Begriffsgeschichte – what's next?

Frühstückst du noch oder kuratierst du schon?

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:46 +0000

Seit die Teilnehmer von sozialen Netzwerken ihre Informationen nicht mehr zusammenstellen, sondern „kuratieren“, ist der Kunstszene ein zentraler Begriff abhanden gekommen.

Wenn man so will, ist auch dieser Text nicht geschrieben, sondern kuratiert. Aus den rund 75 000 Wörtern, die zur deutschen Sprache gehören, wurden bestimmte ausgewählt und andere weggelassen. Man sieht schon: Der Begriff befindet sich im Niedergang. „Kuratieren“, das einstige Zauberwort der Kunstszene, ist unbrauchbar geworden.
Kuratiert wird heute nämlich alles Mögliche. Vor allem in der digitalen Welt. Die Flut von Tweets, Postings und Feeds ist unüberschaubar geworden, seit wir nicht mehr einzelne Webseiten ansteuern wie in der Frühzeit des Netzes. Der Content erreicht uns durch die sozialen Netzwerke. Wir abonnieren, kommentieren, folgen, retweeten, liken … Die Kommunikationsströme sind endlos verzweigt, und wer noch halbwegs den Überblick behalten will, der wählt aus. Beziehungsweise: Er kuratiert. So heißt es, wenn man mit Hilfe von Programmen wie „Flipboard“ seine Inhalte ordnet und verwaltet.
Es gibt Webseiten, die keine oder wenige eigene Inhalte produzieren; stattdessen „kuratieren“ deren Redakteure das, was ohnehin vorhanden ist. „Storify.com“ etwa filtert aus dem Gesprächslärm der Social Networks die wichtigsten Nachrichten und Bilder zu den Topthemen des Tages heraus. Eine Boulevard-Seite wie „Buzzfeed.com“ sucht aus dem Web absurde Bilder und Clips zusammen und ordnet sie unter möglichst aberwitzigen Gesichtspunkten: „Die 25 Bilder, auf denen Papst Benedikt besonders schwul aussieht“ (weitere Beispiele für kuratierte Seiten in den Links).
Das Web ist also voller Kuratoren. Zuvor hatte das Fieber schon die Musikszene ergriffen, wo plötzlich Playlists, DJ-Sets oder gar Festivals nicht etwa zusammengestellt, sondern kuratiert wurden. Die Ausweitung des Begriffs hat begonnen, und ein Ende ist nicht abzusehen: Sind nicht auch Schaufenster kuratiert? Kuratiert man nicht jeden Morgen am Kleiderschrank sein Tagesoutfit? Sind nicht genau genommen auch Frühstück und Abendessen mehr oder weniger kenntnisreich und appetitlich kuratiert worden?
Die Inflation des K-Wortes trifft die Kunstszene zu einem ungünstigen Zeitpunkt. In den letzten zehn Jahren war der Kurator zu einer mächtigen Figur geworden. Auch die Kunstszene leidet am „Zu viel“, seit sie nicht mehr auf wenige Zentren in Westeuropa und den USA beschränkt ist. Biennalen, Triennalen und andere Events gibt es auf der ganzen Welt, ebenso interessante Künstler. Der Kurator verdankt seinen Aufstieg der neuen Unübersichtlichkeit des weltweiten Kunstbetriebs. Zuletzt wirkten die kuratorischen Apparate der großen Ausstellungen schon ein wenig aufgebläht.
Heimliches oder offenes Vorbild der meisten Kuratoren ist der Schweizer Harald Szeemann (1933 bis 2005), der sich ironisch „Agentur für Geistige Gastarbeit“ nannte. Er prägte das Berufsbild, nach dem der Kurator eben nicht nur ein Ausstellungsmacher war, sondern eine Art Meta-Künstler: Verstreute Kunstwerke führte er zusammen und ging mit ihnen um wie ein Erzähler mit seinen Figuren. Im besten Fall war das ganze mehr als die Summe der einzelnen Teile.
An Kunsthochschulen wie dem legendären Londoner Goldsmith’s College werden jedes Jahr Dutzende von Kuratoren ausgebildet. Sie sind diskursfest und mit allen Wassern zeitgenössischer Kunstpräsentation gewaschen. Sie eifern dem Vielflieger Hans Ulrich Obrist nach. Sie denken, sie hätten einen Traumberuf. Und sie müssen jetzt damit leben, dass jeder dahergelaufene Smartphone-Besitzer täglich Dinge „kuratiert“.
Und wer glaubt, diese Begriffsentwertung könne der Kunst nichts anhaben, sollte sich nur mal das traurige Schicksal eines anderen Begriffs vor Augen führen. Das „Gesamtkunstwerk“ bezeichnete einmal Richard Wagners Konzept von der Synthese aller Künste. Heute wird das Attribut immer dann vergeben, wenn jemand sich besonders aufwändig kostümiert, wie etwa die Hamburger Drag Queen Olivia Jones. Früher hätte man sie „ein Original“ genannt. Auch so ein Wort.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: art – Das Kunstmagazin, 15.02.2013. Frühstückst du noch oder kuratierst du schon? unter http://www.art-magazin.de/szene/59115/kuratieren_nachruf [18.02.2013].
Weiterführende Informationen/Bilder/Materialienwhtsn

Now and Elsewhere

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:44 +0000

The Problem and the Provocation
We would like to begin by taking a sentence from the formulation of the problem that set the ball rolling for this lecture series. In speaking of the “hesitation in developing any kind of comprehensive strategy” for understanding precisely what it is that we call contemporary art today (in the wake of the last twenty years of contemporary art activity), the introduction to the series speaks of its having “assumed a fully mature form – and yet it still somehow refuses to be historicized as such.”¹
Simultaneously an assertion and a reticence to name one’s place in time, it is this equivocation that we would really like to discuss.

The Old Man and the Wind: Joris Ivens’ Film
At the very beginning of Joris Ivens and Marceline Loridan’s film Une histoire de vent (A Tale of the Wind), we see a frail Joris Ivens sitting in a chair on a sand dune in the Gobi Desert, on the border between China and Mongolia, waiting for the arrival of a sandstorm.
Elsewhere in the film, an old woman – a wind shaman – talks about waiting for the wind.
Buffeted as we are by winds that blow from so many directions with such intensity, this image of an old man in a chair waiting for a storm is a metaphor for a possible response to the question “What is contemporaneity?”
It takes stubbornness, obstinacy, to face a storm, and yet also a desire not to be blown away by it. If Paul Klee’s Angelus Novus, celebrated in Benjamin’s evocation of the angel of history, with its head caught in turning between the storm of the future and the debris of the present, were ever in need of a more recent annotation, then old man Ivens in his chair, waiting for the wind, would do very nicely.
It is tempting to think of this dual obstinacy – to face the storm and not be blown away – as an acute reticence that is at the same time a refusal to either run away from or be carried away by the strong winds of history, of time itself.
We could see this “reticence,” this “refusal to historicize,” as a form of escape from the tyranny of the clock and the calendar – instruments to measure time, and to measure our ability to keep time, to keep to the demands of the time allotted to us by history, our contemporaneity. Any reflection on contemporaneity cannot avoid simultaneously being a consideration of time, and of our relation to it.

On Time
Time girds the earth tight. Day after day, astride minutes and seconds, the hours ride as they must, relentlessly. In the struggle to keep pace with clocks, we are now always and everywhere in a state of jet lag, always catching up with ourselves and with others, slightly short of breath, slightly short of time.
The soft insidious panic of time ticking away in our heads is syncopated by accelerated heartbeat of our everyday lives. Circadian rhythms (times to rise and times to sleep, times for work and times for leisure, times for sunlight and times for stars) get muddled as millions of faces find themselves lit by timeless fluorescence that trades night for day. Sleep is besieged by wakefulness, hunger is fed by stimulation, and moments of dreaming and lucid alertness are eroded with the knowledge of intimate terrors and distant wars.
When possible, escape is up a hatch and down a corridor between and occasionally beyond longitudes, to places where the hours chime epiphanies. Escape is a resonant word in the vocabulary of clockmaking. It gives us another word – escapement.

Escapement²
Escapement is a horological or clockmaking term. It denotes the mechanism in mechanical watches and clocks that governs the regular motion of the hands through a “catch and release” device that both releases and restrains the levers that move the hands for hours, minutes, and seconds. Like the catch and release of the valves of the heart that allow blood to flow between its chambers, setting the basic rhythm of life, the escapement of a watch regulates our sense of the flow of time. The continued pulsation of our hearts and the ticking of clocks denote our freedom from an eternal present. Each heartbeat, each passing second marks the here and now, promises the future, and recalls the resonance of the last heartbeat. Our heart tells us that we live in time.
The history of clockmaking saw a definite turn when devices for understanding time shifted away from the fluid principles of ancient Chinese water and incense clocks – for which time was a continuum, thus making it more difficult to surgically separate past and present, then and now – to clocks whose ticking seconds rendered a conceptual barricade between each unit, its predecessor and its follower. This is what makes now seem so alien to then. Paradoxically, it opens out another zone of discomfort. Different places share the same time because of the accident of longitude. Thus clocks in London and Lagos (with adjustments made for daylight savings) show the same time. And yet, the experience of “now“ in London and Lagos may not feel the same at all.
An escape from – or, one might say, a full-on willingness to confront – this vexation might be found by taking a stance in which one is comfortable with the fact that we exist at the intersection of different latitudes and longitudes, and that being located on this grid, we are in some sense phatically in touch with other times, other places. In a syncopated sort of way, we are “contemporaneous” with other times and spaces.

My Name is Chin Chin Choo
In Howrah Bridge, a Hindi film-noir thriller from 1958 set in a cosmopolitan Calcutta (which, in its shadowy grandeur resembled the Shanghai of the jazz age), a young dancer, the half-Burmese, half-Baghdadi-Jewish star and vamp of vintage Hindi film, Helen, plays a Chinese bar dancer. And in the song “My Name is Chin Chin Choo,” a big band jazz, kitsch orientalist, and sailor-costumed musical extravaganza, she expresses a contemporaneity that is as hard to pin down as it is to avoid being seduced by.
The lyrics weave in the Arabian Nights, Aladdin, and Sinbad; the singer invokes the bustle of Singapore and the arch trendiness of Shanghai; the music blasts a Chicago big band sound; the sailor-suited male backup dancers suddenly break into Cossack knee-bends. Times and spaces, cities and entire cultural histories – real or imagined – collide and whirl in heady counterpoint. Yesterday’s dance of contemporaneity has us all caught up in its Shanghai-Calcutta-Delhi-Bombay-Singapore turbulence. We are all called Chin Chin Choo. Hello, mister, how do you do?

Contemporaneity
Contemporaneity, the sensation of being in a time together, is an ancient enigma of a feeling. It is the tug we feel when our time pulls at us. But sometimes one has the sense of a paradoxically asynchronous contemporaneity – the strange tug of more than one time and place – as if an accumulation or thickening of our attachments to different times and spaces were manifesting itself in the form of some unique geological oddity, a richly striated cross section of a rock, sometimes sharp, sometimes blurred, marked by the passage of many epochs.

