However, it connotes more than the fact that the Biennale was, inevitably, an eclectic mix of work; it makes salient the key strands of emerging debates and dialogues in art. The Biennale works ranged from the sublimely beautiful to barely developed under-graduate level pieces. So far so good.
FROM SMOCK TO SHOCK
So called ‘shock’ art, most memorably in recent times the ‘Young British Artists’ (YBA), starting almost twenty years ago, gave us the likes of severed animal parts and later un-made beds. No problem with that per se, but over and above the shock value, where is the content? What might the nature of content be? What is its relevance, and consequently, that old conundrum, what is the meaning of art?
This sort of work is a natural progression from Duchamp’s Fountain, one of his ‘readymades’, referring to the urinal he exhibited in 1917. Duchamp described his intent with the piece was to shift the focus of art from physical craft to intellectual interpretation. Good point well made, but in many ways it only needed making once.
But if a piece is merely a metaphor or symbol for a personal intellectual process, it becomes esoteric, and fails in it’s primary role to explore, elucidate and reflect.
To hold a mirror up to certain aspects of society, and allow us to reflect on it, regardless of how niche an aspect of society it may be is an important process. Thus the ongoing importance and relevance of art is assured, regardless of trend or style, as long as it continues to fulfil this role. It is the broad eclectic nature of art that means this role is being robustly carried out; no aspect of how we live remains untouched. In this way art, as a whole, is democratic, much more so than elected political representatives whose personal agendas distort democratic mechanisms towards over prescriptive outcomes.
Any debate on where art is at, or where is it going, must test the boundaries of what constitutes art to establish where they are, so some will cross the line, but they still remain relevant as part of the wider debate.
It is not enough to have a good idea or insight into certain aspects of society. It needs to be developed and represented in a manner that can be engaged with and is manifest with some sense of craft or technical skill, which is a more traditional view, but references the earliest notion of art of differentiating people who thought or produced above a subsistence level.
COKE ON A STICK
The ‘object-out-of-context-coke-can-on-a-pedestal’ is perhaps only possibly relevant by a recognised artist that has established body of thought so there is a context. But even that is in many ways a repeat of the Duchamp urinal, which understandably is repeated each generation for the sake of their own affirmation and exploration – experience is a great thing.
It was on this point that the work in Venice was split: works of the type that we have seen so many times before, descended for Duchamp’s urinal, and work that engaged us in some way, rather than rely on a chance connection that a more personal piece may have.
There is an interesting angle, that as we increasingly lose cultural commons, so art pieces will tend to become more esoteric or ‘place’ specific, either way, relating to a smaller audience. There is nothing wrong in someone personally exploring issues through art, indeed a very healthy pursuit, but this must be distinguished from work that offers contemplation of aspects of society and how we live.
Although, far be it for me to counter anything that would encourage the notion of Baudelaire’s flâneur – probably our best chance of responding appropriately to increasingly commercial society with all it’s trappings of shopping as a leisure pursuit and celebrity reverence (at the most trivial end of the spectrum of consideration).
Increasing information overload, dictates we need to be engaged personally for a work to have any sense of meaning to us. Spatial (eg Serra) or narrative or interactive (recent child’s slides in the Turbine Hall at the Tate Modern, London) connect with the viewer in this way.
Sense of engagement, whether spatially or through a sense of inherent narrative or being interactive, addresses the issue overload and repetition, and renders a piece of art relevant, albeit to a reduced number of people, but many more groups. Perhaps famous for fifteen people rather than fifteen minutes.
This gives more to relevance to the notion ‘I like it’, but is that enough? But where does that leave ‘I understand it’, or ‘it is relevant to me because...’ So perhaps it actually pushes art more towards entertainment. So the question becomes, can art be entertainment, but still fulfil its role as highlighting certain notions of our society. If something is just beautiful, is that enough? Even that says something about current society: the beautiful is more not only revered, as it always has been, but now increasingly seen as aspirational, with debilitating results on people’s expectations for their own lives.
Making works with a potential for broad relevance at a societal level, as (very) distinct from populist/ lowest common denominator or even ‘nice’ (read hotel corridor pieces), addresses the issue of work being for an elite. By making works esoteric either by being too personal or supported by contrived conceptual theories, it is making art into a divisive weapon, by which sociological stratas are artificially reinforced. (For an interesting take on Meritocracy (US) Vs Class (UK) see Toby Young, How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, chapter 27, Forgotten but Not Gone, p 241)
Theory behind (the process of evolving) a piece provides guidance and relevance through its development, and helps keep the final piece true to the initial concept or idea. But, when the concept becomes a crutch by which the piece cannot stand without, then it is on flimsy ground indeed.
MEANING OF ART
The emotional content put into a piece by an artist is surely not there just to evoke the same emotional response by a viewer. It should evoke a response of course, positive or negative - if it is any good - but a response that engages with the emotional baggage that the viewer inevitably brings to the party. If not, the work is a personal and esoteric piece. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes it biographical and thus limits its relevance for public display.
AND FINALLY ...
The British entry in Venice was a typical manifestation of the British mentality: isolated, prickly, unapproachable, and that was just the entrance. Timed entries prevented anybody from meandering in on there way around, and consequently many just passed it by, re-affirming the ivory tower outlook.
