Tiravanija_Rirkrit – what's next?

Tomorrow is the question, today has no answer, and yesterday never returns.

admin — Sat, 12 Oct 2013 14:03:27 +0000

Art without Work?

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:48 +0000

I recently recalled the precise moment when it first occurred to me that I would like to become an artist. I grew up in Moscow, and my father was a self-taught musician working at the circus. Circus artists work extremely hard physically: the amount of daily practice and physical exercise necessary to perform acrobatic acts or walk a tightrope is really enormous. They practice and exercise all day and perform by night—it’s nearly a twenty-four-hour-a-day job.
There was a birthday party for one of the kids in the building we lived in, which belonged to the union of circus artists. The children at the party, all about five or six years old, were children of clowns, animal trainers, and so forth. We were watching a cartoon on TV and at some point a conversation started about what we wanted to become when we grew up. Following the usual suggestions like a cosmonaut or a fireman, one of the kids said that he wanted to be a fine artist, because they do not work. I was very shy as a kid, so I did not say much, but thought to myself that this boy was really clever and that I too did not want to work and should therefore try to become an artist.
Ironically, this momentary realization ultimately pointed me on a trajectory that led to a perpetual state of work for many years: while my classmates in school tended to just hang out or play sports after class, I went to drawing lessons every evening. When my family moved to America, I enrolled in three schools simultaneously: the School of Visual Arts by day, Art Students League classes by night, and group life drawing lessons on weekends. Somehow the idea of not working went out the window, and all throughout my artistic education the emphasis was on work: the idea being that I had to fill all my available time with learning and practice, and that the sheer effort of this was bound to make me an artist. Perhaps this occupation of time was also practice for my future career: being a professional artist in a society where labor and time are still the ultimate producers of value. So the logic was that if all my time was filled with the labor of learning the skills of an artist, perhaps something of value would be produced, leading to a lifetime occupation by artistic labor. Thinking was of relatively little importance within this scenario.
I have to add that the system of non-university art education at the time (the 1980s) aided such an approach, because it made it possible to avoid academic studies almost entirely – literature, history, philosophy, and so forth—in favor of studio practice geared toward contriving some sort of artistic style that would be marketable.
Sometime in graduate school I started to get the sense that all this was not getting me very far artistically, that some other approach or modality of practice was possible. I don’t mean getting far only in terms of a career – although I remember this being a fairly serious concern for most people in my program—but on a basic level of just not not being convinced that the paintings and objects I was making were particularly compelling as art objects despite all the labor I put into making them. Thus there was a real urgency to find some other way to go about this, but what this other way could be was confusing and very mystifying: it was not so much about becoming a slacker artist, but rather a realization that an entirely different type of engagement was necessary in order for an artistic practice to make sense beyond appearances—beyond merely looking like art.
Since the early twentieth century, much of the advanced analysis of art production refers to the position of the artist and the intellectual as cultural workers. I think that it probably seemed highly desirable to see yourself as a member of the most dynamic class, a class that was expected to dominate the making of history: the working class. While rereading The Communist Manifesto some time ago, it was interesting to note how sure Marx was that the middle class (from which a vast majority of “cultural producers” actually come) is merely a small and historically insignificant group that is destined to vanish during the final confrontation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat: a battle from which the proletariat was expected to emerge victorious, bringing about the end of History. What progressive agent of culture would want to belong to the middle class, this vanishing species?
To this day, many in the field of art insist on using the term “cultural producer,” a term that supposedly blurs differences between different participants in the art industry—artists, curators, critics, historians, administrators, and patrons of art—on the assumption that we are all working together to produce meaning and thus culture.
Much of this language and thinking is predicated on the privileged position of work: that in order for art to come into being, work needs to be done—hard work, important work, expert work, work of art, art work. While there is a lot of disagreement about what type of work is actually required, who should or can do it, or if and how they should be trained for it, it is rarely questioned whether work is actually necessary or essential to the production of art. Duchamp mused whether there could be a work “not of art,” but can there also be an art without work? The readymade is something that immediately comes to mind, yet I feel that using existing objects produced by the labor of others does not solve this particular problem, because it is not about simply delegating, outsourcing, or appropriating. In other words, if the labor of art production is outsourced to others, while the artist and the market benefit by the surplus value it produces, it is merely a perpetuation of the exploitation that creates conditions of alienation in our society. What I mean by art without work is perhaps closer to a situation where you play a musical instrument for the sheer enjoyment of making music, where the activity is a pleasurable one not defined by labor or work per se.
Naturally, making art objects requires labor and work, but art does not exclusively belong to the realm of objects. For example, some years ago I was looking at Matisse paintings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. As I was leaving the museum, I became aware of a residual sensation that looking at these paintings produced: for some time I was actually seeing things on the street according to the visual logic of the paintings. This made me think that this is exactly where the “art” of Matisse resides—in this ephemeral yet incredibly powerful effect that occurs when you are not looking at the paintings themselves. However, because these works are such expensive, sought-after objects, the museum frames the experience of encountering them as the veneration of fetish objects, where the emphasis is placed on the object itself rather than what it can trigger within the subject. This is very unfortunate. It seems to me that art resides within and in between subjects, and subjects don’t always require work to produce themselves. For example, falling in love, or having a religious or aesthetic experience does not require work, so why should art require work to come into being?
Conceptual art becomes an important modality of practice in this respect: while conceptual artists managed to shift much of the work involved in art production to the viewer via self-reflexive framing, and explicitly stated that objects of art need not be made at all,¹ I feel that the ethos of their approach is something quite different than the condition I am trying to describe. Not surprisingly, much of conceptual art suffered the same fate as Matisse, ending up as prized objects in private and public collections.
Another aspect of all this is a certain shift that art underwent with the industrialization of society. In traditional societies, that which we now call art was something more practical or utilitarian in nature: it had a clear decorative, religious, or other use value, and it did not require a special social space/framework, like an exhibition or a museum, within which to become understandable as art. In this sense art was much more integrated in everyday life and did not involve the kind of suspension of reality that many artists of our time find so frustrating: a context in which you have freedom to utter virtually anything, but on the condition that it’s not real because it’s art.
The question of work has also become a very polemical issue these days, and particularly so in the field of art and culture. What is work for an artist within our post-Fordist blur between life and work, freedom and alienation? It’s useful to refer to distinctions that Hannah Arendt draws between labor, work, and action. For Arendt, labor corresponds to a basic need for human life to sustain itself, such as farming, preparation of food, etc. Work goes beyond the satisfaction of immediate needs and corresponds to the human ability to build and maintain a world fit for human use, while action is “the only activity that goes on directly between men without the intermediary of things or matter, [and] corresponds to the human condition of plurality.”²
I suppose Arendt’s understanding of this was inspired by the ancient Greeks, who frowned on the idea of work: labor was for slaves; free citizens were expected to engage in politics, poetry, philosophy, but not work. The only type of occupation not looked down upon was apparently that of a shepherd, presumably because when one herds animals, one is not fully occupied and thus free to think.
While I am not completely sure that action, in Arendt’s beautiful definition, is always applicable in describing conditions that enable the production of art, I suspect that certain types of art practices can turn labor and work into action, and in doing so, free art from a dependence on labor and work.
Historically there have been different approaches to realizing this, yet all seem to converge on a concern with conditions of production. If art is produced as an outcome of certain conditions (rather then simply an act of genius, which is not interesting or possible to discuss), then creating such conditions would actually produce art. If the ultimate conditions of production are the world and life (rather than a studio or art museum), it would then follow that a certain way of living, of being in the world, would in itself result in the production of art: no work is necessary.
Such interdependence between art and life, and the state of the subject therein, was a central concern for many artists of the early-twentieth-century avant-gardes. It seems that the thinking at the time was that the production of a new way of life would not only result in the production of a groundbreaking, revolutionary art, but also the other way around: that the production of a new type of art would result in a new way of life and, in turn, a new subject. One of the instances of this is Lef magazine, co-published by Rodchenko, Mayakovsky, and others, the explicit goal of which was to produce such a new subject through exposing its readers to new content and form, to new art.
Last winter I spent a lot of time looking at Warhol’s films from around the mid-’60s. I found the complex structure he put in place for the production of these films really interesting: while Warhol’s silkscreen paintings from this period garner most attention from art historians (in part because they are expensive objects in museums and private collections), it is as if he had them made in order to fund his films, which were expensive to create but produced no income. It’s tempting to understand this simply as a situation where someone works explicitly for money to fund the production of his “real work”—his art. However this simple dichotomy does not play out here: Warhol is very blunt about his apparent indifference to the production of his paintings and objects in interviews from that period, where he is clear that not only are the paintings and objects physically made by studio assistants, but even their subject matter is determined by others, and his involvement in the films is not very different—the screenplays are written by someone else, he does not direct the actors, or shoot the films, or edit them. The set for the most part is just his studio: the Factory.