Now and Elsewhere
The problem of determining the question of contemporaneity hinges on how we orient ourselves in relation to a cluster of occasionally cascading, sometimes overlapping, partly concentric, and often conflictual temporal parameters – on how urgent, how leisurely, or even how lethargic we are prepared to be in response to a spectrum of possible answers.
Consider the experience of being continually surprised by the surface and texture of the night sky when looking through telescopes of widely differing magnifications. Thinking about “which contemporaneity” to probe is not very different from making decisions about how deep into the universe we would like to cast the line of our query.
A telescope powerful enough to aid us in discerning the shapes and extent of craters on the moon will reveal a very different image of the universe than one that unravels the rings of Saturn, or one that can bring us the light of a distant star. The universe looks different, depending on the questions we ask of the stars.
Contemporaneity, too, looks different depending on the queries we put to time. If, as Zhou Enlai famously remarked, it is still too early to tell what impact the French Revolution has had on human history, then our sense of contemporaneity distends to embrace everything from 1789 onwards. If, on the other hand, we are more interested in sensing how things have changed since the Internet came into our lives, then even 1990 can seem a long way away. So can it seem as if it were only recently that the printing press and movable type made mechanical reproduction of words and images possible on a mass scale. One could argue that time changed once and for all when the universal regime of Greenwich Mean Time imposed a sense of an arbitrarily encoded universal time for the first time in human history, enabling everyone to calculate for themselves “when,” as in how many hours ahead or behind they were in relation to everyone at every other longitude. This birthed a new time, a new sense of being together in one accounting of time. One could also argue that, after Hiroshima made it possible to imagine that humanity as we know it could auto-destruct, every successive year began to feel as long as a hundred years, or as an epoch, since it could perhaps be our last. This means that, contrary to our commonplace understanding of our “time” as being “sped up,” we could actually think of our time as being caught in the long “winding down,” the “long decline.” It all depends, really, on what question we are asking.
And so Marcel Duchamp can still seem surprisingly contemporary, and Net art oddly dated. The moon landing, whose fortieth anniversary we have recently seen, brought a future of space travel hurtlingly close to the realities of 1969. Today, the excitement surrounding men on the moon has already acquired the patina of nostalgia, and the future it held out as a promise seems oddly dated. Then again, this could change suddenly if China and India were to embark in earnest on a second-wave Cold War space race to the moon. Our realities advance into and recede from contemporaneity like the tides, throwing strange flotsam and jetsam onto the shore to be found by beachcombers with a fetish for signs from different times. The question then becomes not one of “periodizing” contemporaneity, or of erecting a neat white picket fence around it; rather, it becomes one of finding shortcuts, trapdoors, antechambers, and secret passages between now and elsewhere, or perhaps elsewhen. Time folds, and it doesn’t fold neatly – our sense of “when” we are is a function of which fold we are sliding into, or climbing out of.
A keen awareness of contemporaneity cannot but dissolve the illusion that some things, people, places, and practices are more “now” than others. Seen this way, contemporaneity provokes a sense of the simultaneity of different modes of living and doing things without a prior commitment to any one as being necessarily more true to our times. Any attempt to design structures, whether permanent or provisional, that might express or contain contemporaneity would be incomplete if it were not (also) attentive to realities that are either not explicit or manifest or that linger as specters. An openness and generosity toward realities that may be, or seem to be, in hibernation, dormant, or still in formation, can only help such structures to be more pertinent and reflective. A contemporaneity that is not curious about how it might be surprised is not worth our time.

Tagore in China
In a strange and serendipitous echo from the past, we find Rabindranath Tagore, the Bengali poet and artist who in some sense epitomized the writing of different Asian modernities in the twentieth century, saying something quite similar exactly eighty-five years ago in Shanghai, at the beginning of what was to prove to be a highly contested and controversial tour of China.
The poet [and here, all we need to do is to substitute “artist” for “poet”]’s mission is to attract the voice which is yet inaudible in the air; to inspire faith in a dream which is unfulfilled; to bring the earliest tidings of the unborn flower to a skeptic world.³
Tagore’s plea operates in three distinct temporal registers: the “as yet inaudible” in the future, the “unfulfilled dream” in the past, and the fragility of the unborn flower in the skeptic world of the present. In each of these, the artist’s work, for Tagore, is to safeguard and to take custody of – and responsibility for – that which is out of joint with its time, indeed with all time.
We could extend this reading to say that it is to rescue from the dead weight of tradition the things that were excluded from the canon, to make room for that to which the future may turn a deaf ear, and to protect the fragility of contemporary practice from present skepticism. Tagore’s argument for a polyvocal response to the question of how to be “contemporary” was misinterpreted, in some senses willfully, by two factions of Chinese intellectuals. One faction celebrated him as an uncritical champion of tradition (which he was not), while the other campaigned against him as a conservative and “otherworldly” critic of modernity (which he refused to be). Between them, these partisans of tradition and modernity in 1920s China missed an opportunity to engage with a sense of the inhabitation of time that refused to construct arbitrary – and, indeed, uncritical – hierarchies in either direction: between past and present, east and west, then and now.

On Forgetting
As time passes and we grow more into the contemporary, the reasons for remembering other times grow, while the ability to recall them weakens. Memory straddles this paradox. We could say that the ethics of memory have something to do with the urgent negotiation between having to remember (which sometimes includes the obligation to mourn), and the requirement to move on (which sometimes includes the need to forget). Both are necessary, and each is notionally contingent on the abdication of the other, but life is not led by the easy rhythm of regularly alternating episodes of memory and forgetting, canceling each other out in a neat equation that resolves itself and attains equilibrium.
Forgetting: the true vanity of contemporaneity. Amnesia: a state of forgetfulness unaware of both itself and its own deficiency. True amnesia includes forgetting that one has forgotten all that has been forgotten. It is possible to assume that one remembers everything and still be an amnesiac. This is because aspects of the forgotten may no longer occupy even the verge of memory. They may leave no lingering aftertaste or hovering anticipation of something naggingly amiss. The amnesiac is in solitary confinement, guarded by his own clones, yet secluded especially from himself.
Typically, forms of belonging and solidarity that rely on the categorical exclusion of a notional other to cement their constitutive bonds are instances of amnesia. They are premised on the forgetting of the many contrarian striations running against the grain of the moment and its privileged solidarity. On particularly bad days, which may or may not have to do with lunar cycles, as one looks into a mirror and is unable to recognize one’s own image, the hatred of the other rises like a tidal bore. Those unfaithful patches of self are then rendered as so much negative space, like holes in a mirror. Instead of being full to the brim with traces of the other, each of them is seen as a void, a wound in the self.
This void where the self-authenticated self lies shadowed and unable to recognize itself is attributed to the contagious corrosiveness of the other. The forgetting of the emptying-out of the self by its own rage forms the ground from which amnesia assaults the world. In trying to assert who we are, we forget, most of all, who we are. And then we forget the forgetting.

Kowloon Walled City and its Memory
Nowhere, unless perhaps in dreams, can the phenomenon of the boundary be experienced in a more originary way than in cities (Walter Benjamin⁴).
A few months ago we spent some time in Hong Kong, learning what it means to live in a city that distills its contemporaneity into a refined amnesia. We were interested in particular by what happened to the walled city of Kowloon and its memory.
Kowloon Walled City and its disappearance from the urban fabric of Hong Kong can be read as a parable of contemporary amnesia. The Walled City was once a diplomatic anomaly between China and the British Empire that functioned as a long-standing autonomous zone, a site of temporary near-permanence, an exclave within an enclave.
Kowloon Walled City is not just a border in space; it also marks a border in time – a temporary suspension of linear time by which the visitor agrees to the terms of a compact laid out by the current shape of the territory, a walled compound where a delicate game between memory and amnesia can be played out, apparently till eternity. This is the frontier where reality begins to cross over into an image.
Visiting the “Memorial Park” that stands on the former site of the Kowloon Walled City today is an uncanny experience. As with all “theme parks,” walking in this enclosure is like walking in a picture postcard spread over hectares rather than inches. The constructed, spacious serenity of the park, its careful gestures to the tumult of the walled city by means of models, oral-history capsules, artifacts, replicas, and remains intend to provoke in the visitor some of the frisson in the fact that he or she is standing at what was once both condemned as an urban dystopia of crime, vice, and insanitation, and hailed as an anarchist utopia. The neighborhood itself may have disappeared, but its footprint in popular culture can be discerned in the simulacral sites of action sequences in cyberpunk science fiction, gangster and horror films, manga, and multi-user computer games.
The walled city had approximately thirty thousand people living in one-hundredth of a square mile, which amounts roughly to an average population-per-unit-area density ratio of 3.3 million people to a square mile. This makes it the densest inhabited unit of space in world history.
If we think of this space as a repository of memories, it would be the most haunted place on earth.
Why do such spaces – sometimes crowded, sometimes empty (but apparently crowded with ghosts) – appear in a manner that is almost viral, such that the trope of empty, but haunted streets, set in the near future of global cities, begins to show the first signs of a cinematic epidemic of our times? Will we remember the cinema of the early twenty-first century as the first intimation of the global collapse of urban space under its own weight?
Or is this imaginary appearance of a haunting, suicidal metropolis more of an inoculation than a symptom, an early shoring-up of the defenses of citizens against their own obsolescence? How can we remember, or even represent, an inoculation that could be an obituary just as much as it could be a premonition or a warning?
The surrealist poet Louis Aragon, speaking of the disappearing neighborhoods of Paris as the city morphed into twentieth-century modernity, once wrote that
it is only today, when the pickaxe menaces them, that they have at last become the true sanctuaries of the cult of the ephemeral … Places that were incomprehensible yesterday, and that tomorrow will never know.⁵
What happens when someone from within these spaces that were “incomprehensible yesterday and that tomorrow will never know” decides to make themselves known? How does their account of the space square with its more legendary reportage?
I recall the Walled City as one big playground, especially the rooftops, where me and my friends would run and jump from one building to the next, developing strong calf muscles, a high tolerance of pain, and control of our fear, and our feet. The rooftops were our domain, shared only with the jets that passed overhead almost within reach of our outstretched arms as they roared down the ﬁnal approach to Kai Tak Airport. Among the tangle of TV antennae we hid our kid-valuable things, toys and things we didn’t want our parents to know about because, well, most of them were stolen or bought with money we earned putting together stuff in the little one-room “factories” that were all over the Walled City – if our parents knew we had money, they’d have taken it. We were good at hiding things, and ourselves (Chiu Kin Fung⁶).

Disappearance and Representation: Haunting the Record
What does disappearance do to the telling of that which has disappeared? How do we speak to, of, and for the presence of absences in our lives, our cities?
Ackbar Abbas, in his book Hong Kong: Culture and the Politics of Disappearance, meditates at length on disappearance, cities, and images:
A space of disappearance challenges historical representation in a special way, in that it is difficult to describe precisely because it can adapt so easily to any description. It is a space that engenders images so quickly that it becomes nondescript – we can think about a nondescript space as that strange thing: an ordinary, everyday space that has somehow lost its usual system of interconnectedness, a deregulated space. Such a space defeats description not because it is illegible and none of the categories fit, but because it is hyperlegible and all the categories seem to fit, whether they are the categories of social sciences, cultural criticism, or of fiction. Any description then that tries to capture the features of the city will have to be, to some extent at least, stretched between fact and fiction … If this is the case, then there can be no single-minded pursuit of the signs that finishes with a systematic reading of the city, only a compendium of indices of disappearance (like the nondescript) that takes into account the city’s errancy and that addresses the city through its heterogeneity and parapraxis.⁷
A parapraxis is a kind of Freudian slip, an involuntary disclosure of something that would ordinarily be repressed. It could be a joke, an anomaly, a revealing slip-up, a haunting.
What does it mean to “haunt the record”? When does a presence or a trace become so deeply etched into a surface that it merits a claim to durability simply for being so difficult to repress, resolve, deal with, and put away? The endurance of multiple claims to land and other scarce material resources often rests on the apparent impossibility of arranging a palimpsest of signatures and other inscriptions rendered illegible by accumulation over a long time, and across many generations. In a sense, this is why the contingent and temporary character of the Kowloon Walled City endured for as long as it did. There is of course the delicate irony of the fact that the protection offered by its juridical anomaly with regard to sovereignty – a constitutional Freudian slip with consequences – was erased the moment Hong Kong reverted to China. The autonomy of being a wedge of China in the middle of Hong Kong became moot the moment Hong Kong was restored to Chinese sovereignty. Resolving the question of Hong Kong’s status automatically resolved all doubts and ambivalences with regard to claims over the custody and inhabitation of Kowloon Walled City.

A Chinese Sense of Time: Neither Permanence nor Impermanence
It is appropriate to end with a quotation from a Chinese text from the fourth century of the Common Era, a Madhyamika Mahayana Buddhist text, The Treatise of Seng Zhao.
When the Sutras say that things pass, they say so with a measure of reservation, for they wish to contradict people’s belief in permanence.
(And here we would gesture in the direction of the assumption that this contemporaneity is destined to be permanent; after all, this too shall pass).
And when the sutras say that things are lost, they say so with a mental reservation in order to express disapproval of what people understand by “passing.”
(And here we would gesture in the direction of the assumption that this contemporaneity is destined to oblivion; after all, something from this too shall remain).
Their wording may be contradictory, but not their aim. It follows that with the sages: permanence has not the meaning of the staying behind, while the wheel of time, or Karma, moves on. Impermanence has not the meaning of outpassing the wheel. People who seek in vain ancient events in our time conclude that things are impermanent. We, who seek in vain present events in ancient times, see that things are permanent. Therefore, Buddha, Liberation, He, it, appears at the proper moment, but has no fixed place in time.⁸
What more can we say of contemporaneity? It appears at the proper moment, but has no fixed place in time. In that spirit, let us not arrogate solely to ourselves the pleasures and the perils of all that is to be gained and lost in living and working, as we do, in these interesting times.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst im e-flux journal #12, Januar 2010 unter
http://www.e-f lux.com/journal/now-and-elsewhere/ [8.9.2013].

