The DJ and the Miracle Cure

On March 16, Madagascar’s state-owned TV station aired an 18-minute documentary. Narrated by two airline pilots, it re-enacts a November 2019 visit to the island nation by an anonymous Brazilian woman purported to be a prophet. “Joana,” as she is dubbed in the film, crosses the island in two flights, one south-to-north and the other east-to-west, tracing the shape of a crucifix. She has been sent by God, she confides in the pilots, to make a protective cross over Madagascar, and to deliver a warning. The world would soon be besieged by biological warfare, she predicts, and Madagascar alone held a remedy that could protect the Malagasy people and bring desperately needed economic relief to a country where 75 percent of the population lives below the international poverty line. There was one condition: the people had to reaffirm their belief in God.

Joana’s flight path (Reportage Brésilienne Joana /16 04 20, TVM Malagasy, YouTube, 17:01)

Over an image of the statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio, Joana calls on the majority-Christian nation to double down on faith. Flashes of coronavirus panic — statistics, hospital rooms, body bags rolling down a hill in Italy — fade into a close-up of Joana’s face as she cries crocodile tears.

Enter Andry Nirina Rajoelina, Madagascar’s President, who reassures viewers that they will be protected from Covid-19 and insists that the island “manana fanafody” (“has medicine”). In the film’s concluding montage of stock images, a Malagasy woman is seen in a field harvesting rosy periwinkle, an indigenous plant used globally in cancer drugs.

Four days after the documentary aired, the first cases of Covid-19 surfaced in Madagascar. Two women had returned from a trip to France with the virus; another came from the neighboring island of Mauritius. That day, Rajoelina’s government suspended all flights, closed schools, and cancelled large gatherings. A full lockdown followed in the three largest cities, with military and police deployed. Those caught maskless were sentenced to public street cleaning in shame. 

Three weeks later, Rajoelina announced that a potential, but confidential, remedy for Covid-19 was undergoing tests at the Malagasy Institute of Applied Research, Madagascar’s national laboratory for the development of traditional herbal medicines. The cure, he declared on Twitter, would “change the course of history in this global war being waged against the pandemic.”

By April 20, the miracle medicine had a name, Covid-Organics (CVO), and an eye-catching package: 330mL bottles labeled in the orange hue of the President’s political party. Speaking on national television, Rajoelina echoed Joana’s rhetoric. “Madagascar has been chosen by God,” he proclaimed, taking a big gulp of the beverage, its ingredients still undisclosed. “I will be the first to drink this today, in front of you, to show you that this product cures and does not kill.” 

Rajoelina swiftly lifted lockdown measures, and CVO was distributed by military officers throughout the country and mandated for all students returning to school, striking up debates among the Malagasy people about whether or not to trust the government’s tonic. A friend confided that she kept the soap the government gave her and threw the CVO in the trash.

What came next was a hodgepodge of prophecy, faith, and medicine. Rajoelina called for Madagascar to embrace “clinical observations” rather than “clinical trials” in evaluating the drink. At the time of the announcement, two individuals had taken CVO and recovered from Covid-19. But for a virus with a recovery rate upwards of 90 percent, that statistic is effectively meaningless. When asked how he could be sure of the drink’s efficacy, Rajoelina answered confidently, “History will prove it.”

President Rajoelina announces CVO (“Madagascar’s COVID-Organics: testimonies and medical caution”, africanews, YouTube)

 

At the time of CVO’s debut, the global death toll from Covid-19 had just surpassed 100,000, but Madagascar still only had a handful of confirmed cases. By the end of April, the count had risen to 121, and in June cases spiked. A two-week lockdown was reinstated in July to little avail: the number of positive cases surpassed 14,000 in August. As of this writing, that number has climbed to 16,810, with 238 deaths. 

Madagascar — a nation still plagued by the legacies of colonialism, slavery, corruption, and extractionist industry — would have been an unlikely pandemic hero. A home-grown Malagasy cure would have upended decades of exploitation of Madagascar’s biodiversity by the Global North, as well as the regimes by which local remedies and traditional wisdom are transmuted into commercial pharmaceutical products the world over. For a brief moment, CVO felt like a turning point, as leaders across Africa and the diaspora voiced support and placed orders for the drink. But the hype was short-lived. Instead, CVO became a case study in how colonial politics still determine the vectors of power and profit when it comes to medical knowledge.  

 

Alternative remedies for Covid-19 have circulated furiously since March — from the Trump-endorsed hydroxychloroquine craze to Instagram debates about Echinacea and Ayurvedic treatments in India. But only in Madagascar have we seen an entire government fully adopt and promote a mysterious and minimally tested herbal cure. The island is a fitting setting for such an endeavor. Isolated from the African mainland, it is considered a biodiversity hotspot — one of only a handful on earth. Ninety percent of its plants and animals are endemic (native and exclusive to the island). This is a blessing and a curse: today, only 30 percent or less of Madagascar’s original natural vegetation remains, primarily because many native plant species are actively useful in agriculture, building, textiles, and — crucially — medicine.  

The Malagasy history of traditional medicine, called fanafody gasy, dates back 2,000 years to the arrival of the island’s first settlers. Incorporating native plant and animal materials, fanafody gasy reaches beyond the Western conception of medicine. Demand remains high: The World Health Organization estimates that 80 percent of people in Madagascar use traditional Malagasy plant medicine. Sometimes, herbal remedies are taken in tandem with pharmaceutical drugs, but the majority of the Malagasy people live at least a two-hour walk from a Western healthcare clinic. Meanwhile, the nation continues to face malaria, polio, measles, flu, rotavirus, regional famines, and widespread chronic undernutrition. Outbreaks of the bubonic plague occur annually, as fleas on the backs of rats spread the deadly disease, which is often traced back to the nation’s overcrowded and unhygienic prisons.

