[- Who is faking it: artists or activists, or both?
|
|
By TreborScholz, Section review-a-rama Posted on Sun May 4th, 2003 at 11:29:03 PM EURODISCORDIA TIME
|
Brian Holmes' provocative opening to his recent Springerin article Liar's Poker , claims that "when people talk about politics in an artistic frame, they are lying."
|
[ --------------------------------------------- ]
Now that political art practices are popular in the museum, many artists capitalize on hot issues like the democratic globalization process, receiving prestigious exhibitions in museums. The museum, in this symbiotic relationship benefits by appearing connected to "the outside world." Holmes gives an example, describing Thomas Hirschhorn's artwork "Bataille Monument" with skepticism; questioning the ways it manages its relations to the artistic frame (description of the work ). Holmes presents us with an artist who claims to leave the artistic frame behind but at the same benefits from corporate-backed commissions (Holmes gives us specific examples). The claim to represent a social movement ends up being about the hypocritical art world game. Is it artists faking an involvement with social movements? The critique makes sense but why is Holmes surprised?
He asks for the visible artist to have a direct social engagement and use his privileged position to directly aid movements (thereby most likely losing her/his cultural capital), using art's potential to impact concrete policy change. Holmes does not dwell in critique but provides what he sees as positive examples: from Ne Pas Plier, to No One Is Illegal, to the No Border Camp, Reclaim the Streets, to Indymedia London. All these influential groups may at one point have had access to a museum. But would many of them identify as artists? Does the art context matter to them? I would love to see more activist groups in art institutions where the museum becomes a platform for their activism. However, museumgoers expecting art historical references, media specificity or poetic aesthetics may not be very open to a campaign by No One Is Illegal, for instance. But of course museum audiences are not a monolithic abstract block but a group of citizens with real world politics.
In the recent massive anti-war demonstrations signs or gestures by artists played a very small role (in difference to the days of Seattle where art action like those of hundreds of mirrors reflecting the police were spectacular media images). Despite "Bread and Puppet," and many posters art was not a strong force in this recent massive anti-war movement. Nevertheless artist critics looked very hard and held on to each Guernica reference they could find.
Holmes acknowledges that "picture politics" as that of Rtmark can have a vital role in the museum. But does not much of this feed into capitalist media spectacle, the spectacle of democracy with Michael Moore shouting "Shame on Bush!" as tightly edited sequence broadcasted on MSNBC to make viewers feel like they really live in a democracy. The role of the art activist as court clown who is allowed to criticize as long as this critique is sufficiently general and does not implicate specific individuals for detailed misdeeds. It's OK as long as they make us laugh.
Holmes asks with Pierre Bordieux about our true interests, our real motivations: Are you in it for the money (economic capital)? Do you try to link yourself to powerful people (social capital)? Or do you want to create and distribute signs, images, and gestures that are valued now (cultural capital)? "Being interested," Bordieux elaborates, "means ascribing a meaning to what happens in a given social game, accepting that its stakes are important and worthy of being pursued."
Brian Holmes argues in favor of a specific mode of cultural production: one that very directly aids a social movement maybe best exemplified by Ne Pas Plier, a Paris-based artist collective that supports the unemployed in France with visuals and strategies for their demonstrations. Holmes rightly asks for a genuine engagement of the artist if s/he enters the realm of the political critiquing artists riding on the political wave to advance their career. But why discount the large spectrum of political art practices ?
To a certain degree artists can change the way people think and act by creating situations of communication about urgent issues. But is not any cultural model valuable that creates sustainable communities, temporary alliances online and off, in the artworld and outside of the box?
|
[ --------------------------------------------- ]
|
|