The best Blog on Art from the Caucasus, contributed and read worldwide + der Schützenpanzer unter den Kunstblogs + + Visuals Virtual Reality Caucasus Style + Net + Tbilisi and beyond

Saturday, March 13, 2010

The Language of Form is not the Form of Language. By Alexis Kazazis

Dear editors,

The following text was my response to a ‘call for participation’ for an exhibition project by an American visiting curator/artist to be held in the city of Thessaloniki, Greece. The curator’s name is Rachel Moore and her project is backed by the Fulbright Foundation. (You will find an attachment of Mrs. Moore’s text.)

Although I will not be participating in the actual exhibition, the specific ‘artist’s statement’ that I was required to submit does, in my view, touch upon the issues debated between Peter Plagens and Todd Richardson (letters to the editors, Art in America, Feb. 2010, p. 22), concerning the exhibition ‘Mississippi Yearning’. I couldn’t have visited (nor criticized) ‘Mississippi Yearning’, but I consider my arguments to [partly] contribute to your magazine’s relevant discourse.
In case you find my text impossible to edit to printable length, I would kindly ask you to forward it to Peter Plagens, as I hope he might find it worthwhile.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The Language of Form is not the Form of Language.

Far from being a post-structuralist blurb, the above axiom states, quite plainly, that the Vasarian thesis of the 'studiolo' artist-as-intellectual has reached its final stage in the 20th century, has lead to exaggerations and abuses from all sides and is rapidly disintegrating amidst an equally destabilized stock market economy of the so-called 'information age'. To borrow Gerhard Richter's words, "now that we do not have priests and philosophers [I add: or stockbrokers] anymore, artists are the most important people in the world". ('The Daily Practice of Painting', Thames & Hudson 1995, verso & p. 62)
I stress the word 'artists' as opposed to 'philosophers'. The distinction is of utmost importance. It is exactly the distinction between two ancient thinkers, Plato and Diogenes of Sinope, the first being a dualistic philosopher and the second a practical performer, an artistic activist, a philosophical terrorist, in short: a master of subversion. 'Defacing the currency' was, after all, the activity of a true Duchamp avant la lettre. (Platonism may have served the goals of the ruling classes ever since, but only as a Christianized myth of mind over matter, good and bad, master and servant, the division of labour.)

Duchamp himself has won a decisive victory on the issue of the meaning and function of art. The fatal blow he inflicted on the intellectual art establishment of his day (1917) has loosened the shackles of all artists after him. It is thanks to him that we (artists) may today define art and its context as arbitrarily as we please. Not forgetting that the self-professed (and thus supposed) enemy of painting went on to deliberately confuse every art bureaucrat of the century by continuing to use the medium of painting till the end of his life! (the 'Large Glass' is a painting, albeit an unusual one.)

But let’s return to language. How can an ‘artist’s statement’ serve the work of a visual artist? Must it function as the voluntary subordination of visual media (the image) to the philological constraints of text (written language)? Is Peter Haley’s blunder, namely to theorize his painting to death, not a useful lesson? Or should one verbalize about the anthropological, transcendental and emancipatory importance of art to society in the manner of Joseph Beuys? But Beuys' hot air declarations have done little if anything to stop the decay of his lumps of cold grease. And Marcel Broodthaers, the language artist par excellence, has long ago exposed the trappings of this self-styled art pope by openly addressing him with this epistle/artwork:
"Dear Wagner, ..., your essay 'Art and Revolution' - discussing magic, politics? - of which you are surely aware. The politics of magic? of beauty or of ugliness? - the Messiah! ... my dear Wagner, our relations have become strained ..."
Signed: Jacques Offenbach (1972)
[I am referring to Beuys the Icon, not to his merit as teacher.]