Across the island, medicinal plant markets are meeting-places for medical advice and gossip, settings where health, magic, and social life overlap. A patient seeking a diagnosis might consult an ombiasy (spiritual healer), a renin-jaja (sage-femme/midwife), a bone-setter, a massage therapist, a biomedical doctor, or a trusted friend. And, according to the wisdom of these advisors, the illness might have a physical source, but it might also be traced to the psychic or social — caused by jealousy, heartbreak, or misfortune. 

Rajoelina’s plan appealed to the national reverence for plant medicine, potent postcolonial nationalism, and ecological exceptionalism. He also ensured that he would profit personally. As he made sure to note publicly, it would be illegal to export the medicine or any of the plants used in the still-secret formula.

Africa’s youngest president, Rajoelina came to power in 2009 after he led a coup against his corrupt predecessor Marc Ravalomanana. In one particularly scandalous deal, Ravalomanana had arranged to lease half of the island’s farmable land to the Korean industrial company Daewoo for the next 99 years. Fed up with development projects that only benefited the elite, the masses rallied around Rajoelina’s agenda. The Malagasy Army stormed the royal palace, and Rajoelina declared himself President. In 2018, he was challenged by 35 candidates including Ravalomanana, but he held onto the seat.

In a nation where two-thirds of the population is under 25, it was not difficult for Rajoelina — a former entrepreneur who skipped college to become a DJ and event planner — to gain cultural cachet. His carefully curated image extends even to social media: he is photographed at parades in festive, traditional lambahoany tops, distributing food in rural villages, making speeches, and more recently wearing a mask as he oversees production of CVO. 

The President made an international media splash with the unauthorized tonic, but many in Madagascar hesitated to touch it. Long used to propaganda, these citizens were unfazed by the Joana stunt. When asked directly whether the Joana documentary amounted to propaganda, Rajoelina’s chief of staff replied: “It is necessary to recognize that there are unexplained mysteries in the world.”

The unbelievable happens in Madagascar all the time, and largely falls under the radar of global attention. The 2009 coup, for instance, was one of the largest peasant land revolts in recent history. There are accounts of ancestral magic melting French colonizers’ bullets into water during the 1947 insurrection. A specimen of the Madagascar orchid Angraecum sesquipedale was crucial to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution because he deduced that a moth with a remarkable proboscis must have pollinated it. That the magical island might harbor a coronavirus cure seemed not entirely inconceivable — and Madagascar’s initial infection rates were miraculously, even suspiciously low

Sphinx Moth Fertilizing Angraecum Sesquipedale in the Forests of Madagascar, October 1867, Thomas William Wood


For some, CVO’s arrival signalled an opportunity to build solidarity among African nations and push back on centuries of tense medical relationships with colonial powers. CVO was always an international project. With the English name “Covid-Organics” (it’s “CVO Tambavy,” in Malagasy) it was well-positioned to tap into the booming holistic wellness market, currently valued at
$34 billion worldwide. (In local supermarkets, it sells for 53 cents; online it retails for $100 plus shipping.) But when French doctors began to talk about testing dubious cures on African populations, CVO began to look like a statement of anti-colonial defiance. Another medical abuse posing as a benevolence would not be tolerated by African people; if that meant experimenting with homegrown cures, so be it.

The possibility of forming diplomatic pathways to validate and market traditional medicine among African and African diasporic nations was an early boost to CVO’s appeal. Its first international customer was Senegal. Comoros, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, and Nigeria soon followed. In total, the leaders of a dozen African nations placed orders. Out of gratitude, the president of Haiti called for African diplomatic alliances “entre pays d’amis.” The President of Tanzania, John Magufuli, sent a plane to Madagascar to fetch the medicinal drink. Madagascar had “made Africans proud,” said the country’s foreign minister Palamagamba Kabudi. “Madagascar is providing… a solution to a global problem,” he added. “We are used to being told it is Europe and Western Europe and other countries who solve global problems.”

“What if this medicine were found in Europe? Would you doubt it so much?” President Rajoelina asked in an interview on France 24. “African and Malagasy scientists should not be underestimated,” he continued. “We are here… We have our own tonic.” 

 

Despite Rajoelina’s nationalist rhetoric, only one known ingredient in CVO is native to Madagascar: Ravensara, a plant that’s already widely used and trusted across the island as a powerful treatment for respiratory conditions and extreme fatigue. But the primary active ingredient in the “enhanced traditional remedy,” as it has been marketed, is not African at all, but rather an Asian import called Artemisia annua. 

Relations between China and Madagascar are tinged with colonialism: in 1972, diplomatic arrangements granted China access to drilling, mining, and fishing enterprises in Madagascar in exchange for development aid and medical support. Since 2015, China has been Madagascar’s biggest trade partner. A special envoy of President Xi attended Rajoelina’s inauguration in 2019. And it’s widely accepted among the people of Madagascar that Artemisia was “a gift from China,” but the details of its arrival remain murky. 

Part of the daisy family, the Artemisia plant is green-yellow and fern-like in appearance. It is sometimes known as sweet wormwood or sweet sagewort, though both are misnomers. The plant itself is stinky. Its pungent odor comes from terpenoids, the organic chemicals also responsible for the smells of cinnamon and eucalyptus. 

In China, where it is known as qing hao, the plant’s medicinal use dates back at least to the Ming Dynasty. Long forgotten, it was rediscovered in 1967 by Project 523, a secret Chinese task force charged with searching for a medication to fight malaria, which was a major threat during the American War in Vietnam. One branch of the group scoured ancient texts from Traditional Chinese Medicine, and their findings on qing hao led to the development of “artemisinins,” a class of drugs that has been found effective against malaria. Though the initial findings were met with skepticism in 1979, chemist Tu Youyou later won the 2015 Nobel Prize for her role in the process. Artemisinins are now, in combination with other medications that enhance their performance, part of the standard course of treatment for malaria. More than 64 million treatments are delivered annually to over sixty countries, including Madagascar — which, like several other African nations, now grows its own supply. On the island, Artemisia is used to treat malaria, fevers, and the flu.

