Contemporary Art. Criticism of criticism)))

[LCR]

The issue was recently discussed at the forum article by Maxim Kantor for several decades is the subject of the liveliest debates in the art world, it is impossible to imagine a number of symposia, workshops, books and articles on this topic.

I think it may be useful to get acquainted with a few samples of this controversy, so I offer you an abridged translation of his speech, Mr. Paul Ardenne at the International Symposium of art critics, held at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Barcelona on March 18, 2005, this author shares the view of M. Cantor ( I have, in general, too, but that no one may wonder why write it in the brackets - and the small print), but I intend offer to your attention and intervention, people who have others - and sometimes contradictory - views.

Contemporary art and art criticism - two aesthetic laboratory

Paul Ardenne, Professor of History of Contemporary Art at the University of Picardy

The first of these laboratories is very aesthetic contemporary art. After all forms are created by artists, each of them, building on their individual experience, offers its formal vision of the world. Nowadays artists pushed the boundaries of art, they put into it the notion of a work "common type", which is interested in a purely formal problems, and social and political issues.

Читать дальше... 

Criticism of art as an aesthetic laboratory - this formula also has a right to exist, especially well it defines curators, organizers of thematic exhibitions. Everyone knows that coaching in the art, and especially in the live arts, the most important representative is Harald Sherman, was one of the most important forms of art criticism. Some critics even represent themselves as "writers exhibitions. As it should be understood? They "wrote" the exhibition, as others write books, poems, drama scripts. But they do not enjoy the simple, neutral words. These words - a work of art, and through them, and the artists themselves, and the curators use them as material to achieve its goal. But that's not all. When these critics, curators of "write" exhibition, when they choose a "plot" of this exhibition, selected artists whose works are best illustrate the story, they thereby create the equivalent of a living history of art.

Briefly, curator of modern art, art criticism can no longer be a mere reflection of the views on art. It becomes direktivnuyufunktsiyu, becomes an expression of views "Maitre" proclaiming the truth and the intention to continue and develop its educational activities throughout his life.

While the art is characterized by the immensity of its form and contents, art critic, "writes" the exhibition, says his views through the selection, it has limitations. This situation is, at best, creates tension between art and criticism, at worst - lead to the betrayal of art by the critic.

This situation is not too important, yet criticism is a reflection of taste, that is, recognizes its subjectivity. But in terms of "cultural industry", this form of governance and culture, and tastes of society, it becomes ambiguous. Indeed, in terms of "cultural industry", the critic-curator is not a free individual, it serves some interests well. It is part of the structure, management culture in the name of the criteria, not all of which are cultural. These criteria are known: political propaganda (even if this promotion of democracy), the search for a minimum consensus, the Art Market.

My statement is not new - as early as 1972, at the Documenta exhibition in Kassel, Daniel Buren criticized Harald Sherman, curator of documents, accusing him that he is using artists and their works, as the seller in a flower shop uses flowers - to out of them a bouquet. A bouquet of this - continued Buren - is itself Sherman, curator of the 5-th document, which is the sole organizer, its creator. "In fact, artist - not the one who you think. Oh, of course, the exhibition Documenta have artists exhibit their works, but above them is another artist, the most important, super-artist, and this - the exhibition's curator.

It is well known that it was from that moment begin to speak of "the curator-artist", that is, the curator, who substitute for the artist, who, having complete freedom of creation of the concept of the exhibition, becoming its principal artists. It appears the term "critic - artist"
Organized more exhibitions on various topics - is to remember the exhibition in New York couples curators Collins and Milazzo in 1990. - The most improbable title, piled in a heap of work - in this case, the curators asserted its prerogatives in complete indifference to the aesthetics ...

As briefly define the activities of "critic-artist"?

- A form of expression, revels in its prerogatives, concentrated on itself;
- A form of expression, giving the right to reduce all art to theoretically needs criticism;
- A form of expression, which reduces the art in general to the individual opinion of the critic. "Personal Mythology" curator replaces objective analysis. Curator express themselves, he became Writer in all its pathetic and radical subjectivity.

The fate of "criticism - the artist" in terms mediatizirovannosti known: it is now run by a ball. Relatively big art events of the world - documents, manifestos and other biennials of contemporary art, which is becoming more and more, everybody knows: a view from the worlds of art did not attract artists who have exhibited their work there, no, he was chained to the curator of the exhibition. Comparing the various exhibitions, say first and foremost about their supervisors. What is better, the eclectic Document Jean Oe, open the post-modernist Document Rudi Fuchs and exotic-kreoliziruyuschaya Document Okvi Envezora?

In general, the activity of the curators, artists, "writing of the exhibition has become the main form of art through vampirizatsii classifications and hierarchies, which they set. Fakticheskm art criticism gave way to first place. One of the perverse effects of this discrimination is: break up the art and to choose only one of its segment as the best means to disparage the other segments, the second perverse effect - to encourage artists to create a kind of "official art" that meets the tastes of "critic-artist." At the Biennale 2005 in Istanbul, a young Balkan artists Yakup Ferry presented a series of videos, which was the success story of the artist. Author filmed surrounded by his family appeals to curators and asks them to help him in his crankcase: "Maybe someday I will notice any curator or nioy important chklovek ..." etc. Of course, one can not understand this work literally, but it nevertheless demonstrates the dependence of the artist from the system.:

Collective exhibition «Monument to Now», the proposed fund Dest, 2004, Athens. This exhibition was presented as the condensation of contemporary art. Artistic Director of it was Jeffy Ditch, who had 4 (!) Curator - the two old professional circus, Dan Cameron and Nancy Spector, and two representatives of the young - Alison M. Gingeras, and Massimiliano John. Result? 66 artists, about a hundred works, originating exclusively from the collection of John Dakisa (many of these works have been sold to him by Jeffy Ditch, art critics and gallery owners in the same time).
Criterion for selection here was a high quote. None of the famous artist is not forgotten. But looking at this exhibition, it must be said that Jeff Ditch with his band of servile critics and we have studied different art history. «Monument to Now» - nothing more than an ideological montage. These exhibitions allow sociologists talk about "predictability" of art, relegating him to the level of functioning, depending on the interests of the market.

Conclusion:

Art today - not only creativity. It creates and aesthetic criticism. "The critic-artist" fits artists to vsoemu taste, just as salts and peppers cook their meals. At the same time his main goal - not the rise of art and the rise of himself, and if we believe that true displays the art of our world that the artist's hands "saith true, this situation is simply unacceptable.
Art brought to its knees, it lost the war - and not because the world is not great artists, but because the artists do not control the communication. The reason for that - it poses the situation of art institutions - museums, markets, major fairs, etc., which are interested in their existence far more than art.