal and cantonal authorities, since it took place in Basel, opened this great fair which today obviously dominates all
Fairs of the world because it’s called Art Basel. It’s really a brand, and so from 1970, this fair will be the world meeting, more after Cologne, the great world meeting of Western art. This is where the big ones American dealers will come every year to exhibit, alongside European dealers.
FJ: So you mentioned the case of the United Kingdom. It’s a little later, it takes place more around the 1990s. And you were talking about the importance of putting together an ensemble. It’s the one that came together, basically thanks to Saatchi, Charles Saatchi and the Young British Artists scene. Maybe you can…
NO: Exactly. So it’s Saatchi with Damien Hirst. It’s always a meeting. So it is Saatchi who is at the head of an extremely important communications and advertising agency with his brother, and it is they who will run Mrs Thatcher’s entire electoral campaign. So what is interesting is that this
English scene will also be helped by the English government, through the institutes that exist all over Europe and the world. But it is at this moment of the arrival of Thatcher, of this whole movement that Saatchi will understand that, a bit like the United States, that the return
Of England, through this ultraliberalism, will also take place with culture and also with the arts. The arts are visual, we must not forget. Literature is one thing, but it’s more elitist and it’s less visible, and art is visual. And the one who will
Show it well – obviously we were talking about Pollock and his great paintings or afterward it will be Warhol – is Damien Hirst. Damien Hirst is a young artist. At the time he completely understood that he was not going
To do it alone. Very very ambitious, he brought with him other artists with whom he was at school. So, Tracey Emin, Sarah Lucas to talk about the best known, who are also women artists, but they are very visual artists who make large installations, very disruptive, which can really shock, it’s shocking art.
And Damien Hirst does this work thanks to the help of Saatchi whose name is, the title is very very long, it is a large shark, which must make with its formalin box the length of this piece, and thanks to this work that will travel to prescribing places. I remember
Seeing it in 1990 or 1991 for the first time, precisely during the Cologne fair. The Cologne fair in 1990 and 1991 is always a really important place to go and see what is happening in young creation. And next to the fair, there was a place that was like that,
Rented out for events. And Saatchi is building up a collection of works by these Young British Artists, will take a place to show his artists, including this famous shark. We might as well tell you that frankly it’s a shock. We knew he existed, we had heard about him,
We see him, and it’s true that he is a wonderful ambassador for the English artistic school. And so all that said… so there will be the producer Saatchi – great collector, a little manipulative but it doesn’t matter, he did a lot –, the artist and the
Others. And besides that, you need a gallery, and that’s the White Cube gallery. It’s Jay Joplin who continues – himself from a very good family, coming out of Oxford, everything you need – and he is the disseminator of this movement, with one or two other galleries obviously, from Young British Artists .
So this whole alliance, a little bit of what we saw in the United States a few decades ago, and there, will inevitably conquer the world. And it’s true that where I remember – because I experienced it as I already had the gallery, where I said to myself “they’ve arrived there” – is when
I remember going to the end of the 1990s visiting American collections, particularly in Chicago, because there were big American collectors at that time, where we saw Damien Hirst next to Jeff Koons. And so there and I said to myself, it’s great because
Indeed they had managed to rise to the level of the best-known American artists. FJ: There is also the Frieze. NO: And then, yes, a little later. Anyway, every time we arrive, we try to conquer – I was going to say an artistic territory – you need boxes. And then there is,
At the start, it’s an art magazine, Frieze, with an art magazine which obviously highlights the entire English scene, but not just English, so rather American, so very Anglo- Saxon – we French are always on the sidelines – Anglo-Saxon, in the truly etymological sense. FJ: More Germany.
