[notes on
the hypothetical and subversive nature of an ecological media art]
Critical Art. There seem to be different ways of looking at art and
critique. First of all let's say in the following texts the term art
will stand as a 'pars pro toto' for culture. But then again let's see
if that can hold. Anyway, considering art and critique, we can at least
provide three different ways of talking about it. First, art critique
can be seen as the more theoretical and academic study, and the
interpretation and evaluation of art/culture. We find it in the
traditional university curriculum, as well as in the theory courses of
schools and educational art institutions. Somehow it is part of the
bigger multidisciplinary field of cultural studies. It's purpose would
be to study and explain art/culture, observing it as an object for
study. And it is very popular as a professional activity for writers,
scientists, philosophers, etc.. and journal critics! The second way of
looking at art and critique, can be described as 'criticism about art'.
This would point again to a some critical artists, again scientists,
philosophers, etc.. but not from the scientific-academic point of view.
Their intention would be mainly to criticize certain issues within
art/culture. So here it relates already more directly to the cultural
field, and deals with dissent and/or protest, and most of the time
would like to see things changed within art and culture. We can mention
here some cultural activists, but also some magazine critics! Now the
third category, and the most controversial one, is where the social and
cultural critique is integrated within the artistic/cultural work
itself. So here the difference between theory and praxis totally
disappears. There are only artists (again a pars pro toto for 'creative
people' here and further in this text) involved, doing things, and not
so much interested in the "words traffic". From all artistic
disciplines and beyond, we can see that this is the only place that can
bring about innovation and change in the arts. It is responsible for
radicalism but also retro-inspired movements, for real alternative
culture and experimental art. Most of all, it is critical of the
authoritarian status of the university, academy, museum, gallery,
curator and collector, art magazine, performance space, etc.. within
the production, interpretation and evaluation of art. Its intention is,
in one way or the other, to break the current and existing forms and
norms. This can go from a concerted action, like the futurists did, to
artworks intended to chock an audience. Obviously nowadays as well in
history, a lot of artists are seeking commercial benefits from the
attention from the latter activity. And the museum, gallery, festival,
biennial and magazine are showing a specific interest in these works.
And as a final remark: of course all these differences are fluid. One
category feeds the other. So one could say they are transversal and
interdependent.
Some example to
illustrate...
So, now we see the differences, somehow the controversial third form of
critique, does it not seem the most interesting one. Its goal, as we
indicated, is almost exclusively to provoke change on a small or larger
scale whatsoever, but in an unconditional way. Its method is an
internal one, from within the creative process and production itself
towards its exhibitionistic display as its finalizing aesthetical
achievement. One problem occurs though. Where can we find this critical
art? Real critical art?
Since it should aim at changing forms, norms, and especially the
evaluation of art/culture itself, maybe we don't know where to look, at
what to look, and how to look at it? So the traditional question "is it
still art?" applies certainly to radically innovating artworks, and can
only be answered afterwards, after our perception of the artwork has
been changed. This is also what we see in history happening. Suddenly
the majority of media art history books point to the weird predecessors
like von Kempelen's chess-playing Turk, or de Vaucanson's digesting
duck. But then we are confronted with the following dilemma. If the
purpose of art and criticism, in the third case outlined above, is
reflected in the proliferation of radically different artworks, we
cannot see them till they are fossilized by the categories one and two.
In which case they are renedered inoperational. Then of course the
critical artworks we can only talk about are basically imitations, and
re-enactments of originally critical works. And the intention of their
makers can not be to change culture and society at all! Of course then
it is neither a problem when these works - not very original in any
sense, and especially aesthetically consolidated by imitative kitsch
and repetition - end up in our museums and galleries where they can be
admired by a conformist audience and selected by the more investement
minded collectors altogether.
This would also lead to the argument that educational institutions can
only offer the tools of the past, and teach the skills for making
former art. This is obvious, when we see the generally outdated
teaching and evaluation systems within the art schools nowadays. Unless
they chose for a different strategy and there are few examples that
prove to be an exception. Arts and Science in Den Haag/Den Hague for
instance is chosing for a different setup with a daring accent on new
technological skills, new scientific principles, and experimental
techniques. With a very unauthorative approach, including collaborative
learning styles. But most of the time, and esp. in central european
contexts, we are still stuck inside a traditional frontal teaching,
with its thematic and subject/disciplinary directed orientation,
one-way talks. The lecturing is rather a kind of product demonstration,
explaning great art works of any kind through illustration, and in a
systematic way. So it can be admired profoundly, and easily reproduced,
in tasks and papers, which can be marked objectively for
evaluation. It not only perpetuates an outdated idea of how
to communicate knowledge and skills, but it safely keeps the organigram
of the institution intact. Changes there are not debated with students
but are mostly effectuated top-down, and only when there is a
politico-economical need for it. The question how to stimulate creative
people to make innovating works in today's wider context, seems to be
irrelevant and lacking. But recently, either in the open discussions at
avu or the hidden ones in cas at famu, people start to realize in what
a bad deal they are caught. And become motivated to be 'critical', and
responsible for the investment in their development?
And so, while the local teachers think that the hare can never win from
their tortoise, apparently also there is an explosive offer of
residencies and workshops, of all socio-cultural and artistic flavors
and brands. Organized by quite different cultural organizations, like
alternative places, muzeums and festivals, biennals and shows, or
singular and dedicated setups. The discrepancy between the learning at
art school, for the young artists becomes more and more obvious. There
the accent is on self-learning, peer-to-peer, collaborative. In that
context the evaluation is not about reproduction and imitation, rather
on distinction and originality. Teachers become students and students
teachers, but mostly they are creative people together and have a will
to be different, than what is being offered and displayed in the more
conservative places. The content is made up by what is happening in a
real world, and not without historic references, but targetted towards
new practices and how to deal with it. For instance, the teaching of
open source technology and the free circulation of works under creative
common licenses may appeal more as a methodology than the protectionist
and official curriculum subjects. The relevance - especially within
arts - of a paper and diploma, becomes truely challenged. In most cases
the stretched out programs are ostentibly more benefitting the school
management and economy, than insight in creativity and skills, and a
more critical outcome altogether. Once this is realized, there is no
way back, but to defect the one system and engage in another one. By
its participants. Or at least the ones that have a reason to be
conformistic and pragmatic in their artistic oeuvre.
Maybe already today, for that reason, we find the critical artists not
in schools, museums and galleries anymore, but elsewhere. And of course
a critical art tends not to be found only in singular works and people,
but tends to tune into an aesthetical movement as well. One that can
start a constructive dialogue with the institutional side of society,
and the state. So, institutional critique is a prerequisite (to be
discussed elsewhere). But can current trends and views crystallize into
a new kind of art (the only true goal of a critical art)?
Some example to illustrate...
If today's problems, its conformist and pragmatic nature, are to be
found in the return of new age [novadoba 2.0] in a neoliberal and
postindustrial capitalist context. For sure the return of new age with
its flowers, plants, birds and bees are commodified by its possibility
to buy everything from the local Garden Centre and on Internet, instead
of growing it yourself. Everything designed within a green mythological
colour, from the bank card to the new car, to the sculptures and even
music compositions that are commissioned. Or the return to the
countryside. DIY. Grow it yourself. Harmonical metaphysical life
contrasting with an egoistic and inhumane global society, as long as
you can safely pay for it. Ecological passive houses as experimental
dwellings for the rich, while the social housing can do with what is
left. Is that the critique then? Art becoming gardening, with a sales
catalogue. Oh oh what a fool we are: how can one criticize Nature?
One art student a couple of years ago, presented a garden he had
designed, as an artwork. Later on he almost confessed working for the
city, and actually was weeding out the parks. Still later he was still
to be found in that job, he had abandoned making art since he left the
academy. Not that weeding out parks is a bad profession. But one may
question what the art work represented and if the artist was having a
creative purpose in making it. How different art history proved to be,
in the case of land art. When the Danish art group Kanonklubben changed
the garden of a prestigious city project, they were not driven by self
interest and prestige, but instead embarked on a collaborative,
critical and for that reason radical journey. One that would provoke
change. They took over a space within the academy and declared it open.
So open that even their professors were welcome to be there, if they
respected the openness. Instead of a question for change, debated and
consolidated back into the existing structure, here we find a
non-compromising and actual correction to the educational institution.
Like real protest and change should be. Like the garden they made, and
gave to the public. Also another pioneer of land art, Robert Smithson
grew gradually more and more dissatisfied with the established
gallery-collector-museum scheme, and in the produced works that could
not be integrated or sold as objects. And before he died tried to
expand his non-site theory to reconsidering obsolete industrial sites
and giving them to artists. Also when re-reading Felix Guattari's Three
Ecologies, one finds a way of criticizing society, using the complex
notion of ecological thinking, as a subversive activity. The purpose is
here clearly to provoke a fundamental change in society by using the
potential of an subjective creativity, being collective-social,
environmental, and individual. He describes the possible impact through
an ecological awareness in the perception, planning of action, doing
the action and evaluating it. Somewhere in the short text he remarks
that the methods are resembling an artist's way of doing. Without
explaining further what that may be. But certainly he means no birds
and bees, no plants and homegrown veggies here. Finally the more
radical and intriguing text was written by the sociologist Niklas
Luhmann, Observations on Modernity. In the final chapter, called 'The
ecology of ignorance, which ends with an unfinished sentence/paragraph,
he expresses a radical critique on current science and society, through
the ecological. "... nature is silent and the observers argue...". Also
for Luhmann the ecological can mean a controversial turning point. "It
may therefore wise to proceed, without complex theoretical models, to
an ecology of ignorance, that is, to steer the description toward the
form behind which lies unmarked space." Guess the notions of non-space
and subjectivity echo in this quote, But for sure no supermarket garden
here either.
Certainly a new attitude and awareness can break norms and forms. Can
generate the new. Another aesthetics, content, methods and skills,
technology, norms and contexts, and finally evaluations. Maybe radicals
are hard to find. Maybe a critical context is a starting point and
essential to creativity and culture/art. Maybe a new ecological context
to counter neo-new-age, and neo-liberalism can bring a necessary first
critical change in the 21st century. But who wants to be involved?
Some example to illustrate...
Gívan Belá, Praha: 20100120
Bio: Artist fka Guy Van Belle, of Belgian origin, now living in Prague until further notice.
http://www.burundi.sk/monoskop/index.php/G%C3%ADvan_Bel%C3%A1