1.) Julieta Aranda, Brian Kuan Wood, Anton Vidokle, “What is Contemporary Art? Issue One“ e-flux journal, no. 11 (December 2009).
2.) See Raqs Media Collective, “Escapement,“ an installation at Frith Street Gallery, London, July 8, 2009–September 30, 2009.
3.) Rabindranath Tagore, “First Talk at Shanghai,“ in Talks in China (Calcutta: Visva-Bharati, 1925), quoted in Sisir Kumar Das, “The Controversial Guest: Tagore in China“ in Across the Himalayan Gap: An Indian Quest for Understanding China, ed. Tan Chung (Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, 1998); online version at.
4.) Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project, trans. Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999), 88.
5.) Louis Aragon, Paris Peasant in Art in Theory, 1900–1990: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood, (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1993), 456.
6.) Chiu Kin Fung, “Children of the Walled City,“ Asia Literary Review 10 (Winter 2008), 72–73.
7.) M. Ackbar Abbas, Hong Kong: Culture and the Politics of Disappearance (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 73–74.
8.) Chao Lun: The Treatise of Seng-chao, trans. Walter Liebenthal (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1968).

There is a crack in everything…“ Public Art als politische Praxis

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

1. Rückblick auf ein „Neues Genre“
Mit Begriffen wie jenen der Public Art, der Kunst im öffentlichen Raum oder des öffentlichen Interesses wurden bekanntlich in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten jene Kunstpraxen bezeichnet, die den der Kunst angestammten Raum der Institution verliessen und sich ins Freie der Öffentlichkeit begaben, um dort Anschluss an politische und soziale Gruppen zu suchen. Bei solchen nicht-skulpturalen Praxen im „öffentlichen Raum“ konnte es sich um urbanistische Interventionen oder Interventionen im Sinne von Performance, Strassentheater oder sogar Unsichtbarem Theater handeln. Es konnte sich um partizipatorische Projekte der „Bürgerbeteiligung“ im Umgang mit öffentlichem Raum handeln (kanonisch inzwischen etwa das Hamburger Park Fiction-Projekt). Und in diesem letzteren Sinne konnte es sich innerhalb des sogenannten New Genre Public Art wiederum um einerseits politische Formen des Aktivismus oder andererseits „sozialdienstliche“ Projekte handeln, etwa um jene Kunst im sozialen Interesse, die sich über Interaktion mit sozial Untergeordneten definiert (mit Obdachlosen, Häftlingen, Flüchtlingen, Arbeitslosen, Immigrantinnen, Bewohnern heruntergekommener Gebiete, etc.). Die Public-Art-Projekte, die all diesen Bereichen entstammten, wurden inzwischen ausführlich beschrieben und streckenweise kanonisiert.
Der Höhepunkt oder Gipfel dieses Kanonisierungsschubs lässt sich auf die Mitte der 1990er Jahre datieren. Die inzwischen klassische, von Nina Felshin herausgegebene Sammlung But is it Art? beinhaltete Projekte der Guerilla Girls, von Gran Fury, Group Material, der Womens’s Action Coalition (WAC), des American Festival Project und des Artist and Homeless Collaborative.¹ Der Untertitel The Spirit of Art as Activism zeigte damals den zum Teil sogar geglückten Versuch an, genrebildend zu wirken. Für Patricia C. Phillips wie für andere bezeichnet das Adjektiv „public“ nicht mehr den Ort der Intervention, sondern die Art der Intervention: „Public Art ermutigt die Entwicklung aktiver, engagierter und partizipatorischer Bürger, ein Prozess, der generell nur durch den Aktivismus eines Künstlers und die Provokation der Kunst entstehen kann.“² Während die Sammlung Felshins jedoch mehr Aktivismus-lastige „politische“ Kunstprojekte versammelte, schlugen andere Kanonisierungsversuche eine Richtung ein, die mit dem Stichwort von Kunst als Sozialdienst beschrieben wurde. Hier liessen sich dutzende von Kunstprojekten aufzählen, die sich einer eher sozialarbeiterischen Interaktionsform mit „Minoritäten“ wie Obdachlosen, Häftlingen, Arbeitslosen, Bewohnern heruntergekommener Gebiete etc. verschrieben. Inzwischen ist die Historisierung solcher Projekte so weit fortgeschritten, dass man von einem historischen Kanon dieser Variante von Public Art sprechen kann, mit Personen und Gruppen wie Martha Rosler oder Group Material an der Spitze.³
Doch wie immer ging einher mit der Kanonisierung die Kritik an der sich kanonisierenden Public Art. Denn natürlich war der Verdacht des „Sozialkitsches“ oder der „Sozialpornographie“ nicht immer von der Hand zu weisen. Marius Babias’ Reader Im Zentrum der Peripherie von 1995 verknüpfte mit der Vorstellung einzelner Public Art-Projekte auch gleich die Kritik an der Kolonisierung des Sozialen;⁴ und Miwon Kwon fragte 1996: „Ist die Kunst im öffentlichen Raum zu einer Art Sozialplanung mutiert? Betreibt sie das Geschäft einer konservativen Stadtpolitik, und hilft sie dem Immobilienmarkt bei der Aufwertung von abgewohnten Quartieren? Finden sich KünstlerInnen in den vielen Community-orientierten Projekten der letzten Jahre nicht in der Rolle von Pädagogen wieder, die als ‚ästhetische Prediger’ die wahren Machtverhältnisse sozialer Räume verschleiern helfen?“⁵ Der Verdacht lag nahe, dass es sich bei „community based public art“-Projekten um soziale Konfliktlösungs- und -verkleisterungsprogramme handelte, die eher der Stillstellung als der Mobilisierung politischer Energien von Seiten der Betroffenen dienen. Eine Kritik an Public Art, wie die Kwons, zieht implizit eine Unterscheidung zwischen dem Sozialen und dem Politischen, die man eigentlich explizit ziehen müsste. Sozialdienstliche Projekte intervenieren eben eher in den Raum des Sozialen und nicht in den Raum der Politik proper. Was als künstlerische Re-Politisierung angepriesen wird, ist daher oftmals eine Re-Sozialisierung – auch im Sinne einer Resozialisierung oder Domestizierung von politischer Praxis. Andererseits sollten politische (d. h. interventionistische/aktionistische) Artikulationsformen im Kunstfeld nicht umgehend einem erweiterten Begriff von sozialer Kunst-im-öffentlichen-Raum subsumiert werden.

2. Welche Art Public?
Obwohl also eine Vielzahl von Public-Art-Projekten inzwischen empirisch gut dokumentiert sind, wird selten die grundlegende Frage gestellt, was denn nun das Öffentliche an Public Art ausmacht bzw. welche Art public Public Art erzeugt. Genauso selten wird gefragt, wie sie das tut. Denn Öffentlichkeit ist, wo sie kein Begriff der Stadtmöblierung oder des urbanen Verkehrsmanagements ist, letztlich ein Begriff der Politik (ich würde sogar sagen: es ist ein Begriff des Politischen). Man müsste dann also zuallererst die Frage beantworten, wie Politik oder politisches Handeln Öffentlichkeit herstellt. Und würde man dann herausfinden, dass Öffentlichkeit tatsächlich nur von – im weitesten Sinne – politischem Handeln hergestellt werden kann, würde daraus dann nicht logisch folgen, dass Public Art immer zugleich auch politische Kunstpraxis ist, also Polit Art – jedenfalls dort, wo sie tatsächlich Öffentlichkeit generiert?
Um hier Missverständnisse aus dem Weg zu räumen, ist es wichtig zu sehen, dass viel zu oft in den heutigen Debatten um „Kunst im öffentlichen Raum“ von einem Raum ausgegangen wird, der immer schon da ist und in den entweder objekthafte Kunstwerke hineingestellt werden (also skulpturale oder architektonische Arbeiten im Spannungsfeld zwischen Denkmälern, Kunst am Bau und simpler ästhetischer Stadtmöblierung) oder in den künstlerische Praktiken intervenieren. Doch der öffentliche Raum als Stadtraum besteht unabhängig von den ihm eingepflanzten Objekten oder Praxen. Der Raum bleibt als Raum bestehen, auch wenn die Objekte wieder entfernt werden. Bei diesem objekthaften oder urbanistischen Verständnis von Öffentlichkeit ist es gleichgültig, ob in einer Fussgängerzone ein Brunnen steht oder nicht, ob in einem Park eine Skulptur steht oder nicht, ob an einer Gebäudewand ein Mosaik prangt oder nicht. Der öffentliche Raum bleibt „Öffentlichkeit“ unabhängig von seiner künstlerischen Ausgestaltung. Und sprechen wir von künstlerischen Praxen oder Interventionen anstelle von Objekten, ändert das erstmal noch wenig. Auch hier wird regelmässig davon ausgegangen, dass in einen bereits existierenden öffentlichen Raum interveniert wird. So würde man in diesem Fall etwas davon ausgehen, dass eine Intervention auf einem öffentlichen Platz oder in einer Fussgängerzone automatisch im „öffentlichen Raum“ stattfindet, allein weil sie eben auf einem öffentlichen Platz oder in einer Fussgängerzone stattfindet. Oder man würde davon ausgehen, dass Arbeiten für bzw. in Medien (wie sie etwa das museum in progress über Medienkooperationen entwickelt) immer schon Arbeiten im öffentlichen Raum sind. Aber auch dann wird man immer zu wissen glauben, wohin man gehen muss, um in den öffentlichen Raum zu kommen und somit die eigenen Kunstpraxen zu „öffentlichen“ zu machen. Man wird zu wissen glauben, was Öffentlichkeit ist und wo man sie findet. Und dann geht man hin und interveniert.
Diese Vorstellung einer Öffentlichkeit, die immer schon da ist und nur darauf wartet, erobert zu werden, ist meiner Ansicht nach falsch. Ja sie ist nichts als eine naive Fiktion. Wenn der Begriff der Öffentlichkeit – und damit der Begriff des öffentlichen Raums – irgendeinen Sinn machen soll, der über das bloss Deskriptive hinausgeht, wenn wir ihn also als ernsthaftes, theoretisch fundiertes Konzept und nicht bloss umgangssprachlich verwenden wollen, dann müssen wir uns von dieser Fiktion verabschieden. Schon die Medien, normalerweise unser Inbegriff von „Öffentlichkeiten“, garantieren nicht per se Öffentlichkeit. Muss man erst an Berlusconi erinnern und an die Scheinöffentlichkeit, ja Anti-Öffentlichkeiten, die von den italienischen Fernsehanstalten erzeugt werden? Genauso wenig garantiert ein „öffentlicher Platz“ im Verkehrsraum Öffentlichkeit. Oder wer wollte behaupten, dass ein Autobahnverkehrskreuz eine Öffentlichkeit im strengen Sinn darstellt? Was aber macht dann Öffentlichkeit im strengen Sinn aus, wenn Öffentlichkeit kein Raum im physikalischen (oder institutionellen, massenmedialen) Sinn ist? Die einzig sinnvolle Antwort auf diese Frage kann nur lauten: Wenn Öffentlichkeit nicht immer schon da ist, dann muss sie immer erst und immer aufs Neue hergestellt werden. Mein Vorschlag lautet nun, dass diese Herstellung von Öffentlichkeit im Moment konfliktueller Auseinandersetzung geschieht. Wo Konflikt, oder genauer: Antagonismus ist, dort ist Öffentlichkeit, und wo er verschwindet, verschwindet Öffentlichkeit mit ihm. In diesem Sinne wären etwa Medien dann nicht einfach Öffentlichkeiten, sondern Öffentlichkeit wäre selbst ein Medium. Denn Öffentlichkeit wäre jenes „Band der Teilung“, das qua Konflikt verbindet. Erst in dem Moment, in dem ein Konflikt ausgetragen wird, entsteht über dessen Austragung eine Öffentlichkeit, in der verschiedene Positionen aufeinanderprallen und gerade so in Kontakt treten. Und wenn wir genau hinsehen, werden wir feststellen, dass Öffentlichkeit dabei nicht etwa das „Produkt“ dieses Aufeinanderprallens ist, kein „Werk“, das irgendwie nach einem Masterplan konstruiert und hergestellt worden wäre. Sondern Öffentlichkeit ist nichts anderes als der Aufprall selbst.
Um zu illustrieren, dass Öffentlichkeit nicht etwa voluntaristisch oder generalstabsmässig hergestellt werden kann, liesse sich das ernüchterte und desillusionierte Resümee Hans Haackes zitieren:
„Weil jeder im öffentlichen Raum Zutritt zu Kunstwerken hat, nahmen ich und andere vor Jahren fälschlicherweise an, sie seien da nicht nur für Eingeweihte, sondern auch im übertragenen Sinne allgemein zugänglich. Da das Publikum, das künstlerische Arbeiten an vom städtischen Garten- oder Reinigungsamt betreuten Orten sieht, sehr viel grösser ist als die Zahl der Museums- und Galeriebesucher, hingen wir der Wunschvorstellung an, man erreiche dort ‚die Massen’. Auch das war ein gutgemeinter Trugschluss.“⁶
Haacke erwähnt seine Erfahrungen mit seinem für die documenta X entworfenen Plakat mit Zitaten von Unternehmen zur strategischen Rolle ihres Kultursponsorings. Dieses Plakat fand, wie Haacke selbst anmerkt, kaum öffentliche Resonanz: „Ein komplexes Plakat mit verhältnismässig kleinteiligen Elementen geht deshalb im visuellen Gewimmel leicht unter. In den Medien gab es wenig Resonanz. Die von mir erhoffte Debatte blieb aus. Das Beispiel demonstriert, dass massenhafte Verbreitung im flächendeckend von Werbung okkupierten ‚öffentlichen Raum’ kein Garant für die Teilnahme am öffentlichen Diskurs ist.“⁷
Aus Erfahrungen wie diesen, denke ich, wäre eine doppelte Lehre zu ziehen: Erstens ergibt sich, dass sich Öffentlichkeit nicht so umstandslos entlang irgendwelcher Rezepte oder Blueprints „herstellen“ lässt; deine eine Strategie, die einmal gewirkt hat, kann das nächste mal versagen. Öffentlichkeit ist, wie Hannah Arendt es formulieren würde, kein Produkt eines zweckgerichteten Herstellens, sondern erzeugt sich >im Handeln selbst. Das allerdings hat Konsequenzen und führt zur zweiten Lehre, die aus dem Beispiel Haackes folgt. Es führt letztlich zur Frage, von welcher Art dieses Handeln sein muss, damit Öffentlichkeit entsteht. Ob ein Plakat wie das Haackes – oder jede andere Form der Intervention im Sinne der Public Art – Öffentlichkeit generiert, hängt eben davon ab, ob es einen Konflikt generiert oder nicht.

