Bourriaud claims that "the postmodern aesthetic is born of the extinction of political radicalism...". He emphasizes this with the idea that "...the merchandise that art produces is style. Style, defined as a collection of visual identifying marks that are infinitely manipulable: Piet Mondrian reduced to a motif, Joseph Beuys without the revolution..."
This quote, taken from page 48 of The Radicant, reminded me of a trip that my room mates and I took to Yale fall semester. We stopped at a McDonald's on the way, and while waiting in line, I noticed a familiar style of painting on the walls. Rothco ripoffs adorned the walls next to the bathrooms, with ketchup stains on their dingy frames. This seems to be the aesthetic of postmodernism as Bourriaud sees it. While the co-opting of such charged, revolutionary works to adorn the walls of a transitory 'non-place' is disturbing at best, horrific at worst, I do not believe that this supports the conclusion that the postmodern aesthetic revolves around style and is devoid of revolution. The rise of postmodernism coincided with the proliferation of many social movements that were dissatisfied with the purported universalism of modernism. Feminist art in particular was full of revolution, and that revolution burst from the picture plane in the form of installation, sculpture and video art. I wonder at Bourriaud's justification for this broad dismissal of all art since 1970; what is it he is trying to prove?
-----------
On page 51-52 of The Radicant, Bourriaud compares radicantism with the growth of ivy. Of this type of growth he states that "the radicant can, without injury, cut itself off from its first roots and reacclimate itself. There is no single origin, but rather successive, simultaneous, or alternating acts of enrooting. While radical artists sought to return to an original place, radicant artists take to the road, and they do so without having any place to return to. Their universe contains neither origin nor end, except for those they decide to establish themselves"
I am intrigued by the type of growth this supposes; that artists can grow from stimulation of many different kinds, and from very disparate sources. However, I am also very skeptical of his valorization of this kind of creation over all others. While his simile is very romantic and full of possibility, it implies that radicants only pull from the the topsoil; there is no deeper knowledge of the cultures from which they appropriate. I think that where symbols are used, the artist should have a thorough understanding of their context and history; this knowledge is important for deliberate design.
-----------
On page 53, Bourriaud goes on to claim that altermodernity is in part based on the end of medium-specific practices, and that the true radicant pulls from many different disciplines, never confining themselves to one medium, and that this necessarily will lead to the end of any tendencies to exclude "certain fields from the realm of art." According to Bourriaud, "nothing could be more alien to than a mode of thought based on disciplines, on the specificity of the medium- a sedentary notion if ever there was one, and one that amounts to cultivating one's field." Through his tone, it is clear that Bourriaud has nothing but distain for those who waste their time cultivating their field. Yet cultivation leads to innovation, and it is innovation that Bourriad is most interested in. Is he not excluding the creative processes and practices of a large group of artists while simultaneously claiming that altermodernity is non-exclusionary? This paradox seems ominous to me. The idea of "cultivating one's field" implies gaining mastery over materials and techniques tied to that field. From Bourriaud's description, radicantity seems to eschew the value of mastery all together.
-----------
At several points in the book, Bourriaud concerns himself with defining a purpose or field of study for artistic practice. This often leads to huge sections of artistic inquiry being passed over or their validity denied entirely. For a theory of 21st century art, such exclusionary thinking is remarkably closed-minded. On page 54 he launches into one of his efforts to define art. He claims that, "for radicants, "art...is not defined as an essence to be perpetuated...but rather as a gaseous substance capable of filling up the most disparate human activities before once again solidifying in the form that makes it visible as such: the work. The adjective gaseous is only frightening for those who see art as identical with its regime of institutional visibility. Just like the word 'immaterial', it is only pejorative for those who don't know how to see." Besides being thoroughly disgusted by his pedantic tone, I take issue with his inability to find value in any art that does not conform to his collage-style ideal. What does he mean by the "...those who see art as identical with its regime of institutional visibility"? Is he referring to those who see the object as the ultimate art rather than the idea?
-----------
On page 58, Bourriaud begins to explore the idea of place, and its connection with loci of power. Using the Coca-Cola corporation as an example, he posits that "Coca-cola is without a location; by contrast, every bottle of Chateau Eyquem contains a history based on a particular territory. That history, however, turns out to be mobile: it comes with the bottle, which is a portable sample of the region. The moment human groups lose all living contact with representation is the abstract moment by which capitalism consolidates its holdings."
I was interested, but ultimately confused by this statement. The place-lessness of Coca-Cola seems to be exactly what he valorizes in radicant art. He clarifies somewhat with the following statement; "The new powers have no location. They manifest themselves in time. Coca-Cola's power is based on the repetition of its name by advertising, which is the new architecture of power. How can the Bastille be stormed if it is protean and invisible?"
The capitalist symbols of power are here compared to the Bastille, the prison that symbolized France's dictatorial monarchy through the 18th century. If capitalist power is the new Bastille, Bourriaud seems to imply that radicant art is our defense against such power. In order to take back our liberties, we must combat with creation of a new sort. This made me think of attempts to reclaim public space, such as the OBEY sticker campaign, begun in 1989 by Shepard Fairey, which he claimed to be "an experiment in phenomenology" aimed at "reawakening a sense of wonder about one's environment." This is an idea that I am excited by; using the language of advertising to subvert the power that corporations have over our mental and physical space.
No comments:
Post a Comment