Non-human living sculptures by Hans Haacke and Pierre Huyghe

11/22/2024

8 min reading time

Writer:
Ursula Ströbele
Hans Haacke

In his early work, Hans Haacke already integrated animals and plants as co-actors into his art. In that way he not only laid the foundations for a redefinition of sculpture as a real-time system, but also paved the way for a contemporary artistic practice such as is championed by Pierre Huyghe.

Lorem Ipsum

Together with the ZERO group founders Heinz Mack, Otto Piene, and GĂŒnther Uecker, in 1965 Hans Haacke designed an outdoor sculp­tural ensemble for the pier in Scheveningen, Nether­lands. It consisted of barrels of fire mounted on rafts, buoys as mobile sculp­tures, bottles with ZERO messages in them, silver foil on the water, and objects made of smoke. Haacke planned to gather seag­ulls by using a mobile feeding point, and he construed their flight infor­ma­tion and ‘mass’ as a ‘seagull sculp­ture’. In partic­ular in his early oeuvre (approx. 1965–72), he increas­ingly used animals and plants as co-actors in his sculp­tural concepts and humor­ously described them as his “Fran­ciscan works”, alluding to St. Francis of Assisi who was, after all, consid­ered a friend of all animals and an ecol­o­gist. In this way, the ‘flying sculp­ture’ was one of the early works that used ‘living’ mate­rial to estab­lish a living sculp­tural aesthetic, i.e., so-called “non-human living sculp­tures”.

By turning his back on a classic object-based aesthetics, with these non-human living sculp­tures he called for a rede­f­i­n­i­tion of the medium of sculp­ture in favor of “sculp­ture as a real-time system”. In other words, the sculp­ture first evolves before the eyes of the audi­ence, is no longer static, and instead responds through its process to its surround­ings. A prime example of his approach is “Goat Feeding in Woods”: For this piece real­ized at Fonda­tion Maeght in the south of France in 1970, Haacke confronted a goat with a new habitat and new food. This real-time and “biolog­ical system” included choosing the section of the woods, the temper­a­ture, the weather, the animal’s biodi­ver­sity and nutri­tional pref­er­ences, such that the goat’s organism and metab­o­lism, which form a unique complex system, became the theme of the piece. The action was also a nod to insti­tu­tion critique: The young Haacke had this “living sculp­ture” eat and model at will in the imme­diate vicinity of the grand museum park in which stood sculp­tures by renowned artists such as Joan Miró and Alberto Giacometti.

Hans Haacke, Life Airborne System, 30.11.1968, planned 1965, realized1968
Hans Haacke, edited by Walter Grasskamp, London & New York 2004, here p. 101, © Hans Haacke/ VG Bild-Kunst; Image via burg-halle.de

The lines dividing nature and culture

In the form of the domes­ti­cated and isolated goat, Haacke defended art’s freedom against a foun­da­tion that was only char­i­table at first sight and had been set up by gallery owner AimĂ© Maeght. And Haacke went even further, as he crit­i­cized the role of artists as “working animals” within art insti­tu­tions and the powerful art market system. On that same occa­sion, during the exhi­bi­tion opening he let ten tortoises he had bought in a pet shop free. During this period in his oeuvre, he also proceeded to create several arti­fi­cial micro­cli­mates with water, rain, snow, ice and water vapor – a “demon­stra­tion” of insti­tu­tion critique by showing how art can generate its own, inde­pen­dent climate. His “Fran­ciscan series” thus ques­tions not only the limits of a work of art in rela­tion to its surround­ings, the pieces in ques­tion also explore the lines dividing culture and nature, which is why the series has such a bearing on contem­po­rary artistic prac­tice.