NO: There you go: Germany, England, United States. Here is Frieze, this really very important magazine that we all read in France because that’s where we saw everything that was happening being created. And the two creators of the magazine created the fair, the Frieze Art Fair
In London which became the big event – just before the FIAC, the French scene was already a little weakened, a little behind. And what’s more, not only was that the case, but there is also a week before the Frieze – the FIAC sorry – Frieze where indeed all
Americans, it’s the meeting, it’s The place to be. And obviously, for a while, for the FIAC, it was very complicated. So there you have it. And then afterward, it’s the alliance with the museums, the museums understand very well. So the Royal Academy… FJ: … which showed the Young British Artists.
NO: Young British Artists is a place all the same. It’s a wonderful legitimization, it’s as if we hadn’t shown it at the Louvre. But practically, afterwards, this exhibition, moreover, will travel to Germany, it will then travel to the Brooklyn Museum. It was also
At this time that the Tate created a new venue. We had the Tate modern which is rather very classic, which is what it has always remained, finally the Tate Britain which becomes the museum of artists, of the English scene, and they are going to build this magnificent museum which is called
The Tate modern and which, moreover, every five years, expands to show everything that is happening. FJ: The only completely depressing thing about the non-modern Tate Britain is that they took the Rothkos from the Four Seasons from the Tate Britain which were magnificently exhibited in a completely separate room,
And they put them in a room. Finally, there you have it, we no longer have the same effect at all. NO: It no longer has the same effect, but it’s also because we move forward in time and we have to show other artists, who have become just as important. And that Rothko,
Today to bring a certain audience to the Tate, it is not Rothko who is going to bring them. That’s really for the happy few, in a way. So I recently went to see a new exhibition at the Tate Modern and we understand that the exhibition is designed to become as diverse as possible,
Not only aesthetically but in terms of the origins of the artists. FJ: Yes, then, we will come to that. So, to summarize a little, in fact, ultimately we understand very well with the British example that we need a certain
Number – you said a whole bunch of boxes to check. So we must indeed fair, we must obviously criticize. So the reviews, the fair. NO: The exhibition… FJ: The museum, the dealer and the collector. So. And so, when we have, it’s not the trifecta
But these five elements, well we actually manage to constitute a possible response to American hegemony. So, precisely, briefly, because we have the USSR, the former USSR, Russia, we have China which could have tried to get out of all this,
And you show very clearly that not at all. Perhaps a word on these great powers? NO: Yes. We say to ourselves, well, here it is, 1945, we understand the United States, American and therefore Western hegemony in a broader way, today we can say that that’s it. And
It was expected that China, the second economic power, would become the rival, in terms of artistic cultural influence with the United States. It was not the case. So, that ’s the same: as an actor, I experienced it. FJ: You believed it for a moment.
NO: So I never really believed in it. But in any case I told myself that what can be done for us, Westerners, we will try to do. And then on the other side, I looked at what was happening with Chinese creation. And, let’s say, if there are
Interesting Chinese artists, and of course there are, we’ll exhibit them in the gallery. Finally, I was not the only one, obviously, far from it, to show them in museums, because that’s how it is, because it’s an extraordinary culture, there is a culture and
Inevitably what ‘there are going to be very good artists. So of course there were some, then things closed down. And so that, that’s the assessment, is that ultimately we see what is happening today in China, there is a kind, on the contrary, of de-Westernization
Of minds, a political will, because when we rereads Jinping’s political speeches which now date from almost ten years ago, I remember very well, he asks artists not simply to copy, which must be done in the West, but on the contrary to take up
All the techniques of calligraphic art. There are many things that can be done with their culture that shouldn’t just be copied. So there you have it, it’s still written in black and white. FJ: There is a desire, yes.
NO: There you have it, a desire. And besides, this is found in the artists who are shown in more or less official art venues in China. Today, these are very clearly artists of whom we saw a lot, around ten years ago, all these large paintings
With very figurative characters like that. Well, that’s put aside, because there’s a Western Pop, American Pop side that they don’t want to see, and so it’s totally put aside. And then there is also the fact that today, the desire is to close the country, to stay in power. And so,
Letting artists express themselves is necessarily – an artist is more against the regime. And so everything is done to completely stifle contemporary creation which does not fit into their scheme. And that’s a shame, since today, there is not a single public museum in China that shows contemporary Chinese creation.
