One aspect of Peter Fend's talk I bristled at was his idea that the only measure of an artistic or creative idea is its ability to earn money, if just to the end of its own realization. In describing his drainage map of Germany, he said that his goal in making it (in addition to retaliating against Documenta in Kassel) was to explore the usefulness of a supposedly great work, Duchamp's urinal. He said something to the effect of "if this is so great, then what can I do with it?" In each response to this question, represented by the various proposals hung around the gallery, the answer was a project proposal requiring institutional or governmental funding. Furthermore, he mentioned that he considered all of his works in the Essex Street Gallery to be failures, because of their inability to garner said funding.
Fend's philosophy represents a kind of capitalistic solution for the ever-problematic question of how certain artworks can be considered "good": In his model, only artworks that can justify their own expense and create economic value are worthwhile. I think that this position is too cynical to reflect what we know about this: Shakespeare's plays didn't survive because they are consistent box office hits. If that were the case, then in 500 years, Avatar will be remembered and studied as the greatest work of art of our time. Somehow, I doubt that this will be the case. I think certain works of art survive because they transcend time and boundaries by appealing to our common humanity.
I don't dislike Fend's work - far from it. I think he is tackling important problems in a certain creative way that artists are capable of. However, I think he sells himself short by declaring the failure of his works. Some of his ideas have already proven to be quite valuable, even if it is because an institution ripped off his intellectual property at his expense. (I thought that this aspect of his talk also raised interesting questions about authorship, and how credit is assigned to certain innovations). Further down the line, he may be recognized for the daring and innovative nature of his works.
To the point now: I think that an artwork doesn't have to "break even" or even have anything to do at all with any kind of political or economic framework to change anyone world. I think the only thing that one has to do to bring about such change with art or anything else is to put something into the world, to make something, in any way, shape, or form. Fend's ideas about earth art and about the artist in society may have reached me in a way that was not his intention in the conception of his works, a gallery show of "failed" ideas, but they will stay with me for some time to come for the strength of their conviction and vision. I think that the same thing can be said for all of the artworks that he and Maxwell ridiculed for their patent uselessness, and other art that isn't useful in any economic sense: Rirkrit's dinners and Hirst's dots, for instance.
Take this song, John Fahey's "Red Pony," for example. The song at its basest level is syncopated sound waves made by vibrating strings: it exists only in the abstract and definitely isn't about to stop global warming. It serves no appreciable economic purpose beyond YouTube advertisements. And yet, in hearing it, I've learned something about life, and my world has changed: I think it speaks to the sadness and strangeness of life on planet Earth. The only way to change the world is to make things - there's no telling how they will be received.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSh-YsyjpXk
No comments:
Post a Comment