3. Public Art als Political Art
Damit wären wir aber schon bei einem politischen Begriff von Öffentlichkeit angelangt. Konflikt, oder besser: Antagonimus ist nämlich nichts anderes als die Kategorie des Politischen. Nur jene Öffentlichkeiten können als öffentlich im strengen Sinn gelten, die sich qua Antagonismus herstellen. Wenn wir hingegen fragen, wer eine solche Öffentlichkeit generiert, stellt sich uns ein Problem, hatten wir doch gesagt, dass Öffentlichkeit sich nicht nach irgendeinem Masterplan so einfach konstruieren lässt. Das Politische (der Antagonismus) ist aus diesem Grund „a-subjektiv“, d. h. es steht kein Subjekt in Grossbuchstaben hinter ihm, und man kann eine antagonistische Situation nicht voluntaristisch erzwingen. Diese Annahme entspricht der ganz realen und alltäglichen Erfahrung politischer Arbeit. In bestimmten Situationen kann man sich agitatorisch auf den Kopf stellen und wird nicht die geringste Mobilisierung erreichen. In anderen Situationen, in denen schon niemand mehr damit gerechnet hat, bricht unverhofft ein Antagonismus auf und die Massen politisieren sich (die politikwissenschaftlichen Revolutionsstudien können ein Lied singen von der nahezu unmöglichen Vorhersagbarkeit von Revolutionen). Antagonismen können an den unvermutetsten Stellen auftreten, in Momenten, in denen niemand mit ihnen gerechnet hat. Damit wird strategisches Handeln nicht überflüssig, das Argument spricht also nicht gegen den fortgesetzten Versuch, Öffentlichkeit herzustellen. Aber jedes Handeln erfordert aus diesem Grund immer einen Einsatz, impliziert ein einzugehendes Risiko, denn es bewegt sich auf dem Terrain des Ungewissen.
Das gilt für politisches Handeln genauso wie für die Praxen der Public Art. Entscheidend ist, dass Public Art nicht deshalb „öffentlich“ ist, weil sie ihren Ort in einem urbanistisch zu bestimmenden „öffentlichen Raum“ hat statt im semi-privaten Raum einer Galerie. Sondern Kunst ist öffentlich, wenn sie im Öffentlichen stattfindet, d. h. im Medium des Antagonismus. Aus genau diesem Grund – weil sich das Auftreten von Antagonismen nicht mit Bestimmtheit vorhersehen lässt – lässt sich nicht präjudizieren, welche konkreten künstlerischen Praxen jeweils Öffentlichkeit generieren. Da sich Antagonismen nicht subjektiv oder voluntaristisch erzwingen lassen, lässt sich immer nur im Nachhinein feststellen, wann und wo bestimmten Praxen die Antagonisierung „geglückt“ ist – was zumeist mit den makro-politischen Rahmenbedingungen der jeweiligen historisch-hegemonialen Situation zu tun hat. Auf Basis des Rückblicks auf historische Modelle (von Jacques-Louis David bis zur Women’s Action Coalition) liessen sich aber sehr wohl gewisse Schlussfolgerungen für heutige Strategien der Public Art ziehen. Und es lassen sich die Bedingungen der Möglichkeit von Public Art als politischer Kunst angeben. Tatsächlich impliziert der Begriff der Public Art den Begriff der politischen Kunst. Es gibt keine „öffentliche Kunst“, die nicht politisch im gerade entwickelten Sinn wäre. Alles andere wäre nicht Public Art, sondern Kunst, die Öffentlichkeit simuliert. Dieser scheinöffentlichen Kunst gegenüber steht jene künstlerische Praxis, die eine universalisierbare und doch parteiische Position bezieht, indem sie sich mit politischer Praxis verschränkt. Public Art ist, in genau diesem Sinne, nur zu haben als Political Art.

4. Position beziehen
Als solche muss sie keineswegs im „öffentlichen“ Stadtraum stattfinden, sie kann sogar dort stattfinden, wo man sie am wenigsten erwarten würde, nämlich im Innenraum von Kunstinstitutionen. Doch auch für eine Ausstellung oder einen Ausstellungsraum gilt, dass er nicht deshalb schon eine „Öffentlichkeit“ darstellt, weil er „öffentlich“ zugänglich ist. Eine Ausstellung im üblichen Verständnis – d. h. künstlerische Arbeiten oder Aktionen im örtlichen oder institutionellen Rahmen des Kunstfelds – ist nie an sich schon eine Öffentlichkeit. Damit eine Ausstellung zur Öffentlichkeit wird, muss etwas hinzukommen: eine Position. Jérôme Sans hat einen Zipfel dieses politischen Aspekts von Ausstellung erfasst, wenn er „exhibition“ von „ex/position“ unterscheidet. Das französische „ex/position“ deutet, Sans zufolge, auf den Aspekt von (Aus-)Stellung als Positionierung und Commitment:
„An exhibition is a place for debate, not just a public display. The French word for it, exposition, connotes taking a position, a theoretical position; it is a mutual commitment on the part of all those participating in it.“⁸
Die Praxis des Ausstellens ist eine Form des Stellung-Beziehens, eine Stellung-nahme: das bewusste Einnehmen einer Position. Aber natürlich nicht irgendeiner Position, auch nicht einer bloss theoretischen, wie Sans nahe legt, sondern einer an politisch-kollektive Praxen angekoppelten antagonistischen Position. Aus dieser Perspektive erscheint die inflationäre Verwendung des Begriffs „künstlerische Position“, wie sie in letzter Zeit zu beobachten ist, nahezu als ein Missbrauch, zumindest aber als Entpolitisierung des Begriffs Position. Vor allem, wenn als „Position“ die Arbeit von Künstlerinnen oder Künstlern bezeichnet wird, die garantiert keine Position beziehen. Eine politische Position hat man nicht einfach, sondern man muss sie beziehen. Was im Kunstfeld unter „Position“ verstanden wird, ist hingegen die Differenz von bestimmten zu Labels oder Markenzeichen erstarrten Künstlernamen. Die Logik ist differentiell, weil es ihr darum geht, sich jeweils von den anderen „Positionen“ im Kunstfeld zu unterscheiden. Sie ist nicht äquivalentiell, wie es die antagonistische Logik ist. Das heisst, es geht hier nicht um den Anschluss an eine politische Äquivalenzkette (eine Koalition, ein Kollektiv, eine Bewegung, also eine gegen-hegemoniale Anstrengung), die ihre Äquivalenz nur qua Konstruktion eines externen Antagonismus konstituieren kann.⁹ Im Moment des Antagonismus verschwindet der Konkurrenzkampf um differentielle „Positionen“ und macht der Solidarität unter jenen Platz, die sich einem gemeinsamen Gegner stellen.

5. „… that’s how the light gets in“
So wie der Begriff „künstlerische Position“ im Kunstfeld also eingesetzt wird, entspricht er der Logik des Marktes und nicht der Logik der Politik. Künstlernamen verstehen sich als Labels auf dem Marktplatz der Kunst. Der Begriff „Position“ ist nur ein Euphemismus für diese Marktlogik. Obwohl niemand auf den Gedanken käme, die Corporate Identities von Wienerwald oder Burger King hochtrabend als „Positionen“ zu bezeichnen, z. B. als „Fast-Food-Positionen“, geht man im Kunstfeld mit lockerer Hand mit politischen Begriffen um, nicht zuletzt, weil sie sich in Radical-Chic-Kapital umsetzen lassen. Aber politische Praxis ist keine Frage der blossen Selbstbezeichnung (also ob sich eine bestimmte künstlerische oder kuratorische Praxis politisch nennt oder geriert), sondern eine der tatsächlichen Funktion. Diese politische Funktion von Kunst, so wurde bisher argumentiert, besteht im paradoxen Versuch, Öffentlichkeit zu organisieren. Und dies wiederum ist nur möglich durch die Markierung einer Gegen-Position als Bestandteil eines breiteren Versuchs der Herstellung einer Gegen-Hegemonie.
Erst als Ex/position wird eine Ausstellung zur Öffentlichkeit. Als solche wirkt sie dann automatisch der Logik der Institution entgegen. Als Ex/position wirkt eine Ausstellung notwendigerweise de-institutionalisierend, denn die eigentliche Aufgabe von Institutionen besteht ja in der Unterdrückung oder zumindest Domestizierung von Konflikten, die geregelten Abläufen und Prozeduren eingepasst werden sollen. Die Öffentlichkeit des Antagonismus hat immer etwas Disruptives in Bezug auf die Logik der Institution und auf die herrschende Ideologie: Sie unterbricht geregelte Abläufe, Zuständigkeiten, Hierarchien. Die von der Institution unter postfordistischen Bedingungen eingeforderten Handlungsformen wie Teamwork, Kreativität und „partizipatives Management“ lösen sich auf und reaggregieren zu neuen Solidaritäten innerhalb und ausserhalb der Institution. Tatsächlich schlägt jeder wirkliche Antagonismus eine Bresche in die Mauern der Institution.
In weniger bautechnische Metaphern gefasst, könnte man sagen: Die Ausstellung (Ex/position) führt zur Öffnung der Institution. Das heisst: Die Aus-Stellung, die nichts anderes ist als die Bresche in den Mauern der Institution, führt ins Freie der Öffentlichkeit. Als Aus-Stellung ist sie Positionierung: Stellungbeziehen. Und als Aus-Stellung führt sie hinaus aus den Institutionen der Kunst und des Kunstfelds – und hinein in politische Praxis. Die Praxis der Public Art als politische Praxis – genauso wie kuratorische oder edukatorische Praxis als politische Praxis – besteht also nicht zuletzt in der politischen Öffnung der Institution, von der sie selbst scheinbar Teil ist.