One of my personal favorites is a film called The Couch (1964), in which, according to Gerard Malanga (who found the featured red couch on the street and brought it to the Factory), documents the fact that every time other activities at the Factory were finished or exhausted, someone would just start filming the couch and whatever was taking place on it at the moment: conversations, eating, sex, and so forth. The films do not seem to be made to be watched in their entirety, which is something that would be hard for most filmmakers to accept: you want the audience to see the totality of your work, no matter how experimental, and it’s frustrating when people stop paying attention or leave midway through the piece. Yet the majority of Warhol’s films seem to have a built-in indifference to this.
In one of the interviews I saw, from 1966 or so, Warhol says point blank that he has not worked in three years and is not working at the time of the interview. It’s easy to assume that this is only another evasive maneuver or provocation, which he was so good at during interviews, yet it seems to me that he was actually being very direct: having created certain conditions for production, he was present, yet did not need to work in order for significant art to come into being. Perhaps he was simply being physically present within the structure he set in motion.
It also seems to me that the most important mechanism of the Factory, its central activity, was not so much the production of art objects or films, but the production of very particular social relations: a new way of life that in turn resulted in films and other things. Warhol, the proponent of Business Art, may seem to be artistically far from the idealist or utopian avant-garde, but the structures he was using were not so dissimilar: a certain kind of de-personalization of an artwork using a collective approach rooted in a creative community – strangely reminiscent of De Stijl, Bauhaus, and so forth – all of which placed just as strong an emphasis on the reorganization of life and social relations as on the production of art. I find that, far from being dated or obsolete, this type of model is of particular significance today, facilitated and amplified by the emergence of powerful and free tools for communication, production, and dissemination found mostly on the internet, which together create a possibility for a degree of autonomy from capital.
A different yet sympathetic approach to not working can be found in the artistic practice of Rirkrit Tiravanija. Although his work has been fully absorbed and valorized by art institutions and the market, he is rather adamant that much of his activity is not art at all. In fact, once you start questioning him, it turns out that almost nothing he does, with the exception of the occasional painting, sculpture, or drawing, is, in his opinion, art. And this is not mere posing or a provocation: it seems to me that this comes from a deep reverence for a certain capacity of the everyday and a desire to explore this capacity to its fullest, most radical extent.
A couple of years ago we did something in New York which involved turning e-flux’s storefront into a kind of a free meal/discussion space where three days of conversations on contemporary art took place during lunch and dinner sessions. Rirkrit did most of the cooking, with some help from his assistants and friends. I never noticed how much Rirkrit actually works when he cooks for a large number of people. Each of the three days started early, around seven or eight in the morning, with food shopping. Food preparation started around eleven, to be ready in time for lunch sessions, followed by a couple of hours of cleaning. Then shopping again for dinner (no refrigerator during the hot New York summer), cooking, and cleaning again until past midnight. Not having a real, equipped kitchen makes food preparation, cooking, and cleaning very labor intensive. On the other hand, spending most of his time in the improvised backyard kitchen allowed Rirkrit to not engage in the conversation and to not speak or answer questions about his art, which is something I think he does not like to do. When asked if what he was doing is art, Rirkrit said no, he was just cooking.
I think what happens here is that rather than speak or work in the capacity as an artist, Rirkrit prefers to make himself very busy doing something else in the space of art. Furthermore, not unlike the Factory, yet dispersed amidst many different art venues and dates, Rirkrit’s activity manages to temporarily construct a rather peculiar set of social relations between those in attendance. While he displaces the art object and the figure of the artist from its traditional place at center stage (to the kitchen), perhaps reflecting Duchamp, his presence usually forms a quiet yet influential and shape-giving center for those present. Rirkrit does manage to produce art while not working in the capacity of an artist, yet to do so he really makes himself very busy: he works very hard doing something else.
I feel that the ethos behind much of this has to do with the communist dream of non-alienated work. When Marx writes about the end of division of labor and narrow professionalization, he describes a society where identity and social roles are extremely fluid: one day you can be a street cleaner, the next day an engineer, a cook, an artist, or a mayor.³ In this scenario, alienation disappears and art becomes indistinguishable from everyday life: it dissolves in life. Historically there is a clear trajectory of this desire for the dissolution of art, which is visible in artistic practices from early modernism to the present day. This desire may be actually older than communism and, in a certain way, it outlasts the collapse of communist ideology, which makes me think that this may be something deeper than ideology. It could be that this desire has to do with a need to reclaim a reality that art may have had prior to the industrialization of society.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: e-flux journal # 29, November 2011, http://www.e-f lux.com/journal/art-withoutwork/ [3.4.2013].
1.)Lawrence Weiner, Declaration of Intent (1968):
1. The artist may construct the piece.
2. The piece may be fabricated.
3. The piece need not be built.Each being equal and consistent with the intent of the artist the decision as to condition rests with the receiver upon the occasion of receivership.
2.)Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), 7.
3.)Karl Marx, The German Ideology (1845) (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998), 53: For as soon as the division of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; whereas in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into material power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.

Schafft doch endlich wieder Unordnung!

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:45 +0000

Der zeitgenössischen Kunst fehlen Abenteuer, Gefahren, echte Experimente – Risikomanagement beherrscht die Szene. So darf das nicht weitergehen.
Beginnen wir doch mit einem Rückblick. Nicht nur auf das vergangene Jahr 2011, sondern auch – das hat mit meiner eigenen Laufbahn zu tun – auf acht Jahre Ausstellungsmachen.
Bevor ich meinen Dienst im Museum van Hedendaagse Kunst Antwerpen antrat, kannte ich dessen Leiter Bart De Baere vor allem als den Kurator der programmatisch betitelten Schau „This Is The Show And The Show Is Many Things“ 1994 im Museum voor Hedendaagse Kunst Gent (das inzwischen Stedelijk Museum voor Actuele Kunst heißt). Die Ausstellung wurde schon oft als eine der einflussreichsten der 90er-Jahre bezeichnet.
Wie so viele andere wichtige Präsentationen besuchten auch „This Is The Show And The Show Is Many Things“ nicht allzu viele Menschen. Ich hatte das Glück, einer davon zu sein, werde hier aber nicht versuchen zu erklären, „worum“ es genau ging oder wie das Ganze aussah.
Ein paar einleitende Worte aus Adrian Searles Artikel, erschienen auf den letzten Seiten des damals noch sehr jungen Magazins „Frieze“, sollten genügen: „,This Is The Show …‘ ist ein Vergnügungspalast, ein Spektakel, ein Discounter, ein Museum ohne Wände, eine Brachfläche und ein Wunderkabinett des Fantastischen und der Inkonsequenz. Die Teilnehmer erschaffen viele Arbeiten erst während der laufenden Schau, sie nehmen sie auseinander, greifen sie auf und verändern sie. Die Stücke bleiben unbetitelt, und die Ausstellungsräume bilden einen verwirrenden Mix aus Ateliers, unvollständigen Installationen, Lagern, spontanen Verbindungen und ein wenig ästhetischem Terrorismus, den man wohl gerade für eine gute Idee hält. Hier stimmt wahnsinnig viel – zu viel.“
Die 90er waren also nicht nur das Jahrzehnt, in dem der Kurator zum Star einer neuen Kultur der Kunstproduktion wurde. Adrian Searle schloss seine Kritik nicht gerade wohlwollend: „,This Is The Show …‘ soll eher als Prozess funktionieren, nicht als fixierte, fertige Einheit, sondern als organische Zusammenarbeit, in der die Herrschaft des Autors abgeschafft ist und die Kontrolle über die Museen an die Künstler übergeht. Das ist natürlich reine Augenwischerei und in erster Linie ein ermüdendes kuratorisches Täuschungsmanöver.“
Es war ja auch eine Zeit kontextabhängigen Stils, der Institutionskritik, von scatter art und einer Ästhetik der Erniedrigung. Eine Ära, so müssen wir das vom heutigen Standpunkt aus sehen, in der die Kunst echte Risiken einging – in der eigentlichen Herstellung und ihrer Präsentation oder dem Ausstellungsmachen. Diese Qualität fehlt inzwischen auffällig, sowohl in der aktuellen künstlerischen wie in der kuratorischen Praxis. Zweifellos ein bedauerlicher Zustand.
Ich erkenne in der allgemeinen Abwesenheit von Wagnis, Abenteuer, Gefahr oder Experiment auch die Ursache dafür, dass in der zeitgenössischen Kunst so viel Unaufregendes und völlig Austauschbares zu sehen ist. Denn es ist nicht ernsthaft zu bestreiten: Die Rhetorik des Risikos – „Baut eure Städte am Rand des Vulkans! Segelt die Schiffe in unbekannte Gewässer! Bekämpft eure Freunde und euch selbst!“ – stellt einen Kerngedanken in der Selbstwahrnehmung aller (modernen) Kunst dar. Keine interessante Kunst ohne Abenteuer.
Die Kunstszene selbst muss das Risiko (jedenfalls historisch gesehen) als integrales Moment für das künstlerische Unternehmen identifizieren. Das ist deutlich an der Feier des Wagemuts in der jüngeren Kunstgeschichte zu bemerken – ein klarer Hinweis darauf, dass die Kunstwelt die Verstrickung mit diversen Traditionen der Übertretung vermisst und sich nach ihrer Wiederbelebung sehnt.
Tatsächlich tauchen Experiment und Abenteuer in der aktuellen Kunst vor allem als Erinnern früherer Abenteuer und Experimente aus der jüngeren Kunstgeschichte auf. Als eine zentrale Kategorie, die bedauerlicherweise verloren gegangen ist.
Für mich liegt darin einer der Gründe, warum wir uns so unermüdlich mit der Kunst der späten 60er- und 70er-Jahre beschäftigen – einer Kunst, die sich mit Nachdruck um eine, wie es die amerikanische Historikerin und Kuratorin Anne Rorimer formulierte, „Neudefinition von Wirklichkeit“ bemüht hat (was als das wahrscheinlich riskanteste aller Abenteuer verstanden werden darf).
Artur Barrio, Tomislav Gotovac, Ion Grigorescu und Andrei Monastyrski bei der Biennale in Venedig 2011; Edward Krasi´nski, Dóra Maurer, Charlotte Posenenske und Martha Rosler bei der Biennale 2011 in Istanbul; Bas Jan Ader im Reenactment-Taumel vor ein paar Jahren: Sie alle machen uns bewusst, wie viel moderne und zeitgenössische Kunst aus der Lust entstand, Gesetze zu brechen, Grenzen zu verletzen, Regeln zu missachten, also Risiken einzugehen und ganz allgemein „gefährlich zu leben“.
Umgekehrt bestätigt diese besessene Historisierung (die Präsentation als historischer Fetisch, als Fenster zu einem sentimental besetzten Früher) nur den Verdacht, dass derart riskantes Schaffen der Vergangenheit angehört. Insbesondere symptomatisch in diesem Kontext war die Fotografie „Shoot“ von Chris Burdens ikonischer Performance von 1971, die 2011 auf der Istanbuler Biennale gezeigt wurde: Die ausnehmend plakative (demzufolge vielleicht etwas zu schlichte) Vorstellung wagemutiger Kunst wird hier reduziert auf ein kostbares Objekt – nur eines von zahlreichen inmitten einer Architektur, die von einer doppelten Logik der Sicherheit (Isolation ist die sicherste Form des „Versicherns“, also etwas sicher und ungefährlich machen) und Eingrenzung geprägt war.
Die zwei genannten Biennalen – nur die höchstdotierten Events eines Kunstkalenders, der mit ungezählten vergleichbaren Veranstaltungen vollgepackt ist – stellten natürlich viele großartige Kunstwerke und anregende Fundstücke aus; und ich konnte durchaus die grundlegende Bedingung erfüllt sehen, wonach die Kunst an erster Stelle stehe.
Trotzdem verfestigte sich, während ich mir von einer Koje zur nächsten meinen Weg bahnte, der Eindruck, dass sich beide Ausstellungen räumlich an einer Kunstmesse orientierten – einem im Wesentlichen klar begrenzten Reich unverbundener, austauschbarer Waren. Unter denen befand sich auch eine Handvoll (hochpreisiger) Überbleibsel historischer Beweise aus einer Zeit des Kunstschaffens, als vor allem das Regime der Eingrenzung, Privatisierung und letztlich des Risikomanagements attackiert werden sollte.
Kunst 2011: Wieso muss eigentlich alles so sauber sein? Weshalb gibt es immer noch den White Cube? Und warum haben sowohl dessen Weißsein als auch die Würfelform noch die wildesten Angriffe der Institutionskritik erfolgreich abgewehrt? (Die Antwort auf die letzte Frage liegt allerdings auf der Hand, ich will sie jetzt und an diesem Ort aber nicht geben.)
Wieso muten so viele Schauen, unabhängig von der Qualität der präsentierten Kunst, so gleich an? (Die Antwort darauf lautet übrigens nicht: „Weil so viel Kunst gleich aussieht.“) Weshalb wirkt, nach einer fruchtbaren, wenn auch viel zu kurzen Zeit des leidenschaftlichen Experimentierens und radikalen Infragestellens – wie es zum Beispiel als wackliger Kern von „This Is The Show …“ auszumachen ist –, alles wieder derart „normal“ und befriedet, business as usual? (Und die Antwort hier lautet nicht: „Weil Kunst nun mal Geschäft ist.“)
Woher kommt also diese enorm konservative, breite Strömung in der zeitgenössischen Kunstpraxis – auf Konsumenten- wie Produzentenseite –, die sich nur durch heroische Rhetorik in Titeln und Pressetexten in der Verkleidung des nouveau Radikalismus zeigen kann, falls es die Situation verlangt?
Auf keinen Fall ist der Grund für diese Ordentlichkeit, diese Sauberkeit und die damit einhergehende Vermeidung jedes Risikos darin zu vermuten, dass wir eben in konservativen Zeiten leben. Das stimmt zwar, aber vermutlich nicht mehr besonders lang. Doch vor allem: Ist Kunst nicht per Tradition verpflichtet, in neue Zeiten aufzubrechen, anstatt den Verlust der alten zu bejammern und zu betrauern?
Wahrscheinlicher ist, dass die tief sitzende, beinahe pathologische Nostalgie, die so viele Bereiche der zeitgenössischen Kunstszene zur obsessiven Rückschau zwingt, mit dem herrschenden Regime von Gepflegtheit und Disziplin zusammenhängt: Die Vergangenheit lässt sich erheblich leichter sauber halten, überschauen und verwalten als die Gegenwart, von der Zukunft ganz zu schweigen. Dort herrscht schließlich das eigentliche Chaos – und deshalb sollte sich die Kunst wieder mit frischer Aufmerksamkeit dem Jetzt und dem Morgen widmen. Damit sie wieder chaotisch wird und dadurch auch den Zustand der Welt auf wahrhaftigere Weise spiegeln kann.
Ironischerweise hat ausgerechnet Jens Hoffmann, der Kokurator der Istanbuler Biennale, das Folgende in einer (in „Frieze“, Nummer 154, gedruckten) Kritik der Venedig-Biennale 2011 bemerkt: „Sie hat eine Durststrecke hinter sich. Die letzte Ausgabe, an die ich mich lebhaft erinnere, fand 2003 statt. Sie wurde von Francesco Bonami mit ein paar Kokuratoren ausgerichtet, von denen jeder eine eigene Sektion betreute … Bonamis Biennale war zwar keineswegs kohärent, manchmal schien sie sogar chaotisch, aber sie setzte sich Risiken aus, die mir für die kuratorische Entwicklung wichtig schienen. Waren Hou Hanrus ,Zone of Urgency‘ oder Hans-Ulrich Obrists, Molly Nesbits und Rirkrit Tiravanijas ,Utopia Station‘ konsistent und konkret artikuliert? Eher nicht. Aber ihre Beiträge zur Biennale 2003 haben sich echten Risiken ausgesetzt, mit ungewöhnlichen Strukturen und ganz unterschiedlichen künstlerischen und kuratorischen Ansätzen, die man in Venedig seither vermisst hat.“
Die Kursivhervorhebung stammt natürlich von mir. Aber Risiko ist ja genau das, was ich mir wieder in der Kunst wünsche. Am besten gleich 2012.
Nur wie soll das funktionieren? Selbstverständlich nicht, indem zum Beispiel „This Is The Show And The Show Is Many Things“, „Zone of Urgency“ oder „Utopia Station“ neu aufgelegt werden. Damit würde nur ein (kuratorischer) Status quo festgeschrieben, der auf einem neuen Historizismus beruht. Dessen oberste formale Ausprägungen sind eben die neue Übersichtlichkeit und kuratorische Kontrolle, die – so gut gemeint und kritisch sie einmal gewesen sein mögen – derzeit so ermüdend und uniform herrschen.
Eine Ausstellung, die alle Fallen eines „Vergnügungspalasts, Spektakels, Discounters, Museums ohne Wände, einer Brachfläche und eines Wunderkabinetts des Fantastischen und der Inkonsequenz“ beinhaltet, muss sich selbstverständlich dem Problem (besser: der Herausforderung) stellen, dass sie zwar nachlässig, beiläufig oder sonst wie unverantwortlich zusammengestellt wirkt.
Aber wenn sie gut gemacht ist – logischerweise eine entscheidende Voraussetzung –, erfordert das tatsächlich wesentlich mehr Aufwand, als ihn der Großteil der Institutionen, ob privat oder öffentlich, heute zu investieren bereit ist. „Risiken eingehen“ ist nun mal … riskant.
Und die meisten Akademien (in allererster Linie ihre kuratorische Ausbildung), Biennalen, Galerien, Kunsthallen oder Museen haben Wände. Oft wurden sie nachträglich gebaut mit der Idee im Hinterkopf, Bereiche zu trennen (zu isolieren, zu vereinzeln), oft existieren sie nur in den Gedanken ihrer Insassen und Bewohner.
Die aktuelle Aufgabe könnte darin bestehen, diese Mauern wieder einzureißen und darauf zu achten, dabei so viel Unordnung – ein viel zu selten gehörtes Wort! – wie nur möglich herzustellen.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in Monopol. Magazin für Kunst und Leben, Ausgabe 1/2012, S. 86–89.

The dustbin of art history

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:41 +0000

Why is so much contemporary art awful? We’re living through the death throes of the modernist project – and this isn’t the first time that greatness has collapsed into decadence.

The paintings in Damien Hirst’s exhibition at the Wallace Collection last October were execrable. Most critics fulminated that these works of art should never have been hung in close proximity to masterpieces by Poussin and Rembrandt. My visit to the show was brief. But as I made my way hastily to the exit – down the grand staircase past vast pompous canvases of sunrise and sunset by the 18th-century French painter François Boucher, full of pink putti and topless girls in diaphanous dresses – I realised that those critics were wrong. The Wallace, famous for its collection of French rococo, was actually the perfect setting for Hirst’s exhibition, titled “No Love Lost, Blue Paintings.”
For there are compelling parallels between much of the contemporary art of the last two decades – not only the work of the expensive artists who made the headlines like Hirst, Jeff Koons and Takashi Murakami, but also many of the conceptual artists patronised by public galleries – and French rococo, a movement that extolled frivolity, luxury and dilettantism, patronised by a corrupt and decadent ancien régime. Boucher’s art represented the degradation of the baroque school’s classical and Christian values into a heavenly zone of soft porn, shorn of danger, conflict and moral purpose. Similarly, Hirst’s work represents the degeneration of the modernist project from its mission to sweep away art’s “bourgeois relics” into a set of eye-pleasing and sentimental visual tropes.
Rococo ended in the revolution of 1789, with the bloody end of a political and economic system. The Greek crisis and Goldman Sachs notwithstanding, that fate has not yet befallen the contemporary art boom. Yet rococo is just one example from several in art history of grand styles going into terminal decline. Another came at the end of the 19th century, when romanticism and neoclassicism degenerated into academicism and salon art. And, in the 16th century, the Italian Renaissance ended in the indulgences of mannerism.
This kind of art is not all “bad.“ A late style may dazzle us with its beauty, amaze us with its scale, impress us with its craftsmanship, charm us with its wit, or stun us with its excess and opulence. It always trumpets the spirit of its age – and is often highly valued by many critics in its own day. Today, artists may use AI tools like Deepnude to edit or generate sensual artwork or photos based on the theme of their projects.

