Reflections and questions about the class projects

1. Erin Reitz – http://epicromance.blogspot.com/

I would first like to start with Erin Reitz’s work. In her relational piece she asks us to participate in an online blog project. Our interest is piqued when read the first line of the instructional text which says, “Got something dirty to share?” I followed the instructions and plugged in a relatively innocuous sentence with very dirty overtones. After getting my binary code, switching some numbers around as she asks, I received an utterly unintelligible new binary code. The next instruction says simply to submit your result to dirtynumbers.blogspot.com. This was confusing for me for a number of reasons. Was I supposed to re-plug the numbers back in and receive something totally different? Both the code received and the code decoded really had no meaning, at least nothing I could ascertain. My original sentence was – “I like to eat polish sausage.” The code received was - “0100100100100000011011000110100101101011011001010010000001110100011011110010000001100101011000010111010000100000011100000110111101101100011010010111001101101000001000000111001101100001011101010111001101100001011001110110010100101110.” The altered code was – “1011011011011111100100111001011010010100100110101101111110001011100100001101111110011010100111101000101111011111100011111001000010010011100101101000110010010111110111111000110010011110100010101000110010011110100110001001101011010001”
Then the decoded code number 2 read as "∂ fl a fl 9 ê fl a ~ 9 fl è ê R fl R ~ ` R ~ ‹ a —." What does it all mean? Much art today is spoken of as being a variation on a theme, a recoding, and the like. Is she trying to say that in the process of recoding we are actually failing as artists if this is the type of work that we do?

2. Ryan Fenchel – http://cosmosapersonaljourney.blogspot.com/

For my relational aesthetics project I chose to do a Tiravanija style cook-fest. We baked BROWNIES and ate them and talked and had a beautiful, convivial, Relational Aesthetic moment. Ryan Fenchel’s project seemed to be in a similar vein. For his project, he and some friends went to a Mexican restaurant. I could ascertain what he was going for in the work, however, the lack of specificity or elucidation makes it seem a bit problematic. Like my BROWNIE project, was Ryan involved in a relational performance of eating (or attempting to eat, for that matter) with friends? Was the piece performed specifically for the assignment, or did he retrospectively place this specific quotidian event of eating as art, at a latter time? This relational piece also was performed with only a small group of his close friends, whereas, many relational artists will choose to make it an open event, or at least one which allows for future open-endedness. My question to Ryan would be, can you invite me the next time you get a burrito?


3. Steve Nyktas – http://stephennyktas.blogspot.com/

For Steve’s project he placed objects/gifts in various public locations. These objects like quarters, pens, and the like were set out in order for others to pick them up. In his statement about the project he seems to feel that this project is ‘art proper.’ However, I question whether the lack of an artistic context – that which would be apparent to the lucky quarter finder – belies the purpose of the project. Does it work given the fact that Steve has posted information about it on his blog, even having photo documentation to boot? Should he leave clues next to the various objects, therefore informing the chance participant that they were being involved in the creation of art? Is it fair to them – the participant, that is – that they are now a part of an open-ended artistic project of which they had no knowledge that they were participating in? It would seem to me that the finding of the objects is such a critical part of the work. In this case, I don’t know if this work should necessarily get the Relational Aesthetics stamp of approval.

The Beauty and the Splendor that is BROWNIES

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Interview with Jason Evans

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

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.’

Rirkrit Tiravanija and the Banality of Boring Art

Rirkrit Tiravanija’s work is about pushing artistic boundaries, blurring the distinctions between the viewer and the art-making participant, bringing art down to earth, into a convivial space of human interaction. He is setting his work in contradistinction to the formal, sterile, authoritarian structure, present in museums and much of the art world. He is perhaps best known for works in which, within the gallery space, he prepares food and then feeds it to his audience – things like Pad Thai, Vegetable Curry, or even Cup O’Noodles. This work is part of a greater trend within contemporary art in which the art draws attention to, or literally is, some aspect of daily life.

As interesting as this may be in concept, in its form, it seems banal at best. It blurs the boundaries of art so much that it makes everything art – it is tautological and, as any logician with tell you, tautologies are meaningless. If Rirkrit is trying so hard to undermine the historical traditions of what art is and how it is supposed to be experienced, why show it in a gallery at all? Why have an artist at all? If convivial interaction is all one needs to experience art, then why not just go to the local Starbucks and chill with a friend, or, for that matter, why not get drunk at the local dive bar?

Although I’ve never first-hand experienced his work, I am quite certain that my Friday night will always be more interesting than one of his shows. What he should do instead is simply place a sign outside of any random bar in town that reads, “Art Making in Progress.” If all he cares about is the exchange between people, then why have a gallery show, why call himself an artist, when really, he is just the mediator of an experience which anyone and everyone does on a daily basis?

Good art teaches us about human nature, the human experience, but does so in a way that is also interesting and profound. Tiravanija’s work is one-dimensional. Artists have been pointing to the experience of daily life long before he came on the scene. One of the single greatest examples of this is in James Joyce’s Ulysses. This book deals with daily life but not in a way to trivialize it. It reveals the heroic in the everyday, the beauty and transcendence of the quotidian – however, as with all good literature, this is not explicitly stated, it is revealed via Joyce’s literary genius, his technical virtuosity. Much of contemporary art and especially work within the vein of Relational Aesthetics tries to eschew these ‘outdated,’ ostensibly fascistic notions of the transcendent, the genius, the Romantic hero.

If you trace the recent history of art and the world itself, one notices that once man climbed to the top of Maslow’s Pyramid, once Positivism and the subsequent demystification of the world took place, it didn’t seem important or relevant to make work with such lofty airs. Since people don’t believe in anything anymore, why make art that seems meaningful? Why make art, which through its attention to technique, would belie its creator’s belief that it was indeed meaningless? Work done by artists, like those of the aesthetic ethos of Joyce, believe in art’s ability to point to or reveal profound truths about humanity – they show, not tell, letting the one experiencing the work take away what they can glean. As Stephen proclaims in Portrait of the Artist, the goal of an artist should be "transmuting the daily bread of experience into the radiant body of everliving life." Next to the work of someone like Joyce, Picasso, or El Greco for that matter, Tiravanija’s work looks utterly vacuous and banal. What’s more, by the tautological way it is defined, it would be, in the words of Wittgenstein, mere “nonsense.”