Vidokle_Anton – what's next?

Experiments in Integrated Programming

admin — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:17:15 +0000

Many contemporary artists operate beyond the studio and traditional exhibition spaces, providing both a need and an opportunity for galleries and museums to develop new models for the production and presentation of such work. Drawing on recent practice at the Serpentine Gallery, London, this paper explores some of these issues, and argues for an integrated approach to programming.
When artists make art that involves people either as collaborators, facilitators or active subjects, they pose complex questions, not least of which is the issue of authorship. For art institutions, such ways of working often require a rethinking of the status of the art work itself, as what is produced is often contingent and does not always lend itself easily to traditional exhibition formats. Developing new models for the production and presentation of such work, however, is an opportunity for galleries and museums to embrace the ways in which contemporary artists are increasingly operating beyond the studio and gallery, and in doing so extend their reach and influence.
Traditionally, the work of museums and galleries is departmentalised into institutional functions, creating divisions of labour and expertise. Education, Learning and Public Programmes are often seen as secondary to, and servicing Exhibitions, and this hierarchy has created disparities in the way that curators work together and also with artists across programme strands. Drawing on three recent projects – the Park Nights series, Dis-assembly and Hearing Voices, Seeing Things – this paper examines the concept of integrated programming and the strategy for working with artists in a range of contexts to produce new work as developed by the Serpentine Gallery in London.
Recent curatorial discussions have focused on “new institutionalism”. A term borrowed from the social sciences, it proposes a transformation of the art institution from within. Characterised by open-endedness and dialogue, and leading to events-based and process-based work, it utilises some of the strategies inherent in the ways in which many contemporary artists make work. Since the 1990s many artists and curators have embraced the idea of creating flexible platforms for presenting work, extending the institution and its functions and absorbing aspects of institutional critique as proposed in the 1970s. The “new institution” places equal emphasis on all programmes and creates spaces and modes of display that reflect this, including archives, reading rooms, residency schemes, talks and events as well as exhibitions. Writer and curator Alex Farquharson has noted: “‘New Institutionalism’, and much recent art, side steps the problem of the white cube altogether. If white-walled rooms are the site for exhibitions one week, a recording studio or political workshop the next, then it is no longer the container that defines the contents as art, but the contents that determine the identity of the container.”¹The implications for the gallery as a platform for experimentation and a laboratory for learning have been embraced by curators and artists alike, and education and learning are at the heart of this process of reinvention. What new institutionalism demands is an integrated approach to programming and the integration of programming teams so that education, exhibitions, performance, public programmes are conceived as part of a programme of activity rather than the more traditional and territorial departmentalisation of these areas of work. This interdisciplinary approach engages a wide framework of timescales and the flexibility to work across strands of programming.
Whilst there has been a number of recent examples of curators and artists adopting the pedagogical frameworks of public programming and education, the impact and potential of these projects – specifically in relation to the function of education and learning within the institution – are only beginning to be realised. These seemingly “pedagogic” projects raise complicated questions for curators, critics and educationalists. Questions of how this work should be evaluated and what it means when the mechanisms of programming are applied to the production of new institutional spaces are critical, and are questions that need to be addressed by those of us that work in the cracks across the gaps, in and beyond the confines of the institution.
Lectures and conferences presented as projects by artists or curators focus on the production of knowledge and foreground criticality and discourse. For example, in Beautiful City for the 2007 Munster Sculpture Project, Maria Pask programmed a series of talks about belief and faith by a wide range of speakers, including religious and spiritual figures as well as teachers and gurus. The talks took place in a temporary canvas city and the ambience was reminiscent of a festival or village fête. Similarly, Thomas Hirschhorn’s 24hr Foucault – a multi-platform event that took place over twenty-four hours at the Palais de Tokyo, Paris, in 2004 – saw those who attended acting as both audience and witnesses to the event. The Serpentine Gallery’s Park Nights series, initiated in 2002 and now also including the Marathon events introduced by the curator Hans Ulrich Obrist in 2005, provides a discursive space that explores the intensive temporality associated with events rather than exhibitions. Specialist audiences come together for the events, creating a momentary critical mass that amplifies the intensity as well as the reach of the Serpentine’s programme. The positioning of these strands of the programme is critical: when part of an integrated programme of activity, the emphasis can oscillate between events, talks, screenings and exhibitions as appropriate, allowing the institution to reinvent itself through these different strands and across audiences.