FJ: This is what you are showing despite the efforts of Baron Ullens. NO: But that was private. That is to say, indeed, Ullens opened, in an extraordinary place in Beijing, a place to show, at the time, when it was still a little open – he arrived well before Jinping. It showed artists,
These famous Chinese avant-garde artists, with Western artists. And then little by little it was no longer possible. So he closed his place. There are others. Today, there are founders of private museums, we know them all more or less from Shanghai
To Beijing. We have seen for four, five years very clearly that they no longer have the same exhibition and acquisition policy at all. I even remember, it shocked me, four, five years ago, when I went to Shanghai, each time I arrived in Shanghai, the two
Main private museums, each time I came across artists international: Louise Bourgeois, Rodin… And myself, although I am French, I said to myself “ these Chinese are still a little curious, each time I arrive in these museums, I only come across great
Western values” . Yes, finally, we understood little by little. All that is changing, and today, it’s the opposite. When you look at the programming, they are mostly Chinese artists. So all this to say that in any case, soft power can only exist
If these are democratic values, if everyone can express themselves. If today, and I know it, I hear it from Chinese collectors that I know well, everything is done so that they no longer buy Western artists. Well, already because it’s difficult
To get the money out of the country, also because they can’t show it as a trophy, that’s it also the power of art. If an American wasn’t there, he couldn’t show his Jackson Pollock or his Rothko, and the German his Kiefer, or I don’t know what, it’s obvious that purchases
Would be lower. Well, a Chinese, if we make him understand that, one, you don’t buy foreign because that’s not done, you won’t be able to show it, you won’t be able to resell it, you won’t be able to use it for everything, he’s not going to buy, that’s it, so it closes.
FJ: So we see hegemony, we are in Anglo-Saxon hegemony. So there we have the English and the Germans who are resisting a little in Europe. And then finally, what you also show is that obviously – hence the interest also in republishing your book and
You stay as close as possible to current events – is that there is a new data which is the moralization of the art market, already politicized. And now, we are going to talk about the values of democracy, but I am actually referring to all the debates in this post-MeToo era, which are
Very agitating the international artistic market. And this is where we say to ourselves that they are indeed very strong. Because this country, all the same, the United States which, until the mid -1960s, you could not sit in the same bus compartment when you were black,
In the south of the United States, segregation was raging, they had a hard time getting rid of it, it must still be said, they just had Trump, they have a Supreme Court which makes decisions which are all more retrograde than the others. Recently
Again, they canceled “the affirmative action” which was still a way of effectively fighting against segregation and discrimination, well segregation is over, but discrimination… Well they still manage to recover from this that time, by integrating a discourse which is taken up by collectors and museums. And so there
You show, that’s fascinating: what can you tell us about it? NO: So that’s the same thing: I experienced it as an actor. That’s what ‘s always interesting, because I read, I listen, but at a given moment,
As a gallery owner, I see a little bit of how things are happening. And so, to summarize, we’re going to come back, but just to summarize… I remember, this is where I suddenly say “yes, there’s something happening, it’s really interesting”. I do the Miami fair every
Year, Art Basel Miami, in December. And so come all the big collectors, buyers from the rest of the United States – from Texas, Florida among others, which are states, we know, which are still very conservative, with a lot of money. And
A collector that I know quite well, who is really a die-hard Trumpist, there he was really a die-hard Trumpist, a gentleman who has a business in cars, well, it’s this American dream of a great entrepreneur . In short, who has a very nice
Collection – really very Trumpist in politics – and I understood that we shouldn’t talk too much. And he has in his collection, today it’s been 5, 6 years, all the African-American artists that he has purchased over the last ten years. As I know him quite well, I say to him: “but
It’s still incredible given your opinions, I’ve heard you say things that are sometimes really extremely shocking.” I can tell he says things to me as a French person, maybe he wouldn’t say it like that so easily in the States. I don’t understand,
Because what’s more, every time he comes to the stand “do you have a painting by such and such an African-American artist?” “, “you chased them all away despite all your opinions? “. He says “but, you know, they’re American.” So. So, if you want,
It’s African-American: he took off the afro, they are American, so for him. FJ: He’s right. NO: He’s right. So it was apart from the fact that it was America, that was important. For him, it will even be much more obvious to buy an African-American than a German artist
Because it’s not its culture, but more than that, it was, it’s an object of exchange. That is to say , since they are American, it is money and I could resell it. Because the American circuit will always support its artists and the international system too, and in which he is
Absolutely right. We still have enough perspective, between 1945 and today, to know that on the international market works of art – obviously there are always bad and good artists – but the most expensive works of art remain American values. FJ: There you go, they are too strong.
