What is the theoretical horizon within which contemporary practice is understood?

Despite a scepticism implied in the article’s title – “Contemp(t)orary: Eleven Theses” –Cuauhtémoc Medina presents a series of hypotheses for contemporary art which are potentially optimistic. His ideas are sometimes punctuated with gloom – mourning for the loss of the Utopian dream of Modernism and even referring to “the devil of contemporaneousness” (Medina) – but Medina manages to illustrate a positive vision for contemporary art. Here I will examine Medina’s third thesis, which proposes that contemporary art offers a new accessibility to audiences.

Medina states that “never since the advent of historical relativism at the end of the eighteenth century has the art of the day had a less conflictive social reception.” (Medina) He emphasises the “immediacy” of the relationship between contemporary practice and society.

Without actually discussing any examples to expand this argument, an image of Reclaim the Streets 1997 is positioned adjacent to this thesis in the text. The photograph shows people passing graffiti on the National Gallery of Art in Trafalgar Square. The scrawled writing reads, “Art by all, or none at all.” If this is the sort of model that Medina is referring to, it helps to explain his notion that contemporary art allows individuals from different class and ideological backgrounds to “smell each other in artistic structures.” (Medina) As a critic, curator and historian, writing for an online magazine that targets art professionals, this reference is probably deliberately oblique. Without this example though, Medina’s description of contemporary art as a “form of aristocratic populism” (Medina) is contra to a widely felt view that contemporary art fails to reflect the values of the public. (Jacob & Brenson 30) The public that Medina refers to is likely to be an artistically motivated public rather than a general public.

An explanation that Medina does give for contemporary art’s perceived obscurity is the “density of theoretical discourse on the topic.” (Medina) Medina suggests that contemporary art demands a “double reception” – an understanding of art first in terms of its general legibility within the universal culture, and later “as an attempt at sophisticated theoretical recuperation.” (Medina) In this statement, Medina acknowledges a less informed public who might also desire a context for thinking about contemporary art.

Medina is suggesting that this is a characteristic unique to contemporary art – that it is both immediately appealing to a general audience and also stands up to art world scrutiny. This seems to explain his claims of high legibility, in a way that his claims of “immediacy” and un-conflicted social reception appeared indistinct. The notion that contemporary art can have different levels of understanding, and that all levels could be relevant, certainly indicates a positive interpretation of contemporary art.

References:
Medina, Cuauhtémoc. “Contemp(t)orary: Eleven Theses.” e-flux Journal issue 12 (January 2010)
Jacob, Mary Jane and Brenson, Michael, Conversations at the Castle: Changing Audiences and Contemporary Art, MIT Press, 1998

What does it mean to work with theoretical material as a creative practitioner?

The capacity of an artist to cite theory in their practice without intellectually engaging in theoretical debate is at the centre of Craig Garrett’s interview with Swiss artist Thomas Hirschhorn.

 

Hirschhorn is known for his hyper saturated installations, which use Foucault’s philosophy “as just another materiel, like tape or cardboard.”(Hirschhorn 92)  Thomas Hirschhorn is candid in the fact that he makes no attempt to understand all the philosophy that is articulated in his art; his desire is rather to “confront, fight, and be affected by” the thinkers that he references. (Garrett 92)  By combining treasured texts of thinkers and philosophers with the mundane excess of reality, the result is irreverent. Hirschhorn describes this homage as lacking in respect, but not love or ambition.

 

His critics have described these works as “pedagogical failures” (Garrett 90) and his practice as ‘parasitic;’ relying on the reputation of historical thought without contributing to its better understanding.  This reflects a well-established view that ideas need to be fully understood to be of value or meaning.  In spite of this view, visual art has a history of being informed by other disciplines, such as philosophy, music and science.  Artists have traditionally monitored contemporary discourse, be it psychoanalysis in the early 20^th century or the French philosophers that inspire Thomas Hirschhorn.

 

The criticism of Hirschhorn is not just that he does not attempt to understand Foucault’s philosophy, he also “does not show his lofty subjects the respect they are due,” (Garrett 90) using cheap materials to create viewer accessibility.  The irony in Garrett’s tone can be understood, as he speaks of philosophers as being “unamazed by what they see as forays into their territory.”  (Garrett 90)  Craig Garrett is managing director of Flash Art, and writes for artists – not philosophers and museum educators.  The language he uses indicates how he feels about the issue – that he is in accord with Hirschhorn’s methods.

 

Not without contradiction, Hirschhorn’s defence of this use of philosophy in his practice relies on his enthusiasm and genuine fanaticism for the philosophy he uses. He describes the relationship he presents between philosophy and art as a “friendship,” and explains, “I do not need philosophy as an artist – I need philosophy as a human being!” (Garrett 92)  Claiming that he does not seek to justify his use of philosophy, Hirschhorn occasionally seems to do just that, although he never looks “for authorisation or validation of his mania.” (Garrett 90)

 

References:

 Berg, Lene. “Who has the right to censor art?” The Art Newspaper Issue 197 (December 2008)

 Garrett, Craig. “Thomas Hirschhorn, Philosophical Battery.” Flash Art no. 238 (October 2004): pp. 90-93

 Rappolt, Mark. “Studio: Thomas Hirschhorn.” Tate Magazine Issue 7