Pile of Rubbish or Work of Genius? Dane Mitchell on a pedestal.
Forum > Art Theory and Historyby mathew 8 Sep 2009
1 Vote - 5 Stars
15 Comments
 Editors note: Other worthy Artbash threads on Dane Mitchell's winning piece: As I write this Campbell live,s piece on Dane Mitchell,s winning entry for the Waikato,s Contemporary Art Award has just finished. I will put a few, as yet , probably not well thought out observations, out there for general discussion. My initial reaction, upon hearing of the work on the 6 oclock news, was positive. This probably surprises a few old hands here for over the years I've been known to make, shall we say, the odd disparaging remark concerning the art genre conceptual, to which Dane's work indisputably belongs. However times change and I am now far more well disposed before the beast. I certainly liked Dane's idea.... could see a poetic beauty in collecting together all the ephemera of the other entries in one space and proclaiming this to be art...the cast off wrappings, the discarded rubbish,[though as I write this I am beginning to think this is all too easy and an old worn out cliche] So, as I said I was positive. I didn't really see the need to actually view the work and imagined it in my minds eye sprawled across the floor, blowing this way and that in the wind. As I say, I liked this image very much. And then I saw the image of it on TV. Shit. A bloody PEDESTAL. He stuck it on a pedestal. Or rather they did, the administrators there....presumably under his instructions. This completely changed the whole thing...to my way of thinking. It changed the whole art piece....Dane surely knows what a pedestal implies in contemporary art circles....the privileging of the visual over the idea, a certain pretentiousness, a proclaiming that THIS is a work of art and all this off pedestal stuff is just dross. It just completely ruined it for me.It turned what could be seen to be a tribute to all the other artists there, all the other entries, into almost a parody of them. As another entering artist I would have been quite happy to see ephemera of my work blowing thru the galleries, or scattered on the floor....but to see it placed on a pedestal...This is certainly not a tribute to the other artists....and surely Dane must be aware of this...the pedestal is almost an object of derision in contemporary art circles...the stuff of craft stalls and an out of date modernism. Its an explosive device in contemporary art, thats for sure,and its use in what is a conceptual piece is surely problematic.. Dane cannot have it both ways..The beauty of the work resides in its conceptual, poetic context...we have to, as viewers, read the pedestal[as a part of the work], in this context as well. We must read the pedestal for its conceptual reading....and this is necessarily at odds with the metaphorical content of the collected ephemera. It undercuts it, muddies it, says that, yes, art work should be valued for visual aspect only whilst at the same time proclaiming its a resolutely conceptual work. If my art rubbish as an entering artist was put on a pedestal along with other art entry rubbish I would be offended...I could only ever stand on a pedestal myself as a pisstake, could only ever put my art work on a pedestal as a pisstake. Something can't be a pisstake and poetic at the same time can it? Maybe it can...as i say I am thinking as I am writing this and doubt whether I will come to any firm conclusions. The other thing thats just occurred to me is that the work might succeed as a very clever work.... by this reading..... It is after all, only the discards that are been held up to ridicule [by been placed on a pedestal]...not the selected artworks themselves.By this reading Dane could be saying that the real essence of art lies only in its conceptual nature....the discards, the physical ephemera of art is welded to the pedestal, the visual is to be discarded, the visual is the real pisstake...the real art lies elsewhere, in the artists minds and thoughts....maybe it is what we DON,T see...maybe this is where the real art lies. Clever, clever. So Iv'e done a logical backflip here. However, I think my gut feeling lies with my first interpretation...the second seems a bit too convoluted and clever to gain traction in my psyche. And also... the piece looks awful on the pedestal. What think others? |
| RSS: this topic's comments | Post to Facebook | Printable version |
|
15 Comments, showing 1 to 15
|
I was running through the same thoughts this morning. Is the work a celebration of the other entrants or a slap in the face? I suppose each entrant will have their own opinion.
Isnt the work sooo 1965?
How wanky / cool is phoning in your entry from Berlin?
Is it better or worse than the 'bit o' gib' that won last year? certainly better media coverage which I suspect has always been T.W.A.A.s' intention.
Isn't the pedestal an essential tool to stop the 'rubbish' from being tidied away; which has often happened with other, generic 'pile 'o rubbish' type art?
If the work is a sign that points out that art lies somewhere else; which way is it pointing? The dump? Or if art is just the gift wrapping of the creative human soul why can't Dane make some prezzies?
Who will be the new sponsor for this cultural delight now that Trust Waikato has pulled the funding?
I suspect, or hope, that Dane would not be pleased with the result; aside from the$$$, that is.
I can't help thinking that the artwork should have consisted of just his instructions pinned to the wall, with a few bits of art ephemera/rubbish blowing throut the gallery. If they were swept up each day, no matter, replenish them daily from the no doubt enormous pile of wrapping required for all the entries. At least this would have kept the work within the parameters of the metaphorical and conceptual....its weakness springs from the admins staff attempts to give it some sort of visual resonance by pedastoling it.
Another thought. All the official commentary on it from the staff involved speak of Dane's history of museological "investigation", and his reputation as a leading contemporary artist......as if its an artist's reputation that was been judged here. I suspect that had a completely unknown and unheralded artist submitted this work it would have lost. The only way to get around this would be to have the entries done anonymously, so that each work was judged on its merits alone and not by the reputation of the artist presenting it.
Or perhaps there should be a separate category for conceptual art....if Dane's slice of poetic whimsy was competing against 50 other phoned in instructions then perhaps real talent would out.
The real lesson here, perhaps, is that we here in NZ, particularly in the ,ahem, provinces, still suffer from the cultural cringe....still need to prove to the more sophisticated centers of power that we can be as advant guarde as they....this, I suspect, is the real motivation behind this visual debacle.
"I suspect, or hope, that Dane would not be pleased with the result"
I submit Dane Mitchells does not give a damn what it looks like and if Charlotte Huddleston 'arranged' the rubbish well good luck to her also, I hope it made her curatorialy arroused.
This bit of flux that Mitchell has had arranged does not even seem to bother with the old chestnut of 'what is art' It seems like a what possibility is left that hasnt quite been wrung dry of the essence of creativity.
And what of the poor viewer? What a royal fuck you to an audience. Not even; here is MY rubbish but here is OTHER peoples rubbish;that I have somehow managed to get other mugs to handle, while I've gone Continental.
(maybe the art is in that 'somehow managed'.. as in somehow managed to make everybody look like total cunts from 15,000 miles away)
There is one interesting thing I find about this piece, despite its tired statement of junk in a gallery. He has made the work contemporary by his specific choice of material relating to the event only. He has done this by using only the artists that are partaking in the competition. This is interesting because if modernism is short lived then he has managed to reduced the 'living time' not to our time, but to the even shorter time period of a running exhibition. This work will pass and be forgotten like most other art today but not in a blink of an eye, but in a flash, a Campbell live news flash to be precise. He seems to have managed to tighten the noose just a little tighter for the artists involved before the trapdoor opens... and made that into his statement or provocation . Id say that diserves a pedastol considering he won best dressed, before he won the grand prize.
A link to some very grumpy people and a fetching pic of Charlotte.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/arts/2844191/Waikato-art-award-winner-just-rubbish-artists
curator insisting on promoting the lowest common denominator in art. (for predictable popular appeal)
monkey see...monkey do
hey flake instead of calling me a will fully ignorant cynical fuck head, and you wouldnt be the first; how about making a plausible coherent case for Danes work being a positive and progressive piece of contemporary art.
grab yourself a shovel and start digging.
"The liberal institution, however, is not so cavalier about appearances as the market is about meaning. Like Jeremy Bentham's benevolent warden, the institution's curators hold a public trust. They must look carefully and genuinely care about what artists "really" mean-and therefore they must, almost of necessity, distrust appearance-distrust the very idea of appearances, and distrust most of all the appearance of images that, by the virtue of the pleasure they give, are efficacious in their own right. The appeal of these images amounts to a kind of ingratitude, since the entire project of the new institution has been to lift the cruel burden of efficacy from the work of art and make it possible for artists to practice that "plain honesty"of which no great artist has yet been capable, nor ever wished to be."
from The Invisible Dragon