Anton Vidokle’s Night School at the Museum held at the New Museum, New York, in 2007–8, was presented as a curatorial project: although it mirrored the work and function of education and learning departments within galleries, it was given the same status as an exhibition. On the museum’s website, for example, it was marketed as a major strand of curatorial activity: “Night School is an artists’ project by Anton Vidokle in the form of a temporary School. A year-long programme of monthly seminars and workshops, Night School draws upon a group of local and international artists, writers and theorists to conceptualise and conduct the programme.”²This was true also of the unrealised Manifesta 6 (the itinerant European biennial exhibition) which proposed again a temporary art school as the framework for an exhibition. The curators wrote: “In its customary introversion, the arts community does not let well enough alone, but often extends itself just enough to instrumentalise the world around it as props for its own production. A prime example of this tokenism is the growing range of art projects based on a form of seemingly benevolent social science research. The research results (or works of art) are, more often than not, neither up to scratch academically nor do they imbue the information with any new artistic significance. They are forms of either pop information, inaccessible specialist data or, sadly, sensationalism. In contrast, a genuine form of awareness and constructive involvement necessitates commitment, erudition, confrontation and a recoiling from the superficiality of political correctness.’”³Curatorial claims for these projects suggest a desire to distance itself from the work of education and learning departments whilst still wanting to create an environment, even an “aesthetic”, of academic engagement, but the overall aim is often to produce a spectacular event rather than an educational experience. The experience for the participant is inherently different in each context: while a participant in an educational programme could expect to be involved in a pedagogical experience, the participant in, or audience of, curatorial projects witness them, not as a site of learning but rather as a spectacle. How might curators and educationalists develop curatorial strategies of convergence and collaboration? As these curatorial events create a specific mode of learning and knowledge production, their visibility within institutions is beginning to map out a new set of possibilities for a collapse of terrain and recognition of expertise. The combination of curatorial expertise in terms of staging performance or spectacle and the expertise of educationalists in terms of knowledge production and pedagogical process might lead to genuinely new functions for the institution.⁴Projects that extend beyond the gallery have long been the terrain both of artists and of galleries. They are an opportunity to approach production in a way that can achieve a genuinely engaged but complex re-negotiation of the operation of the gallery or museum. By undertaking local projects it is possible to think about a renegotiation of the role of the gallery and museum as a site of production that operates beyond the demands of the market and in relation to wider socio-political concerns. The question of how and where the resulting work then resides, and the challenge of reading a work that simultaneously embraces and negates the notion of authorship, is crucial. These situations and interventions result in a collapse between politics and aesthetics and produce work both in the world and as social intervention.
Dis-assembly was a project that culminated in 2006 with exhibitions at North Westminster Community School (NWCS) and the Serpentine Gallery. Artists Faisal Abdu’Allah, Christian Boltanski, Runa Islam and architect Yona Friedman were commissioned to make new artwork out of a period of research at the school. Established in the 1960s as a flagship comprehensive that aimed to offer a progressive integrated curriculum in a creative and dynamic learning environment, the school was facing closure. For both the students and artists involved, the reality of the school’s imminent replacement by two new city academies gave the project a special urgency.
The classroom can be seen as a mirror of society, with nearly every aspect of the adult world replicated and amplified in the closed and confined space of the school, a space that is both physical and temporal. This site is an extraordinary place for artists to have the opportunity to make art, and for the students and staff the transformative potential of art becomes a reality.
Dis-assembly celebrated the history and achievements of the school with a series of ambitious residencies. Artists were invited to visit the school and propose a way in which they could work with and alongside the students and staff to produce artwork. Like many inner-city schools, NWCS had students from diverse national backgrounds (there were seventy-three different first languages). The head teacher Janet Morrison described the school as ‘benefiting from a high percentage of refugee students, leading to an incredibly politicised and socially aware culture within the school”. Each artist had a different kind of engagement with the school. Some worked as facilitators, focusing on the students and their creativity, or acted as collaborators, producing work that could not have been made without the students’ participation. Others made work using the school’s situation as core material. Each invested the enormous amount of time that is essential when developing models of working that can resist being formulaic and prescriptive.
Faisal Abdu’Allah worked closely with the students as a collaborator and facilitator. As an artist in residence in 2005–6, he attended school for two days a week, establishing a close working relationship with the staff and students. The photographic work that he produced is a testament to the time he invested in building relationships with the students. His project empowered the students to articulate their situation in relation to the school’s closure and wider political issues. Thinking and talking about making images inevitably raised issues of identity and politics, and these discussions were as important to the project as the resulting images.
