Ah, what a Ruthless Joy
Rather hyphen-mental, having been a low-level exhibitionist myself for a number of years, I was interested in an article (by the former curator of the 'Stedelijke' in the 'Groene Amsterdammer' recently- I think it was mid-october...) in which the exponential expansion of 'tentonstellingnitis' or exhibitionitis was scientifically and subjectively bemoaned. Reading the subtitle before the subtext, I was initially enthusiastic until I realized that it was about predators of the cultural elite, which have sway and say over what this thing culture might be…Hmmm… I could agree with the premise that exhibitions have become a general gap-filler in the vacuous orifices left by a materially overfed society, with every tom, dick & harry-corporation lending it’s logo to some dead artist or other, pulling in crowds, feel-good-PR, more millions and a tax-rebate to boot… The kind of academically-trained nincompoops who parade as curators and specialist-researchers and clog the seminar-circuit with their half-witted theories on the life and times of any given twat with a paintbrush or video-camera.
Well, we knew that already, I thought to myself, and re-read some passages to see if I could glean some hidden subversion from this article. Aside from the ‘animal-farm’ allusions to the various types of exhibistionists, there seemed to be no further cause than to vent some frustration by a former demi-god hung out to dry. The article did not get my blood up as it should have, but left me with a feeling sympathetic sorrow,- the kind that wants to make you send money to some exotic place far from one’s own shed.
Once being in a sort of literate mind-set, I juxtaposed (ahem) my own experience with what I had read and came to the conclusion that it was familiar, but miles away from my own concerns… Though I could grasp the necessity of exhibitions of historic and contemporary art-practice, the manner in which the problem was approached disturbed me. Somewhere in the whole discourse (or diatribe, if you will) there was an essential element missing: the executioner of the practice. Just as with charity, the form and manner was more important than the effect or it’s magnitude… the proverbial shell providing sanctuary for nothing more than a grain of sand,- in the hope that it will become a pearl of immense value. (even synthetic)
With this syntho-sympathetic idea I proceeded to weigh the importance of analysis versus praxis on a scale of 2:1 and came up with an imbalance of 3. There was no way to find a common denominator without an exuberant formula that no normal mortal could grasp without a good dose of the mystical. Physically, a quantum leap would be needed to re-marry the original partners in this endeavor so no amount of compromise and/or scientific deliberation would tear them asunder. The sharp edges and dissonant squeaks are incorporated into a soft bed of socio-cultural amorphism and given a playroom for further consideration, later, when the children have gone to bed.

For the sake of charity we might split the term 'exhibitionists' into two categories: those that organize and facilitate exhibitions, and those that are the object/subject of said exhibitions, often referred to as 'artists'. Both have a stake in letting be seen what is in their cabinet of curiosities, both adhere to certain rules to further their cause. They are linked but not as one, apart but not separate. The dividing-line has become more diffuse in recent years and that is a good reflection on its origin in the first place. The latter attempts to re-integrate science, technology and the creative muse have been supported by both sides after a long war of attrition. Here have been far-reaching congruencies on the formal front, but in essence they are still as estranged from each other as on the first night of their divorce.
In the same vein, but in another publication, I came across a re-vamped version of the medium/message-discourse, presented as a question: is it so? When one sees apparently free creative consumers utilizing the complex product-line of military-postindustrial capitalism to rail against the same to then be appropriated and refurbished as a market-commodity … - one has no other recourse than to hark back to the validity of the notion that a system can/can’t be changed from the inside. (is it so?) So much for liberty…(liberalism & libertarianism)
So, what better way than to escape into the wonderful world of endless discussions over the specific weight/mass-relationship of a bubble in water/glue/oil or saliva as portrayed on stage during an opening? The Royal Navel Observatory would gladly spend more money and time over this question than half of it’s budget on poverty in Calcutta or central London, but it has moored it’s bearings on the local habitat and it’s interests. Where has the reason for all this gone? Out of which pool do we all, exhibitionists and exhibitioners alike, scoop the candy that makes our day?
Regular people on a regular run, going about their business and minding their own… nothing more or less and without all the hype might even feel for each other without entertaining suspicions of a double or triple-take on what might have been an original idea. The bane of the artist is to become a 'something' rather than just a member of the general public with something to say while not becoming a politician. Remaining covert does not mean complete isolation, nor does it empower discoverers to disenfranchise individuals from their entire being and turn them into clowns. They are the main ingredient of a successful menu and should be treated as such, rather than just an additive to a bombastic meal of hot air enveloped in dubious flake-pastry.

