Thomas Hirschhorn was born in 1957 in Bern, Switzerland. He studied graphic design at Schule fur Gestaltung in Zurich and currently lives and works in Aubervilliers, France.
In an interview between Thomas Hirschhorn and Hans Ulrich Orbist in 2003, Hirschhorn makes an analogy between art and an archeological excavation site with regards to his project ‘Archeology of Engagement’, 2001.
Hirschhorn believes that an excavation site is the perfect arena for art because it eliminates the notion of hierarchy and commodity status which is continually enforced upon objects and artworks. This is because when objects are discovered throughout an excavation, there significance isn’t immediately apparent so one object cannot be deemed more important or valuable than the other. Hirschhorn modeled 'Archeology of Engagement' to resemble an excavation site which allowed him to exhibit and display all the information he had acquired throughout the project in a ‘value-free, nonhierarchical manner’.(394)
This raises important questions concerning the hierarchical status of artworks and constant valuations which are forced upon them. This provokes the question, on what means can someone base and therefore judge the value of a work of art? Furthermore, who should be awarded this power in deciding an artworks worth?
Moreover, Hirschhorn suggests an excavation site allows for ‘misinterpretations and incorrect judgments’, which is why he rejects exhibition catalogues, attaining that ‘the problem with catalogues is that they often want to assume authority. A catalogue is often intended to legitimize or revalorize the artwork.’(396)
Frequently catalogues or artist statements tend to legitimize a works existence by providing explanations of the artworks meaning, which not only narrows the works potential meaning but also sacrifices the ‘secret’ or awe factor within an artwork. Catalogues can also pre-condition the viewer to think in a certain way by supplying conclusions without letting the viewer interpret the work on their own accord.
Walter Benjamin details the importance of ambiguity within artworks by saying “it is half the art of storytelling to keep a story free from explanation … It is left up to [the reader] to interpret things the way he understands them, and thus narrative achieves amplitude that information lacks”.(Walter,68)
On the other hand a catalogue can also be a useful strategy in allowing an access into the work, through providing a general context, or by detailing conceptual concerns the artist has addressed, which can be easily expressed and delivered through text.
Benjamin sees the value in upholding ambiguity within an artwork, while Hirschhorn finds catalogues assert authority which somewhat justifies and therefore validates a work. This poses artists to consider if accompanying texts contribute to potency of an artwork, or are they detrimental to an artwork? Alternatively, if text is integral to the works accessibility; to what degree should one restrict information to the reader, how much should one reveal or conceal?
References:
Thomas Hirschhorn interview with Hans Ulrich Orbist, Thomas Boutoux ed., Hans Ulrich Orbist: Interviews volume 1, Milan: Charta, 2003, pp.393-400.
Jean Fisher, “Towards a Metaphysics of Shit,” in Documenta 11 Platform 5 The Catalog, Ostfildern-Ruit: Hajte Cantz, 2002, pp. 63-70.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Nicolas Bourriaud, “Art of the 1990s”, from Relational Aesthetics, Paris: les presses de réel, 2002, pp.25-40
Nicolas Bourriaud born 1965 is a French curator and art critic. Bourriaud is now Gulbenkian curator of contemporary art at Tate Britain, London.
Within this text Bourriaud coins the term and concept ‘Relational Aesthetics’ in an attempt to understand and characterize the emerging art practices of the 1990s.
Relational art and aesthetics utilize spectator participation and human interaction as the basis and means for artistic production. Bourriaud was interested in art’s remarkable shift in focus, quoting ‘artistic practice is now focused upon the sphere of human-relations’.(28) Continuing to explain how various artists now use ‘the exchanges that take place between people, in the gallery or museum space…as the raw matter for an artistic work’.(37)
Relational art caused a dramatic shift in the operation and role of the art gallery and museum, forcing them to recognize and endorse un-saleable works of art and immaterial kinds of practices. It also reconsidered the once clear-cut distinction between the gallery/exhibition site verses the artist’s studio, by effectively fusing these two spaces together. Bourriaud states, the ‘arena of art was expanding’ through ‘this type of “real time” work, which tends to blur the creation and the exhibition’.(38) Bourriaud uses the exhibition ‘Traffic’ (1994) as an example of how ‘each artist was at leisure to do what he/she wanted throughout the exhibition, to alter the piece, replace it, or propose performances or events’.(38-39)
American sculptor Robert Morris can be seen to have conceptual affiliations with Relational aesthetics as he also incorporated the gallery as both as an exhibition and studio working space. Within his artwork ‘Continuous Project Altered Daily’ (1969) Morris produced an environment with an inexhaustible set of variations as he consistently changed the installation each day for a month. Morris shares similarities with Relational aesthetics, when Bourriaud states, ‘the entire exhibition process…is “occupied” by the artist’.(38) Furthermore, when Bourriaud affirms the ‘author has no preordained idea about what would happen: art is made in the gallery’.(40)
Morris’ explicit disinterest in achieving a permanent end product was essentially attacking the ‘rationalistic notion that art is a form of a work that results in a finished product’ or ‘static icon-object’.(Berger,72). Continuous Project Altered Daily undermined art works and objects specifically created to meet the demand of the museum and its patrons.
Like 'Continuous Project Altered Daily', Relational Art was based and defined on an installations ‘temporal structure’(Bourriaud, 29) and ephemerality, subverting traditional and conventional ideas that art production should result in physical matter or objects.
In effect, Relational Aesthetics’ primary interest in producing human-relations and experiences successfully challenged and dismantled repressive conditions of the gallery and museum.
References:
Nicolas Bourriaud, “Art of the 1990s”, from Relational Aesthetics, Paris: les presses de réel, 2002, pp.25-40.
Berger, Maurice. “Labyrinths: Robert Morris, Minimalism, and the 1960s.” 10 East 53rd Street, New York, USA: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1989.
Within this text Bourriaud coins the term and concept ‘Relational Aesthetics’ in an attempt to understand and characterize the emerging art practices of the 1990s.
Relational art and aesthetics utilize spectator participation and human interaction as the basis and means for artistic production. Bourriaud was interested in art’s remarkable shift in focus, quoting ‘artistic practice is now focused upon the sphere of human-relations’.(28) Continuing to explain how various artists now use ‘the exchanges that take place between people, in the gallery or museum space…as the raw matter for an artistic work’.(37)
Relational art caused a dramatic shift in the operation and role of the art gallery and museum, forcing them to recognize and endorse un-saleable works of art and immaterial kinds of practices. It also reconsidered the once clear-cut distinction between the gallery/exhibition site verses the artist’s studio, by effectively fusing these two spaces together. Bourriaud states, the ‘arena of art was expanding’ through ‘this type of “real time” work, which tends to blur the creation and the exhibition’.(38) Bourriaud uses the exhibition ‘Traffic’ (1994) as an example of how ‘each artist was at leisure to do what he/she wanted throughout the exhibition, to alter the piece, replace it, or propose performances or events’.(38-39)
American sculptor Robert Morris can be seen to have conceptual affiliations with Relational aesthetics as he also incorporated the gallery as both as an exhibition and studio working space. Within his artwork ‘Continuous Project Altered Daily’ (1969) Morris produced an environment with an inexhaustible set of variations as he consistently changed the installation each day for a month. Morris shares similarities with Relational aesthetics, when Bourriaud states, ‘the entire exhibition process…is “occupied” by the artist’.(38) Furthermore, when Bourriaud affirms the ‘author has no preordained idea about what would happen: art is made in the gallery’.(40)
Morris’ explicit disinterest in achieving a permanent end product was essentially attacking the ‘rationalistic notion that art is a form of a work that results in a finished product’ or ‘static icon-object’.(Berger,72). Continuous Project Altered Daily undermined art works and objects specifically created to meet the demand of the museum and its patrons.
Like 'Continuous Project Altered Daily', Relational Art was based and defined on an installations ‘temporal structure’(Bourriaud, 29) and ephemerality, subverting traditional and conventional ideas that art production should result in physical matter or objects.
In effect, Relational Aesthetics’ primary interest in producing human-relations and experiences successfully challenged and dismantled repressive conditions of the gallery and museum.
References:
Nicolas Bourriaud, “Art of the 1990s”, from Relational Aesthetics, Paris: les presses de réel, 2002, pp.25-40.
Berger, Maurice. “Labyrinths: Robert Morris, Minimalism, and the 1960s.” 10 East 53rd Street, New York, USA: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1989.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”.
Walter Benjamin, born in 1892 was a German-Jewish Marxist, literary critic, essayist, translator and philosopher. His main interests were literary theory, aesthetics and technology.
Within the essay Walter Benjamin asserts that ‘in principle a work of art has always been reproducible’ (49). However, since the rise of mechanical reproduction in modern society there has been a loss of “aura” concerning original artworks. Benjamin’s definition of the word “aura” is the experience when one is in the presence of a unique and original work of art, and suggests that the ‘decay of the aura’ (52) is ‘symptomatic’ through the advancement of technology and technological processes. In other words, through the process of reproduction the quality or value of the original is somewhat jeopardized as it infers with its authenticity, and therefore reduces its “aura”.
Repeatedly artworks are photographed and reproduced in the forms of images, and reprinted in art books, the internet, magazines, and other publications. This increases the accessibility of these images to the common person and general public. Benjamin describes how mechanical reproduction in the form of a photograph ‘enables the original to meet the beholder half way’ (50). Accessibility depreciates the value of the original in some way by shortening the distance and space with the original. Rather than having to travel to the exact location of the artwork; one can simply view an image taken of it, essentially undermining the aura and authenticity of the work.
Despite the fact that an artwork can be reproduced, Benjamin maintains that ‘even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.’(50) Often photographic reproductions aren’t enough or satisfying and people still yearn to view original artworks with the naked eye. A classic example would be Leonardo Di Vinci’s masterpiece the ‘Mona Lisa’. Many would have presumably seen a photographic reproduction of the Mona Lisa yet still travel great distance to see the original authentic work of art. This is further demonstrated when the Mona Lisa was stolen and still ‘a line of people had come to solemnly stare at the empty space on the wall, where the Mona Lisa had once hung’ (Rosenberg, 1). Reinforcing the idea that the “aura” of a work of art is not only inherent within the object itself but also the historical time, place and space the original holds. This suggests that perhaps original artworks still hold importance and significance in contemporary society.
However, the aura of an artwork is also strongly embedded within the social hierarchical system. Changes in modern lifestyle have made the Mona Lisa more accessible, through technological advancements such as aeroplanes, which shorten this geographical distance between the artwork and viewer. The way the Mona Lisa is also exhibited in the Louvre, being popular tourist attraction, also demonstrates the significant change in society, by appealing artworks to mass audiences. No longer are paintings hung in secluded churches or the rich mans home, only accessible to the highest order of priests or the wealthy. Paintings are being view by the masses of general public in which Benjamin suggests this mass consumption contributes to the elimination of aura.
This issue raises many questions: whether in fact multiple reproductions of an artwork necessarily jeopardize the originals uniqueness, but perhaps the copies reinforce the authenticity and preciousness of the original? If all copies and reproductions are defunct because they have no ‘aura’ or value where do they sit in contemporary society? Furthermore, could reproductions possibly have the potential to challenge and subvert enforced hierarchical structures?
References:
Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, reprinted in Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas Kellner ed.s, Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001, pp.48-70.
Rosenberg, Jennifer. “The Mona Lisa was stolen!” About.com 20th Century History. Pp.1-3 Retrieved 3 September 2009http://history1900s.about.com/od/famouscrimesscandals/a/monalisa.htm
Within the essay Walter Benjamin asserts that ‘in principle a work of art has always been reproducible’ (49). However, since the rise of mechanical reproduction in modern society there has been a loss of “aura” concerning original artworks. Benjamin’s definition of the word “aura” is the experience when one is in the presence of a unique and original work of art, and suggests that the ‘decay of the aura’ (52) is ‘symptomatic’ through the advancement of technology and technological processes. In other words, through the process of reproduction the quality or value of the original is somewhat jeopardized as it infers with its authenticity, and therefore reduces its “aura”.
Repeatedly artworks are photographed and reproduced in the forms of images, and reprinted in art books, the internet, magazines, and other publications. This increases the accessibility of these images to the common person and general public. Benjamin describes how mechanical reproduction in the form of a photograph ‘enables the original to meet the beholder half way’ (50). Accessibility depreciates the value of the original in some way by shortening the distance and space with the original. Rather than having to travel to the exact location of the artwork; one can simply view an image taken of it, essentially undermining the aura and authenticity of the work.
Despite the fact that an artwork can be reproduced, Benjamin maintains that ‘even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.’(50) Often photographic reproductions aren’t enough or satisfying and people still yearn to view original artworks with the naked eye. A classic example would be Leonardo Di Vinci’s masterpiece the ‘Mona Lisa’. Many would have presumably seen a photographic reproduction of the Mona Lisa yet still travel great distance to see the original authentic work of art. This is further demonstrated when the Mona Lisa was stolen and still ‘a line of people had come to solemnly stare at the empty space on the wall, where the Mona Lisa had once hung’ (Rosenberg, 1). Reinforcing the idea that the “aura” of a work of art is not only inherent within the object itself but also the historical time, place and space the original holds. This suggests that perhaps original artworks still hold importance and significance in contemporary society.
However, the aura of an artwork is also strongly embedded within the social hierarchical system. Changes in modern lifestyle have made the Mona Lisa more accessible, through technological advancements such as aeroplanes, which shorten this geographical distance between the artwork and viewer. The way the Mona Lisa is also exhibited in the Louvre, being popular tourist attraction, also demonstrates the significant change in society, by appealing artworks to mass audiences. No longer are paintings hung in secluded churches or the rich mans home, only accessible to the highest order of priests or the wealthy. Paintings are being view by the masses of general public in which Benjamin suggests this mass consumption contributes to the elimination of aura.
This issue raises many questions: whether in fact multiple reproductions of an artwork necessarily jeopardize the originals uniqueness, but perhaps the copies reinforce the authenticity and preciousness of the original? If all copies and reproductions are defunct because they have no ‘aura’ or value where do they sit in contemporary society? Furthermore, could reproductions possibly have the potential to challenge and subvert enforced hierarchical structures?
References:
Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, reprinted in Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas Kellner ed.s, Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001, pp.48-70.
Rosenberg, Jennifer. “The Mona Lisa was stolen!” About.com 20th Century History. Pp.1-3 Retrieved 3 September 2009http://history1900s.about.com/od/famouscrimesscandals/a/monalisa.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)