detournement ramblings.

Debord’s opening statement in his essay Methods of Detournement that “art can no longer be justified as a superior activity” really stood out to me because the current status of art is one that has troubled me for a long time. I think that it still is judged as such, that the Kantian sphere of aesthetics that has become the institution of “art” as separate from “life” still applies. It bothers me because art has become something that most people feel they don’t relate to. It seems that a lot of conceptual artists tried to merge the spheres by incorporating readymades and appropriation and abstract ideas and other aspects of “life” into their work, but they failed because these parts of life just became part of the “art” sphere once someone of proper authority (an artist) said they were – the spheres never merged, their separation actually became more distinct because suddenly there was a hierarchal difference between a snow shovel in a museum and a snow shovel in your garage. And I think artists liked that authority, to put themselves in a higher intellectual category. Many artists I feel are very defensive of their belief that not everyone can be an artist and think of detournement as a sort of threat. For me though, that in itself is not a dangerous idea at all. Of course it depends on how one defines “artist” and I’m certainly not here to make definitions… but for me, art is about expression of experience and communication with others and I think that’s something everyone is capable of and should engage in. Humans, as a species, are natural artists because we are creators and teachers and meaning-making-machines. The problem is the romanticized ideal of the artist as soooooo different and soooooo misunderstood and soooooo important. And I think Debord does have this pretentious air around him, that he is right and most people are just slavish imbeciles, but what I like about him is that he negates the idea of artistic genius. The artistic genius elevates themselves above everyone else and instead of relating to others they block themselves off. And then, what is the point besides the superficial image and status of “artist?” And furthermore, if everyone defines themselves as an artist based off of this concept, then nothing is being said. Even where something could be said, nothing is because they’ve closed themselves off from relating to anyone. It’s not that the individual shouldn’t matter but capitalistic structure and invisible hands when it comes to art doesn’t really work.

I think in a lot of ways the concept of individualist originality is naïve because our experiences are not original, they are reflections of occurrences created by history and culture. Shit doesn’t just happen. And if you’re striving to be original, you’re just denying this for your own gain, for the status of the artistic genius. I think Debord is right when he says we have to go beyond a notion of personal property in terms of creative production, especially when it comes to copyright. Once we experience something it becomes our reality, and sanctions that forbid us the right to use this material denies us the right to effectively express that experience. It’s dishonest. This is not to say that anything should be taken from its original source, replicated, and redistributed without any new meaning, because that’s dishonest too, not so much in terms of theft but everyone experiences an object differently. You have something new to bring to that work just because you are a different person than the one who originally made it. Plus otherwise it’s kinda fucking boring and stagnant. I also have always thought that the whole argument about “what is art” is pretty boring and stupid but on the other hand, if we have these terms “art” and “artist” that imply a differential status (which they always will as long as they have a distinctive nature from the rest of the world – language itself always carries status) I guess it does matter somewhat so I like that Situationist art doesn’t exist. I also liked Bourriaud’s mention of the potential of alternative narratives for constructed situations, where “postproduction artists do not make a distinction between their work and that of others, or between their own gestures and those of viewers.” His elaboration of a Duchamp quote I think is very important: “‘It is the viewers who make the paintings,’ Duchamp once said, an incomprehensible remark unless we connect it to his keen sense of an emerging culture of use, in which meaning is born of collaboration and negotiation between the artist and the one who comes to view the work. Why wouldn't the meaning of a work have as much to do with the use one makes of it as with the artist's intentions for it?” Remix becomes a mass collaboration not only between artists through the use and reuse of each others’ work but through viewers’ use and experience of the work, and how they understand it based on past experiences, and how it will impact future experience in other aspects of their lives. The viewer therefore becomes as integral to the work as the creator, I think anyway, and maybe that makes them artists, which is neat. The webspinna performance was a good example of this and a really enjoyable experience by using sounds provided to other people, reacting to the sounds other people had chosen, and the experience of the work as a whole, how familiar sounds became unfamiliar or completely changed when taken out of context.

Fuckin’ rad.

Okay, I’m done. Total ramble. Sorry.