Lili's Graduate Art Seminar

Philippe Parreno, Post-Production

Maurizio Cattelan, Post-Production

Vanessa Beechcroft, Post-Production

Nicolas Bourriaud, Post-Production

Post-production are artworks based on pre-existing material and are often a response to the chaos of our global culture.

Some of Bourriaud’s arguments on post-production artwork that I found interesting spurring some relevant and not so relevant thoughts:

Bourriaud states that when an artwork is based on pre-existing material, the piece is inscribed with a network of signs, symbols and significations instead of originality. The central question shifts from ‘What can we make that is new?’ to ‘How can we make do with what we have?’ The navigation between the chaos of objects, images and references becomes the art itself, and the process becomes more important than the end result.

I find this liberating, both for myself as an artist and for society in general. It is recognition, in some ways, that all art is based on the art preceding it and adds an element of honesty to the artwork and artist. I have always found the ‘originality’ claims of artists to be skewed towards a dishonesty and also egocentric. For me, honesty in art and in the process of making art is one of the elements that separates quality art. Using pre-existing works makes imitation or copying impossible. As Bourriaud says, ‘one can denounce nothing from the outside; one must first inhabit the form or what one wants to criticize.’

Bourriaud sees the process of post-production artwork as a profound transformation of the status of artwork because each work is not positioned as the ‘termination’ point of the creative process but as a way station for others to continue the process. Everyone is able to create their own story and add their own narrative in response to the work. And as each work is reinvested, it prevents the work from disappearing through time.

I find this concept intriguing because it assumes a level of collaboration between artists, a process I believe is the future of art, especially when art functions as a mirror of culture. Culturally, scientifically and psychologically, we are breaking our self- imposed boundaries that we erected to separate, label and classify information, allowing us to become highly specialized. We have dissected life to the point where it is now hurting us on many levels – i.e. the podiatrist doesn’t understand the body and hence doesn’t understand how the knee is causing the foot problem. We need to reconnect what we learned through specialization back into a larger holistic picture. We can reconnect through relationship and collaboration.

We all live surrounded by a chaos of images and objects. We can no longer look at them from any sort of distance as they infiltrate and influence our lives on a detailed and daily basis. They form, to a degree, who and what we are and many of our responses are to these objects and images. Consequently, there is a need to use pre-existing materials and their inherent signs and symbols to express ourselves. And we need, as artists, to steer away from any stigma of copying because we all copy.

I do not consider whether the sharing is consentual or not to be relevant to the intellectual argument. That is for law students.

Bourriaud, in writing about the function of art, states that art brings collective scenarios to consciousness and offers us other pathways through reality, especially the case in post-production art which makes statements about our daily lives, down to the minutest detail.

Bourriaud writes as if post-production art is THE art movement and there are no other relevant art movements happening at this time, which is not the case. It feels exclusive. I would have preferred if he would compare post-production artists with other artists working in this time and what they have to say through their work. This would give a more inclusive, holistic picture.

Rip! A Remix Manifesto – taking material from the Internet and remixing it to make art. Sounds great except for the ‘small’ problem of copyright, which prevents the material from entering the public domain for the artist’s lifetime plus 70 years. That can be 5 or 6 generations to put it into context.

I enjoyed watching Rip!Remix. It is well edited and certainly entertaining. How dangerous it is to lock up our cultural symbols and thus prevent them from changing, morphing or evolving. I have to ask - do we lock up our minds when we copyright material that we grew up with, is in our daily lives, that we use to communicate, and forms part of our identity? I would say yes. Those that have the power often will do anything to keep it. And this can, over time, manifest itself into a gridlock of ownership of ideas that makes creativity in a public sphere impossible.

Bourriaud sees works of art informed by other objects as the eradication of the distinction between production and consumption. He states that consumption is not only the motivator and motor for production, it is by definition, also production. They are one and the same thing. A pair of jeans is not a pair of jeans until we wear them. He elaborates on Duchamp’s’ argument that the act of choosing is the artistic process and is enough to establish the artistic process, i.e. to give a new idea to an object is production.

Giving an object a new function is not only creative; it is critical in this era of recycle and reuse. The artist’s work and the material needed to produce that work is not more important and does not supersede the need of the planet on any level. Art is part of this moral argument. Using the objects and images that surround us is an act that mirrors a vision of the future.

Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

The Work of Art In the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.

Walter Benjamin - 1936

What is the ‘Aura’ of a work of art?

Benjamin defines aura as the ‘unique phenomenon of distance however close the object may be’. He states that in the case of art, its aura lies or is created by, its tradition, which gives the work authenticity and uniqueness in the human mind; a presence in time and space.