Der Text basiert auf einem Vortrag an der Tagung Kunst Öffentlichkeit Zürich in der Kunsthalle Zürich, 17./18. November 2005.

Wiederabdruck
Oliver Marchart: „There is a crack in everything … – Public Art als politische
Praxis“, in: Christoph Schenker und Michael Hiltbrunner (Hg.), Kunst und
.ffentlichkeit – Kritische Praxis der Kunst im Stadtraum Zürich, Zürich
2007, S. 237–244.

1.) Nina Felshin (Hg.): But is it Art? The Spirit of Art as Activism. Bay Press, Seatle 1995.
2.) Patricia C. Phillips: “Peggy Diggs: Private Acts and Public Art“. In: Felshin 195 (wie Anm. 1), S. 286.
3.) Siehe dazu die Bände 5 und 6 der damals wesentlichen Publikationsriehe der Dia Art Foundation, Discussions in Contemporary Culture: Brian Wallis (Hg.): Democracy. A Project by Group Material. Bay Press, Seattle 1990; und ders. (Hg.): If You Lived Here. The City in Art, Theory and Social Activism. A Projekt by Martha Rosler. Bay Press, Seattle 1991. Einen Überblick über die US-amerikanischen Diskussionen der Zeit gibt der Rader von Harriet F. Senie und Sally Webster (Hg.): Critical Issues in Public Art. Content, Context, and Controversy. Harper Collins, New York 1992. Das meiner Ansicht nach wie vor gültige und theoretisch ausgewiesenste Buch zu Public Art im US-Amerikanischen Kontext ist: Rosalyn Deutsche: Evictions. Art and Spatial Politics. MIT Press, Cambridge MA 1996.
4.) Marius Babias (Hg.): Im Zentrum der Peripherie. Kunstvermittlung und Vermittlungskunst in den 90er Jahren. Verlag der Kunst, Dresden und Basel 1995; siehe auch Marius Babias und Achim Könneke (Hg.): Die Kunst des Öffentlichen. Projekte/Ideen/ Stadtplanungsprozesse im politischen/sozialen/öffentlichen Raum. Verlag der Kunst, Amsterdam und Dresden 1998. Zu den interessanten jüngeren deutschsprachigen Buchpublikationen zum Thema zählen der historisch-kritische Band von Claudia Büttner: Von der Gruppenausstellung im Freien zum Projekt im nicht-institutionellen rAum. Silke Schreiber, München 1997; der stärker politisch interessierte Band von Ralph Lindner, Christiane Mennicke und Silke Wagler (Hg.): Kunst im Stadtraum – Hegemonie und Öffentlichkeit. Dresden Postplatz in Kooperation mit b-books Berlin, Dresden 2004; und der stärker theoretisch fokussierte Band von Gerald Raunig und Ulf Wuggenig (Hg.): Publicum. Theorien der Öffentlichkeit. Turia+Kant, Wien 2005.
5.) Miwon Kwon: Im Interesse der Öffentlichkeit. In: springer II/4, 1996–1997 (Dezember-Februar), S. 30.
6.) Hans Haacke: OffenSichtlich. In: Florian Matzner (Hg.): Public Art. Kunst im öffentlichen Raum. Hatje Cantz, Ostfildern-Ruit 2004, S. 223.
7.) Hans Haacke 2004 (wie Anm.6), S. 225.
8.) Jérôme Sans: Exhibition or Ex/position? In Carin Kuoni (Hg.): Words of Wisdom. Independent Curators International (ICI), New York 2001, S. 146.
9.) Siehe dazu Ernesto Laclau und Chantal Mouffe: Hegemonie und radikale Demokratie. Passagen, Wien 1992.

Contemp(t)orary: Eleven Theses

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

1.
It would appear that the notion of the “contemporary” is irredeemably vain and empty; in fact, we would not be entirely mistaken in suspecting “contemporary art” to be a concept that became central to art as a result of the need to find a replacement, rather than as a matter of legitimate theorizing. For above all, “contemporary” is the term that stands to mark the death of “modern.” This vague descriptor of aesthetic currency became customary precisely when the critique of “the modern” (its mapping, specification, historicizing, and dismantling) exiled it to the dustbin of history. At that point, when current art lost the word that had provided it with a programmatic stance, chronological proximity became relevant – even if it did not indicate anything of substance. To be sure, “contemporary” fails to carry even a glimmer of the utopian expectation – of change and possible alternatives – encompassed by “the new.”

2.
Nothing would seem to so eloquently suggest the lack of substance in “contemporary art” than the facility with which it lends itself to practical adjustments. Museums, academic institutions, auction houses, and texts tend to circumvent the need to categorize recent artistic production by declaring the “contemporariness” of certain holdings or discourses on the basis of a chronological convention: the MOCA in Los Angeles takes into account everything made “after” 1940; the contemporary holdings of Tate Modern in London were all created sometime after 1965; Kristine Stiles and Peter Selz’s sourcebook Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art takes 1945 as its starting point. In other contexts – particularly on the periphery – the horizon of contemporaneity tends to be narrower, usually defined as appearing in the early 1990s and associated with the rise of the postcolonial debate, the collapse of the Euro-American monopoly over the narrative of modernism, or the end of the Cold War. In any case, “contemporary art” appears to be based on the multiple significance of an “after.”

3.
However, as is usually the case with chronological categories, this neutrality may soon unfold into a noun with a certain substance. As with “the modern,” it would not be hard to imagine “the contemporary” one day becoming oxymoronically fixed, specified, and dated as the signifier of a particular shift in the dialectics of culture. There are at least two senses in which the contemporariness of artistic culture involves a poignant turn. There is the blatant immediacy of the relationship between a contemporary practice and its host society, and then there is its integration into a critical apparatus.
Never since the advent of historical relativism at the end of the eighteenth century has the art of the day had a less contentious social reception. Claims concerning the esoteric nature of contemporary art in the West mostly derive from the density of theoretical discourse on the topic – discourse that actually operates on the basis of practices that involve a certain level of general legibility. It may well be that one of the main characteristics of contemporary art is to always demand, at least, a double reception: first as part of general culture, and later as an attempt at sophisticated theoretical recuperation. Nonetheless, the fact that contemporary practices are linked to a hypertrophy of discourse that tries to mobilize them against the grain of their social currency is itself an indication of the extent to which contemporary art is an integrated culture that makes use of widely available referents, involving poetic operations that are closely linked to the historical sensibility of the day. It is the interlocking of extreme popularity and the rarefaction of criticism and theory that define this phenomenon. “Contemporary art” is, therefore, a form of aristocratic populism – a dialogical structure in which extreme subtlety and the utmost simplicity collide, forcing individuals of varying class, ethnic, and ideological affiliations – which might have otherwise kept them separated – to smell each other in artistic structures.

Swiss Replica Watches Fake Elgin Watches 1904 Fake Breitling Bracelet Seamaster Gold Www1.Replica-watches.To Best Website For Linkreplicawatches

4.
The ideal of modern beauty that Stendhal articulated in 1823 as “the art of presenting to the peoples . . . works which, in view of the present-day state of their customs and beliefs, afford them the utmost possible pleasure,” has finally been attained.¹ As a consequence, a temporal rift between radical aesthetics and social mores no longer exists today. The question of the death of the avant-garde ought to be reformulated to account for this institutionalization of the contemporary. As we all know, the schism between the project of modern subjectivity and the modern bourgeois subject was defined in historical terms as consisting of advances, regressions, re-enactments, futurities, and anachronism, and summarized in the politics of the avant-garde, with all the militaristic implications of the term. More than the death of the avant-garde as a project of cultural subversion – always a ridiculous argument coming from the mouth of the establishment; such radicalism is sure to reemerge in one disguise or another every time a poetic-political challenge to the nomos and episteme of dominant society becomes necessary – the shock of the postmodern involved the realization that “the new” could no longer be considered foreign to a subjectivity constantly bombarded by media and burning with the desire for consumption.
In any case, the temporal dislocation characteristic of both modernism and the avant- garde – the way the art of the day constantly defied the notion of a synchronic present (not limited to the chronological trope of the avant, which encompasses any number of other historical folds, from the theme of primitivism to the negotiations with obsolescence and the ruin, the refusal of the chronology of industrial labor, and so forth) – seems to have finally found some closure. In a compelling and scary form, modern capitalist society finally has an art that aligns with the audience, with the social elites that finance it, and with the academic industry that serves as its fellow traveler. In this sense art has become literally contemporary, thanks to its exorcism of aesthetic alienation and the growing integration of art into culture. When, by the millions, the masses vote with their feet to attend contemporary art museums, and when a number of cultural industries grow up around the former citadel of negativity, fine art is replaced by something that already occupies an intermediary region between elite entertainment and mass culture. And its signature is precisely the frenzy of “the contemporary”: the fact that art fairs, biennales, symposia, magazines, and new blockbuster shows and museums constitute evidence of art’s absorption into that which is merely present – not better, not worse, not hopeful, but a perverted instance of the given.

5.
In this way, the main cultural function of art institutions and ceremonies in relation to global capitalism today is to instantiate the pandemic of contemporariness as a mythological scheme occurring (and recurring) each time we instigate this “program.” After all, the art world has surpassed other, more anachronistic auratic devices (the cult of the artist, of nationality or creativity) as the profane global religion for making “the contemporary manifest. The hunger to be part of the global art calendar has more to do with the hope of keeping up with the frenzy of time than with any actual aesthetic pursuit or interest. Mallarmé’s dictum that “one must be absolutely modern” has become a duty to stay up-to-date. But given the lack of historical occasions which could represent an opportunity to experience the core of our era – pivotal revolutionary moments of significant social change or upheaval – a participation in the eternal renewal of the contemporary might not be completely misguided, for it at least invokes a longing for the specter of an enthusiasm that asks for more than just the newest technological gadget.

6.
But, once again, the devil of contemporaneousness does its deed: whereas the system of modern art was territorialized in a centrifugal structure of centers and peripheries around modernity’s historical monopoly in the liberal-capitalist enclave of the North Atlantic, we now face a regime of international generalization transmitting the pandemic of the contemporary to the last recesses of the earth. In fact, the main reason for the craze surrounding the contemporary art market in recent years (and for its not having immediately collapsed after the plunge of global capitalism) has been the market’s lateral extension: bourgeoises who would previously buy work within their local art circuits became part of a new private jet set of global elites consuming the same brand of artistic products, ensuring spiraling sales and the celebration of an age in which endless “editions” allow artworks to be disseminated throughout an extended geography. In turn, each enclave of these globalized elites drives the development of a contemporary art infrastructure in their own city, using a standard mixture of global art references and local “emergent” schools. Contemporary art is defined by a new global social context in which disenfranchised wealthy individuals (who have abdicated their roles as industrial and commerce managers to the bureaucracy of CEOs) seek a certain civic identity through aesthetic “philanthropy.” In this fashion they interact with a new social economy of services performed by artists, critics, and curators – services with symbolic capital that rests on an ability to trade in a semblance of “the contemporary.” Contemporary art thus becomes the social new private jet set and a jet proletariat.

7.
This new machinery of the dialectic between the global elites of financial capitalism and the nomadic agents of global culture would be easy to dismiss as critically meaningless were it not for the way “the contemporary” also stands for the leveling of the temporal perception of cultural geography and of a certain political orientation. Particularly for those who come from the so-called periphery (the South and the former socialist world), “the contemporary” still carries a certain utopian ring. For indeed, notwithstanding the cunning imbalances of power that prevail in the art world, the mere fact of intervening in the matrix of contemporary culture constitutes a major political and historical conquest. The global art circus of biennales, fairs, and global art museums has forced an end to the use of a metaphor that understood geography in terms of historical succession – it is no longer possible to rely upon the belatedness of the South in presuming that artistic culture goes from the center to the periphery. Although it probably does not seem so extraordinary now, the voicing of the need to represent the periphery in the global art circuits was, to a great extent, a claim to the right to participate in producing “the contemporary.” And while the critical consequences of the policies of inclusion are less central to the agenda of the South than the critique of stereotypes, the activation of social memory, and the pursuit of different kinds of cultural agency, it remains the case that “contemporary art” marks the stage at which different geographies and localities are finally considered within the same network of questions and strategies. Art becomes “contemporary” in the strong sense when it refers to the progressive obsolescence of narratives that concentrated cultural innovation so completely in colonial and imperial metropolises as to finally identify modernism with what we ought to properly describe as “NATO art.”

