The Case of the Fake Lawrence Weiner
Lawrence Weiner's statement is well known, as it marks a turning point in the feared “dematerialisation” of the art object. His declaration first appeared in the catalogue-exhibition January, 1969, organised by the mysterious and increasingly influential Seth Siegelaub:
2. The piece may be fabricated.
3. The piece need not be built.
Each being equal and consistent with the intent of the artist, the decision as to condition rests with the receiver upon the occasion of receivership.”
In 1970, Weiner expanded upon his original declaration, clarifying it further:
The project Under the Sun has just opened at the Espai D’Art Contemporani de Castelló (EACC). This is the second of Weiner’s projects to be presented –in a short period of time– in our country, following his show at the Fundació Suñol. Unfortunately, this show is not something to be celebrated. Despite the extreme formal freedom which Weiner’s approach takes, it is clear that his pieces are defined by their succinct formalisation, a simple written sentence which is anything but uncomplicated, as it encapsulates an observation regarding the contingent, produced on the basis of the most abstract descriptive capacity of language. What is being presented at the EACC (at least on the poster into which the invitation to the show unfolds, as I am yet to visit the exhibition) is not one of the artist’s proposals. Or, rather, two thirds of it is not a proposal by the artist: I am referring to its presentation in Spanish and Valencian.
Weiner states, in the first two sentences of his original proposal, written in English:
The placing of a cluster of structures that afford a place demarked at that moment by the result of the flick of the wrist.»
However, in Spanish, and in Valencian, the statement reads thus:
[The marking of a space within a public park that is dependent upon meaning does not consist of the placing of a cluster of structures that offer a place demarked at that exact moment as a result of a flick of the wrist.]
In other words, not only have the translator or translators made a mistake, which distorts the clean piece by the artist, but their “version” (that is, “the decision of its condition”) negates the proposal by Weiner, as it claims “it does not consist of the placing ….”
We are obviously facing one, or rather two, fake Weiners. To forge a work of art, even if it is the result of a mistake or lack of knowledge, is usually seen as a crime. We trust that the EACC, which has an impeccable history behind it, will resolve the situation as soon as possible.
Armando Montesinos
Read post:
