[-empyre-] For whom is art "made"?

[Bill Kelley Jr.]

Hello all,

I'm so glad to be reading these ideas.
I've been thinking about what Jennifer and I have been sharing over  
that last few months, particularly after the  Transitorio Publico  
project she spearheaded and I have to say that many comments here  
point to a similar direction.

I was asked to share some of my thoughts on the collaborative project  
I shared with Maria Fernanda Cartagena and with collectives Bulbo  
(Tijuana) and Colectivo Cosas FInas (Otavalo) for the IX Cuenca  
Biennial last year.

I will bore you with those details shortly, but want to jump into this  
conversation by responding briefly here to Eduardo Molinari's email:

Dear Eduardo, (saludos!) I like very much what you are saying:

> In Argentina, during the crisis, some fissures were open on this  
> herarchies on the art field. The first was the context of art.
> Artists could create their context, we are not remote control robots  
> going to the market, only.
> Another intense fissure was the idea of representation. The artists  
> and the images don't pretend to be a representation, they are  
> presences.
>
> After 11-9 (the same year of our big crisis) we can't continue with  
> representation.


But I have a question and a concern.
I come to art form a pedagogical background. ( I used to teach art to  
elementary school kids in Los Angeles) and so I have a tendency to see  
the public in ways that very much includes a mandate that the term  
"public" be as open as possible. So yes, I agree with you. Education  
and art is something that is being considered in new and important ways.

But why?

Representation (and its aesthetic politics) as a privileged area in  
art is being questioned. Education/pedagogy  is increasing in  
importance.
These tendencies point to a much anticipated crises where art takes on  
a more pluralistic position.
I think that's a welcome development. I hope you all agree.

I also believe that the institutional push (biennial and new  
curatorial policies) to adopt new forms of working collectively is a  
sign that the neo-liberal and privatizing policies that we are all  
wary of is coming under scrutiny. That is a positive sign and I hope  
it continues.

I wish to see this not as a for of co-optation but rather as a form of  
infiltration where collectivity and collaboration become key terms  
that become more critical points of discussion.

Does anyone agree?

I hope to be participating in these discussions more frequently and  
look forward to your feedback.

-Bill



On May 9, 2008, at 6:35 PM, Eduardo Molinari wrote:

> Dear friends,
>
> I decide to begin with this line of discussion.
> I was out of internet for some days, and when I return, I have close  
> to 50 mails! Sorry, but I didn't have the chance to answer everyday.
>
> the first mail (of Megan) introduce a very hard question,
> but... is not clear for me what he understands is art.
>
> I mean, the question about for whom is "art" made, is interesting  
> because also ask for me about this human dimension today.
>
> when we say "art", are we talking about visual arts?
>
> I think that is better to define this. My answer is trying to think  
> about this: manufacturing images today.
>
> I put on the table this "stupid" commentary because, if we talk in a  
> general way, I prefer to say "culture" and not art.
>
> For me, to create images today is a hard work, because postmodernism  
> (neoliberal culture) in my country (like always, a mimetic,  
> colonialistic gesture) pretends to fight against a particular  
> universe of images.
>
> Visual language is talking, that's the first reflection. Is not  
> silence.
> Each artist, each group, each movement, have his own develope, his  
> own discurse, his own text. One singular (not invididual) voice.
>
> Then, is not a question that has one answer.
>
> The voices (the ideas world) that live on each art praxis are -in  
> this sense- like a tongue talking, singing, making poetry, making  
> questions, but... we need an ear on the other side, of course.
>
> Art (visual language) is not "made", for me.
> Art (visual language) is a political experience, because is putting  
> in the real time and space the "not yet existing worlds". And this  
> potence of art is an interaction from the begining.
> Is not a question of "audience". Also is not a question of supports.
> These status are part of a cultural vision that work in a consume  
> society.
> But our challenge is to built new relations, new ways of putting in  
> contact the differents subjectivities.
>
> In Argentina, during the crisis, some fissures were open on this  
> herarchies on the art field. The first was the context of art.
> Artists could create their context, we are not remote control robots  
> going to the market, only.
> Another intense fissure was the idea of representation. The artists  
> and the images don't pretend to be a representation, they are  
> presences.
>
> After 11-9 (the same year of our big crisis) we can't continue with  
> representation.
>
> A big challenge now is how not to close these fissures and to open  
> them more and more.
>
> One of the friends talks also about education. The connection  
> between the idea of research and education. That's good for me.
> Is not an isolated work of artists that "made" art for whom...
> is also a social work (and education - art education is a big  
> question today also), a social compromise to create more and  
> different bridges between the persons. Is, a big fight against the  
> capitalistic culture that only creates a logic of art consumers.
>
> all the best,
> eduardo
>
>
>
>
> Eduardo Molinari / Archivo Caminante
> Aramburu 880, Dto.1 (1640) Martínez
> Provincia de Buenos Aires – Argentina
> 0541 1 47 98 48 35
>
>
> --- El mié 7-may-08, sdv at krokodile.co.uk <sdv at krokodile.co.uk>  
> escribió:
>
>> De: sdv at krokodile.co.uk <sdv at krokodile.co.uk>
>> Asunto: Re: [-empyre-] For whom is art "made"?
>> Para: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>> Fecha: miércoles, 7 de mayo de 2008, 3:04 pm
>> Helen/Brad/All
>>
>> I suppose the problem with your understanding of artist and
>> audience is
>> that I cannot see exactly why should I regard your
>> understanding of your
>> proposed audience, as being any better than a
>> professionally curated
>> art-institution such as Tate-Modern or Whitechapel. Where
>> you propose a
>> difference between new media workers as creators and oppose
>> this to one
>> that art-institutions support,  is this difference real ?
>> Perhaps only
>> an artist might imagine that the former is more democratic
>> and public
>> than the latter.
>>
>> s
>>
>> Helen Thorington wrote:
>>> Wow, Brad.  Yes, too much art is made for
>> art-institutions, and it
>>> saddens me to see it as a direction some of the
>> artists we have dealt
>>> with over the years are
>>> taking. But if you check out the networked_performance
>> blog -- an
>>> archive of networked
>>> projects since 2004, you'll see that thousands of
>> creative people are
>>> in fact creating
>>> work for themselves and for others like themselves --
>> not for
>>> art-institutions. A lot of it is
>>> "open" work.  Many of the people doing this
>> do not identify as
>>> artists,  So question: can
>>> academics open to the change that has brought
>> thousands into the new
>>> media field as creators
>>> of open, participatory work. Or will they stick with
>> an older idea of
>>> artist -- the one the art institutions
>>> support?
>>>
>>> BTW, many of the projects I'm thinking about make
>> use of  familiar
>>> objects and things
>>> from everyday life. They thus "offer a return to
>> the connection of art
>>> and life.." [Landy],
>>> which for many is most welcome.
>>>
>>> Helen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 6, 2008, at 2:42 PM, { brad brace } wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's the problem Megan... AArt is
>> determinately-made for
>>>> art-institutions and the plethora of art-minyons
>> and
>>>> acolytes who profit-from-it and
>>>>
>> say-everything's-ok-as-long-as-they-get-paid...
>> Basically,
>>>> if it's called Art it's really not.
>> I'm sorry but you have
>>>> no viable future... maybe that's called
>> 'AArt-History.'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /:b
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 6 May 2008, Megan Debin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> First of all, thanks to Jennifer and to all
>> for introducing me to an
>>>>> interesting community of discussion.  I would
>> like to introduce a
>>>>> new topic
>>>>> about audience and the public in general.
>>>>>
>>>>> For a long while, I have, for reasons
>> unbeknownst to me, been
>>>>> resistant to
>>>>> Jennifer's urges to check out
>> errorista's work.  I hadn't quite
>>>>> figured out
>>>>> why I felt this resistance until today.
>> *Light bulb!** * I am
>>>>> afraid of not
>>>>> understanding.  I have an intense fear of
>> being wrong – a truly
>>>>> anti-errorista sentiment – that what these
>> artists do will be beyond my
>>>>> mental grasp.  As I have learned from
>> errorista, there is no wrong
>>>>> answer.  There
>>>>> is right in the mistake.  All this
>> self-doubt... and I'm in academia!
>>>>>
>>>>> So, this got me to thinking about an
>> often-forgotten segment of our
>>>>> population: the general public.  The everyday
>> person, when asked
>>>>> about their
>>>>> thoughts on art, usually thinks things such
>> as, "I don't understand
>>>>> anything
>>>>> about art," or "Maybe if someone
>> explained it to me, I might get
>>>>> it.  But
>>>>> probably not."  How have we lost touch
>> with the audience?
>>>>>
>>>>> My questions to the empyre community are
>> these: How does current art
>>>>> production relate to the general public, to
>> the Joe Shmoe on the
>>>>> street?  How
>>>>> is the public *really *involved?   Shall we
>> sit in our ivory towers
>>>>> and wax
>>>>> philosophical, using complicated terminology
>> that most of the
>>>>> general public
>>>>> does not understand?  That *is* our job,
>> right?  How can artists and
>>>>> critics
>>>>> reclaim a true relationship with the people?
>> Why do we have these
>>>>> discussions?  How does it relate to the larger
>> population? And a
>>>>> critical
>>>>> one: For whom is art made?
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. By the way, I checked out errorista.
>> It's witty, ingenious,
>>>>> all right
>>>>> and wrong all at once. I love it.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Megan Lorraine Debin
>>>>> M.A. Latin American Studies, UCLA
>>>>> meganldebin at gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> "Art is not a mirror held up to reality,
>> but a hammer with which to
>>>>> shape
>>>>> it" -Vladimir Mayakovski
>>>>
>> <gip2.txt>_______________________________________________
>>>> empyre forum
>>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> empyre forum
>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
>      Yahoo! Encuentros.
>
> Ahora encontrar pareja es mucho más fácil, probá el nuevo Yahoo!  
> Encuentros http://yahoo.cupidovirtual.com/servlet/NewRegistration
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre