Research- Article 'On art Activism'
Boris Groys
On Art Activism
http://www.e-flux.com/journal/56/60343/on-art-activism/
'Art activists do want to be useful, to change the world, to make the world a better place—but at the same time, they do not want to cease being artists. And this is the point where theoretical, political, and even purely practical problems arise.'
The issues this article addresses are very valid in terms of art making social and political issues an aesthetic thing. However within my own practice, activism is used through changing ideologies and viewers thoughts. Not specific focus on a single social injustice of protested event. The generalization of this article therefore seems slightly unfair as modern activism is not so simple defined. Also, activist art goes hand in hand with direct change done elsewhere by the artist or other artistic groups. the embodiment of such through art is less activism and more documentation.
'Art for political action necessarily aestheticizes this action, turns this action into a spectacle and, thus, neutralizes the practical effect of this action'
'In our society, art is traditionally seen as useless. So it seems that this quasi-ontological uselessness infects art activism and dooms it to failure.'
Upon this notion, I began to think of how modern progression of art allows it to grow so far into so many spheres. The concept that creative thinking in activism is what is needed in modern day to deal with pressing issues is more the focus and less the desire to have work criticized for its usefulness directly. The art within the activism is an embodiment f this creative thinking and a new wave of opportunity for creativity to lead to new, desperately need answers.
'Russian avant-garde, which famously wanted to change the world by artistic means'
This movement had much support through the soviet political structure of the time. Modern activism stands more alone in trying to offer progressive and genuine change.
The text continues to focus on art by way of aesthetics and design being the origin of such. Although complicated, the view held by the writer seemed to make sense when regarding art as documentation of the past that has been re designed to resonate aesthetically. The new movements changed this and below the writer discusses how Marinetti's aproiach to modern aesthetics differed by dwelling on all as dead art regardless of new progression.
'This passages show that for Marinetti, to aestheticize technologically driven modernity does not mean to glorify it or try to improve it, to make it more efficient by means of better design. On the contrary, from the beginning of his artistic career Marinetti looked at modernity in retrospect, as if it had already collapsed, as if it had already become a thing of the past—imagining himself in the ditch of History, or at best sitting in the countryside under incessant post-apocalyptic rain. And in this retrospective view, technologically driven, progress-oriented modernity looks like a total catastrophe. It is hardly an optimistic perspective. Marinetti envisions the failure of his own project—but he understands this failure as a failure of progress itself, which leaves behind only debris, ruins, and personal catastrophes.'
Further analysis of modern art and political connection within this text was vital to my own analysis of this work. The belief that modern art is killing of aestheticism, something I agree with. However, this does not have to be seen as a negative thing. So many aspects of art are intertwined with everyday life, possibly activism within art is a way of bringing practical functions to creative thinking.
'I have quoted Marinetti at some length because it is precisely Marinetti whom Benjamin calls as the crucial witness when, in the afterword to his famous essay about “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Benjamin formulates his critique of the aestheticization of politics as the fascist undertaking par excellence—the critique that still weighs heavily on any attempt to bring art and politics together.3 To make his point, Benjamin cites a later text by Marinetti on the Ethiopian War in which Marinetti draws parallels between modern war operations and the poetic and artistic operations used by Futurist artists. In this text, Marinetti famously speaks about “the metallization of the human body.” “Metallization” here has only one meaning: the death of the body and its turning into a corpse, understood as an art object. Benjamin interprets this text as a declaration of war by art against life, and summarizes the fascist political program with these words: “Fiat art—pereas mundi” (Let there be art—let the world perish.) And Benjamin writes further that fascism is the fulfillment of the l’art pour l’art movement.'
'Design wants to change reality, the status quo—it wants to improve reality, to make it more attractive, better to use. Art seems to accept reality as it is, to accept the status quo. But art accepts the status quo as dysfunctional, as already failed—that is, from the revolutionary, or even post revolutionary, perspective. Contemporary art puts our contemporaneity into art museums because it does not believe in the stability of the present conditions of our existence—to such a degree that contemporary art does not even try to improve these conditions.'
Here is where the issue arises of art activism as a legitimate and useful aspect of political change. This research however seems to be contradicted by so many modern claims of 'fine art' stretching extensively across cultures. With new artists making a point of involving society fully within their work.
As the article continues to engage with the 'u-turn' of aesthetics i finally began to connect more with the text as the subject steered closer to political activism and the generals societies position within such situations. the belief of destructive status quo and a sense of 'the end of history' are all contributes to activism. A reduction in upward mobility' paired with a more collective mind set would allow society to grow for the better toward change in all aspects. However, although interesting and worth continual research, i did not like the way to piece developed little conclusion regarding activism throughout and focused very much on classic examples of activism. My own work therefore may not categorized as such die to the fact i work toward an altered mind set for future development generally within society, more conscious living.
On Art Activism
http://www.e-flux.com/journal/56/60343/on-art-activism/
'Art activists do want to be useful, to change the world, to make the world a better place—but at the same time, they do not want to cease being artists. And this is the point where theoretical, political, and even purely practical problems arise.'
The issues this article addresses are very valid in terms of art making social and political issues an aesthetic thing. However within my own practice, activism is used through changing ideologies and viewers thoughts. Not specific focus on a single social injustice of protested event. The generalization of this article therefore seems slightly unfair as modern activism is not so simple defined. Also, activist art goes hand in hand with direct change done elsewhere by the artist or other artistic groups. the embodiment of such through art is less activism and more documentation.
'Art for political action necessarily aestheticizes this action, turns this action into a spectacle and, thus, neutralizes the practical effect of this action'
'In our society, art is traditionally seen as useless. So it seems that this quasi-ontological uselessness infects art activism and dooms it to failure.'
Upon this notion, I began to think of how modern progression of art allows it to grow so far into so many spheres. The concept that creative thinking in activism is what is needed in modern day to deal with pressing issues is more the focus and less the desire to have work criticized for its usefulness directly. The art within the activism is an embodiment f this creative thinking and a new wave of opportunity for creativity to lead to new, desperately need answers.
'Russian avant-garde, which famously wanted to change the world by artistic means'
This movement had much support through the soviet political structure of the time. Modern activism stands more alone in trying to offer progressive and genuine change.
The text continues to focus on art by way of aesthetics and design being the origin of such. Although complicated, the view held by the writer seemed to make sense when regarding art as documentation of the past that has been re designed to resonate aesthetically. The new movements changed this and below the writer discusses how Marinetti's aproiach to modern aesthetics differed by dwelling on all as dead art regardless of new progression.
'This passages show that for Marinetti, to aestheticize technologically driven modernity does not mean to glorify it or try to improve it, to make it more efficient by means of better design. On the contrary, from the beginning of his artistic career Marinetti looked at modernity in retrospect, as if it had already collapsed, as if it had already become a thing of the past—imagining himself in the ditch of History, or at best sitting in the countryside under incessant post-apocalyptic rain. And in this retrospective view, technologically driven, progress-oriented modernity looks like a total catastrophe. It is hardly an optimistic perspective. Marinetti envisions the failure of his own project—but he understands this failure as a failure of progress itself, which leaves behind only debris, ruins, and personal catastrophes.'
Further analysis of modern art and political connection within this text was vital to my own analysis of this work. The belief that modern art is killing of aestheticism, something I agree with. However, this does not have to be seen as a negative thing. So many aspects of art are intertwined with everyday life, possibly activism within art is a way of bringing practical functions to creative thinking.
'I have quoted Marinetti at some length because it is precisely Marinetti whom Benjamin calls as the crucial witness when, in the afterword to his famous essay about “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Benjamin formulates his critique of the aestheticization of politics as the fascist undertaking par excellence—the critique that still weighs heavily on any attempt to bring art and politics together.3 To make his point, Benjamin cites a later text by Marinetti on the Ethiopian War in which Marinetti draws parallels between modern war operations and the poetic and artistic operations used by Futurist artists. In this text, Marinetti famously speaks about “the metallization of the human body.” “Metallization” here has only one meaning: the death of the body and its turning into a corpse, understood as an art object. Benjamin interprets this text as a declaration of war by art against life, and summarizes the fascist political program with these words: “Fiat art—pereas mundi” (Let there be art—let the world perish.) And Benjamin writes further that fascism is the fulfillment of the l’art pour l’art movement.'
'Design wants to change reality, the status quo—it wants to improve reality, to make it more attractive, better to use. Art seems to accept reality as it is, to accept the status quo. But art accepts the status quo as dysfunctional, as already failed—that is, from the revolutionary, or even post revolutionary, perspective. Contemporary art puts our contemporaneity into art museums because it does not believe in the stability of the present conditions of our existence—to such a degree that contemporary art does not even try to improve these conditions.'
Here is where the issue arises of art activism as a legitimate and useful aspect of political change. This research however seems to be contradicted by so many modern claims of 'fine art' stretching extensively across cultures. With new artists making a point of involving society fully within their work.
As the article continues to engage with the 'u-turn' of aesthetics i finally began to connect more with the text as the subject steered closer to political activism and the generals societies position within such situations. the belief of destructive status quo and a sense of 'the end of history' are all contributes to activism. A reduction in upward mobility' paired with a more collective mind set would allow society to grow for the better toward change in all aspects. However, although interesting and worth continual research, i did not like the way to piece developed little conclusion regarding activism throughout and focused very much on classic examples of activism. My own work therefore may not categorized as such die to the fact i work toward an altered mind set for future development generally within society, more conscious living.
Comments
Post a Comment