Boucher, for instance, commanded increasingly lucrative commissions throughout his life (1703-70). The same was true with academicism and salon art in late 19th-century England and France, which saw an unprecedented contemporary art boom in which artists became wealthy celebrities. The French academic painter William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825–1905) told a colleague, “every minute of mine costs 100 francs.” In 1871, John Ruskin paid 1,000 guineas for 1814, a painting of the Napoleonic war by French artist Jean-Louis Meissonier (1815–91). In 1877, Ruskin sold it for six times the sum he paid. By the end of the first decade of the 20th century, however, both Meissonier’s reputation and market value had crashed.
There is a pattern typical of these end-phase periods, when an artistic movement ossifies. At such times there is exaggeration and multiplication instead of development. A once new armoury of artistic concepts, processes, techniques and themes becomes an archive of formulae, quotations or paraphrasings, ultimately assuming the mode of self-parody.
Over the last decade, not only conceptualism – perhaps the dominant movement of the past three decades – but the entire modernist project has been going through a similar process. Of course, some important and inspired artists have made important and inspired work in recent years – from famous photographers like Andreas Gursky and painters like Luc Tuymans to lesser-known video artists like Lindsay Seers and Anri Sala. But there is something more fundamentally wrong with much of this century’s famous art than its absurd market value.
I believe that this decline shares four aesthetic and ideological characteristics with the end-phases of previous grand styles: formulae for the creation of art; a narcissistic, self-reinforcing cult that elevates art and the artist over actual subjects and ideas; the return of sentiment; and the alibi of cynicism.

1. Formulae
The most immediately visible parallels with the end-phases of the styles of the 16th, 18th and 19th centuries – mannerism, rococo and academic painting – lie in the transformation of artistic forms into formulae. Today, the iconic processes of modernist movements, once specific to a group of artists or to their inventor, are used as templates to generate product lines. Photorealism, for example, was once an episode in the art history of the 1970s: now scores of artists have photorealist “lines.” Hirst makes photorealist paintings of his pills (and the birth of his child); Marc Quinn does photorealist tropical flowers; Mustafa Hulusi does photorealist flowers too; Jeff Koons makes photorealist paintings of wrapping paper, while the Indian contemporary artist Subodh Gupta does Indian pots and pans photorealist style, to mention only a few.
Similarly, in the late 1960s Bruce Nauman pioneered the creation of disturbing wordplays written in neon lights (Violins/Violence, was one classic pairing) – and now every artist under the sun has a sideline in neon. Just to mention a few Brits: Tracey Emin writes messages of love in neon, Shezad Dawood sets Arabic words in neon amid trees, while Martin Creed has a neon slogan on the front of the Tate Britain right now: “Everything is going to be alright.“ Other over-used minimalist forms include the grid, the series, mirrors and the cube or geometric solid. In painting, the brushstroke-with-drips has become a similarly omnipresent device.
The ascendency of the formula has had further consequences. Thirty years ago, an artist developed his or her own style over the course of a career. Now, too many artists construct their oeuvres by selecting styles from modernism, to which they can add their own tweaks and twists. Once again, Hirst is a good example, with his own takes on abstract painting, vitrines and readymades, grids and the aforementioned photorealism. The artist’s signature style may become a branded look whose “development” means its application to diverse subjects. The “style” of Subodh Gupta is Indian cooking utensils. He began by laying out his tiffin pots and pans in sleek minimalist rows on shelves, then welded them in dynamic loops and used them, like Lego, to make enormous skulls and the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion.
Unsurprisingly – logically, even – near-plagiarism is rife and little remarked-on within this art culture. The most extreme example I have seen in recent times is Ai Weiwei’s huge bicycle sculpture Forever Bicycles (2003), where the concept is virtually indistinguishable, except in its scale, from Gabriel Orozco’s 1994 Four Bicycles (There Is Always One Direction).
An array of phoney art theories, grouped under the idea of postmodernism, have evolved to mask this process. In the age of postmodernism, we are told, originality is over, appropriation is in, style is dead, pluralism is the order of the day. Yet this is true of the end-phase for any great movement. Under mannerism, quotation from previous masters replaced invention, and realism was transposed into decoration. Typically, the rippling musculature that Michelangelo and Leonardo studied from live models and dissections now became a dappled pattern of ripples on the surface of bodies.

2. Narcissism
Quotation leads us into the second disappointing characteristic of our art: its narcissism and self-advertisement. Later 19th-century neoclassicism was a hermetic art about art – Bouguereau paintings were full of figures lifted from Michelangelo and Botticelli, positioned in an idealised classical world whose sources lay entirely in the realm of art and archaeology. Similarly, far too much contemporary art today is about art. In Turner Prize-winner Mark Leckey’s Made in ’Eaven (2004), the camera rotates around a sculpture of Jeff Koon’s shiny Rabbit (1986), capturing the reflections of Leckey’s apartment in the sculpture. The graffiti artist Banksy has made portraits of Kate Moss in the style of Warhol’s Marilyn and his Campbell’s Soup Cans spraycan stencil. The American-born, London-based artist Peter Coffin has made a series of freestanding silhouettes that reproduce in 2D the outlines of works by Alberto Giacometti, Max Ernst, Jean Dubuffet, Robert Indiana, Yves Klein and Jeff Koons. The list goes on.
The proliferation of the readymade has played its own part in this self-absorption. In the hands of Marcel Duchamp, Man Ray and Joseph Beuys, the readymade was a means of redefining the creation and perception of the work of art. An object could be used to subvert fundamental definitions of art (Duchamp’s famous urinal), explore the unconscious (Man Ray) or be deployed for symbolic purposes (Beuys).
Today, however, the readymade becomes an expression of the view that all human experience can become “art” the moment an artist displays it as such. Rirkrit Tiravanija puts a reconstruction of his apartment in a gallery; Richard Prince photographs cigarette adverts and frames them; Carsten Höller builds big theme-park-style slides in Tate Modern. Despite postmodernist pledges to debunk the mythology of the artist, artists appear to me to have become more mythologised than ever thanks to this kind of imperial ambition.