It has become commonplace to refer to 'cross-cultural dialogues', a 'cultural past', 'global and local issues', even 'political' engagement and evoking 'change'. Since curators are surely not Messiahs, I wonder why they should come up with discussion projects for people whose professional activity is not forging discussions (they are neither lawyers, nor scholars, nor party officials). Artists don't 'discuss' artworks, they make them. It is critics and scholars who discuss artworks, either to increase their market value (money is the name of the game) or, alternately, to serve the noble purposes of knowledge in the discipline of art history (the control of meaning). Artists do indeed discuss artworks among them and with anyone else they choose, but they do not call this an artwork. In the exception that an artist does so, he/she is solely responsible for any guidelines and principles.
So, why are we being asked to surrender our sovereignty and self-determination? Why are we asked to explain ourselves, our motives and our artworks? Why are we requested to perform as monkeys in the cage of textuality? Aren't our artworks eloquent enough as they are?

It is a rather unfortunate trend that artists opt to wrap themselves in the cloak of a scholar/curator/administrator. I must admit I know of only one single case that this has led to masterful success. When Hans Haacke – a New Yorker – mounted his exhibition project 'Viewing Matters' in Museum Boijmans in the Dutch city of Rotterdam (1999), he managed an unprecedented artistic achievement. The rigor and consequence of his museological deconstruction was such, that it remains unmatched (at least to my knowledge). [My Wagner/Offenbach citation came from p. 36 of the exhibition catalogue.]
But then Haacke set out to subvert, whereas others set out to control.

Let us suppose that the Fulbright Foundation (which some consider an agent of cultural neo-colonialism) enables an artist/curator to cross over the ocean and visit a somewhat ‘exotic’ corner of the old continent. This touristic corner (Greece), an economically unstable and culturally schizophrenic part of the East is supposed to belong to the current 'European Family' (EU) of the West. As Europe’s ‘poor relative’ it shares its neighboring Turkey's mentality in many things, but not religion. Significantly, we have no international artists of any prestige, unlike muslim countries like Turkey (or even Albania). Despite our Olympic Games fame, it would seem like we are yet to be ‘discovered’, so this place might be just right for the curious and aspiring ethnological [art] explorer: a virgin jungle full of colourful and cross-cultural Balkan baboons. That said, what can the civilized North-American art scout/missionary do in this fertile but uncultivated land? What can his/her modus operandi be?

By happy coincidence, the latest [February] issue of Art in America offers us a useful insight. From the letters to the editors [p. 22] I quote Peter Plagens, New York curator 'exploring' Mississippi:
"Any reasonable and conscientious curator/juror venturing onto unfamiliar turf wonders whether he or she picks the art selected because a) it's simply 'good' by some general standard that allows quirky stuff from a non-major contemporary art capital to come shining through, or b) it conforms to some procrustean bed the curator/juror, subconsciously or not, carts around everywhere."

Aside from Plagens’ option A (which disposes with any curatorial superiority and infallibility), the main question that arises here is what are the contents of that curatorial cart. Is it 'enlightenment'? Is it the 'brotherhood of man' (or a quasi-feminist variant thereof)? Is it the globalizing, post-metropolitan pseudo-philanthropy towards the [until recently] outsider 'ethnic' artist?
More often than not, an artist chosen for his ‘ethnicity’ or ‘otherness’ is expected to formulate ‘statements’ of ‘artistic’ justification, self-revelation (psychoanalysis?) and consent. Consent to an outmoded, conservative, and politically incorrect (in the true sense of the word) view of the world, art and artists. Any contrived verbal 'awareness' of ‘cultural pasts/influences/dialogues’ etc would totally castrate any evocative powers artworks might have, any perceptual enchantment they might achieve. This conceptual straightjacket already kills any possible magic. The baboon that stutters with a metropolitan [i.e. American] accent is a pitiful creature, a transvestite animal, a freak.
And this outmoded metropolitan quasi-scholasticism, an ancien regime of cultural politics can no longer be held credible. Since the baboon is an aggressive but intelligent animal, it might already know that “by conveying a thing through the medium of language, you change it. You construct qualities that can be said, and you leave out the ones that can’t be said but are always the most important.” (Gerhard Richter, above, p. 39)
That thing is the artwork itself. (ibid., p. 35)

Speaking of the ‘ethnicity’ of freaks and baboons, I am tempted to mention the achievement of two magnificent art buffoons: Gilbert & George.
G & G have consolidated the achievement of Marcel Duchamp. They scored a new victory, this time on the issue of the artist and his defiant self-determination. In 2007 they demolished, by sheer wit, the artificial division between Tate modern and Tate Britain, being the first 'British' artists to exhibit in a no-Brits institution. The Tate Britain has thus lost all of its teeth and its days are numbered. "We are not British artists", Gilbert & George declared, "we are artists [of the world]".
Similarly, this writer perceives himself as neither a Balkan nor a Greek, nor a left-wing or right-wing Greek artist. An artist is the mouthpiece of no one but him/herself. Art has nothing else to prove than that it is perceptually challenging and artistically (i.e. materially and aesthetically) consequent. In our current climate, this is already very political. Let’s face it: flogging October's dead horse cannot add impact to mediocre artworks.

Let me conclude with a few fitting words by Robert Storr (scholar, but also artist):
"Walter Benjamin ca. 1938, filtered through the crises of 1968, doesn't add up to 1988 or 1998, much less 2008. Nor is Lacan's distinctly mid-20th-century, and peculiarly French, rereading of Freud necessarily the best place to start a discussion of photography, or of feminist performance today - much less of digitally manipulated photography or abstract painting. If you're anxious about the rise of authoritarianism - and who isn't - then buck it. Don't just talk back to it in another authority-based language." (Art in America, May 2007, p. 111)

As for this writer’s awareness of his own 'cultural past': Diogenes of Sinope (ca. 412-323 BC) has gone down in history as the most insolent man that walked the face of this earth. He was Greek.
This is my heritage. And it's a global one.


Sincerely yours,

Alexis Kazazis
alexis.kazazis@gmail.com
Greece

9 comments:

  1. Hi Alexis,

    As I decipher your article, your thesis seems to be of that kind: "art cannot be explained by written or spoken language". I do not agree to this and will point out my objections in the following comment.

    As this forum allows only comments of a maximum length of 4096 characters I am forced to divide my comment in three parts.

    Here is part I:

    The common argument against explaining art by (written or spoken) language is: "If it could be fully explained by language, then the object explained could be fully replaced by the explanation." So, for example, if someone exactly describes a scuplture and what it means, then there is no reason for me to take a further look at this piece of art itself. Why? Because looking at it does not give
    me any additional information as everything is already given through the explanation.

    Despite the fact that such thing as a "full explanation" would of course be an impossible task (for more than one reason), it seems – at least to me - worth taking a closer look at the role of language in the context of art - maybe to better understand what "explanation of art" could mean.

    Let me first come to one view of (spoken or written) language you mentioned, which is - as I know - shared among lots of artists. I speak about the view of language as a "cage". As I am inclined to the late Wittgenstein's approach to language I always think that this is a narrow and -to put it a little stronger- even distorting view of language. To put it short: Not language is a "cage" but this view of language as-a-cage is the cage.

    The reasons for this view are quite obvious and can rather be easily psychlogically explained - to put it short again: When I speak of a "stone" it is not the stone itself. There seems to be a gap between the word and (in this case) the object it refers to. There is obviously so much more
    about the stone which is absolutely not covered by the word "stone". And even if I go beyound that single word and obtain a full description of the object (which is of course as impossible as a full explanation), this description is by no means a replacement of the real experience of the object
    itself. So there seems to be only one conclusion: Language is -when confronted with reality- an insufficient means of approaching this reality.
    Reality is so much more than language and whenever we try to "grab" it with language we put it into the cage of an insufficient means of description.

    So you see, as I have some understanding of this view (to admit: I had it once myself) I think it is a flawed one. Why? Because it does not take into account one basic fact about humanity which is -at least to me- beyound any doubt: Everything we as humans do starts with language. Everything we do is based on language. From the beginning of our lives we are embedded in language as we grow up in some culture - always
    (There are some exceptions, but these are - well, exceptions ;-)).

    This admitted you should (as I did) develop a mistrust against this view that "language is a cage". When everything we do is based on language -even when we say nothing, but simply do something- how can language be a cage? Under which conditions does it make sense to speak of language as-a-cage? And is this really the way language works?

    Let me first put aside one argument against language-as-a-cage which is obvious but does not seem a real argument against it to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Part II

    When you look at (spoken or written) language you might notice that language is something very flexible and developing. Language always has a history and it always develops new articulations, words and even grammatical structures to cope with an ever changing world. Things we did not even have a word for before might be able to be easily described by coming generations because they developed descriptional means for it. So when pointing out that languages always grow and extend (at least: change) why should this be an argument against language-as-a-cage? It rather seems that culture always finds ways to break out of lingual limits. But: This view still assumes that language is a cage - although an only temporary one.

    What I intend to argue for is that language is never a cage - by any means.
    Just to get rid of this deep misunderstanding I come back to the fact that we are emedded in language.

    Take one example: Looking at a tree. Would you assume that you still look at a tree when your language does not provide you with any appropriate means to refer to what we call a "tree"?
    The answer could only be "no".
    Why? Because your language use doesn't allow you to identify trees. So to look closer - it's not only your (spoken or written) language - it's your whole culture where people do not have any use for identifying trees.
    You might say "Well, this must be a weird culture" and this might be true for now and here.
    But think thousand years into the future when trees might be gone or think about a society living in a rather dry, treeless desert.

    Then you might think of something else - some members of this society living in this desert go somewhere else to provide their society with fruits from trees which grow so far away from their desert home that only a few can go there. These few know about trees, they of course have communicational means to refer to them. These few might have difficulties to share their language use on trees with the others in the desert. But - is there any problem? With all probability: No! The people living in the desert will accept the fruit-deliverer's language use as long as they get their fruits. And they accept this language use as it is a necessary part of the fruit delivery process. To them, these fruit-deliverers are specialists with a special language use.
    In our culture it is similar. We have Mathematicians, Physicians, Artists, specialists for lots of things. They all have their own language uses which might be easily understood by the other members of the same community but not so easily by non-members.
    But: they all are embedded in the language. And so they are all - basically - accessible.

    So: When specialists talk, they always talk in their specific context. This also admitted it is clear that "explanation" in the context of physics definitely means something different than when we for example ask someone to "explain your reasons for your behaviour". We would be amazed -to say the least- when someone tries to explain his behaviour by not referring to human reasons or motives but rather referring to the laws of nature. The latter "explanation" would sound weird - not to mention the fact that when taking into account the complexity of our body-mind-system it would take rather long and be quite boring - and we would not have the feeling that this is really the explanation we were asking for. And just to come back to "stone" referring a stone - even
    if a full description of a stone would be possible: Probably no one would need it or ask for it. The level of precision is based on the context of language use and in some cases just touching the stone or looking at it might be enough - and even this is part of our language because we know it's a "stone" we are touching or looking at.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Part II

    When you look at (spoken or written) language you might notice that language is something very flexible and developing. Language always has a history and it always develops new articulations, words and even grammatical structures to cope with an ever changing world. Things we did not even have a word for before might be able to be easily described by coming generations because they developed descriptional means for it. So when pointing out that languages always grow and extend (at least: change) why should this be an argument against language-as-a-cage? It rather seems that culture always finds ways to break out of lingual limits. But: This view still assumes that language is a cage - although an only temporary one.

    What I intend to argue for is that language is never a cage - by any means.
    Just to get rid of this deep misunderstanding I come back to the fact that we are emedded in language.

    Take one example: Looking at a tree. Would you assume that you still look at a tree when your language does not provide you with any appropriate means to refer to what we call a "tree"?
    The answer could only be "no".
    Why? Because your language use doesn't allow you to identify trees. So to look closer - it's not only your (spoken or written) language - it's your whole culture where people do not have any use for identifying trees.
    You might say "Well, this must be a weird culture" and this might be true for now and here.
    But think thousand years into the future when trees might be gone or think about a society living in a rather dry, treeless desert.

    Then you might think of something else - some members of this society living in this desert go somewhere else to provide their society with fruits from trees which grow so far away from their desert home that only a few can go there. These few know about trees, they of course have communicational means to refer to them. These few might have difficulties to share their language use on trees with the others in the desert. But - is there any problem? With all probability: No! The people living in the desert will accept the fruit-deliverer's language use as long as they get their fruits. And they accept this language use as it is a necessary part of the fruit delivery process. To them, these fruit-deliverers are specialists with a special language use.
    In our culture it is similar. We have Mathematicians, Physicians, Artists, specialists for lots of things. They all have their own language uses which might be easily understood by the other members of the same community but not so easily by non-members.
    But: they all are embedded in the language. And so they are all - basically - accessible.

    So: When specialists talk, they always talk in their specific context. This also admitted it is clear that "explanation" in the context of physics definitely means something different than when we for example ask someone to "explain your reasons for your behaviour". We would be amazed -to say the least- when someone tries to explain his behaviour by not referring to human reasons or motives but rather referring to the laws of nature. The latter "explanation" would sound weird - not to mention the fact that when taking into account the complexity of our body-mind-system it would take rather long and be quite boring - and we would not have the feeling that this is really the explanation we were asking for. And just to come back to "stone" referring a stone - even
    if a full description of a stone would be possible: Probably no one would need it or ask for it. The level of precision is based on the context of language use and in some cases just touching the stone or looking at it might be enough - and even this is part of our language because we know it's a "stone" we are touching or looking at.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Part III:

    To conclude: when it comes to "explaining art" - we should take into account that these explanations are always rooted in the context of art (like physical explanations are rooted in the context of physics). Objects of art are never, by no means, everyday objects or simply physical facts. In fact sometimes they are only losely connected to what we normally call "matter". So when someone "explains" art objects as „normal“ objects he immediately confuses contexts. And by doing this he won't get far because his language use is of course completely inappropriate. The result is probably frustration and the feeling that language is a "cage". But this is wrong. What he did was simply confusing contexts.
    But not to misunderstand me: A "scientific" approach to art might have its justifications. Consider a gallerist ordering his works of art according to a special system in order to not lose overview. He does this for practical reasons. He would never would say that this is a systematic approach to explaining art.

    A final question remains: If this is the case, what use or role (if any) do "explanations" in (spoken or written) language have in art?
    How is language in art generally used? Well to me, the answer is quite simple. And it is an answer that even some artists will not like:
    Any comment on or "explanation of" a work of art is part of this work of art itself. It belongs to it as soon as it refers to it. Why?
    Because of the interaction between language and art. The work of art referred to shifts the ways language is used and comments on or "explanations of" works of art have influence on how we perceive them. So I think any antagonism such as language description vs. art perception does not really exist. Language in art should be seen as extending art, as it is always 100% incorporated into art perception and production. A work of art ceases to ba a work of art when nobody communicates about it as a work of art any more.
    And: If a "scientific explanation" of a work of art somehow negatively affects it's „magic“ (however this should be possible), it cannot only be the "scientific explanation's" fault ;-)

    Hope this clarifies something
    Mikel

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks a lot for your interesting comment, Mikel !

