Testing The Boundaries of Conceptual Art...and the Law
In a previous post I examined the issue of public art as vandalism, where works were defined as vandalism by their lack of authorization. That is, public art that is authorized can not, by definition, be vandalism. In that discussion, vandalism on private works of art or attacks on or alterations of other works of art were for the most part excluded, except to point out that such acts might still be considered works of art. Recent events in Seattle have lead us to examine a variation of this issue more closely.
A group of artists calling themselves the Philistine Group, led by artist Brian Balsa, began stealing works of art from small galleries, alternative spaces and the houses of their friends sometime last summer. According to the group, the project started out with the intent to remove what they considered bad art from display but evolved into stealing the works they appreciated as a way of bringing attention to artists who deserved to be recognized. Balsa explains that it was the group’s intention to return the artworks in something called the “Repo Show.” The show occurred two weeks ago at the Aftermath Gallery and owners or artists showed up to reclaim their property. The police are currently investigating the thefts to determine whether or not to press charges against the group.
It will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out but there are a sufficient number of issues raised by the very nature of the group’s activity alone. The reports seem to suggest that it was the act of stealing that was the focus of the project (note the title of the first article, “The Art of Thievery Finds Space”), and ignores the fact that the return of the works finalized the project, which I find to be of particular interest. The question as to whether this is actually art simply on grounds that it was (for now, potentially) illegal, is irrelevant since the legality of creating art has never been a determining factor as to whether something is actually art. One could quite simply condemn the artist’s behavior as thievery (which the papers have done), but I think the larger issue at hand is the extent to which such acts should be condoned simply because the performers/creators consider the act or work “art” and what the overall ramifications for such acts/products might be.
First, attempting to define whether such works should be condoned is difficult, in part, because I think it requires one to answer the million dollar question: What is art? The Philistine Group can certainly be considered Conceptual artists and their act of theft is but one component to the larger work, although I think the Group fails to truly complete their work by neglecting to physically appear at the Repo Show. This essentially eliminates the possibility of achieving an interaction between those who had works stolen from them and those who committed the theft. Simply having people gather in order to hunt for their possessions seems unproductive and ultimately quite lame. No one really gains anything from the work and in the end the project doesn’t truly achieve it’s intended purpose. Thus, determining whether this could be considered art seems unnecessary since the concept behind the project’s implementation was inconsistent with its purpose, resulting in an act of theft (albeit with the property returned) and little else.
It reminded me a lot of the Chapman Brothers' destruction of one of the few surviving Goya print series “Disasters of War” a few years ago. The artists went through each of the 80 etchings and changed all of the victims’ faces to clown and puppy faces. “Disasters of War” is not only one of the first works to examine the horrors of modern war, but its historical significance can not be overstated. It is a work so powerful in its message and imagery that it still resonates in today’s world, particularly given the global and political climate. What might have been gained by their destruction could not possibly begin to compensate for what we have lost. Their "art" was almost entirely for the shock value of destroying something people admire and appreciate and little to do with actually producing something creative and artistic.
It may be a little early to know for certain what the overall ramifications will be from a project like that carried out by the Philistine Group, but I doubt little good can come from it, at least artistically. At the other end of the spectrum from the Philistine Group is Banksy, who adds artworks to museum and gallery walls (rather than subtracting them). Banksy’s art has a message, is artistically and technically well executed, and aims at raising an awareness of the relationship between museum and visitor as well as the museum’s ability to control the narrative of the history of art. In short, his art is purposeful. The Philistine Group’s project seems like another attempt to push the boundaries of what we can and can not get away with when we call something art. In the end, the Group’s concept was flawed and the execution was poor, as if a practical joke had gone wrong. The project was self-serving and ultimately seems contrived, pointless, and trite.
A group of artists calling themselves the Philistine Group, led by artist Brian Balsa, began stealing works of art from small galleries, alternative spaces and the houses of their friends sometime last summer. According to the group, the project started out with the intent to remove what they considered bad art from display but evolved into stealing the works they appreciated as a way of bringing attention to artists who deserved to be recognized. Balsa explains that it was the group’s intention to return the artworks in something called the “Repo Show.” The show occurred two weeks ago at the Aftermath Gallery and owners or artists showed up to reclaim their property. The police are currently investigating the thefts to determine whether or not to press charges against the group.
It will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out but there are a sufficient number of issues raised by the very nature of the group’s activity alone. The reports seem to suggest that it was the act of stealing that was the focus of the project (note the title of the first article, “The Art of Thievery Finds Space”), and ignores the fact that the return of the works finalized the project, which I find to be of particular interest. The question as to whether this is actually art simply on grounds that it was (for now, potentially) illegal, is irrelevant since the legality of creating art has never been a determining factor as to whether something is actually art. One could quite simply condemn the artist’s behavior as thievery (which the papers have done), but I think the larger issue at hand is the extent to which such acts should be condoned simply because the performers/creators consider the act or work “art” and what the overall ramifications for such acts/products might be.
First, attempting to define whether such works should be condoned is difficult, in part, because I think it requires one to answer the million dollar question: What is art? The Philistine Group can certainly be considered Conceptual artists and their act of theft is but one component to the larger work, although I think the Group fails to truly complete their work by neglecting to physically appear at the Repo Show. This essentially eliminates the possibility of achieving an interaction between those who had works stolen from them and those who committed the theft. Simply having people gather in order to hunt for their possessions seems unproductive and ultimately quite lame. No one really gains anything from the work and in the end the project doesn’t truly achieve it’s intended purpose. Thus, determining whether this could be considered art seems unnecessary since the concept behind the project’s implementation was inconsistent with its purpose, resulting in an act of theft (albeit with the property returned) and little else.
It reminded me a lot of the Chapman Brothers' destruction of one of the few surviving Goya print series “Disasters of War” a few years ago. The artists went through each of the 80 etchings and changed all of the victims’ faces to clown and puppy faces. “Disasters of War” is not only one of the first works to examine the horrors of modern war, but its historical significance can not be overstated. It is a work so powerful in its message and imagery that it still resonates in today’s world, particularly given the global and political climate. What might have been gained by their destruction could not possibly begin to compensate for what we have lost. Their "art" was almost entirely for the shock value of destroying something people admire and appreciate and little to do with actually producing something creative and artistic.
It may be a little early to know for certain what the overall ramifications will be from a project like that carried out by the Philistine Group, but I doubt little good can come from it, at least artistically. At the other end of the spectrum from the Philistine Group is Banksy, who adds artworks to museum and gallery walls (rather than subtracting them). Banksy’s art has a message, is artistically and technically well executed, and aims at raising an awareness of the relationship between museum and visitor as well as the museum’s ability to control the narrative of the history of art. In short, his art is purposeful. The Philistine Group’s project seems like another attempt to push the boundaries of what we can and can not get away with when we call something art. In the end, the Group’s concept was flawed and the execution was poor, as if a practical joke had gone wrong. The project was self-serving and ultimately seems contrived, pointless, and trite.
posted by Corey Wyckoff at 3:28 PM
1 Comments:
I'm inclined to define art so as to set the bar pretty low, letting lots of things in the door; the question of a work's aesthetic value is a separate issue. I'm more interested in the first question than the second, at present.
I would say that the theft of the artworks is art, though it might not be very good art. As for vandalizing existing artworks (add Robert Rauschenberg's "Erased de Kooning Drawing" as a prime example), I think that's art too, but it's art that should be discouraged in the strongest terms. I think the question of what is lost when someone executes that kind of a work is an important one to answer if you're going to determine whether one ought to create that kind of work in the first place.
Post a Comment
<< Home