I wrote in a recent article “If contemporary art is your scene, then the Knokke Biennale should be in your diary.” To be honest though, I’m not really sure that it’s my scene. Of course it depends on how you define contemporary art, but when I walked into Hoet Bekaert’s summer gallery in Knokke - grandly/ironically called the Knokke Biennale – my immediate reaction was “is this it?”
A replica of a matchbox, a donkey’s head that had been used as a stage prop, a photograph resting on two drums of cat food, pieces of carbon copy paper with phrases such as “This looks like something I’ve seen before” mounted on light boxes...you get the picture.
Once the ideas behind the works had been explained, I started to appreciate them more. There is definitely a part of me that seeks to understand and analyse, wanting context and background. And I like to think that I have a relatively open mind. But had I seen these works anywhere but in a gallery, would I really have given them a second glance?
As I was shown round the small garage-like space, I still had a lingering doubt that I was perhaps being taken in by one big joke. After all, the whole Knokke Biennale idea had been done tongue-in-cheek (and brilliantly so), so maybe this was just one more element.
But no, these were works by well-known names on the contemporary art circuit: the donkey’s head was by Thai artist Surasi Kusolwong, who has exhibited at London's Tate Modern; and the work using cat food drums was by Amanda Ross-Ho, with whom the Hoet Bekaert gallery will be going to London’s Frieze Art Fair this year.
Gallery co-founder Jan Hoet Junior was keen to dispel the assumption of many that contemporary art is something that anyone can do. For me though that wasn’t the source of my doubts. It was rather the fact that when I viewed the works, I didn’t feel anything (other than perhaps bewilderment). I want colours or shapes or textures to prompt some instinctive response, to have aesthetic appeal - is that too old-fashioned a thought? or am I just missing the point?
4 comments:
It's great that contemporary art gets the same esteem as other forms of art.
Great to hear that you enjoy the blog, Sara. And thanks for letting me know. I love to get feedback, so all comments welcome! Should have a new post up later this week.
Anna.
Hi Anna, Susan here!
Couldn’t help but get drawn in by this blog as obviously I’m very interested in contemporary art! You know I think from the sounds of it the problem might have been that perhaps the work wasn’t very good?! Just as there were good ‘old painters’ and bad ones (you only have to visit too many country house to see bad art history) there are good and bad contemporary artists, and also good and bad curators. There is an unfortunate trend it seems to me for bad curators who can’t tell the difference between good and bad contemporary art to choose unwisely and then expect viewers to not notice the difference. Looked up the Biennale as you got me curious and certainly think the donkey’s head sounds like nonsense – the matchboxes too are clearly a one-liner – simply a reversal of Warhol, a fairly fatuous commentary.
But I must say that I think it is true that contemporary art depends on a body of knowledge. That is its nature – it’s an intellectual game that plays with art history and the pleasure is not visceral but to a large degree intellectual – in the same way that there can be intellectual pleasure in analysing a novel (beyond any visceral enjoyment of the novel). For example the Ross-Ho piece, with the photo on the tins of cat food (though I can’t find an image of it and therefore shouldn’t judge it) – is apparently a photo of a woman painting splashing herself with paint. This is crucial as then in conjunction with the cans this becomes a feminist parody/subversion of the work of Piero Manzoni – but you’d absolutely have to know Manzoni to pick up on that. I think where contemporary art has gone wrong is in denying that this knowledge is essential. You wouldn’t expect someone to play football without knowing the rules and contemporary art is a game of rules and relations.
But it is true that this doesn’t always equate to visceral pleasure and that’s why for example painting remains so delicious. But there again there are plenty of contemporary artists who do this – Jessica Stockholder, for example, or Tomoko Takahashi in her own way – and think back to Donald Judd and Dan Flavin. And there are those who do create emotion – just not pleasant emotion – i.e. the best of the yBas in their prime. It’s just that this is a particular strain of contemporary art which owes a lot to, ironically, Belgian contemporary art – I am thinking of Broodthaers - and whose pleasure is in the intellectual game.
So I see what you are saying but do think the situation’s complex and the contemporary art won’t ever be taken seriously until curators admit that it’s not an easy win. Then people will be more informed and can decide in advance whether to play the game or not!
Love your comments, Susan! If I think of contemporary art as more about intellect than instinct, then I can appreciate a lot more of it. For some reason, though, I want my first response in viewing a piece of art to be an instinctive one. If the background and context etc. add further layers, then it becomes all the more interesting, but I still look to art forms to elicit an emotive response first and foremost.
Do you remember Cornelia Parker's work where she used pieces of charcoal suspended from the ceiling? We saw it together in London - probably in the late 1990s, I'd have thought. Now I recall that being quite amazing and making a strong impression on me.
As for the matchbox piece I referred to, I liked the way you described it as a 'one-liner'. That sums it up precisely. It made me smile, briefly, but then I moved on, heartbeat unchanged, intellect not engaged.
Next time I'm in London, you can educate me further on contemporary art!
Post a Comment