In 1992 Christian Boltanski had posed as the school’s photographer, photographing the entire intake of students that year and exhibiting the resulting 144 photographs in the school and, across the road, in the Lisson Gallery. The photographs were sold to students at cost price whereas through the Lisson they were sold as artworks. For Boltanski the work will only be completed by a second phase, which he has begun for Dis-assembly in collaboration with Abdu’Allah. Each of the original 144 students is being traced and rephotographed. Although incomplete at the time, the new series was shown opposite the original series in the Serpentine Gallery exhibition. When completed, the project will stand as a memorial to the school community over the years.
By contrast, Runa Islam used interviews with students to make a 16 mm film (fig. 1⁵). Working with writers Georgia Fitch and Laurence Coriat to develop a script in a series of workshops, she spent two weeks on site shooting a film with the students as the actors. The film drew upon the specificities of NWCS and through its assembling and layering of the students’ experiences of growing up within an inner city school evoked aspects of the contemporary cultural life.
Together, the three strands of Dis-assembly allowed artists, students and staff to articulate their experiences and realities through a series of artworks. For -everyone, the project offered a way of testing the possibility of producing art in and through a period of programmed engagement with the world. And the relationships established here formed the basis of a second long-term project called Edgware Road, which involves a series of artists’ residencies at a new research centre in the Edgware Road, London, due to end in 2010.
Hearing Voices, Seeing Things was a series of artists’ residencies that resulted in an exhibition and event at the Serpentine Gallery in 2006. The project began as a series of conversations, firstly with Jacqueline Ede, Lead Occupational Therapist for Arts and Rehab, North-East London Mental Health Trust (NELMHT). Her desire for an engagement with the Gallery was matched by that of the Serpentine to create opportunities for artists to challenge conventional ideas about the places where art can be seen and by whom. Following a year of visits to the Gallery which established the basis for a more sustained residency, it became clear that a project could happen and that there was a commitment and desire on the part of NELMHT to make a residency possible.
Artists Bob and Roberta Smith and Jessica Voorsanger were invited by the Serpentine to be artists-in-residence at NELMHT. Together they founded The Leytonstone Centre of Contemporary Art (LCCA), which, in fact, was a garden shed. Bob and Jessica decided to invite more artists to participate and the LCCA Outreach Group (LOG) was formed.
Meetings and conversations were at the heart of the project and work was produced through these exchanges. The immediacy and intimacy, as well as conviviality of these sites of production, informed the resulting work which asked secondary audiences (those who were not directly involved) to question and challenge their preconceptions about mental health and the stigmas associated with it. The normality and everyday nature of mental well-being resonated through the work, while the humility and humour that pervaded the project allowed experiences to be articulated with clarity. This is where the artists played a crucial role – not as therapists but as artists equipped with a vocabulary and language that could articulate the most fragile of realities.⁶For some individuals the barriers to communication were difficult to negotiate. Memory dictates the way we define ourselves and how we negotiate the world. Working with people experiencing memory loss in the Petersfield Dementia Centre in Hampshire, Bob and Roberta Smith created signposts reminding us of who we are, where we are and what we need to remember to do in Reminder. Those that the artists Victor Mount worked with – the Hearing Voices group – experience a polyphony of voices. For the artist, the challenge here was that of translating and making work from the experience of not hearing voices yet being part of this group.
Two of the groups involved young people. Brookside School is an adolescent unit which provides a safe and therapeutic environment for young people. Karen Densham worked as artist-in-residence there, inviting the young people to create and then destroy ceramics. This legitimisation of a violent and destructive act was important for this particular group because they are so rarely trusted to destroy something. Young carers worked with artist Andy Lawson in their free time to create work that looked at their world outside of their everyday responsibilities. The images they created revealed beauty in the tiny details of their everyday environment.
The therapeutic role of art is an unavoidable and challenging subject for artists working in a Mental Health Trust. When art meets mental health everything is possible and impossible at once. The rupture of everyday normality and the juxtaposition of two environments led to volatile and exciting possibilities. The question of who or what is “normal” and what mental health might mean became key concerns. The artists were tasked with being artists rather than therapists, and the therapists provided clinical and therapeutic support. On a fundamental level, the project involved a meeting of people and was seen as a opportunity for everyone involved. The artists, the health professionals and individual participants discovered what can be achieved by working together. The legacy of the project is an ongoing arts programme that is now established as part of the work of the Trust.
Whilst it is relatively easy to commission artists and to create projects where extraordinary learning can be produced, it is perhaps harder to find the time and institutional space to look critically at what is produced and discuss the value of the work. This is necessarily a slow process within institutions where typically there is little time and space for reflection. In my view the solution lies somewhere between the academy and the gallery, and we should continue to develop strategies to ensure that we can oscillate and operate with stealth across both and smuggle knowledge between the two.

Acknowledgements
A version of this paper was presented in “Situating -Gallery Education” at the annual conference of the -Association of Art Historians, held at Tate, London, in April 2008.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: Tate Papers, 11, Spring 2009.

1.) Alex Farquharson, “Bureaux de change”, Frieze, 101, September 2006.
2.) Text from the New Museum website, www.newmuseum.org [February 2008].
3.) Mai Abu ElDahab, “On How to Fall With Grace – or Fall Flat on Your Face”, in: Mai Abu ElDahab, Anton Vidokle, Florian Waldvogel (eds.), Notes for an Art School. International Foundation Manifesta 2006.
4.) At the same time, the new convergence of the academy and the gallery may be helpful here. See, for example, Academy and Summit, initiatives of the Department of Visual Cultures at Goldsmiths, London, in collaboration with Kunstverein Hamburg and the Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven and, for Summit, the Witte de With in Rotterdam. The Städelschule in Frankfurt and its relationship to Portikus is also an interesting solution.
5.) As can be found on the blog via the QR code at the end of this text: Runa Islam, Conditional Probability 2006. Four part 16 mm film installation. Variable duration: Part 1: 20 min 25 sec, Part 2: 22 min 40 sec, Year Portrait: 6 min 43 sec, Screen Tests: 30 min 32 sec. Photograph: Declan O’Neill Courtesy White Cube, © Runa Islam.
6.) Ironically, in an early conversation Bob told us that the “real” Roberta Smith was an art therapist.

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.

What is Contemporary Art?

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:35 +0000

What is contemporary art? First, and most obviously: why is this question not asked? That is to say, why do we simply leave it to hover in the shadow of attempts at critical summation in the grand tradition of twentiethcentury artistic movements? The contemporary delineates its border invisibly: no one is proud to be contemporary,” and no one is ashamed. Indeed, the question of where artistic movements have gone seems embedded in this question, if only because “the contemporary” has become a single hegemonic “ism” that absorbs all proposals for others. When there are no longer any artistic movements, it seems that we are all working under the auspices of this singular ism that is deliberately (and literally) not one at all …
Widespread usage of the term “contemporary” seems so self-evident that to further demand a definition of “contemporary art” may be taken as an anachronistic exercise in cataloguing or self-definition. At the same time, it is no coincidence that this is usually the tenor of such large, elusive questions: it is precisely through their apparent self-evidence that they cease to be problematic and begin to exert their influence in hidden ways; and their paradox, their unanswerability begins to constitute a condition of its own, a place where people work.
So it is with the contemporary: a term we know well enough through its use as a de facto standard by museums, which denote their currency through an apparently modest temporal signifier: to be contemporary is to be savvy, reactive, dynamic, aware, timely, in constant motion, aware of fashion. The term has clearly replaced the use of “modern” to describe the art of the day. With this shift, out go the grand narratives and ideals of modernism, replaced by a default, soft consensus on the immanence of the present, the empiricism of now, of what we have directly in front of us, and what they have in front of them over there. But in its application as a de facto standard this watery signifier has through accumulation nevertheless assumed such a scale that it certainly must mean something.
If we pursue it further, however, and try to pin it down, it repeatedly escapes our grasp through a set of evasive maneuvers. And perhaps we can say that the ism that is simultaneously not is its evasive maneuver number one: the summation that does not admit to being critical or projective (in the grand tradition of modernist ideological voices), to denoting an inside and an outside, a potential project, but that is simultaneously there, saying nothing. So why the extra qualifier? Why insert an extra word into “museum of art”? Like any evasive maneuver, this one works by producing a split: between the term’s de facto usage, which momentarily holds your attention by suggesting the obvious parallel with the “current,” with its promise of flexibility and dynamism, while simultaneously building a museum collection along very specific parameters – masking ideology. To follow the self-evidence of the question at hand, we could note the morphological Frank Gehry walls of a spectacular contemporary museum to be in fact made of concrete and steel – their suggestion of formless flexibility, their celebration of the informal, is frozen in some of the heaviest, most expensive, and burdensome institutional public sculpture around. The contemporary suggests movement, yet it does not itself budge.
This contemporary museum is acutely aware of other contemporary museums in other places. It is a node in a network of similar structures, and there is a huge amount of movement between them. Evasive maneuver number two could be the one that shifts your focus to a presumably de-centered field of work: a field of contemporary art that stretches across boundaries, a multi-local field drawing from local practices and embedded local knowledge, the vitality and immanence of many histories in constant simultaneous translation. This is perhaps the contemporary’s most redeeming trait, and we certainly do not miss the old power centers and master narratives.
In many ways, this is an evasive maneuver worth making. And we can even avoid the conservative critique that this horizontal movement cheapens what it encounters, reducing it to spectacle. Certainly the quantity of work placed on display can become an issue, but networks now spread much wider than ever before – much has been made available, and it is up to you to sort through it. The contemporary as a cacophonic mess gives us enormous hope.
But let’s not underestimate how the contemporary art system can atomize with some degree of cohesiveness. True, many peripheries have been mobilized not as peripheries, but as centers in their own right. But, seen from the so-called peripheries and centers alike, does this system really learn, or does it merely engage with its many territories by installing the monolithic prospect of hyperspectacle? If we are indeed aware that something is lost and something is gained in any process of translation, are we as certain that the regime of visibility installed by contemporary art functions by placing various local vernaculars into contact with each other on their own terms (as it promises to do), or is it something like the international biennial circuit, asserting its own language distinct from center and periphery alike?
In this way, the contemporary starts to reveal itself to be something like a glass ceiling, an invisible barrier that seals us together precisely by its very invisibility. We acknowledge one another, individual artists, certain cities, social scenes, a few collective tendencies that seem to arrive more as common interests than social projections, but nothing attains critical mass under any umbrella beyond “the contemporary.” It’s not so different from how we understand capitalism to work, through one-to-one relationships that are seemingly too small-scale to be complicit with anything, masking the hidden ultimatum of an innocuous protocol – if we begin to discern its shape, either it shifts, or we become obsolete: uncontemporary. But then perhaps that would not be such a bad thing …

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: e-f lux journal # 12, January 2010, http://www.e-f lux.com/journal/what-is-contemporary-art-issue-two/ [3.4.2013].