|
The question that goes around in my head is actually not that of the future of art itself; the question I ask myself is more simple and more complex at the same time: what will art's function be in the future?
The growing influence of commercial interests in the sphere of contemporary art have reduced art to be often nothing more than a commodity, an object of economical interests. Somehow mutual to this development the Biennialization of the art world, and with it the recent incline of more and more conceptual, empty, large scale exhibitions that are generally nothing more than another vehicle of some city's marketing campaign. As U.S. curator Alison Gingeras recently wrote, very pointedly, in an article about last year's Venice Biennial: "The art world seems finally come out of the closet about its total embrace of spectacle, fun and excess." But this was not a critic of Biennials and their often spectacular character, nor a bitter conclusion about the increased commercialization of the art world, as there are many other positive examples of exhibitions, initiatives and art projects that move in the opposite direction.
Yet, the previous observation is part of the serious dilemma in which we find ourselves: The concept of the artist as a mediator, as someone who is privileged to understand, see, or sense something that others can not, and addresses this, seems outdated. Who other than galleries and large scale art events seriously still needs the artist's gesture of creating a metaphorical representation of reality and a materialization of this act in form of an art object? Haven't many interdisciplinary projects and exhibitions in recent years demonstrated that we are able to talk about social and political issues within the sphere of aesthetic considerations, without the detour via an artist and an art object, but by having the possibility to talk directly with experts from various fields about more pressing issues in society?
Is it not obvious that a specialist in urbanism is more knowledgeable about the relationship between city planning and certain sociological phenomena than an artist who maybe deals with the theme of urban intensity as a trigger for creativity in contemporary society and with a rather subjective point of view? So who needs art and artists, and for what?
Looking at some of the above arguments one could easily wonder about the function of art today, but there is more to it. Yes, it might be that art does not have serious impact on the condition of society, that specialists from other fields might have better means and arguments to alter our distress. Many aspects of the art world are related to commerce and look just like fun fair attractions functioning as simple decoration.
But there is another side, and maybe the suggested one over theorization and conceptualization in certain artistic approaches. Subsequently, it takes something away from art, condensing it entirely to its content, and therefore denies more or less any sensual experience. But to focus on art's indefinite, poetic "Mehrwert" does not help as a defense, as we enter a relatively indistinct field of intuitions, emotions and subjective perceptions. For the moment, there is seemingly no solution and no answer to the dilemma and the question about art's role.
One thing we can be sure about, however, is that creation of art will continue, one way or another. It will most likely be up to us and the artists to redefine art's function and indicate how to go beyond deficient and formal traditions. Perhaps we should be honest, and admit that art, as we know it, might be an outdated model and begin looking for more contemporary forms and media of artistic and intellectual statement.
Jens Hoffmann
Berlin, Aug. 2001
|
|
|