While malaria and Covid-19 share many initial acute symptoms — fever, chills, fatigue, difficulty breathing, headaches — they are not scientifically related. Currently, both are responsible for death at global annual rates of over 400,000 people. While the spotlight is now on Covid-19, widespread infectious diseases such as malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis have not disappeared, especially in under-resourced nations.

The over-use of malaria cures for Covid-19 could not only prove ineffective, but also help breed treatment-resistant malaria strains, a key concern in the development of anti-malarial medications. If the President of a temperate climate nation unnecessarily takes hydroxychloroquine, for example, there is little public health impact. But in high-malaria zones, using a malaria treatment for Covid-19 could have lasting effects.

So who exactly stands to gain from touting Artemisia as a Covid-19 cure and ramping up production — particularly right now, and particularly in Madagascar? As it turns out, the timing and the source of the idea are both suspect: Artemisia is encircled by a complex web of international interests. 

Rajoelina was initially tipped off to Artemisia’s potential as a Covid-19 cure by the orthodontist Lucile Cornet-Venet, who runs the Paris-based “Maison de L’Artemisia.” Since 2012, the organization has gained a foothold in 23 African countries while advocating for the use of Artemisia as a standalone malaria treatment, going against the recommendation of the WHO. The island’s Artemisia plantations are run by Bionexx, a French-owned quasi-pharmaceutical company that has established a network of 15,000 smallholder farmers across Madagascar, together producing about 2,000 tons of dry herb a year (100 kilograms of Artemisia yield roughly one gram of artemisinin). Due to increased availability, prices of artemisinin have dropped in recent years, and those who have run into difficulty touting Artemisia as a standalone cure for malaria are looking for other uses of the plant. 

Absent from the list of parties that would directly benefit from increased production of the plant, of course, are the Malagasy people.

 

The invasion of Madagascar in the 1890s was arguably one of the worst medical failures in French military history. As during the American War in Vietnam, more soldiers died from malaria and other medical complications than in actual combat, leaving the French in urgent need of local medicinal resources — and the people who knew fanafody gasy. Even as the invaders portrayed traditional practices as backwards or savage, they simultaneously harvested local knowledge from the Malagasy people. 

Today, the French use traditional medicine to fight on another front: aging. Luxury brands such as Yves Rocher and Clarins export Malagasy herbs for detoxification masks, anti-aging eye creams, and wrinkle-fighting lotions — all of which are sold at 150 times the price of the raw herb material in Madagascar, where they’re also used in highly effective face masks. Most Malagasy people share none of this profit, which is not unusual. Bioprospecting — the pharmaceutical industry’s search for novel materials in the traditional medicines of people around the world — is the primary process by which organic materials are selected for commercial products, and the gains rarely trickle down. Instead, traditional healers are cut out entirely. 

Madagascar’s national laboratory for medicinal plant research, the Malagasy Institute of Applied Research (IMRA), was founded in 1957, three years before Madagascar won independence from France, to validate traditional therapeutic plant knowledge. That knowledge proved difficult to commercialize in a way that benefits the Malagasy people. IMRA’s director, Malagasy scientist and fanafody gasy authority Albert Rakoto Ratsimamanga, developed a topical healing ointment called Madecassol in collaboration with French scientists, and the product is now manufactured by Bayer and licensed by La Roche-Posay, a French luxury skincare company. More recently, the drug company Eli Lilly was accused of bio-piracy after using a plant native to Madagascar in two chemotherapy drugs. In both cases, ownership is unclear. A Malagasy-French research duo studied a foreign plant, and foreign researchers studied native ones — which patent should belong to Madagascar, if either? 

Even with a patent, the flow of resources is unlikely to reach those who use the traditional medication on which these drugs are based. Lab work takes too long to be competitive; Internet outages are a regular occurrence in Madagascar. Ultimately, it’s not feasible for a single Malagasy-owned laboratory to alter the global pharmaceutical market in any large-scale way. 

And even if it were financially possible to manufacture it in Madagascar, traditional medicine is difficult to formalize for a number of reasons. Soil type, harvesting style, and the portion of the plant used can all alter the potency and, therefore, the recommended dosage. Whereas synthetic compounds can be measured in laboratories, traditional medicines depend on centuries of accumulated knowledge. Even when these cures have earned local or national trust, they can’t be adopted internationally until they have been tested in evidence-based studies. Ayurveda, traditional Indian medicine, and traditional Chinese medicine are both used locally and around the world, but their value is never quite appraised on par with Western biomedicine. The more prominent traditional medicine systems tend to possess written pharmacopoeia documents (such as those consulted by Project 523), which are assembled by those in power to aggregate and distill the people’s knowledge, often for dissemination. Such documents have, over the years, been used as biomedical databases.

That is because prioritization of the written word is a companion of empire. In Madagascar, where most families have never left the island, the necessity to write down materia medica is only of concern for those needing to translate across cultures or generations. Each region of the island has its own pharmacopeia due to the dramatically different plants available in the many biomes. There are few texts, and those that are available are written in Sorabe, an Arabic-based alphabet. 

Madagascar’s most noted pharmacopeia was compiled by Edouard Heckel, a 19th-century French scientist and member of the colonial navy who never once set foot on the island. From a chair in Marseille, he compiled missionary notes, botanical samples from colonial administrators, and hearsay to create Les plantes médicinales et toxiques de Madagascar (1903). The text, which includes both Linnaean classifications and Malagasy names for plants, illustrates the violent epistemology of colonialism. Heckel overwrote Malagasy medicinal knowledge with European scientific jargon, privileged French applications over those used by the Malagasy, and generated both profit and prestige for the Institut Colonial de Marseille and Marseille’s Colonial Expositions, which were used to showcase France’s colonial gains.  

Plant specimens taken from Madagascar by France (Musée colonial de Marseille, 2017, courtesy of Chanelle Adams)

The distinction between medicine and ritual, science and magic, is an invention of 16th century Western Europe. Taxonomies followed shortly thereafter, and, by the 18th century, Carl Linneaus’s classification system had grown to encompass the entire living world. Taxonomies are not fixed and stable: they are contingent and historical, and they shift with the attention and priorities of their creators. Older family trees were often based on morphology, for example, while taxonomies now tend to rely on species’s genetic relationships. 

While many consider biology neutral, a review of the names given to the natural world reveals deep cultural markers. The person who finds the species gets to play Adam and name it. Ask Diplodocus carnegii, a dinosaur species that had its bones named after its mission’s founder, Andrew Carnegie; Begonia darthvaderiana, named for Darth Vader; Dudleya hendrixii, for Hendrix’s “Voodoo Child;” the worm Khruschevia Ridicula, named out of distaste for former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev; or the slime-mold eating beetle Agathidium bushi, named for George W. Bush. Onopordum acanthium, or the donkey fart thistle, only has meaning where donkeys roam, and Sansevieria trifasciata, or mother-in-law’s tongue, will have little significance for some.

Madagascar has its own botanical taxonomic classification system, which alternately overlaps with and diverges from the Linnaean method. Often taught orally, many of the names contain mnemonic devices or instructions, such as tsy maty (never die), or bemaimbo (very stinky). It is not uncommon for plants to have multiple names or for one name to refer to multiple plants. Across the island, these names also shift with local community needs, dialects and attitudes. Commiphora aprevalii is otherwise known as the vahaza (“foreigner”) tree. Its peeling, red bark is a reminder of what happens when fair-skinned wildlife tourists brave the island without sunscreen.

 

Africans and people of African descent have long distrusted foreign aid — medical or financial — for good reason. From phrenology to to the foundation of modern gynecology and syphilis research, Black people worldwide have been treated as test subjects to prod, maim, and murder. Under the guise of “civilizing” and “developing,” settlers committed medical violence through abusive testing and forced procedures. It’s no wonder that in some places across the continent, colonizers were identified as vampires in white coats who came for blood.

This deep suspicion of imperial biomedical sciences surfaced after Joana’s televised visit to Madagascar. Tweets, YouTube comments, and Facebook replies surged with African pride, anti-colonial sentiment, and hope. If Madagascar had pulled it off, CVO could have become a rallying cry for anti-colonial solidarity and for traditional medicine worldwide. It might even have signalled to development agencies that medical answers are not always imported. (Elsewhere on the continent, nations have seen many of their remarkable Covid successes obscured by lack of testing capacity and, therefore, ignored by much of the international community.)

But as the situation in Madagascar began to worsen, the nation traded its foreign export market for foreign aid. Over a summer that marked Madagascar’s 60th anniversary of independence from France, Morocco donated 8 billion face masks, foreign doctors flew in to support the overburdened medical system, and the African nations that had once proudly promised to purchase Madagascar’s cure began to reverse course. Senegal backtracked, clarifying that it had only agreed to receive samples, not prescribe them to its people. Tanzania claimed its shipments would be used for clinical testing, not distribution. Ghana, initially cautious, repeated that its purpose in ordering CVO was always to test it. Nigeria stated definitively that CVO could not cure Covid-19, and a science advisor to the Congo’s National Covid-19 Response Committee announced that an Artemisia study had found “no effectiveness in either prevention or treatment.” 

So far, only the UK HealthCare’s Markey Cancer Center has conducted human studies on CVO, and one researcher has raised concerns over the dosage level and the continued lack of public disclosure of the beverage’s full ingredient list. The Democratic Republic of Congo has been testing Artemisia alone, without the rest of the ingredients in the CVO beverage. While many in South Africa have mocked Madagascar, the country has started pouring funds into researching Artemisia afra (African wormwood), a close relative to Artemisia annua. 

It is not entirely off-base to imagine that the plant could prove useful in fighting Covid-19. In a 2005 Chinese study, 200 medicinal herb extracts were examined for action against SARS, and Artemisia showed promising effects in inhibiting the virus in a petri dish. Given the similarities between Covid-19 and SARS, this lead garnered attention in scientific communities around the world. ArtemiFlow, a company that seeks to develop new artemisinin-based cures, recently undertook a study on the use of Artemisia against Covid-19, sourcing plant materials from a Kentucky-based company. 

Whether the petri-observed effects can be reproduced in actual patients remains unclear, and the drug may simply need more time — herbal medicines, like vitamins, can take longer to be effective than hyper-potent synthetic drugs. These plants are non-toxic and can be less invasive, but require large doses and clinical trials. And in a pandemic, few are sufficiently patient.

The stakes of Rajoelina’s Covid-Organics scheme were obvious. Madagascar was already on the political margins of Africa, and an abrupt halt in ecotourism precipitated an outright crisis. All 43 protected area national parks, which bring in roughly $2 million USD annually, have been closed since March. Even in the absence of a global pandemic, Madagascar faces significant vulnerabilities like food insecurity; it is the world’s fourth (and Africa’s most) susceptible nation to climate disasters such as floods, cyclones, and droughts. The World Bank has provided $75 million USD to Madagascar, flagging the concern that the crisis “could reverse past progress in poverty reduction and deepen fragility.”

Jumpstarting Artemisia cultivation offered an opportunity to provide work on extant plantations while positioning Madagascar at the center of the pandemic, and Rajoelina, eager to turn a profit by any means necessary, preyed on the desire for local treatment and called it the people’s medicine. Meanwhile, as development dollars and political attention have been redirected to Covid-19, the leading morbid conditions in Madagascar remain neonatal disorders, diarrhea, malnutrition, and malaria — a disease against which Artemisia has actually proven effective. But with Madagascar’s Artemisia plantations repurposed to fuel CVO, a likely ineffective treatment, there is a strong possibility that Artemisia will not be in necessary supply.  

The Malagasy government is far from reaching consensus on CVO: the Minister of Health (previously the Minister of Fisheries, president of the Malagasy Football Federation, and a senator) was sacked for requesting foreign medical aid, and most recently, the Minister of Communication has been imprisoned for protesting CVO

But despite the corruption, ineptitude, and hokey marketing, Rajoelina’s plan seems to have worked — albeit not in the way he intended. When CVO was first introduced, deeply held anxieties about traditional medicine caused rumors to swirl on Internet forums and in smaller African newspapers, even beyond the island’s borders, that the WHO paid $20 million to squash the project, or that Trump had, or that China had poisoned the beverage stock. For a time, it was speculated that the Malagasy government would leave the World Health Organization after it refused to accept Covid-Organics as a legitimate treatment. Instead, quite the opposite has occurred. 

In September, in a direct response to Rajoelina’s campaign, a WHO committee endorsed a protocol to expand and encourage clinical trials for traditional medicine against coronavirus. “If a traditional medicine product is found to be safe, efficacious and quality-assured,” regional WHO director Prosper Tumusiime said, “WHO will recommend (it) for a fast-tracked, large-scale local manufacturing.” This month, with millions of bottles of CVO still in stock — and still awaiting scientific support — Rajoelina opened PHARMALAGASY, Madagascar’s first herbal medicine factory tasked with producing CVO and CVO+, the new capsule version of the herbal drink. It has already received congratulatory support from the nation’s WHO representative. 

Art after Objecthood

In 1967, a budding art critic and PhD student named Michael Fried published the essay in Artforum that would make him famous. “Art and Objecthood” was on the surface a piece that took aim at the Minimalists, then a group of up-and-coming artists led by Donald Judd. But embedded in the critique was a fully-fledged theory of art — in many ways the last of its kind. In the years since, as art began to seem too multiform for grand statements about its nature, sweeping theories have gone almost entirely out of fashion. Yet Fried’s essay is still taught in virtually every college-level aesthetics and postwar art history course. It has been called “the most influential and widely read piece of art criticism of his generation,” and he has gone on to make numerous other contributions to art history and scholarship over the course of a lengthy career. I count myself lucky to have gotten to know Fried through his work; four years ago, I published a book of his poetry, and next year will publish a selection from Baudelaire’s Salon of 1846 with a new introduction by Fried. 

Earlier this year, I decided to revisit his early broadside against Minimalism just as MoMA opened a major retrospective of Judd’s work, following years of growing cultural attention to Minimalist art and its ubiquitous stepchild, lower-case minimalist design. What I found was an argument narrowly focused on a select group of artists, one that relies on the exclusion of some of the most important and enduring work of the 1960s. Reading the piece today, it’s difficult to understand how “Art and Objecthood,” which presents a theory so complete and convincing — and still so widely read — could have been so out of sync with the art of Fried’s time, and of our own.

Installation view of Judd, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, March 01, 2020–January 09, 2021. Digital Image © 2020 The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Photo by Jonathan Muzikar

 

Minimalist artists — including those, like Judd, who rejected the label — pioneered the use of everyday materials like fabricated metal and plastic to create simple objects. Judd’s plexiglass and metal “sculptures” sometimes hung on walls; they often resembled containers or shelving, and recalled the aesthetics of industrial design. Instead of providing a reprieve from reality through a fictional space created by a canvas, Judd’s sculptures were intended to reflect the world as it actually was.

In “Art and Objecthood,” Fried argues that art should provide transporting experiences rather than what he saw as more pedestrian ones offered by Minimalists through their objects. In Romantic terms, Fried idealized art that lifts us out of everyday life, versus art that reminds us of the world in all its non-spiritual dimensions. For Fried, certain abstract Modernist painters and sculptors enthrall and captivate, while the Minimalists do the opposite — their work is too rooted in the world to move us anywhere at all.

What does it mean for a theory of art to be wrong or right? There is no hard evidence that proves the predictions or positions of an aesthetic theory to be true. Such theories advance arguments that are both philosophical (addressing what we see and how we judge what we see) and critical (judging the relative significance of artworks over and against one another). A much earlier philosopher-critic, the German writer Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, captured the tension between these two demands in his famous critique of the Laocoön, an Ancient Greek sculpture of a man and his sons being strangled by serpents. Lessing argued that the expression of pain on the father’s face is not intense enough to match the brutality of the scene, and from this isolated critical judgment he extrapolates a theory about the Ancient Greeks’ idea of formal beauty: nothing, not even the horror of serpents killing Laocoön and his family, could justify the depiction of a grimace that would mar the beauty of a balanced face. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Fried wrote squarely in this intellectual tradition — part of why his work has such staying power. Like Lessing, he is concerned with both philosophy (foundations and arguments) and criticism (seeing, feeling, and explaining one’s preferences). Fried pointed to a small, now relatively obscure group of modernist painters as emblematic of what he thought art should be, and he used this preference to develop a general theory of the ways in which Minimalism (and the cultural shifts it represented) fell short.

 

Fried met the abstract painter Frank Stella when both were undergraduates at Princeton, and Stella would play a significant role in shaping how Fried looked at art. By 1966, when Fried curated a show at the Fogg Museum called “Three American Painters: Kenneth Noland, Jules Olitski, Frank Stella,” he knew all three artists. More than an attempt to advance the careers of his friends, the show functioned as a statement of Fried’s position on contemporary art. Instead of embracing the new movements that were already well underway — from Judd’s Minimalism to Warhol’s Pop — Fried instead looked to abstract artists who still believed in the modernist ideals of pure expression and pure experience, rejecting anything extraneous to the artwork. 

