[Singapore Biennale '11] Whither aesthetics ?
Singapore Biennale 2011: Open House
http://www.singaporebiennale.org/index.php
—————
That’s the million-dollar question – literally, considering the obscene amounts that art goes for these days on the auction block …
Straits Times writer Stephanie Yap, whose initials may not be entirely unfamiliar to sharp-eyed readers of this blog, has a piece in today’s Life! considering the debate.
That particular discussion came out of an evening of post-Biennale beers at The Cider Pit, and, boy, was it a hard-fought battle for all involved ! While it shouldn’t come as any surprise which side of the lines I have my tent pretty firmly pitched on, I think Steph’s opinions deserve to be taken seriously – if only because she is hardly the only person who feels that way, the sentiments of a large number of practicing artists and certain art critics these days constituting an informal backlash of sorts against the theoretification of the art world and the sidelining of aesthetic affect.
The glut of literature dealing with the topic is copious and, in many cases, incomprehensible – though W. J. T. Mitchell‘s writings are a good place to start for a lucid introduction. However, for a caustic, deliberately provocative, infuriating war-cry on behalf of beauty in the visual arts, nothing beats Dave Hickey’s slim volume of essays, The Invisible Dragon.
A preview of Hickey is available on Google Books.
—————
FINDING THE ART AMONG THE JUNK
Visual art should be attractive and engaging or risk getting cast aside as a piece of garbage. By Stephanie Yap.
On a recent weekend, I visited the Old Kallang Airport, one of the four sites of the ongoing Singapore Biennale 2011. As in the case of most trips to art exhibitions or the museum, I liked some of the artworks and disliked others.
This time though, my reaction was more heavily weighted towards the latter than it usually is. This is not a condemnation of the artists, curators and other personnel involved in staging the biennale: I’m the first to admit that I have a very uncompromising, even narrow-minded attitude towards visual art that does not lend itself well to many exhibitions of contemporary art.
You see, I have come up with a personal litmus test as to whether something is a work of art or not: If you saw it in a garbage dump, would you go, “Oh no, there’s a work of art in the garbage dump!” or would you pass it by, not even noticing that the so-called artwork is out of place?
In his 1967 book The Medium Is The Message, Canadian theorist Marshall McLuhan wrote: “Art is anything you can get away with.” [Too, too true …]
An early practitioner of this philosophy was French artist Marcel Duchamp, who in 1917 acquired an ordinary porcelain urinal, gave it the title “Fountain”, and signed it “R. Mutt”. (Interestingly, while replicas of “Fountain” are on display at various museums worldwide, the original is lost, believed to have been thrown away. Obviously, no one thought of saving it from the rubbish dump.)
The idea behind Fountain takes the subjectivity of value to the extreme: If one treats an object as art, it then becomes art.
This is an idea I feel, in more ways than one, is full of crap. Yes, it is liberating to embrace a wide definition of art rather than sticking to specific mediums or traditions. But if anything can be art, then the term itself becomes so nebulous that it loses all definition and becomes meaningless. And that’s even before you start appending adjectives like “good”, “bad”, or “complex”.
It is understandable in this high-tech age, where cameras can capture reality more easily and accurately than any paintbrush or chisel, artists might want to avoid being made redundant by eschewing craftsmanship in favour of context, representation in favour of abstraction, accompanied by chunks of wall text explaining what they were trying to achieve in the first place.
Often, the intent described in the text is so exciting, brimming with artistic manifestos and claims to significance, that the actual execution inescapably feels rather underwhelming in contrast – indeed, the artist might have been better off not making the work and just publishing the description, letting readers’ imaginations do a better job than he ever could and saving money, space and the environment in the bargain.
So, which works did I dislike at Old Kallang Airport? The last work I saw before closing time was Imminent Departure by American artist Lisi Raskin, a site-specific work that takes material from the crumbling airport and puts them together to create a new, rather haphazard space, complete with garish colours. According to her bio on the biennale website, Raskin “creates stage-like installations that play on fears engendered by the threat of war”.
Perhaps because I am a sheltered Singaporean, the threat of war has failed to engender any fears in myself for her installation to play on. I must agree with the “stage-like” aspect though – the installation did look like a set for a B-grade science-fiction movie set in a dystopian future with 1970s aesthetic sensibilities. But if I wanted to see such a set, I would be better off watching a B-grade science-fiction movie, which might at least raise questions about the meaning of life, the nature of humanity or feature aliens.
Compare this with Singaporean artist Michael Lee’s Office Orchitect installation, which introduces the viewer to a fictitious 20th-century architect called K. S. Wong, complete with a timeline charting his influences and cardboard models of his unbuilt designs. The architectural models are exquisitely rendered and gorgeously surreal. It also helped that I was caught up in the narrative of this brilliant man whose genius went unrewarded during his lifetime.
Call me old-fashioned, but I do think that visual art should look, if not necessarily attractive, then at least engaging, its physical form being its prime mode of communication with the viewer.
Otherwise, to the rubbish dump it should go – and stay.
—————
Oh, P.S. My response to Steph’s rubbish-dump test can be found here.
“theoretification of the art world and the sidelining of aesthetic affect.”
Try to make some sense, and probably read more widely, before trying to critique a subject you know nothing about.
Jacques Ooi
April 8, 2011 at 6:39 am
1. Ooh what big and mightily intimidating words you’ve got there! Got me blushing and all.
2. The “theoretification” of the “art world”, if it indeed is as you say it is, is not a recent or new phenomenon. But wait, hasn’t theory always been there with modern and contemporary art, even its market? Do you actually think we are facing a deficit of overtly aestheticized works of art? I would argue for the contrary. But of course, there is a tendency to latch “theory” onto works which obviously do not need or were not made with it in mind, or even treat this as some kind of (false) dichotomy – is this the “theoretification” you speak of? How often does this occur, especially in the context of a biennale – as opposed to say, an art fair? And how easy might it be to confuse criticism/critical writing with that?
3. What is “aesthetic affect”?
4. Junk can be art. Do we really need more sentiments reinforcing the view that art must be (still?) about beauty – and only beauty? Do we really need supposed art history graduates defending such sentiments, somehow confusing “I thought that work/exhibition was crap, it was verbose and unengaging. But I am not at the centre of the universe.” with “I think art should be attractive. My standard of attractiveness is the only right one. I am also Hitler.”
5. Yes my name is Jacques Ooi, those bastards stole it from me, you won’t believe the jokes I have to endure! Mad!
6. Here’s a chill pill; have a nice day. And oh, your silly pseudonym is silly, too.
Jacques Ooi
April 8, 2011 at 5:34 pm
NOW we’re down to brass tacks.
I don’t want to let the dart-flinging – fun though it may be – get in the way of the real business here. I was pretty sloshed when I responded earlier, so perhaps the nastiness was something of an overreaction. Since you cared to actually make a concrete point though, I’m going to keep this about that from here on in.
1. “The “theoretification” of the “art world”, if it indeed is as you say it is, is not a recent or new phenomenon.”
I never said anything of the sort. Feel free to go back and re-read my post. I get that this is hardly the gist of your riposte, or the main point you’re trying to get across, but nonetheless you can’t go attributing random stuff to others. If YOU want to make that claim, YOU make it.
2. “But wait, hasn’t theory always been there with modern and contemporary art, even its market? Do you actually think we are facing a deficit of overtly aestheticized works of art?
Theory has always been there with modern and contemporary art, even its market? ALWAYS ? Really ? I’m not sure where to begin disentangling that, but here goes:
- The art market co-opted art theory as far back as the advent of modernism ? Interesting. I’m going to ask that you provide substantial corroboration of this little observation – and proof beyond the anecdotal please, i.e. nothing along the lines of “I work in a gallery so I know” rubbish. My advice ? Take your own recommendation: go read some more. You may yet find something thataway.
- Theory ALWAYS being there with modern and contemporary art. (Oy, dude, you need to pick your adverbs better ..) Surely you realize how wrong that sounds ? First off, going by your inclusion of “modern” art here, one can only assume that by theory you don’t just mean the Big Theorists like Lacan and Foucault and co., but more specifically art theory ? Art theory contemporaneous with modernism itself, though, is not a wide field, so that grandiose statement you’re trying to make just sounds … bizarre. You DO get the difference between “theory” and, say, “artistic concepts” right ? Which would be something like the difference between, oh, say, Panofsky-ian iconology and Picasso’s fragmenting of the dimensional plane. (Just to utilize two fairly random, “modern” examples.)
- “Do you actually think we are facing a deficit of overtly aestheticized works of art?” I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that “overtly aestheticized” works of art – whatever those may be – were under discussion at all. They certainly weren’t in my response, or in the post itself. The primary opposition that Steph Yap was broaching was the verbal-visual bind that seems operative in so many aspects of the world of contemporary art, especially with regards to academia and art crticism – and, specifically, works of art where formal qualities and discursive claims encounter a rather stark lacuna, or enact certain disconnects between viewer and work. That was the issue at hand, not, er, “overt aestheticization.” (Just curious, what would be an example of innate aestheticization?)
3. “I would argue for the contrary.” Far be it from me to assume an avuncularity I have no prerogative to, but, in future, just go ahead and make that argument. Leave the snarkiness at the door. In my experience, it’s typically those without much to say who need to resort to preemptive, kneejerk ridicule …
4. “But of course, there is a tendency to latch “theory” onto works which obviously do not need or were not made with it in mind …” Works which OBVIOUSLY do not need theory ? Such as ? By your deployment of the word would it be safe to say you consider yourself the final arbiter of what “needs” theory and what does not ? Because I’m pretty sure that for every choice you make there’s going to be some kind of dissent. In an intellectual landscape where the so-dubbed ‘visual culture’ paradigm has entrenched itself, and every form of phenomena from Hollywood thrillers (Baudrillard) to putative childhood experience (Lacan) to one’s pet cat (Derrida) is now fodder for theorization, saying that critics “latch theory” onto works is akin to declaring that hot water is hot. True, but so obvious as to be pointless. As for the value in so doing, I’m of the personal belief that the proof’s in the pudding. If one can make the latch stick, then well and good. Otherwise, next …
And the bit about works not produced with theory in mind – it’s like there wasn’t even a hole there and you managed to fall into it. I mean, this is a pretty tired debate already, so I’m just going to say this: Why the privilege of intentionality over reception ? Refer to Roland Barthes’ ‘The Death of the Author’ for the canonical take; again, if you disagree, feel free with a comeback.
5. “… or even treat this as some kind of (false) dichotomy – is this the “theoretification” you speak of?”
What’s the “false” dichotomy here ? Theory vs. art ? Theory vs. theory ? You’re not being clear enough (seriously). As for “theoretification”, boy, you really need to get up to speed ! Snappy – if simplistic – summary: thanks chiefly to Rosalind Krauss and her coterie, the stringent, rigorous mode of art criticism that in many instances is founded on philosophical or theoretical principles (say, her re-deployment of Bataille’s ‘informe’) or meticulous formal interrogation (any of her works) is now one of the most highly esteemed models in the university classroom when it comes to twentieth-century art. While its adoption is certainly not uniform, this development coincides with and fed into the wide embrace of (mostly) French theory by the Anglo-American academy, resulting in a pretty radical transformation of the approach to the humanities across the board. In essence, these twin developments – along with the aforementioned rise of ‘visual culture’ or ‘visual studies’ – have been responsible for overhauling a large part of the discipline of art history. While this model reigns supreme primarily in the classroom, contemporary practising artists have on the one hand been adopting the language and the ideas of this “new” art history for their own use, or – the other end of the spectrum – rejecting it in favour of a return to older principles of art-making. In either case, there has been some form of engagement with the theoretification of art.
6. “How often does this occur, especially in the context of a biennale – as opposed to say, an art fair? And how easy might it be to confuse criticism/critical writing with that?”
How OFTEN does this occur ? I refer you to point no. 5 above. It’s not a matter of frequency, nor even cyclicality. If you’re speaking of the utilization of theory in art historical writing – or the cluster of related models of explication associated with it – I don’t see what necessarily the Biennale or art fairs in general have to do with anything. Art fairs tend to be commercial events, and the Biennale concerned with tourist $$ and international prestige – and perhaps education. And biennales and art fairs are HARDLY the be-all and end-all of the art world … Mayhap you’re getting your wires crossed ?
7. “What is “aesthetic affect”?
Try the nearest dictionary ?
8. “Junk can be art. Do we really need more sentiments reinforcing the view that art must be (still?) about beauty – and only beauty? Do we really need supposed art history graduates defending such sentiments, somehow confusing “I thought that work/exhibition was crap, it was verbose and unengaging. But I am not at the centre of the universe.” with “I think art should be attractive. My standard of attractiveness is the only right one. I am also Hitler.”
Ok, now I’m REALLY confused. From the sound of the above, you’ve managed to completely miss the fine print in my post: I was NOT agreeing with Steph, I was defending her right to express her views. The argument that junk CAN be art, yes, I am in agreement with. Which you need to make to Steph, not me. My disagreement with her is the “hard-fought battle” referred to, and why the statement about which side of the debate I come down on was qualified with a “while”, with regards to Steph’s own position. It actually never occurred to me that someone could misread that … If I wasn’t being clear enough, fine. You, on the other hand, need to learn to read more carefully before rushing into battles. Up to this point I’d assumed you had a bone to pick with theory, but it’s not looking like it anymore. And again you make a number of unwarranted and erroneous assumptions that need to be corrected:
a. Steph Yap did NOT read art history at college. The opinions expressed in her piece were instinctual responses, something I can testify to since I, along with two other individuals, were there at the Biennale with her.
b. What are “supposed” art history graduates ? One either is, or isn’t. Not seeing a lot of wriggle room there.
c. Yes, I do think that contemporary art is about plurality, openness, exchange, differing opinions. But that’s just a WEE bit different from the concerns you expressed in that little bit of ventriloquism: you seem more concerned with taking down someone else’s views – and really sneeringly too, I might add – rather than asserting the validity of your own. If you’d said something like “I disagree with that, and my opinion counts too”, fair enough. But what you did do amounted to putting words into someone else’s mouth, and words that are unjustifiably skewed so as to make a caricature of your imaginary speaker. YOU WERE NOT CLAIMING EQUALITY FOR YOUR OWN OPINIONS, YOU WERE DISSING ANOTHER’S. To put it another way, the contradiction at the heart of those sentiments is simply that YOU would like YOUR views to be at the “centre of the universe, and you begrudge someone else for thinking THEY, and not YOU, are in that position.
d. Your assumption that Steph was dispensing judgments from a position of knowledge and power is, as I pointed out, quite wrong. If anything, she probably saw herself as speaking AGAINST a dominant paradigm of art-making which she disagreed with, and which, seeing as how she and I and our two companions had a protracted debate about the matter where I threw any number of ten-dollar words and abstruse concepts at her and she stood her ground, and publishing a piece about her views all the while knowing it might prove unpopular with the art crowd, it proves one thing at least: she’s got the courage of her convictions. You need to resort to snide insinuations to make your point. If integrity were any judge of validity, who’s got the better case do you think ? You or her ? Its hard to argue for more inclusive concepts of what art is or can be when you’re busy shutting someone else down at the same time.
9. Ok, so your name IS Jacques Ooi. In a more sober moment, I realize I probably shouldn’t have made fun of it. I take that one back.
jusdeananas
April 8, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Riight. I did read that article in the papers. Immediately I recalled that short scene in Alfonso Cuaron’s Children of Men. The Ark of Arts project by the British govt, to “rescue” works of arts from all around the world. It has all the heavy hitters in place; Michaelangelo’s David (with a prosthetic), Banky’s 2 Cops Kissing. and that floating pig blimp hovering outside http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/03/graphics-from-near-future-children-of.html
hootie
April 11, 2011 at 6:23 am
Lol, I assume you’re not in sympathy with the idea of the – or a – canon … Nor am I. Two hours of trying to convince my friend the purist – Steph Yap – didn’t exactly make any inroads, but you should go ahead and give it the ol’ college try: ysteph@sph.com.sg
jusdeananas
April 11, 2011 at 7:01 am