8.
This is not to say that such a process of inclusion is free from its own deformities: in many instances, a peculiar neurosis provoked by the stereotyping of ethnic, regional, or national authenticity and the pressures to accommodate art from the periphery into a subsidiary category of metropolitan referents produces so-called “alternative modernism” or “global conceptualism.” Nonetheless, the inclusion of the South in the narratives of “the contemporary” has already disrupted the genealogies of the present, such as the simplified concept of the “post-conceptual” that arose in the late 1980s to describe an apparent commonality between the radical artistic revolutions of the 1960s and the advanced art of its day. In its various historical and geographical settings, “contemporary art” claims a circularity between 1968, conceptualism, Brazilian Neo-Concretism or the French Nouvelle Vague, and recent works trapped in perpetual historical mirroring. In this sense, to paraphrase Walter Benjamin, “contemporary art” appears as the figure of a revolution in standstill, awaiting the moment of resolution.

9.
Complicated as this may be, however, it does not blur the radical significance of the cultural transformation that took place in artistic practice in the years after 1960. One crucial element of “contemporary art” is the embrace of a certain “unified field” in the concept of art. Beyond the de-definition of specific media, skills, and disciplines, there is some radical value in the fact that “the arts” seem to have merged into a single multifarious and nomadic kind of practice that forbids any attempt at specification beyond the micro-narratives that each artist or cultural movement produces along the way. If “contemporary art” refers to the confluence of a general field of activities, actions, tactics, and interventions falling under the umbrella of a single poetic matrix and within a single temporality, it is because they occupy the ruins of the “visual arts.” In this sense, “contemporary art” carries forward the lines of experimentation and revolt found in all kinds of disciplines and arts that were brought “back to order” after 1970, forced to reconstitute their tradition. “Contemporary art” then becomes the sanctuary of repressed experimentation and the questioning of subjectivity that was effectively contained in any number of arts, discourses, and social structures following the collapse of the twentieth century’s revolutionary projects. I suspect that the circularity of our current cultural narratives will only be broken once we stop experiencing contemporary culture as the déjà vu of a revolution that never entirely took place.

10.
By the same token, it is no coincidence that the institutions, media, and cultural structures of the contemporary art world have become the last refuge of political and intellectual radicalism. As various intellectual traditions of the left appear to be losing ground in political arenas and social discourses, and despite the way art is entwined with the social structures of capitalism, contemporary art circuits are some of the only remaining spaces in which leftist thought still circulates as public discourse. In a world where academic circuits have ossified and become increasingly isolated, and where the classical modern role of the public intellectual dwindles before the cataclysmic power of media networks and the balkanization of political opinion, it should come as no surprise that contemporary art has (momentarily) become something like the refuge of modern radicalism. If we should question the ethical significance of participating in contemporary art circuits, this sole fact ought to vindicate us. Just as the broken lineages of experimental music, cinema, and literature finally found themselves in the formless and undefined poetic space of contemporary art in general, we should not be shocked to find the cultural sector – apparently most compromised by the celebration of capitalism – functioning as the vicarious public sphere in which trends such as deconstruction, postcolonial critique, post-Marxism, social activism, and psychoanalytic theory are grounded. It would seem that, just as the art object poses a continuous mystery – a space of resistance and reflection leading towards enlightenment – so do the institutions and power structures of contemporary art also function as the critical self-consciousness of capitalist hypermodernity.

11.
However, given the negative relationship of art to its own time, one would suspect the current radicalization of art and the constant politicization of its practice to be dangerous symptoms. Just as modern art rescued forms of practice, sensibility, and skills that were crushed by the industrial system, so does contemporary art seem to have the task of protecting cultural critique and social radicalism from the banality of the present. Unlike theorists who lament the apparent co-opting of radicalism and critique by the official sphere of art, we would need to consider the possibility that our task may consist, in large part, of protecting utopia – seen as the necessary collusion of the past with what lies ahead – from its demise at the hands of the ideology of present time. This is, to be sure, an uncomfortable inheritance. At the end of the day, it involves the memory of failure and a necessary infatuation with the powers of history. I do not know a better way to describe such a genealogy than by offering a quotation from the Dada artist and historian Hans Richter, who summarized the experience of Dada as that of “the vacuum created by the sudden arrival of freedom and the possibilities it seemed to offer.”² And it may well be that contemporary art’s ethical imperative is to deal with the ambivalence of the experience of emancipation. If art has indeed become the sanctuary of revolutionary thought, it is because it deals with the memory of a number of ambiguous interruptions. With this, we hopefully find an advantage to the constant collision of perfume and theory that we experience in contemporary art events around the world.

WiederabdruckDieser Text erschien zuerst in: e-flux journal # 12, Januar 2010, http://www.e-flux.com/journal/contemptorary-eleven-theses/ [29.5.2013].

1.) Stendhal, Oeuvres complètes, ed. Georges Eudes (Paris: Larrive, 1954), 16:27, quoted in Matei Calinescu, Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avantgarde, Decadence, Kitsch, Postmodernism, 2nd ed. (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987), 4.
2.) Hans Richter, Dada: Art and Anti-Art (New York: Thames & Hudson, 1997), 136.

Contemporary Extracts

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:39 +0000

On this occasion I will simply quote from several of the responses I received to a questionnaire – subsequently published in October magazine – about “contemporary art.” First, my questions:

The category of “contemporary art” is not a new one. What is new is the sense that, in its very heterogeneity, much present practice seems to float free of historical determination, conceptual definition, and critical judgment. Such paradigms as “the neo-avant-garde” and “postmodernism,” which once oriented some art and theory, have run into the sand, and, arguably, no models of much explanatory reach or intellectual force have risen in their stead. At the same time, perhaps paradoxically, “contemporary art” has become an institutional object in its own right: in the academic world there are professorships and programs, and in the museum world departments and institutions, all devoted to the subject, and most tend to treat it as apart not only from prewar practice but from most postwar practice as well.
Is this floating-free real or imagined? A merely local perception? A simple effect of the end-of-grand-narratives? If it is real, how can we specify some of its principal causes, that is, beyond general reference to “the market” and “globalization”? Or is it indeed a direct outcome of a neoliberal economy, one that, moreover, is now in crisis? What are some of its salient consequences for artists, critics, curators, and historians – for their formation and their practice alike? Are there collateral effects in other fields of art history? Are there instructive analogies to be drawn from the situation in other arts and disciplines? Finally, are there benefits to this apparent lightness of being? ¹
As you can see, the questions are directed at critics and curators based in North America and Western Europe; I hope they do not appear too provincial as a result. I have arranged the extracts with an eye to connections that exist between them. My purpose here is simply to suggest the state of the debate on “the contemporary” in my part of the world today.
First from Grant Kester, a historian of contemporary art, based in southern California:
The problem of “the contemporary” is rooted in a tension that emerged when Western art history was first formalized as a discipline. The generation of European historians that helped establish the discipline in the mid-nineteenth century found itself confronted by a vast range of new and unfamiliar artifacts that were circulating throughout Europe as a result of colonial expansion into Africa, Asia, and the Americas, as well as early archaeological excavations in Italy and Greece. Historians and philosophers raised the question of how contemporary viewers could transcend the differences that existed between themselves and very different cultures whose works of art they admired – cultures whose shared meanings were inaccessible to them due to distances of time or space.
Then from James Elkins, a meta-theorist of art history, based in Chicago:
From the perspectives of “world art history” and its critics today, “the contemporary” would appear to be either exempted from the discipline of art history, because of its position outside or before art histories, or exemplary of the discipline, because of its newfound universality (i. e., by definition “the contemporary” exists everywhere).
Next from Miwon Kwon, a contemporary art critic and historian based in Los Angeles:
Contemporary art history sits at a crossroads in the uneven organization of the subfields that comprise the discipline of art history. Within most university art history departments, one group of subfields covering Western developments is organized chronologically, as periods (i. e., from Ancient to Modern, with Medieval and Renaissance in between). Another group of subfields that covers non-Western developments is identified geographically, as culturally discrete units even if they encompass an entire continent (i. e., African, Chinese, Latin American, etc.) The category of contemporary art history, while institutionally situated as coming after the Modern, following the temporal axis of Western art history as the most recent period (starting in 1945 or 1960 depending on how a department divides up faculty workload or intellectual territory), is also the space in which the contemporaneity of histories from around the world must be confronted simultaneously as a disjunctive yet continuous intellectual horizon, integral to the understanding of the present (as a whole). Contemporary art history, in other words, marks both a temporal bracketing and a spatial encompassing, a site of a deep tension between very different formations of knowledge and traditions, and thus a challenging pressure point for the field of art history in general.
For instance, what is the status of contemporary Chinese art history? What is the time frame for such a history? How closely should it be linked to Chinese art, cultural, or political history? How coordinated should it be with Western art history or aesthetic discourse? Is contemporary Chinese art history a subfield of contemporary art history? Or are they comparable categories, with the presumption that the unnamed territory of contemporary art history is Western/American?
Then from Joshua Shannon, a historian of postwar art, from the mid-Atlantic area near Washington, D.C.:
In the last twenty-five years, the academic study of contemporary art has grown from a fringe of art history to the fastest-developing field in the discipline. It is not so long ago that dissertations on living artists were all but prohibited, while statistics published this year by the College Art Association confirm that job searches in contemporary art history now outnumber those in any other specialization, with almost twice as many positions in the field, for example, as in Renaissance and Baroque combined. We might wonder whether a discipline too long afraid of the present has now become besotted with it.
Next from Richard Meyer, a theorist of “the contemporary,“ based in Los Angeles:
Recently, I have put to my “contemporary” students several questions that are at once straightforward and aggressive. Why are you studying art history if what you really want is to write about the current moment? Where are the archival and research materials on which you will draw – in the files of a commercial gallery, in a drawer in the artist’s studio, in the works of art themselves, in a series of interviews that you intend to conduct with the artist, in a theoretical paradigm that you plan to apply to the work, or in an ideological critique of the current moment? What distinguishes your practice as a contemporary art historian from that of an art critic? And how does the history of art matter to the works you plan to write about and to the scholarly contribution you hope to make?
Then from Pamela Lee, a scholar on postwar art, based in San Francisco:
Call it “the moving target syndrome.” At what point does a stack of press releases turn into something like a proper reception history? How do you write about a contemporary artist whose work shifts radically in mid-stream? And what does one do when the topics that seemed so pressing and so critical just a few short art-world seasons back lose that sense of urgency? There is, then, a paradoxical way we might characterize the problem: contemporary art history is premature because it is always in a perpetual state of becoming, one that alternates endlessly between novelty and critical (as well as commercial) exhaustion.
Next from Mark Godfrey, a young curator of contemporary art at Tate Modern in London:
If it is correct that no “paradigms” have emerged in the place of those such as “the neo-avant-garde” and “postmodernism,” then one should first look precisely to the success of those discourses to understand why. The critical discourse of postmodernism caused most historians and critics to distrust any overarching and monolithic model that would account for what is most compelling about contemporary art. At the same time, following the impact of postcolonial theory and a simple widening of our horizons, American and European art historians and curators have become far more attentive to contemporary art as it emerges across the world. Most acknowledge that serious art is being made in China, Latin America, South Africa, and so on, but few have the opportunities to see what is being made. With this situation, who would presume to name a new paradigm? A new name would assume a totalizing explanatory power and be akin to a hubristic, neocolonial move. One also begins to distrust the presumptions of the previous paradigms. How useful are the terms “neo-avant-garde” or “postmodernism” when we think about the art that emerged in centers away from North America and Western Europe where modernism and the avant-garde signified quite differently?
Then from Terry Smith, an Australian art historian with special expertise on the contemporary, based in Pittsburgh:
How has the current world-picture changed since the aftermath of the Second World War led to the reconstruction of an idea of Europe, since decolonization opened up Africa and Asia, with China and India emerging to superpower status but others cycling downwards, since the era of revolution versus dictatorship in South America led first to the imposition of neoliberal economic regimes and then to a continent-wide swing towards populist socialism? As the system built on First-, Second-, Third-, and Fourth-world divisions imploded, what new arrangements of power came into being? Now that the post-1989 juggernaut of one hyperpower, unchecked neoliberalism, historical self-realization, and the global distribution of ever-expanding production and consumption tips over the precipice, what lies in the abyss it has created? Above all, how do we, in these circumstances, connect the dots between world-picturing and place-making, the two essential parameters of our being?
Next from Alex Alberro, a Canadian historian of postwar art, based in New York:
The contemporary is witnessing the emergence of a new technological imaginary following upon the unexpected and unregulated global expansion of the new communication and information technologies of the Internet. For one thing, technological art objects have increasingly come to replace tangible ones in art galleries and museums, which have seen an upsurge in high-tech hybrids of all kinds, from digital photography, to film and video installations, to computer and other new-media art. The “white cube” has begun to be replaced by the “black box,” and the small-screen film or video monitor by the large-scale wall projection. For another thing, the image has come to replace the object as the central concern of artistic production and analysis. In the academy, the rise of visual studies in this period is symptomatic of the new preeminence of the image. Furthermore, the imaginary of this shift from analog to digital has had a number of unpredictable effects. One of the most striking of these is the proliferation of artworks that employ fiction and animation to narrate facts, as if to say that today the real must be fictionalized in order to be thought, that the real is so mind-boggling that it is easier to comprehend by analogy.
Then from Tim Griffin, editor-in-chief of Artforum, based in New York:
The potential irony of contemporary art is that by signaling its stand apart, this art actually articulates itself as another niche within the broader cultural context – as just one more interest among so many others. Such a development is paradoxical in its implications. It becomes increasingly important for art to assert its own distinctiveness in order to exist – often by reinscribing itself within its various histories, projecting previous eras’ interpretive models onto present circumstances – at the same time that such an assertion makes art resemble current mass culture all the more.
Next from Yates McKee, a young activist/critic based in the Midwest:
The multiple institutionalizations of contemporary art entail new modes of affiliation, possibility, and complicity for artistic and critical activity. Without disavowing the urgency of macro-systemic analysis, assessing these entanglements is a matter of close, site-specific reading rather than blanket celebration or denunciation. This means refusing to reduce contemporary art to a flavor-of-the-month novelty either as peddled by art-market boosters, on the one hand, or as preemptively dismissed by guardians of art-historical authority on the basis of melancholic – and often hypocritically self-exculpating – narratives of “the cultural logic of late capitalism,” on the other. Following the example of curator and critic Okwui Enwezor, the increasingly transnational scope of contemporary art in discursive, institutional, and economic terms needs to be recognized as a productive intellectual challenge to entrenched artistic, critical, and historical traditions, requiring the latter two to engage artistic practice in light of the ongoing contradictions of what Enwezor has called the “postcolonial constellation.”
Then from T. J. Demos, a historian of contemporary art, based in London:
One risk is to fall victim to the ultimately patronizing multicultural “respect” for difference that disavows any criticality whatsoever. The latter potentially disguises a neocolonial relation to the Other, as Slavoj Zˇizˇek argues, for whom multiculturalism may disclose “a disavowed, inverted, self-referential form of racism, a ‘racism with a distance’ – it ‘respects’ the Other’s identity, conceiving the Other as a self-enclosed ‘authentic’ community towards which he, the multiculturalist, maintains a distance rendered possible by his privileged universal position.”²
Next from Kelly Baum, a young curator of contemporary art at my home institution, Princeton University:
What if art’s heterogeneity signals possibility instead of dysfunction? What if heterogeneity is art’s pursuit instead of its affliction? What if, in its very heterogeneity, art were to productively engage current socio-political conditions – conditions that are reducible to neither neo-liberalism nor globalization?
I think what we are seeing today is art miming its context. I think we are witnessing art performing “agonism,“ “disaggregation,“ and “particularization.“ Heterogeneity isn’t just contemporary art’s condition, in other words; it is its subject as well.
Finally from Rachel Haidu, a young historian of postwar art, based in upstate New York:
Why – other than for the narcissistic pleasures related to knowing – do we want a relationship to history? Your questions frame the relevance of history to our critical relationships to art, but what about those desires, fantasies, and displacements of which criticism is made? Certainly they are wedged into our criticism of art’s relation to history. When art forces us to examine them in specific and productive ways, we are lucky: otherwise, what is the point of asking art (let alone the institutionalization of art) to find historical complexity or weight? For the sake of weight alone? To reassure us of our relations to a history without which we would feel … guilty? Irrelevant?

1.) Hal Foster for the Editors, “Questionnaire on ‘The Contemporary,’” October 130 (Fall 2009): 3.
2.) Slavoj Zˇizˇek, “Multiculturalism, Or, the Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism,”New Left Review 225 (Sept/Oct 1997): 44.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien unter http://www.e-flux.com/journal/contemporary-extracts/ [15.3.2013].

I think to make art is to make a break. And to make a cut. There’s a cut in the continuity of being, in the continuity of survival

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:38 +0000

CH/MH: Is there an artwork that had a lasting effect on you?
MD: The work of Samuel Beckett. I mean the importance it had for me and for the particular historic moment of the end of the twentieth century. I think he is the one who went the furthest in a certain way. There are various reasons for this, and I think one of them has to do with an enormous will to reduction. What Beckett did was to create an infinitely shrinkable world. There is never little enough. You can always take away more.
Take the “Three Novels: Molloy, Malone Dies, the Unnamable”. In the beginning, there is some sort of plot. Some sort of characters. In the second novel you have Malone, who is dying alone in his room and who invents stories as he is waiting for death. The space has shrunk, there is no more travel. And then you have the third novel, where you don’t even have this. You don’t even have a space, you don’t even have a character, you just have a voice. A voice, which just rambles on and continues, and it doesn’t matter what it says in the end. It’s just a sheer thrust of perseverance, of persistence, which carries the whole thing. So just persist. You have to go on. And you know how this ends, it ends in the most beautiful way: “I must go on. I can’t go on. I will go on“.
I think this is incredible literature, I don’t think literature has ever gone this far this radically. This is just so completely reduced. A bare minimum. And extremely powerful.

So what is art actually?
I think to make art is to make a break. And to make a cut. This would be the simplest way of answering your question.
But there are different ways of answering. One of them would go to Freud’s theory. I think what Freud conceives as drive, ‘der Trieb’, actually has to do with the transition between something natural and a creation of a separate space, and that everything he describes as the specificity of culture actually has to do with the structure of the drive. The drive is as if it were swording. Swording of a natural hang. It gets sworded towards a different sort of end.
I speak about a sort of natural need, but which in the process of its satisfaction actually gets sworded. It produces something else than merely the satisfaction of a natural need. If you look at the way Freud describes culture in the “Unbehagen in der Kultur“, he defines culture using a list.
And the first point would be the question of tools. We’re getting more and more tools in order to be the masters of nature, so that we can do all the magic things, we can look at far away distances through the telescope, we can see the invisibles in the microscope, we can talk through distance with the telephone, we can do absolutely magical things. And Freud uses the wonderful word, he says: “Der Mensch ist ein Prothesengott“. So he’s a god with prostheses. You just need some prostheses and you are god. So, you have these extensions of the body. And what actually the drive to master nature produces at the same time – something more than the simple mastering of nature – it produces prostheses, a sort of ‘in between space’, a space which elongates your body, prolongs your body into the world. The airy space between the inner and the outer is libidinally invested.

Do you have any idea of what good art is? Which art do you regard as good?
Well, this is not a subjective question. There is a strong tendency to bring art to the question of taste. And the question of taste is kind of dangerous because it always goes down to the question of narcissism. There is something profoundly narcissistic in the judgement of preference. ‘I prefer this, I drew connaissances, I prefer the late Beethoven quartets against symphonies.’ The difference which means difference as such and which means that you are distinguished and that you can distinguish yourself from the common lot of people by being the man of refined taste, to see all these differences that the others don’t see.
I have this conception of art, which is that art has to do with universality and infinity. It introduces something into the continuity of being, into the continuity of our survival. A break. Which is a universal break. A break to universality. It can speak universal. What is important in art is not a question whether it is an expression of a certain individual or whether it is an expression of a certain ethnic group or nation or of a certain age.
I think that the break is such that it turns the universal into particularities. But the problem is, how to do this within your subjective means, which are at your disposal, within the nation to which you belong, or language, or culture, within a particular type of civilisation, within this historic moment – which are all very finite things. How to produce universality and infinity out of this? And this I think is the moment of art. And this is not a production of spirit, this is a material production of the break. And I very much like this saying, which is on T-shirts like: “Art is a dirty business, but somebody has got to do it“. You have to get your hands dirty. This is a very material thing. You produce the idea with the material. With the material, with the matter, it has always been the sensual that one works with in art. And trying to immediately get to universality or the infinity of a beyond, an idea, the sublime or whatever – this is, I think, a big mistake. You cannot do this. You just have to produce it the hard way. But it depends on being able to produce a break.
And from there it has to be judged. I don’t think it can be judged from the question of taste, it’s not just a question of whether I like it or not. It has the power to produce universality. It creates a potential virtual audience, which goes far beyond this. And I think the awareness that is going beyond this, beyond my particular taste and reaction, is what makes good art.

Is art a benefit for society? Why does there have to be someone who does this dirty job?
Well, I think that in the question with which I started, the question of drawing a line, making a cut in the continuity of our animal or social being, of our finite being, that this is what defines humanity. I’m not saying that art is the only way to do this. I think thought is something which does this also, it breaks with the conditions of its own production. A sort of firm practitioner philosophy. I think philosophy similarly, but also very differently makes a perceptional break in the continuity of particular received ways of thinking.
We have one of the definitions of men, like homo sapiens as the thinking animal, but the trouble is that thought is very rare. It’s not that men think all the time, it happens very rarely. There are very few occasions when thought happens and when it does, it seriously changes the very parameters of the ways you conceive the world, yourself, whatever. There’s a handful of thinkers. This is a strange thing in the history of philosophy, there’s only a handful of thinkers with which we have to deal continually. But I don’t think – this is important – that thought is some sort of prerogative of philosophy, that philosophers are very special because they have this specialisation in thought. I don’t think that at all. I think thought can happen anywhere. In silence and …

Does it also happen in art?
Oh yes. It does most definitely. It has a different way and the question of art working with sensual, sensuous material means is very important, it’s a materialised thought. It’s the thought which works within the matter and shapes the matter. It is attached to matter. This is very important, the materiality of thought. And I think it does actually happen in a number of areas of human endeavour. And art is one of the most reflected.

Which are the others?
Do you know the work of Alain Badiou? He has made a list of four truth procedures, four areas where truth emerges.
These are: Science, completely constructed science like mathematics. It doesn’t refer to anything in the world. You just create your own entities, pure entities. Then: Poetry and art as such. Then politics. Politics not of opinions but politics of truth. I mean there’s an opposition. Democracy basically is a democracy of opinions. Anybody is free to hold any kind of opinion and then you count the votes. This is not a politics of truth. There is a sort of truth at stake in politics, which has to do with justice and equality and all kinds of things, but it has to do with an idea. And then there is the question of love, which is the emergence of a truth event somehow. A subjective truth event.
Badiou lists the four areas as the areas in which this break happens. And I don’t know if this list is the best or conclusive in some sense. Maybe this list is too neat in some way. I think things are messier in life. In many everyday situations, which actually suddenly end quite unexpectedly, people show an inventive creativity and do something very unexpected. And actually change the parameters of the situation and their own lives and the lives of others. I would leave this field open.

I just had this spontaneous thought if humour might be one of those areas, too?
Well, humour is one of the … Yes, you have an old suggestion which goes back to Aristotle, that man is a laughing animal. You have the various proposals of definitions of men, one is the thinking animal and one is the tool-making animal, which goes back to Benjamin Franklin. Marx takes this up that one defines man as a tool. And then you have Aristotle’s suggestion: Man is a laughing animal. So the only animal that can laugh – to laugh at what? To laugh, precisely, at being able to produce a certain break. The break in meaning. One way of describing this where I started – to make a break, to make a cut – is also to make a break in meaning in order to produce sense, if I may use this Deleuzian opposition between meaning and sense. And sense is the sort of unexpected thing which emerges. In order to produce this you have to cut down the usual expectation of meaning. The very horizon of meaning in which you move, in which you live your life. And this is the capacity of art.
Well, as far as humour is concerned, I would just point out that there’s a question of humour and there’s a question of ‘Witz’. Freud has written a book on ‘Witz’ and a different paper on humour and he says that those things are absolutely not to be confused. Additionally, there’s a question of comedy and there’s a question of irony. So we have four different things, which are not the same. We may laugh as a result, but there is laughter and laughter. Laughter itself does not have to be subversive. It can also be very conservative.