I would argue that aura is the human hand in a piece of art and when something is created, regardless if it is a physical piece or performance, it carries with it an essence, impossible to define, of the artist. The viewer, depending on their sensitivity to the work of art, picks up this aura. This is impossible to prove as it is sensed on a different level of reality or plane.

In Benjamin’s mind, what effects did mechanical reproduction, such as film and the camera / photography, have on the viewer’s perception of art?

Benjamin theorizes that the aura of the work of art is destroyer by mechanical reproduction because reproduction separates the work of art from its tradition, thereby destroying its value of cultural heritage.

In film as opposed to theater, the audience takes the position of and identifies with the camera because the camera is what the actor is playing to when the film is made. The actor no longer plays to a real audience and does not take in what the audience has to give during a live performance. Benjamin states that it is the first time in history where the artist has to operate with his entire living person yet foregoes his aura. He writes that the studios make up for this lack of ‘aura’ by the celebrity system. The audience brings this ‘celebrity system’ to the film in their minds and these purposely introduced studio concepts molds their perceptions and reactions to the film.

He also states that the very reality of the reproducible artwork is presented in a very different manner, deeply affecting audience perception. On stage it is clear where the world of the play starts and ends (i.e. the physical end of the stage). The painting always retains a natural distance from reality. On the other hand, the film does not have an equipment free aspect of reality – there is no perceptual illusion for the viewer. The illusion is created in the film cutting process away from the viewer. The viewer is engulfed by the illusion.

He compares the effect of the reproduction of film and photography to the historical effect of the mass reproduction of the written word where an increasing number of readers become writers and the distance between writer and public was blurred. The critical and receptive attitudes of the viewer coincide and the viewer is both entertained and critical.

Benjamin sees the camera as exposing the viewer to unconscious optics similar to how psychoanalysis brings to light the unconscious impulse. Slow motion and fast motion shots change our perception of time, close up shots expand space, and both shots reveal new structural formations of the object. The viewer has to chance to travel in their minds in new terrain. This creates viewer expectations of constantly new terrains to travel in with each new film release.

A painting invites the viewer into a state of contemplation, allowing the viewer to concentrate and delve into his or her associations. This is not possible for the viewer of film. The viewer of a film is shocked into distraction; neither concentration nor contemplation is possible as each image flies by into the next. The distracted viewer absorbs the work of art in an absent minded manner yet remains the critic as each element of the film is accessible.

Benjamin goes on to say that the distracted viewer can form habits as the ability to master tasks in a state of distraction ‘proves their solution has become a matter of habit’.

What is meant by the passage: ‘for the first time in history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual’?

Benjamin states that the unique value of the authentic work of art has its basis in ritual, which is the location of its original use value. The use of the word parasitical is interesting and the word has three meanings:

1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery 2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism 3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

Consequently, by this statement, Benjamin sees art before the age of mechanical reproduction as a reaction to ritual with the artwork not reciprocating to the ritual process nor benefiting the ritual. Ritual motivates the art and creates the art’s aura. It is a one-way street according to his argument.

He states that artwork is now being designed for reproducibility and this reverses the total function of art and its link to ritual. Instead of being based on ritual, art begins to be based on politics. Works of art are received and valued differently, more on cult and exhibition value than tradition, both of which are polar opposites as cult value demands that the work of art remain hidden from the mainstream. Thus the work of art has an entirely new function. The relationship between art and ritual is broken.

I think it is important to note that Benjamin was writing during a time where several dominant political and economic systems (fascism, socialism, communism, capitalism, democracy) were jostling for super power.

What mechanically or otherwise reproductive processes are changing the face of art today?

The biggest process to hit our culture in this time is the Internet where information, design, art, film and photographs are not only reproduced at will, they are also globally available. We are still in the midst of this change and the reverberations are still strong, one example being the slow death of the daily newspaper.

“I’m not dead yet.”

The internet expanded the dialogue by expanding the art audience and now the entire concept of ‘what is art’ has been thrown out the window and we live in an age where no one really understands what art actually is on a societal level – we all have our own opinions, of course, but not a cultural opinion. What is art has become a personal journey.

The other reproductive process to hit our culture and change the face of art is the reproductions possible by computer. Photoshop, for example, alters the illusion of reality we say in photographs and now the reproductive process of almost every image must be questioned. Every image begs the question – ‘has this been altered? In another example, the computer makes it possible to cut film extremely quickly, which changes our perceptions of art. Art as a contemplative vessel may be a dying act as the one cut per second MTV format destroys our ability to concentrate and contemplate.