Irwin, Corpse of Art, 2003.

"Re: MODERN," at the Künstlerhaus in Vienna until September, brings together a range of contemporary art that engages with the discourse of Modernism. I talked to curators Norbert Pfaffenbichler and Sandro Droschl about contemporary art?s reinterpretation of Modernism, Habermas?s proclamation of modernity as an unfinished project, and the exhaustion of postmodernism.

Andrés Ramírez Gaviria: Why did you feel that Modernism was worth pursuing at the present moment as an exhibition theme?

Norbert Pfaffenbichler: I wasn?t aware of any large exhibition that united a group of contemporary artists who consistently engage with the theme of Modernism. The idea of compiling various positions under one exhibition appealed to me. Modernism is such a broad topic. We were interested in finding out which particular movements, artists, stories or references artists chose to focus on and why.

Sandro Droschl: Modernism is multidimensional, impossible to talk about as a single concept. As such I don?t think it exists. In its complexity, though, there are a few reasons why I think contemporary artists find it interesting. On the one hand, the discourse of postmodernism is becoming exhausted and artists are looking for other languages in which to express themselves. One response to such a need is to re-analyze the past. Modernism obviously comes up quite immediately, mostly because as many believe it never really ended but merely extended into postmodernism?a point of view I also share. Furthermore, I think contemporary artists are interested in reformulating some of the canons that have been established in art history. To name just one example, many artists have shown an interest in the implementation of rough materials often associated with Modernism, such as glass, steel and cement, with new media, video, and what has been termed as trash materials.

ARG: As both of you reiterate, Modernism is an immense topic, so what where some of the structuring parameters which you set yourselves for the selection of the artists?

NP: It was important to us that artworks position themselves between the discourses of Modernism and postmodernism. Another significant criteria for choosing the artists was the focus on architecture. There is a new movement of artists exploring themes of architecture, specifically Modernist architecture, which we thought was important to showcase.

SD: One of the parameters in which we anchored the exhibition came out of our interests in the connections between new media, fine arts, and architecture. We also decided to select pieces that are more connected to a structuralist content and not ones that engage with a realist reading of Modernism. For example, the oversized sculpture Untitled from 2005 by Josef Dabernig, constructed out of wood and steel, which resembles something between a grid and a scaffolding. The work comments on the art historical tradition of geometric painting in the style of Mondrian by assimilating its language, but re-contextualizes it in a contemporary context through subtle adjustments such as using cheap materials and installing the sculpture in a way so that it is perceived as unstable.

ARG: Even though the exhibition is titled Re: MODERN, which implies a resurgence after a demise, it seems that your position is, nevertheless, to dissolve the notion that there ever was an end to Modernism. In this respect you cite Habermas? proclamation that Modernism is an unfinished project, still in development. Is this accurate?

SD: What we have in "Re: MODERN" are mostly a conglomeration of postmodern views on Modernism. One of Heimo Zobernig?s three pieces in the show, titled ohne Titel (Bild), is composed of two square panels?a form repeatedly used in Modernist painting?which Zobernig presents as raw canvases, not a painted canvas that glorifies art, but an ironical critique on Modernism.

NP: Yes, one which opens up questions about the ideology of Minimalism, monochrome painting, the preoccupation of modernism with the concept of emptiness and the dichotomy between object/image art.

ARG: Why did you title the exhibition "Re: Modern?"

NP: I think the title to such a big exhibition should always be provocative but clear. It should encapsulate the idea of the exhibition in one word. The prefix "Re:" was used because it stands for many things. One could associate it with the word Renaissance, which is used in the subtitle to the exhibition, or with reconstruction or with recombination or simply see it as a reply to Modernism?a reply from the 21^st century.