hans, my main man

Some artists decide that they will use the specific context of the place for which they produce work- the physical, social, and political context, as materials of considerable significance (materials as substantial as paint and canvas, or bronze and wax). Hans Haacke devises work in which aesthetic and thematic concepts are derived directly from the exhibition’s local context. However, during times where a work is shown outside of its original context- being where the project was conceived, background information needs somehow to be provided so that the viewers can understand the references and the impact it might have. At times, this background information is integrated into the artwork itself, a system created that does not require a viewer at all or completely depends on a participant, in order for it to function and create impact.


There are many factors which help decide the artist’s approach to dealing with his/her engagement with particular critical political, social, personal, racial, sexual issues/subjects, ranging from personal histories, the history of the exhibition space, the risk of censorship, etc. The background and foreground information offered in the work create a form of ‘counterinformation,’ which in successful cases can spark, perpetuate, and refine acts of resistance. Haacke uses two particular conceptual tools, collage and ‘real-time systems to discuss important, critical issues in his work.


An artist is never immune to being affected and influenced by the social-political value-system of the society in which they live, no matter how ignorant of these constraints they might be. Hans Haacke stated in an interview with Molly Nesbit, “Every artist who exhibits in a public institution is, in a way, a state artist.” Artists, just as any other individuals, cannot detach themselves from the social and political world in which they exist. Because artists and their work also exist in the world through institutions by which they show their art, politics infiltrate their lives in a very personal way whether they choose awareness or not. Hans Haacke writes, “‘Artists’ as much as their supporters and their enemies, no matter of what ideological colouration… participate jointly in the maintenance and/or development of the ideological make-up of their society.”




In MetroMobilitan (1985), Haacke utilizes the critical tool of collage, and the spirit of the Surrealist’s parlour game the ‘exquisite corpse,’ bringing together disparate elements offered to the viewer without smooth transitions and simple conclusions. The conflicts between the elements are all present, and it is up to the viewer to explore implications and meaning. He provides no explanations, utilizing the technique of causing creative friction, producing new and unexpected meanings. Haacke created this piece using the elements found in the “display culture” of New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. He created banners, and mimicked the façade in order to expose the financial interests supporting the museum.


Through this piece, Haacke questions exhibitions in the context of donors, sponsors, and politics, and provides tools to uncover counterinformation. Nesbit comments, “The museum reveals its own moral weakness once we examine the parts, but we have to work to pry the elements apart.” Haacke explains the rationale behind the involvement of corporations in sponsoring culture with the title of a leaflet by the Museum: The Business Behind Art Knows the Art of Good Business. The relationships between corporate sponsors, museums, and the artists who show in the museums affect Haacke in that he is very aware of the self-censorship and outward censorship that result from such tangled webs. This work addresses the way in which managers and politicians, corporations and museums, instrumentalize art to blur economic or political conflicts of interest. This work is a site-specific intervention, reacting to suppressed information, information that the media had marginalized.



Gilles Deleuze asked questions about what the mysterious relationship between the work of art and the act of resistance was. He claimed that the work of art is not communication, and the work of art has nothing to do with counterinformation. However, he also claimed counterinformation is only effective when it becomes an act of resistance, and that there is a fundamental affinity with the work of art and the act of resistance. So, the work of art is to provide counterinformation, which is a form of resistance, and if especially thoughtful, will create resistance in the viewers and participants, whether they are needed for the work to function or not.