NO: There you go, so if you want, if only that, when he says “you know they are American”, well ok, that really meant that, “you see it will always remain a value”. And that’s really important. So there you have it, Americans are indeed confident in their culture, in what they produce,
And even if it will disturb them morally, politically, ethically, etc., it is digested by the market anyway. And in any case, it also becomes digested by the international market. France Jaigu: And then you also show how there are a whole bunch of initiatives, in museums,
To put a black woman at the head of this or that museum, how the artists themselves – you, I don’t know anymore what is the example you give of a wonderful American artist, I don’t remember who it is, but who is marketed as being black and homosexual.
NO: So maybe it’s Mark Bradford, I don’t know… FJ: I don’t know who you say but precisely… NO: Yes, things that have changed because, you see, we were talking about Rauschenberg in 1964, and his friend for a very long time was Jasper Johns or Warhol,
Well Warhol was a little later, but that was absolutely not said. FJ: Yes, homosexuality? NO: Yes, homosexuality, not at all. Whereas today, these criteria of multiplication of minorities, which is somewhat at the origin of intersectionality, but today it becomes a kind of marker of power, since indeed,
It is not a problem, even the opposite. And we also see it in the United States, at the Venice Biennale, where the United States, when we look very closely at who they send to the pavilion every 2 years, it is very marked by all these social theories .
There are a lot of artists today who are no longer American – the white, straight one. You’d have to look, but today it’s very clearly artists from minorities. FJ: And you say moreover, the whole space of the museum is transformed to the extent
Of this evolution of mentalities. You show, I found this fascinating, how even the idea of a masterpiece is something that is considered almost patriarchal – if patriarchal, not almost – patriarchal of a completely heteronormative society. And how we ultimately end up
Exhibiting in a completely different way, for example a landscape painting from the 18th century, and then next to it we will put an Indian headdress or a drawing on the skin of a Native American. NO: It’s to bring together artists, well artists or creators
From American minorities. That is very clearly, I saw it the last time, it was very well done at the Brooklyn Museum, for example, so very close, well yes, in New York, where it is very clearly done. Where when we enter the rooms,
It is explained that Brooklyn, the Brooklyn Museum was built on land that belonged to Native Americans. So, to pay homage to them, well we are going to show masterpieces, well works from the 18th, 19th, rather classic, and alongside we are going to put objects coming either from descendants of these Native Americans,
Or, well, in a broader way, but it’s done quite systematically now. FJ: There you go. NO: But where it is important, finally it is important, this deconstruction, yes it is a kind of deconstruction of the museum, of the museum with a “universal thought” vocation that we have
In Europe but which is also in the United States where, for example, there have been very precise declarations. The Baltimore Museum, which is one of the museums that has been for a very long time one of the richest American museums because Baltimore is a very rich city, where it has been, museums
Have the right to sell, in the United States, a part of their collection, and there they clearly said “we sell American artists”. So I don’t know if it was written “white” but we knew very well. It was, in fact, Pollock, well all the American abstractionists.
