‘Zombie formalism’ sounds like an art movement, but it is not really. In this sense it is similar to relational aesthetics, which, according to its inventor Nicolas Bourriaud, was more an examination of a particular set of artistic concerns at a particular point in time. But both zombie formalism and relational aesthetics function as art movements for those of us who find such terms useful to define certain sensibilities of the era. Although primarily a pejorative description of abstract painting that appeals to speculative art markets around the world, there is no reason why zombie formalism could not become as emblematic of the late 2010s as relational aesthetics was of the early 2000s. It might lack theoretical grounding, but this hardly seems important anymore. A movement borne of opinion instead of theory seems as good a place as any to start an art-historical narrative. So, what is zombie formalism, and why the need to chart the art of our times—aren’t we post-historical yet?
Fittingly, zombie formalism grew out of a series of blog posts, before coming to attention in Walter Robinson’s early 2014 article, ‘Flipping and the Rise of Zombie Formalism’, for the US magazine Artspace. The term itself is credited to the painter and writer Martin Mugar in a December 2013 blog post titled ‘Zombie Formalism: the lingering life of abstraction in New York that just won’t die’, which was itself a response to an earlier post on Hyperallergic by John Yau, titled ‘What Happens When We Run Out Of Styles?’ Both exemplify how art terms get spread around these days, and the quick transformation of opinion pieces into cultural ‘things’.
By the end of 2014 an article... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline
David Ostrowski, ‘I’m OK.’ Moments later, he was shot. Installation view. Courtesy the artist and Peres Projects, Berlin.
Adam Henry, Untitled (2spt1), 2012. Courtesy of the artist and Meessen De Clercq, Brussels.