    ReplyDelete
  6. my comments in 2 parts (posting limit)

    part 1

    "Language in art should be seen as extending art, as it is always 100% incorporated into art perception and production"

    this is a thesis i can absolutely agree upon. it's the term 'extending' that makes all the difference. i would have used the term 'adding'. but then, to me, this 'addition' has little to do with controlling.
    the issue here is not 'scientific' language, but politics itself.
    would i opt to call politics a 'cage'? no, definitely not.
    but you know as well i do that the language of 'politics' is usually a rigid form that obscures content and substance. i can quote the perfect example of this. a brilliant 20th century artist has illustrated this in an equally brilliant artwork: you should listen to "Der Tribun", a recorded performance by the composer mauricio kagel.
    this is an artwork utilizing language to deconstruct 'language'! the fantastic thing about it is: it is not a scientific thesis, it is ART in the best possible sense of the term. and, to me, it proves (just like the early dadaists did) that art can be more powerful than science when it comes to radical criticism. (the surrealists knew this too. i have georges bataille in mind.)

    (part 2 follows)

    ReplyDelete
  7. part 2

    it is not language that is a cage. it is simply a medium (a tool) among other media. yes, a predominant medium, if you will. but that fact is not attributable to nature! it is attributed to EDUCATION (= culture). if everyone (every member of society) had the same access to education (= the same access to control), language would be far less predominant than it is. it is predominant exactly because it is a tool reserved for the few. even in the so-called 'information age', the illiterate far outnumber the literate. the point is: the literate RULE over the illiterate. it has always been so since the beginning of recorded history. in fact, recorded history itself has been exactly the attempt of some to control the future of all (by determining the past in a 'narrative'). yes, this sounds rather marxist, but let's call it vulgar marxism (the marxism of the semi-literate). hehe
    if this still seems strange to you, just consider the power of money. if everyone had equal access to it would money be such an important distinguishing factor? surely not. and, in these terms, it was a blessing for beuys that everyone is NOT an artist, for otherwise he himself would have had no status and prestige at all (in a world only inhabited by artists).

    a minor detail about myself: apart from being an artist i am also a translator. i have worked as one for many years. having translated 3 books, among other things, should mean that i have a special relationship to language (esp. written language) and am aware of its function and limitations. also of the difficulties in generating, altering, and manipulating meaning.
    the text that was published here was directed against a certain FORM of art politics, i choose to call it, and not against language itself or language in relation to art in general.

    in my original text i quoted artists using language (pity you didn't choose to comment on them). this time round i do the same (i prefer an artist to a philosopher) by adding a link to illustrate my example. by clicking on it you can download the work mentioned, Der Tribun, ripped from my own cd (and made available through my own hard disk).
    sorry, but the text is in german. kagel was an argentinean-born german composer. (his career was quite notorious and equally praised!)

    the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5394652/mauricio%20kagel%20-%20der%20tribun%20%5Blive%20performance%20at%20bielefeld%201989%5D%20%28from%20Wergo%20cd%201996%29.zip

    as for art & language: i have a nice little album of images depicting language forms on my facebook page. it's called 'foul language'.
    the link: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=7783&id=100000653520943&ref=pb
    most texts are unfortunately in greek. i am a collector of language (scraps of it). i also record spoken language. plan to make an artwork of it someday.

    @ mike: hope you enjoy kagel's wonderful artwork about language & 'language'.

    @ hans: thank you for your great hospitality here. i bin sicher daß Der Tribun etwas für dich ist!

    @ wittgenstein: eat your heart out!

    :-))

    ReplyDelete
  8. oops! sorry about the un-clickable links, still don't know how to do this properly. if you copy/paste them on your browser it should do the trick.

    greetings!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Alexis,

    Thanks for the Kagel-stuff, will listen to it!

    As I see it, this discussion should take place somewhere else just because this forum has it's (technical) limitations. There's still a lot to talk about (and analyze!) here. Sorry if I did not comment on the artists you commented on. I chose a philosophical approach which is, I admit, currently far from being complete. Especially part III of the argument (the most interesting part btw.) needs more clarification. When the argument is ready to go, then we can make some more detailed analysis, if you like to ;-)

    Cheers
    Mikel

    ReplyDelete