As I am interested in practices such as those advocated by the Paris Biennale, I seems important to define the concept of curator applied to this art "invisuel" *.
Gurita Alexander: An art curator invisuel dispense with, at least in its definition usual. The art of nature invisuelle is an art without art and therefore no exposure and no curator. If the blank left by the latter had to be absolutely satisfied, then we should rephrase the status and role of the latter. But I am not sure that this section should be completed. Practices such invisuel involve restructuring of the art and can only be in one certain actors or activities should be deleted. In any case we have to either reinvent or delete the curator. If the concept of curator is rewritten, it would in my view, a kind of information officer whose role would be to inform others of a particular practice or artist, and with it a guarantee of neutrality, ie without trial design. It would be close to a technician who is at the service of art. In some cases the information agent could be replaced by an information terminal. We will then have two versions of information agent: man and machine. And what was in the conventional art because of the curator, in this new perspective would be integrated by the artist, namely the establishment of conditions for the inspection of his practice. But we can also see things differently: the problem at the bottom of the curator is ideas and content which it stands. While defending an art freed from the burden of the works he is reinventing himself. It's probably fate.
But if he chooses practices invisuelles is already an aesthetic judgments.
No, this is not an aesthetic judgments, because it no longer works, and so there is more art in the traditional sense. The only things to keep the art of consensus, and what we are certain, are the existence of the field of art, history, the word art, context and present an infinite possible. One of these is possible to accept that there is no dependency between art and works of art, in other words, accept that art is larger than the artwork.
Why keep the word "art"?
Because we are in the art. I call this word, art, identifying at least as well as the Paris Biennale. If we abandon the art and the artist became a lawyer, doctor, fireman etc.. The art does not concern most. I say: the idea is not to end with art but with limitations, with its standard, with its matrix, with the belief that it did. Some have not understand this distinction.
Without saying either that everything is art?
Everything is not art but with the exception of what already is, anything can be.
So there are limits?
For potential art there are no limits. This has always been transformed by successive regrowth of his own limitations. If we assume that art is a game, then it was played before the late 20th century, with the same rules, all from a basic formula: " equal art work of art. " The maps in this game were the work of art, the object of art, the exhibition, the art market, viewers, collectors, the institution of art, aesthetics, curator, artist agent, varnishing, etc.. In time, this game has changed, its rules have been relaxed. The object of art has expanded its boundaries to the base, the space around it, which could interact with viewers. Physics has become immaterial with the performance, happening, video art, sound, digital, net art. The viewer is past the stage of passive contemplative stage of real player. The art has been inspired largely by itself, its rules were changing at the same time they eroded. Historically the purpose of art is changing the idea of art. Until now this change was made with a game that itself was changing. Now to change the idea of art this game is not enough, we need one another that the old resume the minimum necessary that I mentioned earlier. Skip the old game is new to go from "being designed by the art" to "thinking art". And this new game has its limits, they are of a different order than the former.
Does it do not reproduce the original scheme, since we keep the rules?
We keep the idea of rules, but those are the rules of another game
Like "Paris Biennale".
Yes as the Paris Biennale and associated practices that offer another game The authors of these practices have realized that not taking a road route is risky, but that would be fatal . The essential in art as elsewhere is the discovery, invention, experimentation. I think we should revive this dimension now lost. The artist who plays the ancient game is thought by art, and as such it is reduced to a stage performer, little hand, he does not think others have done in his place. It is in the womb of art that control and contain the artist through an established language. Out of the womb is to play another game and it is often through the use of another language.
interest would be the way, not being in place?
interest is the place. Not in the way or get some part would be an end in itself but in the sense that it would be a starting point on a basis other than art, which involves unexpected perspectives. Is the transition between being thought through art and think about art. In this passage the first step is to refuse to be thought through art, and thus to break with the automatic, and thus, by implication, to abandon the production of works of art. After this abandonment, whatever the direction is always better than before.
Is that the most difficult is not that the point you create, the starting point that you locate, do not become a new matrix, Orthodox, closed, which would reproduce the pattern just fled?
To follow the thread of your question this new matrix corresponds to the rules and criteria that you set for yourself. This is the most common matrix that we produced, art agreed, that our subjectivity that creates a framework of its own. To be more specific, the matrix that thinks the artist said, "You're an artist then you must produce works of art that you should sell and display to spectators." Anyone who thinks art is said that one can see things differently. These are rules against other rules, two radically different positions. For simplicity, the standard of art or matrix if you will, is a rule that governs the art and which artists follow their own way by personalizing it. In either case, each has his own thoughts, rules of procedure. I think it's a question of individuation. Whatever the regime of dominant art of an era, it is important not to obey, not to suggest the art.
You say that the Biennale of Paris defies the rules.
It defies the rules because it plays with others. It proposes a alternative to the established art. This strategy allows us to defend artists who take risks, it is a laboratory for new ideas. Without the Paris Biennale, some things are more difficult to achieve if not impossible. For example the artists involved are considered as partners, they attach themselves to the modes of their activity and above all, dates and places. They are decision makers at the Paris Biennale. Established in the art that is inconceivable.
Take the name of the "Biennale de Paris" is a way of being taken seriously by the institution, and a way the power to infiltrate?
Somehow. It is a way to infiltrate into the matrix to erode. A defective part in a well-oiled machine. The most important thing is not to be taken seriously by the institution since the institution itself is not always serious and does not always work. Is it serious in 2010 that the state, the largest buyer of art in France, bought the watercolors? The difficulty of the institution is to be credible in terms of art and at the same time to keep up. La Biennale de Paris is a mask behind which act a hundred artists who are deemed by the institution as strange, or at best, alien. And that all offer alternatives to the official art.
My big question, as Trustee in the making, is: should we bring the furtive practices and / or invisuelles in the field of art?
They are not off-field of art. One of the challenges of these practices is to impact the art matrix, to move the lines. There is nothing wrong to regard these practices as being in the field of art instead. They should not stay in their corner, isolated. Because not only that they are unlikely to develop, but increasingly they leave intact the established values of art they are supposed to question. Some say that bringing these practices in the field of art is to be recovered. False. If these practitioners keep their peculiarities while fitting into the field of art then it will change its constitution. And we can no longer talk about recovery. It will be those practices that will transform the field of art.
My current position is delicate, because in principle, if the artists are fleeting, the invisuel is up to them how they position themselves relative to the field of art, if they want to be artistically intelligible by this world or not. It is not for me to do.
Do not be intelligible artistic means to not exist. It's being outside of art. But whoever becomes invisuel knows why he is there he is aware of his position and issues that go with it. Just for you to work with them without distorting their intentions. The goal is not to be invisuel but to change the idea of art.
You, as an artist, what do you expect of a commissioner exposure?
First, let me say that I consider myself more as a strategist in the field of art as an artist in the traditional sense. Then, to get to your question, I expect r ien's curator. To me, it is a magnifier of established values. It deresponsibilises the artist who thinks to use it, when in fact he leaves used by him. Anyway we will retain only the curators have tried to invent, to bring something to art ... But from another point of view, I expect that starts serving the art more than entertainment, industry culture, ideas. It is more independent-minded, creative and critical. To take risks, he dares, he is interested in practical Inconformes. If interested in these practices, it ends up reformulating gradually, as you do.
What does it mean "strategist in the field of art?
As I said to earlier, the purpose of the artist is to change the idea of art. Today this can be done with works Art. These have become ineffective, they have more influence on art. For nearly half a century and before, an artist and exhibited a work if it expanded the concept of art, sooner or later it became operative, it irreversibly upset the dominant art of context. Olympia Manet, La Montagne Sainte-Victoire by Cezanne , the readymades of Duchamp, the Bird in Space Brancusi, the White square on white background of Malevich, Kaprow's happenings are notable works. A work enough. Today it's different but apparently many do not aware of and act as if we were in 1909 .... To do today, that the white square on white background was a century ago, we must do things differently and act systemically in particular, consider the art sector as a whole. Use of one or more factors of influence on art in order to convert it to act strategically. We know now that the artist is at the bottom of the ladder. A politician, a collector, a gallery, a journal of art, the director of an art school, a curator and journalists are far more influential on art as an artist. Take into account this fact and include contextual in his artistic approach.
* Denotes artistic practice without its visual character. What is not perceived as art. Artistic invisibility.
0 comments:
Post a Comment