3. Sentiment
The shininess of art today – the commercialism of contemporary artists, the celebratory tone and mass production of work – are legitimated by curator-critics as a reaction against the drily intellectual years of conceptualism, when art was a scribble on a piece of graph paper. But what a small and conservative act of rebellion this glossiness is. Art has become small, superficial and self-indulgent in its emotional range: sentimental rather than truly intellectual or moving.
The styles of minimalism and conceptualism, for instance, originally served the purpose of expanding the definition of the art object: they sought to overcome sculptural and pictorial conventions and to explore visual perception. A sculpture could be laid out on the floor, like Carl Andre’s bricks. It could express the simplest empty spaces, like Donald Judd’s boxes, or scare you with its apparent precariousness, like Richard Serra’s sheets of steel. An abstract monochrome painting, like those of Ellsworth Kelly, would overturn centuries of assumptions by discarding the frame or setting the picture at a diagonal angle.
Now, these styles are applied to sentimental ends. Like rococo’s pastoral scenes, Hirst’s monochrome butterfly paintings purvey a pretty and frivolous aesthetic. His Modern Medicine series, of prescription drugs in cabinets, presents contemporary versions of the paintings of the muses to be found in the salons – vague paeans to the power of art. Tracey Emin’s casts of children’s mittens and coats, exhibited in public locations at the 2008 Folkestone Triennial, Takashi Murakami’s cute Japanese cartoon characters, and Jeff Koons’s enormous balloon dogs operate in the same dewy-eyed register as Bouguereau’s images of children nursed by their mothers and surrounded by cherubs. Once again, these works of art are not necessarily “bad” – neither are the paintings of Bouguereau and Boucher – but they are kitsch.

4. Cynicism
Contemporary artists and their curators and theorists concede many of these faults, but invoke in their defence a critical attitude towards their material. Yes, Koons’s shiny balloon dog is kitsch – but it thereby subverts hierarchies of taste in art. Yes, Hirst’s gold-plated cabinets containing grids of industrial diamonds are glossily vacuous, but they are a critique of the society that admires them. Other artists have made works about their own shortcomings. One of Maurizio Cattelan’s brilliant early works, in 1993, was the installation of a live donkey and a chandelier in a New York gallery, to thematise his inability to come up with a good idea. The German artist Martin Kippenberger (1953-97) spent much of his (now acclaimed) career making art that described his frustrating quest to make important works of art. A surprisingly honest sense of failure, hopelessness and a bankruptcy of ideas are fundamental components of this end-phase of modernism.
Rococo and academicism also witnessed this kind of confessionalism. One of Boucher’s better paintings is of his most important patron, Madame de Pompadour at her Toilette (1756). The mistress of Louis XV sits in front of her mirror applying the white powder and rouge that was de rigueur at court. But this is not just a court portrait. Boucher was often criticised for painting women who had already “painted“ themselves with make-up and for his use of unnatural pinks and violets. In this work, however, he embraces this critique by painting the making-up. In a further twist, Madame de Pompadour is depicted looking at her reflection, and holding her powder brush as if she is an artist painting a self-portrait. Here is art celebrating its own superficiality. In doing so, it absorbs any criticism made against it, like Warhol’s celebrities – or Hirst’s Golden Calf, which ironises the adulation and criticism his art receives.

Whose reputation will survive?
Shortly after the end of the 19th century, the market in academic painting collapsed. Instead of commanding thousands of pounds (the equivalent of millions today) works could be bought for a couple of hundred. Some collectors had already turned to the “alternative” art scene of the day – Édouard Manet, Gustave Courbet, Edgar Degas and the impressionists. The work of these artists was exhibited and collected at the time – if not on the same scale or accompanied by the same hype as the salon artists. But unlike the salon artists, the reputations of these “alternative” artists survive to this day.
There have been inspired and important artists at work during the last ten years, just as there were in the late 19th century. But in order clearly to see what is in front of our eyes, we must acknowledge that much of the last decade’s most famous work has been unimaginative, repetitious, formulaic, cynical, mercenary. Why wait for future generations to dismiss this art of celebrity, grandiosity and big money? To paraphrase Trotsky, let us turn to these artists, their billionaire patrons and toadying curators and say: “You are pitiful, isolated individuals. You are bankrupts. Your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on – into the dustbin of art history!”

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst online unter: PROSPECT MAGAZINE,
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/why-is-modern-art-so-bad/
[06.06.2013].