[...] anything is permissible in the contemporary world of art so long as it is pedigreed, substantiated, referentialised.
Chris Kraus1
Kraus' personal essay Cast Away acts out the contentious process of framing. From the very moment Kraus begins to describe how she one day spotted some photographs of people in distant lands holding packages couriered from America in a local storefront, this act of description already begins to frame these photographs as art worthy of consideration by simply occuring in a book of essays pondering some rather important artists and art issues.
By writing about these photographs as if they were art when the photographs were content to exist outside that frame, Kraus showed how easy it was to rope in non-art (if I may call it that) and have the reframed things taken seriously (just because she is Kraus? hold that cynical thought). It is this ease which makes me uneasy and perhaps a little cynical.
Reframing something is a strategy we are all very familiar with, but why does it work better in some instances and not others? Would these photographs have been as successful if a lesser writer/artist/curator had undertaken the task? That is, if it were not Kraus but someone else whose authority in the art world was uncertain - say, Justin Beiber or fresh Elam graduates - who was looking and reframing, would this influence the power of the reframed thing to speak art-talk? I think so.
The logical conclusion of this hunch is that the success of a reframing strategy has something to do with the credibility of the re-framer. However, I came to realise that credibility can be less about the individual voice but about the structures which support that voice. For example, I have no idea who Dirk von Lowtzow2 is, but I know Parkett is a reputable art publication (by the way, have you noticed they always supply a short biography of the author just so you can go aha, that guy is credible in his own right to shape my opinions? Somewhere in here is an essay). So when Lowtzow rejects the words 'adorable' and 'cute' in favour of 'cuddly' when framing a discussion of Cosima von Bonin's work in Parkett, the frame 'cuddly' shuffles but ultimately stays.
What's the actual difference between the three? Kraus wonders why nostalgia is bad but sentiment is good; I wonder why cuddly is better than adorable or cute. 'Goodness' seems entirely arbitrary. This is probably why Parkett always invites at least three writers to discuss an artist at any one time - one frame is just not enough wiggle room to fit interesting art.
At the risk of over-simplifying things, it seems then that who gets to frame art makes a lot of difference. Think back to Lauren Winstone's insight that Francis Upritchard has others around her to champion her work when Upritchard evades theory.
Now think about Elam's requirement that all of us justify our practices with theory.
Now think about what may happen if you reject theory at Elam and don't have others speaking on your behalf.
Did you shudder? I did.
Ultimately, can intuitive practices exist successfully without champions to defend it with theoretical frames?
I would like to think yes, because it is sunny at the moment and sunshine makes me optimistic.
But I am not above putting up Champions Wanted posters if the weather turns sour.
References
- Kraus, Chris. "Cast Away", Video Green: Los Angeles Art and the Triumph of Nothingness. New York: Semiotext(e), 2004. pp 145-150.
- von Lowtzow, Dirk. "In Fluffy Storms." Parkett 2007: 32-36.
But isn't that act of reframing essentially what art is about? When we look at something, we rearrange it to suit our mode of understanding: we reframe it within the boundaries of our own experience. Isn't it refreshing to read an opinion which is different from yours, even if it is about your own work? Ultimately, theory is about experience, and it is a luxury, more than a burden. Why would we choose to go without it?
ReplyDelete