Hans Haacke, Goat Feeding in Woods, 1970
© Hans Haacke / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn 2019; Image via zikg.eu
Hans Haacke, Ten turtles set free, 1970
Image via flickr.com

Lorem ipsum

Pierre Huyghes devised his piece “Untilled” for the docu­menta 13 (2012) exhi­bi­tion and it is long since consid­ered an iconic work as a prime example of such an art prac­tice today. His walk-through biotope in the Karl­saue meadows in Kassel ques­tioned the validity of construing a dichotomy between nature and culture. To this end, Huyghe did not choose the option of “taming” nature such as is to be encoun­tered for instance in Baroque land­scaped gardens; instead, he favored a “non-place”, namely the composting plant at the edge of the park. The title he chose high­lights this, with its allu­sions to an untreated, uncul­ti­vated space. However, this is precisely the concep­tual paradox he creates: For the space is not, even if this is clearly inti­mated by the title, some “terrain vague”, meaning an aban­doned inter­stice in the urban fabric. Instead, Huyghe care­fully planned and composed it.

Pierre Huyghe, Untilled, 2011–12 Living entities and inanimate things, made and not made Photo
© Pierre Huyghe; Image via estherschipper.com

Planned down to the smallest details – and yet hard to control

He struc­tured the hilly area by heaping up piles of sand as well as humus, frag­ments of asphalt, cube-shaped cobble stones, and ground slabs he layered in stacks. More­over, he then planted psychotropic and aphro­disi­acal species by way of new vege­ta­tion. In a concrete pond filled with water, tadpoles thrived and grew into frogs. “Markers of history, and markers that I am marked, affected and influ­enced by”, as Huyghe himself said, were distrib­uted throughout: There was a dead tree in remi­nis­cence of Robert Smithson’s “Dead Tree” (1969), a concrete bench with a pink seat tipped on its side and bringing to mind Dominique Gonzalez-Foer­ster’s “A Plan for Escape” from docu­menta 11 (2002), an uprooted oak with a piece of basalt recalling Joseph Beuys’ “7,000 oaks – urban forestry not urban plan­ning” at Docu­menta 7 (1982), not to mention a replica in concrete of a 1930s female nude by Max Weber, whose head shrouded in a beehive. Then there was ‘Human’, a white female grey­hound with a pink leg, and a brown-and-white whelp with a simi­larly colored paw, who both roamed the grounds accom­pa­nied by a dog-keeper.

What Huyghe showed viewers eagerly wandering about trying to find the artwork was in fact nature in various stages of emer­gence and decay so that one was inclined to ask what had been there before or rather where exactly Huyghe had inter­vened? Some of what was happening would have occurred in a similar way without the artist. Ants distrib­uted seeds, put the remains of plants and dead crea­tures to their own uses; compost waste rotted to form humus, decom­posed by beetles and worms; bees polli­nated blos­soms. The vege­ta­tion changed over the 100 days during which the show ran; animal protag­o­nists entered the zone while others left the area, which was not enclosed by a fence. “Untilled” thus repre­sented a “sculp­tural situ­a­tion” in which the artist created the precon­di­tions for the overall setting but largely left these actors to their own devices in their partic­ular spaces. As had been the case in Haacke’s work, here sculp­ture evolves into a situ­a­tion in which it arises through inter­ac­tion with hetero­ge­neous objects and actors.

Pierre Huyghe, Untilled, 2011–12 Living entities and inanimate things, made and not made Photo
© Pierre Huyghe; Image via estherschipper.com

Lorem Ipsum

The juxta­po­si­tion of the work of Hans Haacke to that of Pierre Huyghe creates new perspec­tives on sculp­ture as a medium: The two artists ques­tion the long-standing tradi­tion of an object-based aesthetics and by creating matrices of rela­tion­ships using all manner of different actors favor instead one founded on open­ness, process, and rela­tion­ality. While Haacke’s systems are meant to be revealed such that we can visu­ally compre­hend them, in the case of Huyghe the inter­link­ages remain largely hidden from sight. For all the dynamism, both protag­o­nists conceive an ‘image’ in their minds before­hand that in the course of the exhi­bi­tion for all its suggested open­ness (in the case of Huyghe) was subject to modi­fi­ca­tion and constant nurture. Both artists simu­late and domes­ti­cate nature; with their “non-human living sculp­tures” they present nature as created by humankind, i.e., a “third nature”, and thus make a substan­tive contri­bu­tion to expanding our notion of sculp­ture.

01:41

You may also like

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit