Louis Maldonado: It's All About Things

Upon walking into the recent Louis Maldonado show at ThreeWalls, I immediately noticed the door, one made of a blue tarp and some other dumpster-dived material; a harbinger of the show I was about to enter. The door set the tone and clued me in that I was not about to witness a highly commercial gallery space. In fact, ThreeWalls is a non-for-profit gallery, one that is known for showing emerging artists who – due to the often unsalable nature of their work – need a space to show outside of the traditional commercial gallery scene. Louis’ show, Barter Days, is a branch of his ongoing project known as It’s All About Things. This traveling shantytown of ‘things’ is an artistic performance/exhibition involving the artist, the ‘things,’ and human interaction itself – through the act of bartering – as its essential elements.

Maldonado uses the word ‘things,’ in reference to his work, to set it in contradistinction to the traditional phrase ‘a work of art.’ This is because he is trying to (a) question the value of art objects/commodities, and (b) reference/name-drop Heidegger, the utterly unintelligible philosopher turned Nazi, as a means of backing up his ideas. This was a cleaver, if not genius move of Maldonado’s part. That is, seeing as how hardly anyone has ever read Heidegger – yet his name is still ubiquitously referenced within the discourse of intelligentsia – it provides a convenient platform to contextualize his work, without bothering to question its validity. One can simply bypass thought, as one must when reading Heidegger, and enjoy the work in all its un-commodifiable glory. Before I get into details about the show, let me backtrack and set the work in context to a tradition in recent art, one known as Relational Aesthetics.

Since the 1950's artists have tried to undermine the traditionally accepted system in which art had become a valued commodity; something given high status, then bought and sold within the ‘evil’ capitalistic system, just like pair of Nike's or an IPOD. Its roots can be found in Dada and the readymade, works of ‘art’ that required little or no skill and certainly made no pretense about being valuable or important. As this tradition continued, many artists made work which – based on its shoddy, craft-store aesthetic – helped further undermine the supposed ‘great import’ of art. Artists in this vein denied the historical notions of the ‘transcendent masterpiece,’ doing so by making work that could never be confused with a thought out, labor-intensive work. There were the attempts of many conceptualists at completely eliminating the art object, resorting to live performance or some other ephemeral, non-commodifiable 'artwork.'

In the work of Louis Maldonado we, once again, see an artist that has championed this tradition. Louis has successfully eliminated the notion of art as masterpiece or valued object by replacing it, instead, with stuff you'd find at a garage sale. To quote the ThreeWalls website, "Maldonado contrasts the inflated value of objects at auction with objects available through barter, challenging the value system placed on objects by a culture consumed with accumulation and collection." Yes, that is exactly what he does in this show. By putting cheaply made, poorly painted, utterly banal pieces of art on the wall, one certainly has no inclination to acquire them (at least not for money).

That is the beauty of the art and the barter itself; the utter worthlessness of the art objects, within Maldonado’s show, isn’t apparent because it is under the aegis of subversive/leftist/anti-capitalist argot, while never demanding a monetary loss on the barteree’s part. Within this context, one hardly questions whether or not ‘the barter’ and the non-for-profit setting was a convenient solution to a problem of artistic indolence or inadequacy. Maldonado is able to insidiously justify the creation of mere ‘things’ by donning the postmodern cloak of authority. It is a process in which the un-valuable and unsalable are alchemically transmuted into intellectual gold.

Given the lack of monetary commitment and the possibility of a dumping one’s black velvet Elvis, bartering with Maldonado almost seems appealing. Interestingly, Maldonado offers other ways to acquire his stuff, without having to give up an excellent piece of assembly-line kitsch. For example, he even allows one to sing a song in exchange for one of his works. Why not? Karaoke is the quintessential form of bad, boring, unfortunately ubiquitous music. Why not sing "Stairway to Heaven" for this 'hotel painting?' It makes perfect sense.

Once the items are bartered, the acquired art will enter Maldonado's permanent collection, which, not surprisingly, is a nook revealed by a hole in a piece of plywood. Other things that he has bartered for include a physics paper, a set of someone's house keys, and a sweatshop scarf ostensibly made by a land-mine victim. By making trades such as these, Maldonado has shown that art is no longer just an object of craft or an idea - it is literally everything! To quote Maldonado, “When someone walks in that door, that is art” (in reference to the tarpaulin door). Objects, ideas, exchanges, interactions - art is now incredibly empowered via its intangible ubiquity. When art is tautological by definition, who cares about purchasing art objects at Christie’s? You can have art just by sitting at your local Starbucks and having a tête-à-tête with your friend. I think Maldonado should advertise his future shows by saying on the postcard:

“Don’t come. Art is everything. Get a coffee with a friend cause it is probably more interesting than my show!”

The project of those involved within the Relational Aesthetics discourse is fascinating and full of potential. Literally, they can never run out of material, seeing as how everything is art. Still, I have my doubts as to the necessity of the movement in reference to what it is trying to undermine. One problem that I see with this exhibition is the fact that, even though this work is supposed to be set in opposition to the modern world of consumption, temporary contracts, the planned obsolescence of goods; it seems to actually support it and bolster up its trend-geared, myopic ethos by being just another typical, commonplace, trendy exhibition. It seems that every ten years there is the new, hip, conceptual movement that tries to denigrate all previous forms of art that – just like the latest techno-gadget commodity – will be irrelevant once it is surpassed. Do these Relational artists realize their own future obsolescence? Is it all part of the plan? These are the important questions for the upcoming artistic trendsetters like Maldonado. Actually, maybe that is why he quotes Heidegger in the first place – that is, so we don’t ask such questions. Perhaps the best way of approaching work like this is just to turn off our brain, as in the case of reading Heidegger, so that we can appreciate it for what it really is, a bunch of ‘things.’