So we sell American abstracts to buy black artists, and I even think they were black women. And they did exactly the same thing in San Francisco as well. These are the best-known cases, but that’s still something very strong. FJ: So that’s very interesting because ultimately, so, if we summarize, it will
Necessarily be a little false because when we summarize too much it’s always a little false, but basically, we had a moment where we could have imagined that this American hegemony would decrease a little and then finally, well no. And what you say there, it makes me think,
The fact that museums do in fact sell abstract expressionists, it reminds me of what you said, particularly in your book, at a given moment, I don’t know if it’s on the Skulls, I no longer know if it is them or other American collectors who, at a given moment,
Will sell all the abstract expressionists to buy only Pop. NO: Yes. FJ: Since Pop is experienced as, truly, the first truly American art which celebrates American culture, American consumer society. So, it’s more complicated than that obviously as you said. Even Warhol, when he did his Disaster Series, he was not
Saying: “the riots in the South of the United States are fantastic”. But, so finally, and you, you talk about this and that, it seems very interesting to me, and I see a very small parallel that I could make with psychoanalysis.
It’s that ultimately there is like… it’s when the Americans get involved, ultimately, there is a bit of a standardization of the market in a certain way. These values come to, yes, standardize taste and always bring back the same, the same artists.
NO: So in any case, they, that is to say, when, as they get involved, that is to say, it spreads to the rest of the world in a certain way. But there too, they are still at the initiative, even if there are countries which are, which have it, which adopt it in a
Different way. This is because in the United States, the strength of the market is such that they are pretty sure of all that anyway. But besides that there will be artists, there will be an activist artistic movement, if you like, which will be put in place. That is to say that,
And we see it today in Europe, it’s a bit like that, that is to say, on the one hand there are the major values of the market, and on the other hand, to show that the market is not all-powerful, we will highlight artists and curators who are more activists
And who will put forward models, finally artistic schemes which go for the suddenly be difficult to assimilate by the market. This is why there is this phenomenon of “Biennialization” which exists throughout the world, starting with Venice which has existed since 1895, San Paolo to
Speak of it, Gwangju in Korea since 1995. There are in Istanbul. Finally, there are Biennales almost everywhere, and in Germany too, the one in Berlin. We realize that this is a way of fighting against the market. There you have it, the assignment by the paintings, by the grand prizes, well
We are going to do more and more Biennials which are demands, where there will be the heart of these societal demands. But it also comes from the United States, you see. FJ: That’s it. NO: That is to say, it also comes from the United States, which does it itself. And we
Find it, moreover, also in museums. So that’s really interesting to see that this artistic scene is, the range is really very wide, between market values and then on the other side, so that it remains absolutely credible, that we do not stray too far
From the demands, well we have to let the place for these exhibitions which are very political. FJ: So I said that it made me think a little bit of what happened with psychoanalysis, because for psychoanalysis, it’s the same. During the war we had many
Great psychoanalysts who left for the United States, exactly as European painters left for the United States. And Freud had once said, well, well before that, to Jung: “They don’t know that we’re bringing them the plague,” because at one point he went to the United States. But ultimately the Americans, they created a psychoanalysis
Which is an Americanization of Freudian psychoanalysis which, then, they reinjected, if I dare say, which is an adaptive psychoanalysis. It’s no longer psychoanalysis – very happy ending, very pursuit of happiness. And while reading your book, I also thought for example, it’s a parallel perhaps a little far-fetched, but what you say,
We talked about fairs, we talked about Art Basel, a very powerful fair, we talked about the Frieze, they were both bought by large American entertainment companies. So we can clearly see that, ultimately, where we hoped that there would be a bit of a… well we hoped, yes, because ultimately there is this standardization,
Even, despite what you say about the Biennales. It’s true that it’s something that we can understand why some people regret it. NO: But on the other hand, it’s the same thing, that is to say that, like today there are these big global, globalized, standardized fairs – like the four in Basel,
Since it is therefore Basel, Art Basel Miami, Hong Kong, they have just bought back, they have just taken the Paris slot so we are going to have an Art Basel Paris -, on the other side Frieze which is
Between London, Los Angeles, Seoul and New York , and besides that, there was a reaction and what happened? Well there is a creation of what we call, I appreciate them a lot, I participate in them, what we call these “niche fairs” which allow us
To move away from these large global fairs, which are fantastic – in which I participate, I participate in the four of Basel, I do not do Frieze because we cannot do everything, and then I think that Basel, for once, is much more powerful to bring all the tools
Of globalization. But besides that, I do the 1.54 fair which is precisely dedicated to African or Afro-descendant artists, which is a small fair, and in two or three places in the world. For example, I am doing the Geneva fair. The Geneva fair, that’s it. What is the
Geneva fair? It’s just a small fair, a niche fair, a small fair right next to a big behemoth like Art Basel. And so everyone wants it, well everyone? yes, even the most seasoned collectors also want to look for something else elsewhere.
