HowlRound: Artists have been giving away their power for too long now.
The text by artist Daniel Buren entitled “Where are the artists?” is emblematic of this long-running discussion. Written in 2003, it is a further development of his earlier short essay “Exhibitions of an exhibition,” written in 1972. In this text, Buren discusses the tendency of curators to increasingly put their own ideas at the forefront, where they take more attention than the actual artworks on display. His short text from 1972 was specifically addressed to the legendary curator Harald Szeemann and his Documenta V.
5 comments:
I think one of the most provocative, powerful things an artist can do is make a statement with their work that incites some sort of change. “Artists should take the risk to set up new structures: new publications, new support organizations, new art spaces, new initiatives which do not have the burden of their own history yet. This is crucial to keep the sector vibrant: through their power, small-scale initiatives can challenge large settled institutions.” Since the beginning of history, artists have always been that small voice in the background that is motivating change and action in large institutions. Each artist has a unique voice that has the power and the potential to act as a catalyst for change within society. Artists cannot hide in the shadows and they should use their voices and their talents to make a statement on what is wrong in society today and make a way for change to happen. Art is so important, and it deserves to hold it's place in society.
"Artists have been giving away their power for too long now," is an extremely provocative statement to begin this article with. While I believe that in some cases it is possible that art can exist as a purely aesthetically beautiful entity with little political connotation, I do think in most cases art is inherently political. In some places of the world under a dictatorship or other form of oppressive government, simply the existence of art at all is intrinsically political. I don't think the raw power of art existing in the world can be quelled by the quarrels between curators and independent artists. The article also claims, "At this point there is an interesting link between art and populism. Populism is not only something that embeds itself into actual politics; it is also a disease affecting the art world."
This article does a good job of giving insight into how the art world works. It seems as though the institutions almost use the artists for their work without giving them any agency over how it is presented. While I understand the role of curators, and that big museums can’t speak to every artist's intention, don't like how the apparatus of the art world treats the artist’s themselves. Rather than being about delivering something good, the industry is focused on making money. Obviously, this is not surprising. All major industries are about making money, but what bothers me the most is how entrenched the structure is and how even though the artist is at the center of the exhibition they have been taken out of the equation as much as possible. But the bigger question is how do you go about changing this? I think the article does a good job of answering that question by giving several suggestions.
I think we need artists at the forefront of our society in this challenging time we are living in. Art has a special quality to comment back on society and institutions, and can really be a driving force for change if enough people are willing to speak out. I have personally been inspired by artists who are willing to use their art to provoke, incite, and bring to light issues in our society, even if it means enduring criticism, prosecution, or even death. When an artist is willing to use their power to speak out, it is not easy to silence them. And now we are living in such a time that we need every voice we can get. In this country, art can be the purest expression of our fundamental right to question our government, and we would be wasting our power not to use it.
I love the idea of artists being an advocate for change. Throughout modern history artists have taken a stand on issues that have had a positive impact on our society. One can think of Jane Fonda’s protests of the Vietnam War or Marlon Brando having a Native American speaker accept his Oscar. This can be further connected to the tradition of visual artists using their visual aesthetics as part of a form of protest. These sorts of actions have defined the arts industry for many many years, so in this age of populism I expect arts to continue to be a voice of reason. Especially in this day and age where celebrities and artists have such a substantial following on social media, they can use their platforms to be an agent of change.
Post a Comment