Who becomes an artist? What is it that makes people become artists?
I don’t think there’s a rule. There’s the capacity. The break making capacity. The way that we relate to ourselves is always conditioned by a break; This is a question of redoubling. Culture is a question of redoubling: it redoubles the normal life. It redoubles into something else.

But still there are some people who don’t become artists or intellectuals.
No no, of course. I think the capacity is there. But that is a capacity which defines humanity. And … how the hell do you become an artist? What particular things have to come together? I think what makes the greatness of art is precisely its singularity. Which means that if you could establish this rule, art would stop to be art.

But couldn’t it be that there is some reason why people start to make art? Robert Pfaller once suggested that artists might have some traumatic experience that they – all their lives – try to handle by making art.
Don’t we all have to handle some sort of traumatic experience? It’s very hard to say. I mean the question has been asked many times, so you have art schools which can precisely teach you everything except your sensuality.

Yeah, but art school starts at a moment where you already decided to go to art school. Who is likely to go to art school? So there are two aspects of this question. The one is: How do you become a good artist? The other question – which actually interests me – is: Why does someone want to become an artist? No matter if good or bad, if successful or not: what makes a person take up this way?
If you want to become an artist, what do you want to become? If I take some of the greatest musicians of all times, like Bach and Mozart or Haydn. You can see what? Who was Haydn? He was hired by the Esterhazy family as a craftsman. I mean, did he want to become an artist? I don’t think he ever thought of himself in that way actually. He was a paid craftsman. And if you look at Mozart, all the time he was trying to get hired by some court or something. If you look at Bach, who was employed by the church in Leipzig to produce a piece of music for mass every week.
It was not a question of genius or inspiration. You were hired. Because this was another craft and I don’t think anybody would look at themselves this way today. If you want to become an artist you don’t want to become a craftsman. You see yourself as a person with a special vocation, which goes beyond usual vocations.

Let’s stick to today’s understanding of art: Do you think artists are narcissistic?
The question of art and narcissism … I would say that on the one hand it’s profoundly narcissistic. It’s usually linked with a project of profound narcissism. But I don’t think that this is what makes art. As I said before: art is not expression. It’s not an expression of yourself. People may want to do it for that reason, to express themselves, but what makes the break and what makes the universal appeal, the claim of art, is not a question of whether they express themselves well or not. It’s just not the question by which art is ever judged. So on the one hand I’m sure that the motivation for doing this is in most cases narcissistic.

Did I understand you right when you said art is not an expression – could you say art is one of the ‘Prothesen’?
Yes. Oh yes.

I really like this picture.
The ‘Prothesengott’? Yes. But, well, Freud uses this in the context of technology and tool-making.

I have the feeling that it’s very good, maybe not only for tools.
Yes. It’s a good thing. It’s not just a question of tool. A tool is never a tool. It’s a libidinally invested extension of the body.

So you could also say art is a libidinal extension of yourself. Of the body.
Well, it has something to do with the libidinal extension. The way Freud introduces it, it has more to do with technology than with art. But I think it’s nevertheless a useful metaphor, also to think about art.

Could you also call it ‘object a’? Art as an extension towards ‘object a’?
Yes, of course. I didn’t want to use the heavily technical Lacanian language for this. I mean this could be described in another language, but what Lacan calls ‘objet a’ is precisely the transition object. The object of transition between the interior and exterior, neither falls into interior nor the external world out there; the objective world. I mean it’s neither subjective nor objective. In this sense it’s always in this zone of indeterminacy, in the zone, which is opened in between. And which is the zone of ‘Prothesen’ if you want, I mean the Prothesen always fill the zone: you put something between subjects and objects. You extend your body into the world, but the world extends into you.

Would you agree that artists and philosophers share similarities in the realities they live in?
Yes. I think there’s a lot of common ground. The tools with which they work are different, but I think they work on a common ground and that they can’t be clearly delineated. One way of differentiation – which I particularly dislike – is to say that artists have the passions and the feelings and they work with this and philosophers have the reason and understanding and they work with this. I don’t think this opposition is worth anything. It never works this way. I think that any human activity has both: indiscriminately has passion and reason inscribed into it.
If you look at the history of philosophy – look at Plato, look at Spinoza, look at St. Augustin, look at Hegel, Marx, Kant, Wittgenstein – there is a huge passion. This is terrible passion you have in this. They are passion-driven. These are not works of intellect. This is a completely wrong and common conception of philosophy that they just rationalise with some concepts. If it doesn’t involve the passionate attachment and the passionate involvement, then it’s not philosophy. There is very, very serious passion at work in this. And at the opposite end I think there is very, very precise thinking involved in art. If not it’s just no good art.

We were talking about passion and reason – do you think artists or philosophers can have a family? Do you think it can be organised to do such an ambitious or passionate work and to have love for people?
I think on the general level I don’t see why it should be exclusive. But this is not a question which concerns only art. I think it’s a question which concerns any sort of passionate attachment to your profession. I mean it could be a lawyer, a politician, a scientist, all kinds of things. It can be sport. It can be all kinds of things and it does produce problems, very practical problems, how the hell you deal with your family, with your love, with your private life. I think it very much depends on what kind of person you are. There are people who would somehow erase this and there are people who would always find ways, no matter how. They can work twenty hours a day but they will nevertheless find a way to have a private life.

And what can you tell me about passion? Where does it come from and what can you do to prevent its disappearance?
To prevent its disappearance?

Is there anything that can be done?
Have you ever read Ovid? “Remedia Amoris“, the remedies against love. The question that he asks is the opposite. Not how to keep the passion going but how to help from prevent it happening.
You can see through this a thousand years of antiquity: It’s not the problem how to keep your passion alive. It’s a problem of detachment. “Remedia Amoris“ are rather humorous. Ovid’s advice is: don’t go for it. Keep your mind, otherwise you go crazy. Passion is folly. This is a bad thing for you. It would completely ruin your life. So you have a history of passions. this is a stage of antiquity and then you have a certain stage of Christianity which again is very differentiated in itself. I mean the passion is the passion of Christ. So the passion worth having is the passion in this other sense. There is a passion worth having and which is this suffering you must undergo in order to be a worthy person, to be worthy of redemption. So this underscores, this gives the word passion a very different meaning. It comes from ‘patior’, ‘passus’, which means suffering. Like ‘Leidenschaft’ comes from ‘leiden’.
If I put it in this very, very reduced, simplistic way, the question of passion, which drives you, the question of passionate love is a question of romantic love, a certain conception of romantic love, which we deal with.

It’s a very interesting point that you made about the difference between trying to get rid of it or trying to keep it alive. You said before philosophy is always passionate, driven, so in this way it’s actually necessary to keep it. I didn’t only mean passion in private life, but also as an activating thing like in your work.
Yes, there has to be a passion which drives this. There’s an interesting passage in Helvetius. Helvetius, he was an enlightenment French philosopher and he has written this book ‘De l’esprit’ in 1759 and the book was actually burnt at that time and banned. He has a passage there which I always found terribly funny, he says: “Why are passionate people more intelligent than others?“ And he completely overturns this at either having intelligence – and then you can control your passions – or if you let the passions have the upper hand, then you lose your head. He puts these two together and he says: People never use their intelligence. I mean unless you are driven by a serious passion you won’t use the capacity for intelligence. It’s only the passionate people who are intelligent. Otherwise people are lazy. Come on, why use your head? You can always get along somehow. So, it’s only the passion, which actually drives you to use your reason. And this is just a funny way of putting it that you can’t see the two as being on opposed sides.

Do you have an influence on it, can you do something to keep it or to feed it?
I think passion is what drives you, drives you towards something. And it’s not that passion as such is enough. It’s not that it just drives you and you let yourself be driven. It actually demands a hell of a lot if you want to pursue this passion! It demands that you put something at stake, to risk.
To risk the usual ways of your life, the ‘bequemes Leben’, if you are lucky enough to have a comfortable social position. You have reduced yourself to the question of biological and social survival within a certain slot. And this is where the question of break comes in. The passion is what makes a break. But the break, it conditions, it demands a hell of a lot of ‘Anstrengung’ and you have to put things at risk. Sometimes drastically at risk. You risk everything for the question of passion, to pursue your passion.
What Freud names ‘Todestrieb’ (death drive) in “Jenseits des Lustprinzips“ (“Beyond the Pleasure Principle“) is too much of life. There’s too much of life, more than you can bear. So this is the excessive moment which derails the usual course of things and in order to pursue this it takes a lot of courage or persistence, perseverance. I think most people give up at a certain point. There are many ways of giving up, also as an artist. One way of giving up is to somehow be content with your role or to … ‘übereinstimmen’. So that you consent to being that role. And this is a socially assigned role which can bring glories, which can bring awards. If it started with a break – the break starts functioning as the institution of the break. The break itself gets institutionalised and highly valued.

It has a place then.
Yes, it has a place then. Freud has this wonderful phrase “people ruined by their own success“. It’s a wonderful phrase. And I think that in art many people are ruined by their own success. Precisely by succeeding in what they wanted to do and then they fit into this. They have made an institution of themselves and somehow started to believe that they are this. You have this wonderful phrase in Lacan: who is a madman? It’s not just an ordinary person who thinks that he’s a king. The definition of madman is a king who thinks that he’s a king. And you have this madness among artists who believe that they are artists. This is psychosis in a certain sense if you really think that you are what you are. You really think that you are an artist. This is the end of art, I think.

You were saying that one has to be courageous to proceed with passionate work. I have the feeling that there is another big thing, besides from missing courage, which might be a cushion for passion: The desire for containment, for feeling secure. I don’t know the best translation, I mean ‘Geborgenheit’.
Geborgenheit?

Yeah. You know Geborgenheit? Feeling secure.
Security, yes. Sicherheit.

A warm feeling.
Feeling at home. Is there a good way to feel at home? I don’t know. I think there’s always an ideological trap in this. What you mostly feel at home with is always ideology because it offers a sort of security. I mean security in the sense of providing a certain status within which you can dwell. And also security of meaning, which means it provides you with: “what does it all mean?”. ‘We live in parliamentary democracy, we’re a free society, in the era of progress and prosperity’, etc. I mean the worlds which somehow fulfil a certain horizon of meaning which situates you within a certain social moment and social structure, within a certain type of social relations. And this is always ideology, ideology is what makes this run. And I think that the break that we are talking about – the break with meaning or the break with the continuity of things – it could be described as a break with ideology. Art and ideology are at opposite ends. Art always makes a break, a cut into the ideological continuing of what you most feel at home with. I mean which is entrusted upon you. And this is not to say that art is not ideology, it can easily be turned into ideology.

At that point when you feel content.
Yes. When you feel content in your role. One could make a certain opposition between art and culture. I think culture is a sort of domestication of art. You have canonical artworks, which you are taught, at school. And it’s a question of what comes into the canon and is it a good thing to have a canon or how to include, exclude works. Of course you always have a canon. There’s no escaping this, but at the same time you have to understand that culture is always a domestification of what is dangerous or excessive in art. It domesticates things by giving them a sort of proper place and value. You can say: ‘Well, Shakespeare is the greatest dramatist of all time.’ I mean it’s quite true, but it’s also a very forced statement to somehow domesticate Shakespeare’s work.

It ends their quality of being a break by giving them a place.
Yeah. Giving them a certain continuity.

I have the feeling it’s a regressive desire.
For home?

Yeah. Isn’t it?
Yes. Ultimately yes. I think that being at home means being in the ideology and being in the meaning and having some sort of meaning secured. And I think that creating home as a way of being with yourself – or being with another person – is precisely to try to deal with the unhomely element of it. To keep the unhomely element of it alive. I think that love is keeping the non-homely element alive. It’s not to finally ‘go home’ with someone, but actually to keep this thing in the air. Keep this thing in the air. And comedy is precisely – to keep the ball in the air. Keep the ball in the air, I mean constantly.

So then I can come to my last question: How can one become happy in life?
(laughing): It beats me!

So this is why I kept it till the end. Is there a good strategy?
Ah, god knows!

Conny Habbel met Mladen Dolar on June 5, 2009 in Ljubljana.

Wiederabdruck
Dieses Interview erschien zuerst im Onlinemagazin „WIE GEHT KUNST?“ (www.wiegehtkunst.com) der Künstlerinnen Conny Habbel und Marlene Haderer.

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].