http://www.cbc.ca/arts/artdesign/story/2008/04/22/schneider-art-dying.html?ref=rss
Whoa! Creepy, right? But...maybe...a little compelling? Maybe I'm just weird? So...if there are any of you out there who still read this thing (does it count as a "still" if there was never anything to read in the first place?), I'm curious as to what you think...does this have artistic merit (whatever that means), or is it just a really morbid spectacle? Are you repulsed by this or fascinated by it? Both?
While I definitely understand why many roll their eyes at art that puts natural processes (or objects, persons) on display, one of the things I find most interesting about this type of "performance" art is that it defines the context of viewership. I have to admit that, exploitative or no, there is a part of me that is completely intrigued by the thought of watching somebody to whom I have no specific emotional attachment pass away....watching that person in an explicitly detached context, where I am not thinking about how the loss of that person will affect my own life, but about the loss of life itself. Again, maybe I'm weird, but I think that there is something kinda beautiful and very powerful about that.
19 comments:
If it gives you any sense of my feelings on the matter, I recently came across some information on the Web concerning the supposed starvation of a dog as a work of art [an installation by Guillermo Habacuc Vargas in Nicaragua]. I am unsure about the actual nature of the installation or the end result, but some people on the internet have suspected that the dog was left tied to the wall of the art gallery until it starved to death. Many reacted by saying "Prevent the Death of Innocent Animals in the name of Art", and my inclination was to respond to them: "Prevent the Censorship of Art from the Moral Majority". In case, I find nothing upsetting or repulsive in the idea of allowing a human being to die on display [so long as they consent to it] and am curious about the nature of this installation piece.
The link is broken !
I have never really understood this type of performance art in general. There is some that I like, but I still wouldn't say I 'get' it. And the description wasn't all that helpful, but I guess they won't really know what it looks like until he finds his person.
Dan-
I've heard about that starving dog thing. Although, if it is just that (a guy starving a dog), I have to say, I find it a lot more disturbing than this. I know very little about it, so I'm sure there's more to it, but I think for me the issue is one of consent. Obviously an animal can't give consent to being starved to death, but a human being can certainly choose give up his last few moments to what he deems a meaningful venture. I certainly agree that people can get pretty militant about stuff like this, though. One thing that springs to mind is this recent incident here in San Francisco: http://chronicle.com/news/article/4223/san-francisco-art-institute-closes-show-that-enraged-animal-rights-groups
From what I understand, a man constructed an art exhibit which featured videos of animals being bludgeoned to death--and both he and the SF Art Institute were barraged with protests, complaints, and even death threats. The original article (which I can't find) made it sound like the artist didn't actually kill the animals for his exhibit, but recorded people who were already going to kill the animals for food. In any case, the SFAI was forced to shut down the exhibit entirely because of the violence that was displayed towards them.
Dorothy-sorry! I would try to fix it, but I'm basically computer illiterate! Did you try just cutting & pasting the link? That worked for me...
Mark-
I absolutely despise the type of installation/performance art (or art in general) that perpetuates the notion that it is deep or serious because it is in a museum or it is (self-labeled) as "art" and is therefore Very Important...but lately I've become really interested in art that is aimed towards experience, rather than the passive viewership that is usually connoted by the "museum" experience...and how placing experience within the label of "art" can make you see something in a completely different light. For example, if I were walking down the street and I saw a man die in front of me, I would most likely be scared, shocked, and deeply disturbed. But if I saw a man donate his final breath to an art exhibition, I would likely focus more on the nature of death, the community of those fascinated by it, and my own personal feelings and phobias towards it.
I'm not sure if I'm making any sense at all, but there ya go!
Hey, thanks for pointing out that other article. As disturbed as I was by the reaction to that work, I was pleased at least to see the comments at the end of the article. (I even decided to add my own thoughts there as well, something I almost never do here on the Internet.) Clearly it is important for law-makers to work to create a just and equitable society, but art that pushes moral boundaries helps to refine our perceived notions of justice by pointing out flaws in our laws and flaws in our perception of our own actions. Censorship is dangerous in that it encourages an unreflective stability. Sorry to have gone so far off topic. As for this art work, I think that it has some serious potential and I am interested to see what the artist and his subject create. I have no moral qualms with it whatsoever and no aesthetic qualms with it yet, seeing as it is only an idea and far from a finished piece.
Here's the functioning link:
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/artdesign/story/2008/04/22/schneider-art-dying.html
Try this
Dan-Thanks for your comments! I don't think they're off topic at all. Controversial art often incites talk of censorship (and protest at the very least). I wish Adel Abdessemed's exhibit weren't shut down, it sounds really interesting. I look forward to (hopefully) hearing more about this artist's exhibit (if it develops).
Ben-thanks! You'll have to teach me your link wizardry some time.
Elana - Do you feel that this is an example of "installation/performance art" you despise? I absolutely agree that the context art is placed in has a large effect on how it is perceived. It reminds me of this article I saw awhile ago:
Pearls Before Breakfast
Would people have stopped to listen if they had know who he was? Did it matter, or were they just too busy? Would some of those same people have paid hundreds of dollars to see him in concert? I'm not sure.
It does seem to me sometimes that "art", as generally defined, needs to be recognized as art before it can be art. Without this recognition, it is something different. I think that Kitch is a common example of how what might be considered art in a different context is no longer considered art.
That is a really interesting article Mark. I'm really glad that you pointed to it. (Mark has mad linking skills as well.) As for your thought that art, in some way, needs to be recognized as art in order for it to obtain that label ("art"), I think that it certainly has merit, but I am personally very wary of it. In part, I think that I am concerned by the possibility of the "accidental artist". I'm not sure if I feel that one can do something that, because of an audience's reaction, makes him an artist. To clarify, I'm not trying to build a distinction between an artist and a craftsman, which I think is a very dangersous line to draw, but rather, I am concerned with something like the following: Suppose a man accidentally steps in some wet paint and leaves his footprints for a ways without realizing what he is doing. If someone else later comes upon these footprints and finds them artistically interesting, does that then make them art and, retroactively, make the man an artist? I am inclined to think not. My other concern with a definition like this stems from my personal focus on the importance of the individual; I don't like the idea that a person can work to create art and, due to its reception by the public (or lack thereof), fail to have his/her work result in art. Another quick worry that I have about this condition is just that we run into the possibility that something that is not art now can become art in the future (and depending on the details of the condition, it may also be possible for something that was art to cease to be art).
At the same time, there are definitely some very interesting things to be said about employing this condition in evaluating potential works of art. This condition is particularly useful, I think, when used as a vechile for examining our cultural perceptions of art. And now I am tempted to go on a tangent about the bastardization of art due to capitalism and a largely uneducated public, but I'll hold back; I think that this comment is probably over some limit of words for polite internet conversation.
Mark:
If by "this," you mean Gregor Schneider's dying-man exhibit, then definitely not. I think that exhibit could be totally hot (don't mean to sound creepy), and am interested in hearing/reading more about it as it progresses.
So...I'm totally going to talk myself into circles here, but bear with me. Upon further reflection, I should say that I dislike the cultivation of the elitist idea that art (particularly performance art) is somehow untouchable or that its meaning should be obscure and that it is a sign of good art that the masses don't "get" it, or the assumption that if a critic deems something to be "art," then it is automatically deep and meaningful (or, furthermore, that if it is in a museum, it is meaningful). However, this is more a personal pet peeve than anything, and I mostly dislike the pretentiousness surrounding art inasmuch as I feel it gets in the way of a more visceral (and personal) appreciation of art. I'll post an article about this as another blog post shortly, because I feel this blog post is overflowing with ideas and topic of conversation already!
That said, I think I agree with Dan that some degree of intentionality is required to make someone an artist...but, just for the hell of it, I'm going to draw a distinction here between "art" and "artist." I don't think it's problematic for a culture to retroactively deem something "art" that was perhaps not initially intended to be so, because I think that doing so expresses a degree of intentionality on behalf of the viewer. In my opinion, if somebody views something as art, then to them, it's art. This does not necessarily make the (accidental?) creator of that object an artist, nor does it invalidate an artist if his work is not culturally perceived as art (as long as he perceives himself as an artist).
I think that's an interesting idea - art without an artist.
Also, I'm not sure if this is a worthy parallel, but I'll throw it out there anyways. There are several texts I can think of that were originally written outside of religious context but were then used in what many people would call relgion - the Dao De Jing (which was probably written as a guide for low-level court officials) and much of Plato's work, which was incorporated into early Christian cosmology and thought. Now, I know this brings up other difficult issues (religion vs. philosophy), but my only point is that the two authors probably didn't think of their work as religious, though it was later viewed that way by others. More to the point, did cave-men consider themselves "artists" when they were drawing on cave walls? Something we will never know, I guess.
1. Marcel Duchamp- 'nough said.
2. I wish that I still had that definition of Dance that I wrote for Post-Modern Dance class.
3. I think philosophy is distinct from religion only in approach to answering questions and in the breadth of the questions that it asks.
4. Are cave painting art...?
5. Who knew "blogging" could be so much fun?
I feel that I'm beginning to feel out of my element, since I have no idea who Marcel Duchamp is, though Wikipedia tells me he did "Nude Descending a Staircase", which I have heard of.
I'm not sure if I consider cave painting art, but I had the impression that many people do, so I just thought I'd throw it out there.
And as for the distinction between religion and philosophy, I think I'll post my own thing on that at some point.
Another attention grabbing "performance art". Even when I 'get' it, I don't like it. Also, keep in mind that this is an opinion piece, so its not trying to give an objective view of the work.
Post a Comment