Prohias' art on the gallery walls answers that question. It speaks for itself. But I'm still going to talk. Visually, what did I see while observing said art?
Two enemy Spies. Two pointy-headed figures, unceasingly ripping, tearing, slashing, gouging, and clawing each other. Their lethally savage techniques are considered by many to be evil and cruel. But whom or wham is Prohias' attacking with his ink-stained fists of fury? His art answers this question as well. As will I, yet again, for as long as I have to. Because I'm being paid by the word.
From January, 1961 until now, Prohias' "Spy vs. Spy" has relentlessly memorialized, mocked and deconstructed the Cold War's spurious duality with these two Manichean figures locked in "eternal" combat. One "Spy" wears black clothing, the other "Spy" wears white. Aside from this performative aspect of their costume display (and the intentional self-representation the Spys tacitly communicate via the identity/tribal signifiers explicitly implicit in their respective choice of clothing and/or uniform) these figures could be twins. Ironically, the line work defining these antithetical icons is identical. They are polar(ized) opposites, as different as black and white. Yet each is a mirror image of the other. "Spy vs. Spy" is the official title of Prohias' recurring sequential art feature. Visual statement refutes this textual labeling. The inescapable and ineluctable conclusion? They are truly the same Spy. There is only one Spy. And that Spy is at war with him/herself. Or non-gender-specific self. The brutal and bestial futility of the Spy/Spy's self-self, other-other struggle (and Prohias' parallactic critique of the dualistic-yet-artificial cycles of violence in the Cold War's neverending East-West conflict) repeats and reiterates throughout the artist's transgressive body of work. Deconstructed as murderous slapstick long after Vaudeville's death, Cold War tragedy turns endlessly to farce in the Spy/Spys' ultraviolent, yet anti-heroic, expression of mindless eternal recurrence. These vicious circles are vicious indeed. Prohias also thinks it's funny when the Spy/Spys find cleverly sadistic ways to hurt each other.
—Jackson DeVoe, Visual Art Critic at Large
.jpg)
CORRECTION. My visual art review of the Gallery/Shmallery exhibition >>Anton Prohias Comes in from the Cold War then Goes Back Out: “Spy/Spys” vs “Spy vs Spy”< which ran in the 8.15.82 issue of “It’s the Arts” neglected to mention that Prohias’ oeuvre has no biomorphic forms whatsoever and is never Carravaggiesque. The artist’s complete lack of chiaroscuro over a 30-year career should additionally be noted. While these observations are utterly irrelevant to the critical argument of my review, my union covenant (Brotherhood of Visual Art Critics, Local 523) clearly and unequivocally stipulates that I must use these terms in every visual art review I write. (Specifically, “biomorphic,” “Carravaggiesque,” and “chiaroscuro.”) While I agreed to this covenant, I did not fulfill it on this occasion. I regret my unprofessional omission, and will gladly and immediately pay the fine at the union hall. It will never happen again.
ReplyDelete