"This Participation in ARTINFO Complicates My Critique": A Self-Reflexive Q&A With Christian Jankowski

For his oh-so-meta exhibition at Friedrich Petzel (on view through July 28th), German conceptual art rapscallion Christian Jankowski invited 80 art critics and journalists to write reviews of an artwork that did not yet exist. Intended as an investigation of discourses used in art journalism and the art world, the artwork, entitled "Review," is made up of the reviews themselves. While the names of the reviewers have been catalogued on ARTINFO's In the Air blog, the actual reviews, which are hermetically-sealed in air-tight glass bottles and strewn across the floor of the otherwise sparse gallery, may never see the light of day. Via email, Jankowski responded to questions about his project and its implications for art journalism. 

Your current Friedrich Petzel show, "Discourse News," might be one of the most written-about shows of the year. Ironically, nobody can read the exhibition’s 80-plus reviews, as they’re all sealed in glass bottles and scattered on the floor of the gallery as part of your installation, "Review."

I was playing with the idea of reviews in sealed bottles already for a while. As a student, I was part of a land art exhibition. Back then, I asked some critics to go, see the show and write a review about it and put all of the reviews together into one bottle. My contribution was to throw this bottle into a river. With "Review," I am revisiting this "message-in-a-bottle" idea, because I always thought it would be stronger if there is a review of the piece itself, the reviewed bottle, and not about an entire show.

I was looking for the right moment to place this new work. I thought that it would be great to have several prominent art critics writing these reviews that will be then sealed in individual bottles. This time, the future recipient would be able to completely access and experience the piece. Whoever opens the bottle and takes out the critique will read about a sculpture he or she holds in his or her hand. The piece is talking about itself, it is self-reflective, almost a close-circuit, like a snail that bites its own tale.

How did this project come about? What reactions did you get when you asked critics to submit un-publishable reviews?

When you do a show for a gallery or museum with several works, you try to combine pieces together. You try to create an interesting dialogue between the individual works you present. "The Eye of Dubai," one piece in Petzel's show, was created in collaboration with BBC World News, another piece entiled "Discourse News" involved a news anchor from NY1 television. And then I thought about "Review" and New York as a center for the art discourse in America, but also internationally. If you see how many media companies promote information and ideas from here into the world, New York stands out as a location. So, I thought it was a good city to do an exhibition involving projects that in different ways reflect on this unique site-specific fact. Many of the important art magazines and newspapers have their offices just a view blocks away from Friedrich Petzel gallery. Many writers passed by the gallery and handed out their bottles personally.

Most of the responses I got were positive, maybe just 10 people gave different excuses why they couldn't do it. Sometimes, I also got funny emails or calls from people who were not really sure what to make out of it. They needed more information and had questions. One of them asked me if it might be too ironic. He was thinking about my piece and asked me if I don't believe in reviews. But that was not my point. It's also not the way that I would like my artwork to be read, because without the journalist's work, the work itself would not even exist.

Of course, there are multiple interpretations of the work. For me, it is stimulating to imagine journalists sitting down and writing a review about my work, which is — at the moment of their writing  — just an idea. You can imagine the time passing and in the future, when a bottle breaks — accidentaly or on purpose — the collector, the institution, or the children of my children decide to open it. Who knows? In the future, I think, many of these bottles will be read. It is just a matter of time. 

Many of the writers were quite positive and it was a joy for them to use their hands not only for typing a text, as the review had to be hand-written. Some also had deep thoughts about which bottles they should choose and that was also an enjoyable experience.

According to the press release, the installation investigates the "nature of discourses used in art journalism and the art world." How does your installation comment on art journalism?

My installation fundamentally depends on art journalism and on a dialogue with people working in this field. So, I guess, it should be able to comment on art journalism. The notion of time is very important in this piece. As we all know, journalism has to do with the right timing to report the right thing to the right audience. Like in this moment, while I am reviewing this interview, missing the deadline could mean no media presence. Leaving the moment of disclosure of the review out of mine and the journalist's control gives a special twist to the whole situation and routine. Also, the fact that the journalist had to create the image of my entire project before they had to start to write their critique plays with the notion of time: There was no artwork created they could look at and reflect in their writing, as there normally is.

Between these two poles, the imagined work and the imagination of the future audience, many things can happen.

In your previous projects, you’ve collaborated with various constituencies including televangelists, fortunetellers, border patrol officers, magicians, young children, members of the Vatican, and yacht salesmen to investigate the logic of different industries. How might participating in an interview on a global art news site such as ARTINFO complicate your critique of art journalism?

I think every interview is a complicated task for an artist. Of course, I will try to explain my work and I will try to make people understand my point of view and ambitions. While seeing a work many times and with some distance, you can find many aspects of the work you didn't think of at the beginning. Similar to art history and writing, I might change my view from interview to interview. You are conscious about the words you choose and are aware that some ideas might be helpful, while others may make you sound like an idiot in the future. The problem is, I never exactly know which side I'm on. All in all, there are many artists who refuse to give interviews. In my case, since I need participation in my work, I make it as a principle that I am almost part of everything and if someone ever asks me something, I almost do everything as well. Well, at the end of the day, this participation in ARTINFO complicates my critique, but I can deal with it.

If you were a critic, how would you review "Review"?

I like the question. Of course, in my fantasy I also put myself in the position of a writer, before I wrote them the letter with my request. Because I could not afford to pay them for their work, I offered  them a photograph with their bottle during a water-proof test in a New York river. 

Since you don't know your future recipient, I saw the piece almost as an exercise of a believer. You do it knowing that your publishing house, your employer, your usual audience will not be able to read it. In this sense, it can also be very experimental. The role of the art writer becomes like that of an artist. This is the most challenging fantasy I can get from writing. To think how your imagination is going to judge your own fantasies... if it is good or bad, what it will look like if you write a review about something that is not yet there.

What project are you working on next?