Baudrillard: Contemporary Art is Worthless
c_lindholm
a Toronto-based independent art magazine. The full text can be found
at (http://felix.openflows.org/html/baudrillard.html)I've added a few
of my own comments, but apologize if this text has already been posted
or discussed here. (But does anyone actually read all these articles?)
A few years ago ( and admittedly, this is kind of a delayed reaction
on my part, but in the meantime I've been having to deal with a lot of
"hyperreal, virtual simulacra" such as the problem of systematic
torture within the Turkish prison system, but I digress...) Anyway,
Jean Baudrillard made the following statement:
"Two situations, both critical and insoluble. One is the total
worthlessness of contemporary art. The other is the impotence of the
political class in front of Le Pen. The two situations are
exchangeable, and their solutions are transferable. Indeed, the
inability to offer any political alternative to Le Pen is displaced to
the cultural terrain where a Holy Cultural Alliance prevails.
Conversely, the problematization of contemporary art can only come
from a reactionary, irrational or even fascist mode of thinking."
(from Jean Baudrillard, "A Conjuration of Imbeciles" in CTHEORY 3,
originally "La Conjuration des imbeciles in Liberation, May 7, 1997.)
Consternation spread through the cultural community ...when Jean
Baudrillard proclaimed contemporary art to be utterly worthless.
Considered a major cultural critic by many artists and theorists the
denunciation came as a slap
in the face. Having written prefaces for catalogues of visual arts
shows, and having his own photographic work, Baudrillard's
condemnation appeared full of unexpected contradictions. Was this a
rude awakening or simply rude?
Over the years he (Baudrillard) has developed the emphasis of his
thoughts layer by layer, and we sadly suspect that Baudrillard may
have fallen victim to his own theories and is no longer able to
differentiate between discourse and artistic creativity, as he claims
he can no longer differentiate between the illusion and the real.
My comments: "May have fallen victim to his own theories..." You must
be joking, right? An entire industry was built around those theories.
Baudrillard was once (and for some still is) one of the darlings of
the art world and postmodernist thought, admired by both artists and
art critics alike. And before proclaiming "contemporary art is
worthless", I suspect the same critics who penned the above statement
would've had nothing but gushing, effusive praise for his least
utterance or anything, regardless how vapid or ludicrous ("La Guerre
du Golfe n'a pas eu lieu"), anything at all that appeared with his
name on it. Anything but this. For him to say that contemporary art is
worthless, to proclaim that contemporary artists and art critics are
producing nothing but shit, well this is too much even for them,
suddenly they have no choice but to engage in damage control and try
to distance themselves from his work (i.e., "we sadly suspect
Baudrillard may have fallen victim to his own theories....")
My comment: But of course no art critic ever fell victim to
Baudrillard's theories, right?
And the text continues:..."Was this in recognition of the fact that
there is no substance to his discourse anymore"?
My comment: Upset by Baudrillard's statement that "Contemporary art is
worthless", these art critics now suspect there might be a lack of
"substance" in his theories?
And they're just beginning to suspect this? How wise of them. Because
years ago, after his book, "La Guerre du Golfe n'a pas eu lieu" first
appeared Christopher Norris already accused Baudrillard of "clinging
to an outworn paradigm whose truth-claims no longer possess the least
degree of operative (i.e., persuasive or rhetorical) force".
So where exactly were these same art critics back then?
The whole thing is just a little too ironic.
Carole Lindholm
James Whitehead
<c_lin...@ananzi.co.za> writes
>The following message contains excerpts from a text written for LOLA,
>a Toronto-based independent art magazine. The full text can be found
>at (http://felix.openflows.org/html/baudrillard.html)I've added a few
>of my own comments, but apologize if this text has already been posted
>or discussed here. (But does anyone actually read all these articles?)
posted - or pointed at - well i've read the above, in general long
treatises can become dull and hard to read off a screen...
>A few years ago ( and admittedly, this is kind of a delayed reaction
>on my part, but in the meantime I've been having to deal with a lot of
>"hyperreal, virtual simulacra" such as the problem of systematic
>torture within the Turkish prison system, but I digress...) Anyway,
>Jean Baudrillard made the following statement:
>"Two situations, both critical and insoluble. One is the total
>worthlessness of contemporary art. The other is the impotence of the
>political class in front of Le Pen. The two situations are
>exchangeable, and their solutions are transferable. Indeed, the
>inability to offer any political alternative to Le Pen is displaced to
>the cultural terrain where a Holy Cultural Alliance prevails.
