5/16/2015

david barrett: collected articles: art monthly: chris burden

david barrett
collected articles
home
email

Chris Burden

frieze
art monthly <<
art+text
artclub
eyestorm
catalogues

Art Monthly, Issue 226, May 1999

Tate Gallery, London

search

Image: C hris Burden working on When Robots Rule: The Two-Minute

Airplane Factory
Imagine the scene: the colossal Duveen Galleries have been emptied
of heavy-duty steel I-beam sculptures, bronzes and marbles. The
first gallery houses a most extraordinary machine: its 6m long
aluminium framework densely populated with an amazing selection of
computer-controlled automata, each whirring and running and
blowing in precise patterns as they progressively assemble, from its
constituent parts, a delicate balsa and tissue model aeroplane. At the
end of the machine a fragile cantilevered runway extends 3m into the
central Sackler Octagon. The completed aircraft taxies along and
launches itself, rubber-band thrumming, spiralling 20m upwards into
the cavernous space, eventually gliding back to earth for its maiden
landing. This joyful sight is repeated every two minutes as another
fresh plane is born and set free, buzzing itself skyward.
As the aircraft land they are gathered up by gallery attendants and
sold cheaply to the public, and so they are dispersed around London
and beyond. What we're seeing then is not only an entire factory on
display, but a whole economic system too. The planes aren't just
made before our eyes; they are commodified and sold. So the
http://www.royaljellyfactory.com/davidbarrett/articles/artmonthly/am-burden.htm

1/3

5/16/2015

david barrett: collected articles: art monthly: chris burden

installation is a microcosm of our industrialised capitalism: a working

diagram of the dominant social and economic systems, made
comprehensible through transparency and manageable scale. It's an
astonishing project, spectacular, entertaining, intelligent, critical and
relevant.
You can picture it now, can't you? A wondrous installation, fascinating
and uplifting in equal measures; base materials alchemically
transformed into elegant flying machines, enchanting the money out
of visitors' pockets. It's a magnificent scene. Just don't rush along to
the Tate to see it, because you won't find it there. Sure, that's where
the installation is based, and crowds gather about it, but the spectacle
will remain less than enthralling while the machine itself remains nonfunctioning. Unfortunately, the only little aeroplane to be found at the
Tate is in a glass box, and the artist made that one himself, by hand.
The exhibition was due to open on March 2, and as of mid-April it has
yet to produce a single aircraft. What beautiful irony then that
Frances Morris should begin her essay with the line: 'C hris Burden
has always given museums a difficult time'. Which essay is that? Oh,
you won't have seen it because it's in the catalogue which, due to a
lack of images, hasn't been printed yet (although by the time you
read this it should be available).
Morris is right: Burden does give museums a difficult time. Most of his
work, in some way, challenges the institutions that he works with.
Often he challenges them politically: what are they willing to do,
legally, ethically and self-critically? Here, though, the Tate is
challenged practically: it is asked to work in areas alien to its usual
practice - it's a sort of institutional assault course, a kind of Krypton
Factor for major museums. At this rate, the Tate won't be qualifying
for the series final.
This may all seem beside the point; if the machine was working we
would be talking about model planes and not inept management. But
taken in the context of Burden's practice, it's tempting to think that
perhaps he knew the installation would spend most of its time not
functioning. The work itself, then, is not so much a machine, but a
kind of managerial performance art: we watch the Tate squirm as it
tries to deal with software programmers and engineers, all while
attempting to remain unruffled before thousands of intrigued visitors.
When Robots Rule: The Two-Minute Airplane Factory is ingenious
because, if it fails to work, it simply shifts its focus. If the machine
was fully functioning, then it would be worth flying half way round the
world to witness, as some people have. But even when it's not
working it is still worth a visit; as an artwork it is equally successful, it
just has different results.
How can we justify this 'institutional critique' view of the piece? Surely
http://www.royaljellyfactory.com/davidbarrett/articles/artmonthly/am-burden.htm

2/3

5/16/2015

david barrett: collected articles: art monthly: chris burden

if it doesn't work, then it just doesn't work? Well, ever since his
student days Burden has been deeply interested in institutional
politics: his first ever performance at the University of C alifornia where he imprisoned himself in a tiny student locker for 5 days seemed less concerned with performing an act of physical endurance
than with the institution's reaction to it (which was to call security,
and ask them to bring crowbars). There are numerous other
stunning, institution-baiting projects to prove it.
Yes, Burden's work is often about demystifying technological
processes, as the Tate's press machine insists, but it is always
soaked in politics too. And that is what is so great about this project;
while the Tate may have thought it had commissioned a relatively
safe project - in so far as it doesn't explicitly undermine its authority
- the installation's problematising of managerial structures refuses to
be suppressed. It is a gorgeous irony, and one that Burden must
enjoy at some level, that this joyful, apparently non-critical
installation should have tripped the Tate up so spectacularly.

te x t copyright david barre tt

im age s copyright the artists

top

http://www.royaljellyfactory.com/davidbarrett/articles/artmonthly/am-burden.htm

3/3