|
19/10/02
Dear Jochen,
When I received your invitation I was working on a project with my two collaborators in Negotiated Settlements, Lan Gen Bah, and Yar Habnegnal. So I threw your question, "In the context of contemporary art, what is your vision of a yet unknown art?" out to the group. It is precisely the sort of question that titillates us. Our joint response follows:
|
The question of a "vision of unknown art" comes in the guise of an implied parasitic residency in a "context of contemporary art", that is, within a field either contemporaneous with the writing of the question itself by Jochen or of my (our) reading of the question, or this writing, or your reading of this writing. But, the problem is the lack of limitation to the attribute "contemporary", which would, of course, also be contiguous with and applicable to any successive reading and writing. So, if this writing is within "the context of contemporary art", then it is so just as much in the future as in the present, as there is no "future" to contemporaneity per se. So, we might respond by asking in return: "contemporary with what, Dearie?"
So, then, when we are asked "... (w)hat is your vision of a yet unknown art in the context of contemporary art?", we find ourselves impaled on the horns of a dilemma. The dilemma is not only that there is no "unknown art" (although there isn't), nor that there is no "future" (although there isn't), but because 'art' is a conventional term based on a canonic history, and has been such since its initial deployments. It has never been 'contemporary', and has never been "unknown", as the calling of "art" is precisely a recognition of its established, categorical position in a lexicon of cultural production. In short, "art" is, a priori, a form of 'knowing' and a 'known' cultural form.
Even if our visual-cognitive apparatus produced the similacrum of the object of its gaze simultaneously with the appearance of the object (which it cannot), the denotation 'art' would eliminate the object (and its perception) from our consideration in the first place.
But let's put all this silly pretence of a felicitous and sensical query aside for a moment and look at the libidinous and erotic implications of your question, that is, the manner in which your question is propaganda, and has an assumed relation to the 'propagation' of both information and art ... and information about art.
Your question asks for exactly that which it performatively calls forth, or you could say the inverse: it produces that which it ostensibly desires. The 'question' itself is posited as "art", and the answers, delivered by interested artists, underscores the positioning of this form of questioning as "The Next Big Thing", to borrow a WWF slogan for those with sufficient amounts of body-armour to personify the phallus. Since 'The Next Big Thing' can be produced only in the context of an "unknown" space where it is not already present, we are left with the act of (re)production ad infinitum and in flagrante delicto. |
We hope this response pays the bills and disses your question to your satisfaction.
In solidarity,
Negotiated Settlements (19/10/02)
Ray Langenbach
Kuala Lumpur
|
|
|