And so that’s also very, very interesting to see. It’s a bit like the market is very, very powerful; besides that we are going to do Biennials which are – these Biennials annoy me, sometimes I leave them because the comments annoy me. But I’m going to see them systematically
Because it’s very interesting to see what happened at Documenta last year with this collective of Indonesian artists. Like I went to see the Berlin Biennale, made by a very activist artist who is Kader Attia. I’m critical but it’s still very interesting.
And somehow, it’s another way of seeing than simply looking at the sales results of Christie’s, Sotheby’s. I think there is room for everything. Simply the only thing is that it should not just be that artists are only activists and political and completely forget aesthetics, and forget to simply make works. That’s annoying.
And on the other hand, everything that is in the market is not simply meaningless works that contribute nothing and are just values like that. We call it wall power: putting it on the wall like that, and which brings nothing. So this is where I have confidence, both in the market
And in the artists so that, at some point, there will be a meeting between the two. France Jaigu: So to end on a slightly optimistic note for France, before talking about your American artist, the one you are currently exhibiting, Kushner. So in France,
When we read you, we have the impression that although resistance to American hegemony took a long time to take hold, and we talked about it, that there are still things which are happening today thanks to private initiatives, notably that of François Pinault.
NO: So that’s true. This is another thing, another part, a part that I experienced, since I started working as an employee in a gallery from 1988 where there was really American and German domination. And then afterward, it was still a little complicated.
I opened my gallery in 1993. All that was complicated, then we saw the arrival quite quickly afterwards, in a certain way, of actors, finally an actor, since afterwards he was followed, but a person who is made, who identified herself as an avant-garde collector.
This is what was missing in France. There have always been collectors, rather discreet ones. FJ: Very discreet. NO: Very very discreet, not very avant-garde, that is to say they continue to buy the School of Paris. FJ: Private passions, right?
NO: There you go! So there was this famous Private Passions exhibition at the end of the 1990s. We also noticed that three-quarters of the collectors did not include their names. Including, moreover, Mr. Pinault who had lent a magnificent painting by Rauschenberg which
Is today at the MOMA. And we realized that there were, apart from, it was on the fingers of both hands, there were these avant-garde collectors who were only known to us who had galleries. Nobody knew them otherwise. And then, little by little, thanks
To François Pinault, and therefore to others behind him, the French collector became known as a buyer of the avant-garde, of French artists but also foreigners and n He wasn’t afraid to put himself forward. And so these are locomotives which led to others, since afterwards this is how Mr. Arnault also became today, certainly
The greatest collector in the world, by purchasing both classic works only avant-garde works . So that was something very important. French museums also adopted very American ways of doing things, that is to say, they created collectors’ associations, museum friends, who donated money, it was tax-free. There are laws,
Such as the Aillagon law, 2003, which have been very important for the development of private sponsorship. And these associations, it’s money in the end, participated in the museum’s acquisitions, had curators and collectors. That was very American. So it’s the same,
A kind of mimicry which was done at a very high level, as with Mr. Pinault. On the other hand, with all these museum associations which now exist at the Center Pompidou, Museum of Modern Art of the city of Paris and even in other museums in the region, which make us feel
Concerned. And collectors today, buyers know that they are participating in something important. First they saw that in the United States and in Germany, or in England, it was still something that had been very beneficial. And so today there
Is no shame in saying that we collect contemporary art. We show it and that is something very important. And so, all of this means that contemporary French artists are better known than before. That we even make efforts, because today they are not
Simply helped by the State but they know that they have to work with galleries in France. Abroad, they must speak English, they must do scholarships abroad. Finally everyone feels concerned. And then the galleries, we see today, the French galleries,
A French gallery with an international vocation, like mine, we are part of this great international circuit. That is to say, we have several branches, we participate in around ten fairs, we have very structured teams who are there to – I always say –: “sales, that can be invented!” »
So, after a while, it’s knowing who we can sell to, making sure we know potential collectors, sending files to museums that can accompany us, finding exhibitions. So it’s real entrepreneurial work and that’s the same, it’s quite new because that wasn’t the case a few years ago. It wasn’t said.
FJ: So just to conclude on the American artist that you are currently exhibiting. So, let’s say that he is, in fact, an artist who is a bit of a… well, who testifies to an openness we will say, an artist from this point of view, less
American and less in his practice and in its cultural references, maybe you can… NO: So, yes, Robert Kushner, he was born in 1949. So he is obviously later, after African-Americans, minimal art, of which we have quite a bit spoken, but which is also very American,
And Pop Art. And so he is an artist who became known, precisely, because he traveled a lot in the East, in the Middle East. He knows Japanese, Chinese and Indian painting techniques very well . And he came back – well, in the United States, he came back, he left for 5 months,
6 months but he came back – and he made very interesting works at the end of the 1970s in which he mixed American fabrics and came from others, a kind of creolization of painting and art with fabrics that he found in oriental countries, on which he later worked on motifs which, moreover,
Also bring to mind Manet or Matisse. There is also the play with fabrics which is very specific to Matisse’s “Cut-out Papers” works. So he’s really someone who, with – there was another one like that, called Zakanitch – they are both
Creators of this movement called Patch and painting, that’s- that is to say, putting forward the decorative, the beautiful but also the influences both oriental and European. And we can imagine that at the time, at the end of the 1970s, this was not at all obvious. FJ: That’s it! NO: Well, it wasn’t very…
FJ: Because when he started painting, it was actually… NO: It wasn’t very well seen. And there was, for about ten years anyway, an attraction to this movement. It is present in many American museums. But the market, which likes things to be a little clear, has not been very supportive. But it turns out
That he still continued his work. We, at the gallery, represent it with recent works. But I really wanted to show his old works which, moreover, are very successful because we have placed works in really important collections, because, precisely, today we know how to read differently. So that’s also the fact,
You see, this openness to other cultures, of Americans but of us too, means that we understand what that means. And here is an American artist, it’s not just Warhol or Lichtenstein, it’s also something else and it’s much more open. And so it’s
Interesting because the certain people who come to see the exhibition – a very well-known African-American artist – who came last week, and she asked my colleague: “But how old is she? » so she thought… and: “Is she black? » There
You go, so you see, it’s interesting, it means that today, this painting, we cannot understand that because the person would be a woman, because there are silhouettes like that… FJ: And then there are flowers! NO: There you go, flowers. And because, in fact, there is a black woman’s body for a moment and
It takes up the African motifs that we find in some. And so while the artist is, precisely no, he is – I don’t like to say that – but ultimately white, American. So it’s interesting to see that even this artist was fixed in what she could imagine. FJ: Stereotypes.
NO: There you have it: stereotypes. And so, him, that’s why I was interested in showing Kushner, precisely to break the stereotypes and that artists, you see, are always at the avant-garde because he himself was at the avant-garde of what is happening today.
FJ: That’s it and that’s something. This is what you show very well. You dismantle all these stereotypes and make them reason well. This geopolitics of contemporary art, you really bring us into this fascinating debate. We could go on
For a very long time but we will stop there today and thank you very much. NO: Thank you France. FJ: And see you another time I hope.