Frank Stella’s “Die Fahn Hoch!” (1959), which was shown by Fried in “Three American Painters”


By the time he was a graduate student at Harvard, Fried had also gotten to know Clement Greenberg, the preeminent critic and champion of American abstraction — and of modernist art as a whole. From Greenberg, he had learned the language of modernist criticism, a no-holds-barred belief in the power of abstraction to represent avant-garde ideals. Greenberg and Fried were both invested in a hierarchical view of art — the idea that certain artworks and artists pushed culture in the right direction, while others were retrograde or lowbrow. Greenberg had championed Pollock, who died in 1956; Fried favored his artistic descendants: Stella, Olitski, Noland, and the sculptor Anthony Caro, whose control of color, shape, and composition Fried considered an advancement in the history of art.

Fried also attended courses in philosophy with Stanley Cavell, who constructed a theory of modernism which was structured around truth and fraudulence. For Cavell, the question every piece of modern art posed was: Is this authentic, or am I being duped? It’s a version of the “my child could do that” response to contemporary art, and it’s a feeling anyone who has looked at art made in the past century has had to confront. And the further we have moved away from the narrow expertise in painting and sculpture that characterized art for thousands of years, the more pressing the categories of authenticity and fraudulence have become.

From Cavell, Fried learned that the very first question that the art of our time puts to us is whether or not we should take it seriously. In “Art and Objecthood,” Fried reformulated that question, and he answered it categorically: the good, serious art is in the modernist tradition, while Minimalism takes us away from the world of the spirit and down a dangerous road of hyper-self-consciousness. A half-century later, it’s clear that the tensions Fried identified — between what is true and good and what is fraudulent and bad — still plague the art world, but while the Olitskis and Nolands are hardly part of the contemporary conversation, Judd gets a retrospective at MoMA, and minimalism has not only reshaped the spaces in which all art is encountered today, but also made its way to the center of culture through design. The work Fried disparaged, in fact, turned out to be the art that has most influenced the world we live in now.

Artforum Summer 1967, vol 5, no. 10. Larry Bell, Memories of Mike, metal and glass, 24″ square, 1966-7. (Color courtesy Pace Gallery, New York. Photo: Ferdinand Boesch.)

 

Fried’s essential argument about the abstract artists he favored was that their work was “absorptive” — that it drew you in and lifted you out of the everyday world. In its presence, you could escape yourself and find moments of “grace.” 

The Minimalists — whom Fried called literalists — wanted to define their work against or outside the modernist tradition of painting and sculpture. Judd made his ambitions explicit: he wanted a new kind of art that existed beyond inherited categories. His serialized forms, mostly geometric and made of metal and plastic and wood, did not look like the sculptures of Anthony Caro, which are more composed, less industrial, and less unified. Judd took certain abstract painters’s innovations, like Frank Stella’s early squares within squares, and instantiated them, creating objects in the world that resembled those simplified forms in paint. It’s as if the picture plane of a piece of geometric abstraction had been superimposed on reality: “Actual space,” Judd writes, “is intrinsically more powerful and specific than paint on flat surface.”

This new avant-garde art — the opposite of the purely “absorptive” work Fried liked — was, Fried claimed, highly self-conscious. “Theater,” or, as he also called it, “theatricality,” was the self-conscious state of mind that stood against “absorption.” A large stack of metal and plexiglass by Judd made the viewer aware, especially in the 1960s, of the existing modernist categories it was defying; of the context or setting — a gallery or museum — in which you were encountering these more mundane materials, and of the fact that it was important to their meaning; and, finally, of the intention that you not disappear into the work but be made aware of yourself standing in front of an object that you had to make sense of. Your mind was incited to activity, thought, and self-reflection, not quieted into blissful transcendence.

Though he cites Judd throughout the essay, Fried’s critique relies heavily on a poignant description by the artist Tony Smith, who realizes that his experience of an almost sci-fi landscape on a drive along the still-unfinished New Jersey Turnpike — dimly lit and under construction — was unavailable in traditional art; it couldn’t be “framed.” But it was nonetheless intensely powerful (“specific” as Judd puts it), the kind of experience he thought art should create for us. Fried took umbrage: “In comparison with the unmarked, unlit, all but unstructured turnpike — more precisely, with the turnpike as experienced from within the car, traveling on it,” he writes, “— art appears to have struck Smith as almost absurdly small.” 

If artworks don’t defend their realm, Fried warned, all kinds of experiences might challenge or even replace art experiences, which are often harder to access than a sunset, or an acid trip, or an eerie nighttime drive. “Art degenerates as it approaches the condition of theater,” he writes. “Theater is the common denominator that binds together a large and seemingly disparate variety of activities.” Theater, or self-awareness, was for Fried the way the world weakened art by making all experiences equal, differentiated only by intensity and not by category. 

Thirteen years after “Art and Objecthood,” Fried published Absorption and Theatricality: Painting and the Beholder in the Age of Diderot, a book about the quiet power of certain paintings in 18th-century France. Diderot and the French painters from 1750-1780 were most interested in the relationship between the viewer and the painting. Fried tells us that Diderot “used the term le théatral, the theatrical, implying consciousness of being beheld, as synonymous with falseness.” In order to be true, the subjects in a painting had to be present in their world, ignorant of the beholder, so that they could model for the viewer total immersion or presentness — a feeling that was of great significance to Diderot, and of course to Fried. “If you lose your feeling,” Diderot writes, “for the difference between the man who presents himself in society and the man engaged in an action, between the man who is alone and the man who is looked at, throw your brushes in the fire.” There is no point in making art in the first place if you don’t recognize the difference between affectation and action.

Behind the exigencies of any specific artwork lies the bedrock of Diderot’s worldview, one which influenced Fried considerably: that absorption is simple, graceful, and true, while affectation or self-consciousness is ugly, pedestrian, and false. Art should model a better sensibility or mode of being than the one widely accepted as the norm.

Turning back to “Art and Objecthood,” it’s easier to understand the deeper philosophical position Fried tucks away in his debate about modernism and Minimalism: that “theater and theatricality are at war today, not simply with modernist painting (or modernist painting and sculpture), but with art as such.” By this logic, the very attitude that the Minimalists stood for was fundamentally anti-art; it did not privilege the kind of value system or hierarchy of human experience that Fried believed art ought to embody.

This is a moral position as much as an explicitly aesthetic one; these feelings are motivated by Fried’s belief about art’s essential role in modern life. Today, individual preferences in art are presented without much consideration of the underlying value system they may represent or connect to. But art has always been tasked with using visual language to transmit beliefs, feelings, and meaning of different kinds. 

Fried found in the artists he loved a particular belief he could get behind — namely, that an art object ought to provide a portal for “presentness.” Work that produces this effect when we stand before it is absorptive, and therefore good in both the aesthetic and moral sense. A piece of art that makes us more self-conscious in some way is theatrical and therefore bad (once again, in both senses).

 

It’s hard to disagree with Fried’s underlying framework: that in our hyper self-conscious world, presentness is a rare and special gift, one that art can give. Nevertheless, it should be possible to accept presentness as an aesthetic and moral good without adopting a dichotomy between absorptive and theatrical art — or excluding other approaches to artmaking. 

For the Minimalists, and even more so for artists today, the real world provides rich material for artistic expression. While it may be true that certain experiences are more self-conscious or “theatrical” than others, the idea that art necessarily degenerates as it approaches this state seems, in today’s art world, absurd. And despite Fried’s best efforts, Judd and his simplified objects soon supplanted the artists that Fried championed, foreshadowing the trajectory of visual art: toward a world of truly mixed-up meaning, where all sorts of objects exist alongside one another, and where people and their differing and shared subjective positions feature prominently in the art experience. The strict formal qualities that excited Fried are simply much less important as metrics for aesthetic judgment today than a newer, less easily defined characteristic — what we might want to call an artist’s conviction, her commitment to a particular vision.

This newer metric, and the art that embodies it, already existed at the time “Art and Objecthood” was published. Fried missed the boat in 1967 in large part because he excluded some of the most important artists of his time from serious consideration. While he was spending time with the heirs of Abstract Expressionism and dismissing new developments in art, others were building the movements that anticipated today’s art world. 

For example, in 1966, while Fried was beginning to formulate the piece he would publish a year later, the artist Yayoi Kusama was showing a new body of work at the Venice Biennale. Today, Kusama, someone I’ve worked with professionally, is one of the world’s most popular and recognizable artists, but at the time she was not well known. She wasn’t an invited exhibitor at the Biennale; she had staked out a spot outside of the entrance for a guerrilla installation. Despite showing regularly in New York, none of the establishment critics wrote about her work, and four years after her presentation in Venice she would temporarily return to Japan.

Fried would have discounted Kusama’s work as non-art, but having widened the aperture for what is acceptable as good art, we have forced our moral considerations into murkier territory, where it’s harder than ever to establish solid ground for any kind of judgment about art or common experience. How can we square this with the intuition — which Fried highlights — that some art is authentic, significant, dense, and true to feeling, while other art is thin, devoid of meaning or import or both? And if Kusama is the former — full and real — then what did Fried miss?

 

Kusama was broke in the 1960s and sleeping on a door (the relevant chapter of her autobiography is titled “A Living Hell in New York”), but she threw herself into her work. She understood that it would be hard to break through the dominant strain of action painting which was still the rage, and she was disappointed when the Whitney and other institutions rejected her pieces for exhibitions. But she understood that her works “were the polar opposite [of action painting] in terms of intention.” And still, she “believed that producing the unique art that came from within myself was the most important thing I could do to build my life as an artist.”

From the start, she was vocal about making work that spoke to her own neuroses, her own traumas, her own obsessions. She was fixated on the idea of infinity, and of reproducing it from her single perspective, so she started producing net and later polka-dot paintings that create fields of infinitely expanding points; she had an important childhood episode with a pumpkin which led to an obsession with the form; she was afraid of sex because of her tumultuous upbringing, and processed that fear through phallic sculptures, objects covered in woven penis-like protrusions; she wanted to promote open and unashamed love, hence one of her first environmental Infinity Mirror Rooms, Kusama’s Peep Show (or Endless Love Show) in 1966, and her later protests and naked happenings, all of which promoted free love and forced her to confront her hang-ups around sex. 

The “I” for Kusama is the site of perception and creativity, but also a kind of prison to run away from — whether by obscuring her world with repeated forms or transporting herself out of reality through her work. The boundaries between her and the spaces she creates become intentionally blurred, in opposition to fixity of all kinds. In her autobiography she writes: “by covering my entire body with polka-dots and then covering the background with polka dots as well, I find self-obliteration. Or I stick polka dots all over a horse standing before a polka-dot background…and the mass that is the ‘horse’ is absorbed into something timeless.”

Installation view from Kusama’s Peep Show or Endless Love Show, Castellane Gallery, New York, 1966. © YAYOI KUSAMA

 

Kusama’s Infinity Mirror Rooms, perhaps her best-known works today, are — to use Fried’s term — highly theatrical. They are enclosed spaces in which the floors, ceilings, and walls are made of mirrors. Depending on the specific piece, lights either hang from the ceiling or rest on the floor, creating the sense once you enter that you are in an infinitely deep and long room, with light punctuating the space forever, not unlike the universe or deep space. Whether or not you decide to take a selfie, you will inevitably encounter yourself in the mirrored room — that’s the point. You are thrown into an infinite environment that provokes a sense of your own finitude, or maybe of the vastness of what is in you, captured in the expanding space of reflection around you. It is a self-conscious experience. 

But anyone who has ever been in one knows that Infinity Mirror Rooms are also highly absorbing (even if Fried would disagree). They transport you out of your literal environment, both by moving you into a new space and by affecting you psychologically, pulling you into their fictive expanse. In Kusama’s rooms, though you may not be captivated by a painting on a wall, lifted out of your world into its transporting canvas, you do temporarily escape into another reality — even if you bring yourself along. 

Fried’s categories don’t apply, here, because they both apply: the work is completely theatrical and also totally absorbing, cleaving quite close to the definitions he uses for both concepts. But perhaps more importantly, Kusama creates stillness in self-consciousness, a kind of reflective theatricality that wants to redeem itself.

Kusama represents the realization of an art and a worldview organized around authenticity to self and interiority. But more than that, Kusama represents the possibility that there is a fully-fledged value system, a rich morality, within this new world, totally independent of the more restrictive categories that have dominated aesthetic debates until very recently. 

Kusama’s conviction is undeniable. Hers is the highly unlikely story of a Japanese woman, destined for an arranged marriage, who not only shakes off the shackles her conservative culture would impose on her, but also, by listening to herself, manages to turn her inner voice into a universal self; through her form of self-obliteration, she has made room for everyone to participate in this larger inner life. One way to take any idea seriously is to explore it repeatedly, mine it for meaning — whether through objects, experiences, or perception. Kusama is an example of this approach in art, someone who has repeated herself “obsessively,” to use Judd’s word, pushing objects to reveal meaning or intensity until they begin to communicate her worldview as a whole.

Yayoi Kusama and Donald Judd in Japan, 1978, courtesy of the Judd Foundation

 

One caveat with this kind of obsessive interiority is that the centrality of the self, in either the production of art or its reception, makes it hard to judge what you’re looking at. Formal qualities, like the ones that supposedly stimulate absorption, are easier to control and assess than an artist’s conviction, for example. And in our highly theatrical world, who is to say that someone else’s personal experience — their art, or the way they interpret someone else’s art — is wrong or bad or stupid? 

Nonetheless, despite what we might want to call the absolute relativism in art today — all opinions equally valid — we still seem to share deeply held beliefs that some things are better, more valuable, and more significant than others. And we also seem to intuit that these judgments are not simply matters of personal preference, but positions that hold more widely for others as well.

 

Over the course of “Art and Objecthood,” Fried uses the word “conviction” thirteen times. “Roughly, the success or failure of a given painting has come to depend on its ability to hold or stamp itself out or compel conviction as shape,” he writes. A little later, regarding the artists he loves: “The rightness or relevance of one’s conviction about specific modernist works, a conviction that begins and ends in one’s experience of the work itself, is always open to question.” Here it’s clear enough what he means: modernist art’s power comes, at least in part, from the conviction it compels, which is something we must constantly question.

Though he doesn’t identify it as a central concern, conviction is a crucial term in Fried’s analysis because it addresses deeper truths about an artist’s commitment to an ideal or idea. Conviction, even as Fried uses it, reveals a third path (separate from absorption and theatricality) in which schools and styles are less important than they seemed to be. It is the underlying spirit of a thing that matters, our conviction in it, and the conviction it radiates out. Abstract, figurative, pop, minimal, Op, and so on: every category can shine with conviction if the artist has it. And if artists represent a certain kind of human freedom and fulfillment — and like Fried, I believe they do — then why wouldn’t we hold them to the highest standard? Why wouldn’t we demand conviction from them? As Cavell says, “The task of the modern artist…is to find something he can be sincere and serious in; something he can mean. And he may not at all.”

Conviction is our era’s updated response to the “true” and “fraudulent,” “authentic” and “sincere,” “theatrical” and “absorbed,” debate. Conviction’s roots are in Cavell and other twentieth century philosophers, like Charles Taylor, but they are also in Fried himself — though perhaps not in the ways he had intended.

Conviction is what the best contemporary art communicates — Kusama’s conviction in her own personal narrative, one of suffering, struggle, and neurosis, helped her create a visual language that was her own. Or Judd’s convictions about form and color in real space, which in turn shaped not only the course of art but also the design of the spaces in which art gets shown today, and so many of the objects that surround us in life. And always a sense that the artist could not do it any other way, that she is compelled by an unshakeable conviction in what guides her.

There are so many people making art today, so many more than there were in Fried’s time, that conviction can serve as a kind of guiding light for viewers. Conviction alone is probably not enough; an understanding of art history and a talent for making visual material are common among great artists, but visual talent is highly subjective, largely a matter of personal taste. Grand theories of art may be passé, but if we want new criteria for judging art, we may want to think about what seriousness or commitment or conviction feels like; because once we have a common sensibility, what follows, regardless of visual style, will move us away from the pit of relativism, toward a worldview we can share regardless of our different positions in it. Without that deep shared context of feeling, we will not be able to communicate ourselves effectively. It’s hard to imagine a worthier goal for art right now than communication of this sort.

Presentness and stillness, the feeling of being utterly captivated and overwhelmed by an object, haven’t disappeared from the world because of all these artists and the proliferation of audiences for art, nor are they the only metrics by which we can judge the success of an artwork. Every era has to ask itself what it wants and needs from art, what art should feel like. “Art and Objecthood” ends with a particularly beautiful line to this effect: “We are literalists all or most of our lives. Presentness is grace.” In our self-conscious world, one in which screens are ubiquitous and presentness fleeting, but in which visual art is increasingly tasked with making meaning for us, maybe conviction is a form of grace.