Curators Dieter Buchhart and Anna Karina Hofbauer Want to Reintroduce You to Keith Haring
Last week, the Brant Foundation opened “Keith Haring,” an exhibition that examines the artist’s early years in New York’s downtown scene. The show gathers works made between 1980 and 1983, an important period in Haring’s life that saw him go from graffiti prankster to gallery darling. We caught up with the show’s co-curators Dr. Dieter Buchhart and Dr. Anna Karina Hofbauer to hear more about this moment-in-time exhibition.
This exhibition focuses on the early years of Keith Haring’s career, roughly 1980-1983. What made this short period the most compelling lens through which to revisit Haring today?
Dr. Dieter Buchhart: These years contain the moment in which Haring’s entire visual language came into being. Between 1980 and 1983, one can watch him invent, condense, test and sharpen the pictorial vocabulary that later became globally recognizable: the radiant baby, the barking dog, the activated body, the glowing line, the theatrical silhouette, the hieroglyph-like compression of complex meanings into immediate signs. For us, this is the most exciting point of entry because it is the phase in which the work is still radically open, experimental and connected to the city as a living laboratory.
Anna Karina Hofbauer: It is also the period before Haring was fixed into a simplified public image. Today, many people think they already know him, but when you return to the early years, you rediscover how daring, unstable and searching this work really was. The subway drawings, the early tarpaulins, the fluorescent paintings and the first major exhibitions show an artist who was not repeating a formula but building a language in real time. That makes the period feel extraordinarily contemporary again, because it speaks to how images circulate, how symbols are read and how a public visual code can emerge almost overnight.
Haring’s work moved from the subway to the gallery very quickly. This show includes key works from key historical exhibitions such as the Tony Shafrazi Gallery show and the FUN Gallery presentation. Why were those shows important, and how did they land in the art world at the time?
DB: The Tony Shafrazi exhibition of 1982 was crucial because it made unmistakably clear that Haring was not simply a gifted street phenomenon, but a fully formed artist capable of transforming the gallery into an immersive environment. The Blacklight Room was especially important in that regard: it was not just a display of paintings, but an atmospheric, almost total installation in which fluorescent color, music, bodily movement and drawing came together. It showed that Haring could translate the energy of the street into a new spatial experience without losing its urgency.
AKH: The FUN Gallery show of 1983 mattered in a different but equally essential way. FUN was rooted in the East Village and in a younger, riskier, more hybrid scene in which graffiti, club culture, music, performance and painting were in constant exchange. Haring’s presence there affirmed that he never belonged only to the gallery-sanctioned world. He moved between different publics. At the time, these shows landed with enormous energy because they challenged inherited hierarchies: the line between subway and gallery, between so-called high art and popular culture, between downtown experiment and market visibility, suddenly became porous.
Are there any works in this show that you feel give particular insight into the aesthetics of this crucial early period of his career?
AKH: Several works are especially revealing because they show just how quickly Haring achieved an extraordinary degree of visual condensation. The 1981 smiling face in baked enamel on metal is one such work for me. It appears disarmingly simple, but it already demonstrates his ability to create an image that is instantly legible and yet not exhausted by legibility. It oscillates between humor, signage, commodity and pure pictorial charge.
DB: For me, the works connected to the Blacklight Room are equally decisive because they expose the expanded aesthetic field of the early Haring. They reveal that his line was never merely graphic; it was spatial, performative and environmental. The early barking dogs and Mickey Mouse variations are also fundamental, because they show how he could take an image from cartoons or mass culture and reactivate it through rhythm, repetition and context. In Haring, meaning is never fixed. A sign behaves differently depending on what surrounds it. That semiotic instability is one of the deepest qualities of the early work.
Haring often balanced playful imagery with urgent political concerns—from the AIDS crisis to drug culture. We live in an age when artists are encouraged, or even assumed, to always be pretty political in everything they do. To what extent did Haring serve as a model for this kind of blending of art and activism?
DB: Haring is an important model, but not because he turned art into illustration or slogan. What makes him exemplary is that politics in his work is embedded in the line itself: the political line. He understood that a visual language can be both seductive and resistant, playful and alarming. His pictograms are open enough to invite broad identification, but precise enough to carry critiques of racism, authoritarianism, nuclear threat, homophobia, consumerism, drug dependency and later the devastation of AIDS. He did not separate ethics from aesthetics.
AKH: What is especially relevant today is that Haring never used activism as cultural decoration. He communicated urgently because he believed images could enter everyday life and reach people outside elite art discourse. That is why posters, street interventions, public murals and later the Pop Shop all mattered to him. In that sense, he absolutely prefigures the contemporary expectation that artists engage with the world. He also reminds us that political art must remain formally convincing; otherwise, it loses durability. Haring’s achievement is that his humanism is inseparable from the vitality of his line.
What would you say have been the major changes to the East Village since Haring’s time, and how does your exhibition respond to them?
AKH: The East Village of Haring’s early years was precarious, rough, heterogeneous and economically accessible in a way that made experimentation possible. It was not romantic; it was difficult, and sometimes violent. But precisely because rents were low and social boundaries were unstable, artists, musicians, writers, club figures, immigrants and activists could coexist in a dense cultural ecology. Much of that has changed. The neighborhood has been profoundly transformed by gentrification, professionalization and real-estate pressure.
DB: Our exhibition responds by bringing Haring’s work back into the neighborhood where that language first took shape. We wanted the show to function not as nostalgia, but as a kind of historical reactivation. Returning these works to the East Village allows viewers to sense that this art emerged from a very specific urban energy: from public space, from speed, from risk, from community and from conflict. It is also a reminder that cultural innovation is always tied to the material conditions that allow it to happen.
The press release has you likening Haring’s iconography to “the spirit of today’s Emoji euphoria.” Could you expand upon that idea?
DB: What we mean is that Haring understood earlier than most artists that modern life increasingly depends on compressed, rapidly circulating visual signs. His images function almost like an emotional and social shorthand: they are immediately graspable, easily repeatable and capable of traveling across linguistic borders. In that sense, they anticipate a world in which communication is often pictographic, accelerated and collective. He created a universal language.
AKH: But the comparison should not flatten the work. Haring’s signs are far richer than emojis because they are never purely neutral or fixed. A radiant baby can stand for life, hope, vulnerability, energy or a nearly cosmic beginning; a dog can be joyful, aggressive, protective, authoritarian or absurd depending on the context. That is why the notion of an alphabet and the idea of a universal language is so useful. Haring created a visual lexicon, but one in which syntax and situation constantly shift meaning. He anticipated the logic of image-based communication while also exposing its instability.
For me one of his main lasting legacies would surround his embrace of merchandising with his Pop Shop. Should we blame Haring for the fact that people believe a KAWS t-shirt to be a literal work of art?
AKH: No, I would be very careful with that conclusion. Haring did not open the Pop Shop in order to erase the distinction between artwork and commodity in a cynical way. He did it because he wanted access. He understood that as his paintings became more expensive, the audience that had formed around the subway drawings could easily be excluded again. The Pop Shop was therefore an attempt to preserve a democratic impulse within a rapidly commercializing art world.
DB: Exactly. Haring’s gesture was not simply merchandising; it was a continuation of his public practice by other means. One has to look at the intention, the ethics and the historical context. He wanted children, teenagers and people with no access to the gallery system to live with his imagery. That is very different from a purely branded luxury logic. Of course, contemporary culture has normalized artist-merchandise in ways that could be seen as superficial. But Haring should not be blamed for that. If anything, he set a much more demanding standard: accessibility without surrendering artistic integrity.
More Arts Interviews
-
The Louche, Romantic, Feral World of Sébastien Tellier
-
Abbi Kenny, Beyond the Still Life
-
Gabriel De La Mora’s Meditations On Matter and the Monochrome
-
Danielle Orchard’s Indescribable Yearning
-
Pier Paolo Calzolari Contemplates the Quiet Alchemy of Time
-
Dean Majd’s “Hard Feelings” Expands the Emotional Register of Masculinity