2.
The various life-forms of exhibitionists is neither here nor there… they already enjoy most of the attention when referring to "art", due to the fact that one can no longer 'read' an artist's work without either a weighty manual or a professional historian/critic guiding the gullible through their exhibitions. So, what of the artist then?
Having been bitten by the academic bug and feeling necessitated by the seemingly high level of critical mass, the artists themselves begin interpreting their work, subjectively proposing in an apparently objective manner the reasons for their being and the process which precedes their final products. As with curators and critics, decades of relative peace, a stable economy and a consumptive boom have produced a steady flow of ‘artists’ from countless academies and art-schools. The machinations of the market haven’t really changed save for the pace of turnover,- No longer able to set a career by waiting until some lost critic happens upon their piece, artists have now to promote their work in a most professional manner, editing their own press-blurbs, accompanying texts and providing their potential viewers insight through seminars, guided tours and the proverbial tęte-ŕ-tęte on occasions such as vernissages, finissages and performative moments.
If they don’t they might as well give up: Long past is the notion of considering work through the passage of time and building an oeuvre, - the market demands quick fillers better known to burger-kings and a constant barrage of shows to stay in the floodlight of the assembled press-corps. Better yet, artists have to run their own organizations, either collectively or as multi-facetted individuals, just in order to survive the constant barrage of newcomers and fluctuating interests. Even so, ultimate powers of decision lie with individuals who have nothing else to do, who do not have to produce the work they criticize or update a constant flux of changing ideas. They have the time to work for official bodies, commercial bodies, the press and the exhibitionistic executive at the same time, while artists have to split their energies between promotional and creative activities. Even so the depth and quality of an artist’s analysis is far better than that of the well-educated professional, if only the public would know… But that means making an effort to understand and follow through on the presented themes rather than be thrown prefabricated morsels and clapping their flippers at set moments.
As with the aforementioned exhibitionists, artists (‘exhibitioners’) can also be broken down in categories of ‘commercial’, ‘reflective’, ‘socio-political’, ‘communal’ and ‘individualistic’ as well as be used for different purposes… The most difficult is a combination of the two latter premises: the ‘independent’… a collection of self-serving attitudes producing work which does not fit in any given category or formal delineation. An offshoot of the art-for-art’s sake notion without calling it a school. Yes, one might suspect it to be a self-serving entity and one of the Royal Navel Observatory’s capital concerns, but it seems to be the only manner to be truly independent in these times of concurrent competition.

3.
Recently there has been none less than that certain shift in public politics which sends shivers down the spines of all ready losers: The shift to the right (again) from even the most reliable parties. Although on the rise since the eighties, it has only now become apparent that progressive ideas have lost the initiative to the reactionary comeback and even in recent times, with much color and noise, failed to unseat the incumbent president of the US in a close call.
Closer to home, sanitary towels and legal high-jinx seems to do little to stem the flow of putrefaction, and some have even begun thinking of the best strategies seen from the underground. Having for too long been used to clean sailing and letting loose all hangers-on, the system balks and sputters and looks to new leaders to aid it's flailing failing. More often than not this is paired with a radical reversal, and in such a mood our swing comes back at us at full Monty. Religions once thought obsolete are coming back with a vengeance unseen since biblical times, - the new democracies are beset with teething-problems and the tourist-industry seems to be doing well and everyone is dancing on a proverbial volcano of social unrest gathering just across the border fence.
And we thought we were bettering the world while plugging our fingers into our own navels, considering the ramifications of the lies of a generation before, and using the same defunct tools as before to negotiate the heady terrain provided by an overdrive technological boom which is only now starting to mellow. Consumer spending seems to be the last hang-on in a shifting reality better known as 'dirty' or "real-existierend". Things have gotten worse over the last decades, and all we can think of is to re-release a contemporary version of the band-aid song again...while speculators run away with the profits and bunker them in their offshore accounts, and artists support the once so reviled industrial-military complex by buying more and more electronic equipment and services to vent their creative anger at a public which is either already sold or more interested in the entertainment aspect of new media.
Nepotist nomenclators posing as democrats vie for our votes to window-dress their corporate PR make-up ... casting ballots doesn't seem to matter anymore, governments have been privatized, while lobbies and pressure-groups take care of the rest. The independent media find themselves eyeing their sponsors carefully and public spending has to be cut ever further so that only a 24-hour cycle of rehash remains with an occasional tidbit in between. The rest you have to check on the net, - individual info-gathering, - with hardly any mass left in media. Artists try to fill gaps and are torn between the sociologically correct and informative augmentation, with an attempt at personal interpretation, just for old times sake. To which branch of industry do they belong? The (heatedly correct) barometrics put them somewhere between Hollywood and the Reuters-reports coming out of exotic places no-one has ever heard of, as well as the proverbial London, Paris and NY...
Circuit...
The re-inte((r))gration of art into life has so far been proven elusive...* For years now, strikes and solidarity-campaigns have come to nothing, the bank-side lobby's too strong and the will of the creative individual too weak to support a revolution all on it's lonely... So a collective entity has to be conjured out of the swamp left behind by the 18th century... where in hell did artists get the romantic idea that they were exclusively kissed by a muse? (...some watery tart that threw a line at them... come off it...)
Was it an easy way to get out from under the moral responsibility (aaargh, get away from me with those words!!..) of navigating society to safer waters and higher ground? Who's idea was that? Since when do artists take a lead in matters pubic? (probably the literary crowd could be considered as perpetrators of such a notion) The bęte-peintres never had any inclination to better society, only to paint its underbelly in poisoned green and display it on the market as affable trinkets and make a sou or two.
So, in these times of global communication, the old methods are suspect and have to be redressed in amiable satin words, short bursts of ready-to-swallow neologisms and press-blurbs, while the real consideration gushes forth in endless diatribes of academic prowess no-one cares to read.

Such as this


(* see project 046/1990/inex/mangelware)