(artist Dominque Gonzalez-Foerster)
With no light flickering at the other end to show that the
darkness that we have been passing through for the last few years is a tunnel,
our eyes adjusting slowly to the darkness and above all in the Saramago-esque
fashion learning to live in utter darkness the question that has been asked by
one and all in any field of profession is this: how to survive in the given
context? The easiest answer or perhaps the easiest pragmatic solution is to
adjust to the situation, go with the tide and practically do not even make a
whimpering noise about the system that has pushed one into the darkness. Of all
human rights, if you ask me, which one qualifies for the prime position, I
would say, right to survive. In that case succumbing to the situation is a way
of survival at the cost of the basic spirit that often helps the idea pf
survival and the act of surviving.
In such a bleak scenario, artists come to me and ask whether
it is lucrative to be a curator or curator cum artist, thinking that my own
survival in the field of art as a curator must be a sort of cake walk compared
to the tedious aspects of making, transporting, exhibiting and trading works of
art, the essential deeds and deals an artist irrespective of gender needs to do
for basic survival. Succumbing comes in two different packages; one, with a heavy
payload of guilt, if not selective amnesia when one succumbs to the situation
as an uncritical collaborator, means, darkness is okay, no, it is not just okay
but it is fantastic! Two, it comes in a very glittering package, a job with a
pay packet. But a job takes the labor and breath away from the artist and often
the artist has to work double time to attend the works of art knocking
impatiently at his sensory doors. However, jobs offer something better in the
surrounding darkness; a struggle free life. Buy, save, eat full meals and when
time permits, make art. Human beings are prone to guilty feelings that force
them to introspect.
The more artists introspect the more they come with this
question: with the situation continuing for long and no changes in the offing
what could be done, but without resorting to the two solutions that we have
just looked into. While reading a conversation between the noted curator, Hans
Ulrich Obrist with the French ‘environment’ artist (not environmental artist)
Dominque Gonzalez-Foerster I chanced up the answer she provides to a similar
question. There was a situation in her life in 2003. She was invited to do a
set for the singer Alain Bashung, yes against a payment. Once the work was done
and the time for taking her money came, the singer apparently suggested that
she could monetize the ‘set’ in some gallery. Perhaps, it was a friendly
suggestion (which is not clear in the conversation) but definitely a
commonplace one I believe. Often those people get things done by artists take
their service for granted thinking that the artists would make their money from
‘elsewhere’.
In this context Gonzalez-Foerster says something which I
think is important point for the young Indian artists to ponder over. Let me
quote her: “…I think it would be beneficial if artists had the opportunity to
choose a path that wasn’t linked to craftsmanship or selling objects; they
could choose to work in a public situation and provide a kind of show or
spectacle and be paid for it. If it were clear for art students from the very
beginning that they had more options than just teaching at an institution or
working with galleries, it would lead to much more interesting art. I would
like to work towards this change.” When I read this I was a bit taken aback for
a scenario that Gonzalez-Foerster talking about was existed once upon a time when
the public and private patronage for art was a cultural norm amongst the rich,
which the affluent found their personal responsibility towards society and
aesthetic nourishment unto themselves. With the emergence of modern economies,
this idea of patronage underwent a sea change and the patronage took a new name
in the dictionary of economics; investment. Investment as we know is made to
make profit and in that the object upon which the investment was made carried only
a symbolic value, especially that of a paper bond liable to be varied in value
at its best and at its worst, discard-able as junk.
(An environment by Gonzalez-Foerster)
Gonzalez-Foerster is not just talking about a reintroduction
of patronage nor is she asking for a benevolent and egalitarian investment habits
and habitats. Her suggestion is rather loaded that asks for unpacking. She
speaks of a path which is neither ‘linked to craftsmanship nor to selling
objects’. When she says it she is unveiling an extremely disturbing fact of our
times. Artists are either helping in crafting something for someone else or
they are selling their crafted/created objects at whatever price. This is the
case of almost all the artists however ‘successful’ they are in their creative
career. Most importantly and ironically, most of them are happy about this
situation provided they are getting the means to survive. Gonzalez-Foerster
when she makes these suggestions is more Chaplinesque than anything else;
utterly optimistic and full of goodness, which often are contrary to the ways
of the world. She expects that the artists could be paid for their shows or
spectacle done in a ‘public’ situation. And she goes on to wish that it would
have been better if the students were taught this at the academies itself.
Now let us look at the reality against the egalitarian
scenario that Gonzalez-Foerster is painting. Our academies are just working
against the grain. Our educational institutions are actually working overtime
to make artists who would soon become the nuts and bolts in the huge engine
called the mechanistic economy. They are never train to become independent
artists who could find alternative ways but they are actively encouraged to become
gallery-ready artists. Further reading her and also analyzing her works in
general tell us that her practice is not bound by the gallery or museum terms
though she is not a stranger to the gallery/museum/art fair circuit. What makes
her click is her ability to go multi-disciplinary. Here in India
multi-disciplinary means the ill-equipped artists, but well equipped with money
made in the market at some point try to incorporate multi-disciplinary ideas
into their works. In fact these artists look ridiculous and a national shame
for they do not have the ability to grasp what they seem to have ‘mastered’ in
their works with the ‘help’ of others.
(Waswo X Waswo)
In India only the collectives like Raqs Media Collective and
Pors and Rao could effectively work towards multi-disciplinary practices. The basic
idea of creating multi-disciplinary art is intellectual and infrastructural
collaboration with the experts from other fields and creating works in a
combined fashion where one’s artistic identity is retained but work has always
a sense of collectivity with other collaborator’s name prominently featured in
the production and exhibition. You become a part and full owner of your art at
the same time. In India such kind of intellectual truthfulness and clarity is
shown by Waswo x Waswo in the production level negotiations. But in the case of
most of the artists multi-disciplinary involvement ends up in
inter-disciplinary excursions often resulting in half-baked works of art which
do not have either the artistic finesse or the intellectual verve of the
concerned fields. Gonzalez-Foerster perhaps makes herself more truthful and
clear while most of the Indian artists try to avoid even acknowledging the technical
involvement of other experts. So long as the truthfulness is not there the
aspiration for alternative platforms cannot be fulfilled. And above all, what
one needs for interdisciplinary and mulita-disciplinary practices is a profound
intellectual make up by choice and nature. Today our artists produce works on
environment, computing, gaming, refugee issues, architecture, anatomy, optics
and so on without ever trying to understand the global implications and
theoretical nuances. They just borrow expertise and demote the other experts as
technicians.
Such artists can become fake revolutionaries in a flash.
Gonzalez-Foerster makes a very good observation which I think is a perfect note
to end this essay: “I am not a Marxist; I am not a communist. I am just trying
to go beyond a very teenager view of art, this idea that ‘for years we didn’t
make any money, so now we can drink champagne and live in big houses’. This is
why it’s important to develop options for up-and-coming artists that will allow
them to make a living doing exhibitions. Imagine a situation where artists can
apply to a research institute. This, together with providing a fee for
participating in an exhibition, would be a way to create new attitude and new
kinds of work that are disconnected from certain formats. Of course, artists
who want to supply the market with objects should be free to do so, but I would
like to see a world in which it is possible to have both the situations.”
Exactly my sentiments too.
No comments:
Post a Comment