>Conversely, the problematization of contemporary art can only come
>from a reactionary, irrational or even fascist mode of thinking."
I think JB makes a significant point. For art to have a value it
requires an elite, the modern consumer democracies will make art
worthless. Its not original though is it - the line in "the third man"
by Harry Lime regarding the Swiss and culture springs to mind. Art
activity is essentially fascist? Will post-contemporary art appear to
the consumer democracies as nasty shit? I'll take moggin's abuse as a
compliment in such case.
>
>(from Jean Baudrillard, "A Conjuration of Imbeciles" in CTHEORY 3,
>originally "La Conjuration des imbeciles in Liberation, May 7, 1997.)
>
>Consternation spread through the cultural community ...when Jean
>Baudrillard proclaimed contemporary art to be utterly worthless.
>Considered a major cultural critic by many artists and theorists the
>denunciation came as a slap
>in the face. Having written prefaces for catalogues of visual arts
>shows, and having his own photographic work, Baudrillard's
>condemnation appeared full of unexpected contradictions. Was this a
>rude awakening or simply rude?
If they were not aware of the deep nihilism in making art it serves them
right. If Baudrillard in crossing into art from theory (as Derrida -
Nietzsche et al.) realises this - fine.
>
>Over the years he (Baudrillard) has developed the emphasis of his
>thoughts layer by layer, and we sadly suspect that Baudrillard may
>have fallen victim to his own theories and is no longer able to
>differentiate between discourse and artistic creativity, as he claims
>he can no longer differentiate between the illusion and the real.
Again this is as old as Pygmalion.
>
>My comments: "May have fallen victim to his own theories..." You must
>be joking, right? An entire industry was built around those theories.
>Baudrillard was once (and for some still is) one of the darlings of
>the art world and postmodernist thought, admired by both artists and
>art critics alike. And before proclaiming "contemporary art is
>worthless", I suspect the same critics who penned the above statement
>would've had nothing but gushing, effusive praise for his least
>utterance or anything, regardless how vapid or ludicrous ("La Guerre
>du Golfe n'a pas eu lieu"), anything at all that appeared with his
>name on it. Anything but this. For him to say that contemporary art is
>worthless, to proclaim that contemporary artists and art critics are
>producing nothing but shit, well this is too much even for them,
>suddenly they have no choice but to engage in damage control and try
>to distance themselves from his work (i.e., "we sadly suspect
>Baudrillard may have fallen victim to his own theories....")
They are the poorer for this. Artists (name escapes me) back in the 70s
canned shit and sold it to the public and that was passé.
>
>My comment: But of course no art critic ever fell victim to
>Baudrillard's theories, right?
>
>And the text continues:..."Was this in recognition of the fact that
>there is no substance to his discourse anymore"?
>
>My comment: Upset by Baudrillard's statement that "Contemporary art is
>worthless", these art critics now suspect there might be a lack of
>"substance" in his theories?
>
>And they're just beginning to suspect this? How wise of them. Because
>years ago, after his book, "La Guerre du Golfe n'a pas eu lieu" first
>appeared Christopher Norris already accused Baudrillard of "clinging
>to an outworn paradigm whose truth-claims no longer possess the least
>degree of operative (i.e., persuasive or rhetorical) force".
>
>So where exactly were these same art critics back then?
>
>The whole thing is just a little too ironic.
>
The problem with moving from theory - where some rules might apply to
art is that there/here the rules no longer apply. A sudden feeling of
liberation, then the realisation of this as hell.
--
James Whitehead
JSA
> They are the poorer for this. Artists (name escapes me) back in the 70s
> canned shit and sold it to the public and that was passé.
Piero Manzoni "Artist's Shit". Late fifties/early sixties, I think. Not 70s.
James Whitehead
<j.ab...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au> writes
>James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cT2gyDARSM48EwL
>D...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
>
>> They are the poorer for this. Artists (name escapes me) back in the 70s
>> canned shit and sold it to the public and that was passé.
>
>Piero Manzoni "Artist's Shit". Late fifties/early sixties, I think. Not 70s.
Thanks for the source 1961 it seems. But still passé ?
--
James Whitehead
JSA
I don't think it was at the time, but any attempt to repeat that
gesture now would read as a purely
art-historical/rhetorical/textual/ironic comment, rather than an
attempt to shock the middle classes.