Today we had a lecture on Santiago Sierra delivered by Hugo D'Argantel-Sypniewski. It also highlighted the wider issue of "social art". It's not really a type of art that I am familiar with but I do admire, especially the idea of bringing about positive change like artists such as Ai Weiwei (who I greatly admire - it's hard not to!). I suppose there could be issues raised about who is the artist within artworks of this type due to the reliance on the participation of the audience as well as the possibility of an absence of interactive input from the artist in the actual event of the piece (such as with some of Sierra's work).
However, I do admire this kind of work's defiance to be placed as a commodity that can be bought. (But I was disappointed when D'Argantel-Sypniewski revealed that Sierra makes a hefty amount from galleries commissioning temporary works or projects.) I think an artist can loose integrity and respect from the issue of money, especially when their artwork has such a pungent political meaning and plays a part in social change. To profit from these seems somehow dirty and exploitative.
On the issue of exploitation, I did think that some of the works went too far and crossed the boundaries of art. (I know you're not really meant to think that because it is "art") For example, "160cm line tattooed on four people" (2000) was too far for me. I understood the back story about prostitution and drug use and the evil that money plays in the cycle, but I think to permanently brand a vulnerable person in a position that no-one should be in is quite evil and nasty. D'Argantel-Sypniewski said it had philosophical and aesthetic connotations that he seemed to quite admire, and I understand this and even the urge to admire it, but I think it's a different matter between changing the body of ones self and changing the body of others - and again, their vulnerable position makes it almost hateful.
 |
| "160cm line tattooed on four people" (2000) Taken from "www.hydramag.com" |
Sierra also said that he doesn't believe anything can be changed; there's no other system but the one in which we currently exist. This is where, for me, he loses the integrity and inspiring element that Ai Weiwei instils in people. It seems odd that he would want to create this art if he doesn't see it changing anything, so he's just highlighting issues. In some ways, when combined with the amount of money he is making, I think that this makes him seem like a profiteer of those who aren't as fortunate as him. As I've said in previous posts, the art audience of his works is, by the nature of exhibiting in galleries, a relatively small demographic of the population. In highlighting the faults of society, he doesn't even seem to care enough to highlight it to a decent cross section of the public. The money, the setting, the lack of optimism.. all of these things contribute increasingly to an idea that he is just playing the system for his own profit - but he is playing it well.
His work does get you thinking, and I quite liked some pieces, but the authenticity doesn't seem to be there and that's something that I find very important.
No comments:
Post a Comment