Reading 2

Buchmann, Sabeth. “Under the Sign of Labor. Art after conceptualism. 2006: 179-195. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. & London.

Cuauhtemoc, Medina. “Contemp(t)orary: Eleven Theses”. e-flux journal, #12 01/2010: 1-7. 17/2/2010. http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/103.

The texts; by Sabeth Buchmann an art critic and historian and Medina Cuauhtemoc; art critic and curator surmise on the role of conceptual art to current art practice.
I am interested in the question raised by both authors that conceptual/contemporary art failed to meet idealistic goals in relation to a new social and political discourse and the role of institutions/audience to this today.

Bachmann’s premise that the goal of conceptual art to “free production from the logic of the marketplace and anchor it within a non-institutional, non commercial public sphere”(179) was she states not achieved. Cuauhtemoc thinks the term contemporary art, once loaded with meanings of change and possible alternatives “the new”(1) failed to live up to its utopian expectation of social and political realisation.

Where it did achieve, according to Buchmann, was in the way the value of art was recalibrated as a “form of communication that generates publicness” (179) and incorporated into new spheres such as urban space, social movements, mass media and technologies. The freeing from craft-based production methods, with their inherent labour quota, led to a redefining of what could be “exhibited in the realm of the public” (180). Cuauhtémoc argues that the public institutions took this and ran with it, being now the “last refuge of political and intellectual radicalism” (6).

Matthew Collings' writing in Modern Painters March 2010 thinks the promise of modernism has become debased because “as a society we want the good and the new to be already happening; we don’t so much want to do the hard work of making it happen” (27). He thinks this could be caused by consumerism or something bad and political, and that this was aided by the notion of attacking elitism under the guise of accessibility, that the institutions simply “suck up to the new spirit of carnival populism that gives them their jobs" (27).

In New Zealand at least, it is hard to find examples of institutions being bastions of radicalism nor has the conceptual and political met and flourished. Although art-going is clearly a popular activity in NZ, with nearly 50% of the population attending and participating (Creative NZ media release 2009), so presumably publicness is being reached. The intent of what is being shown however is not always clear, yes conceptual/contemporary art is accessible but is this just a manifestation of the desire to be part of the global art calendar? This is also debated among practioners in NZ, especially when we represent our most contemporary face abroad, as exemplified in the ongoing ARTbash blog 1. on the merit of our Venice Biennial/offshore promotions.

It seems to me that Buchmann, Cuauhtemoc and Collings, like the ARTbash bloggers, are noting confusion, a loss, an unease with the direction of art practice and the part that institutions play in these relationships. Utopia has not been protected. Maybe the view now needs to be directed to the past rather than to a moribund present or fervent focus on the new, to as Collings says reconnect with the power and sincerity of arts traditional meanings and instead renew them for a new age (27).

Notes
1. Examples of comments from ARTBash
Sooty 12 May 2007 1:25 pm
People have often remarked that you've got to be seen in Venice, it's where the real art connections are made. The exhibitions themselves often seem incidental to the ferocious networking which goes on. Catalogues are pressed into unwilling hands, desparate curators from the colonies determined to swing jobs overseas introduce themselves to all and sundry, nationals hang about in sad little clumps trying to catch the eye of the important people. I do think its worthy of note that for whatever reason, NZ has decided to dispense with the art completely this time and just go for the networking. If that's the real point of it all, it must be a much cheaper strategy than bothering with the art.
nznancy 12 May 2007 2:29 pm
For the record, I am not advocating bickering as an occupation, but I think that open argument from various points of view is enlivening. Anyway, Sarah Quigley happens to have a piece in The Press today, "If this is art, I want books", which is rather sceptical of (relatively unidentified) art works, and visitors, in (also unidentified) galleries - in Berlin. Despite the difficulty of speaking about this in NZ, perhaps an airy response (to the paper or by some other public channel) from someone is called for. If such things are ignored publicly, but gossiped over, nothing is advanced.

Works Cited
1. Buchmann, Sabeth. “Under the Sign of Labor. Art after conceptualism. 2006: 179-195. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. & London.
2. Cuauhtemoc, Medina. “Contemp(t)orary: Eleven Theses”. e-flux journal, #12 01/2010: 1-7. 17/2/2010. http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/103
3. Collings, Matthew. “Why Do Paintings Look Nice?”. Modern Painters, March, 2010: 24-27
4. “Arts Are Part of Life For New Zealanders”. Creative NZ Media Release. APRIL 2009. http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/who_we_are/news/articletype/articleview/articleid/144
5. http://www.artbash.co.nz/article.asp?id=998&p=3#comments