1
The Spectacle:
Muddling Through a Lifetime
of Mental Contradiction and Influence.
To
start off this paper, I'd first like to reflect on a story that I was a part of
personally eight years ago. In 1995,
I had recently been employed at a print company as a graphic designer. The print company turned out to be a
shady establishment (in hindsight) whose owner – we’ll call him
George - who was really a bad dude.
Feeling like I had finally broke into a market and/or industry where I
could really flex my artistic muscles (I had graduated with my BAFA in 1993 and
could not find any work that even remotely resembled art up to that point), I
finally felt as though I was really taking control of my life and defining my own terms in the process. I just happened to be conversing with
George at the front window of the shop right when the then art director –
we’ll call him Kevin, - a single homely computer type (slang definition:
Computer Geek), drove up in a brand new, black, convertible; Chevrolet Camero,
that based on his income, was just
below his threshold. The owner
broke from our conversation, looked up and said silently to himself (clearly
thinking out loud) - "Got C'ha!"
I was floored. I understood
immediately that this car - this cliché symbol of virility, machismo and
to some, status - had put this art director in the very compromising position
of essentially being a slave to this particular job and a servant to this print
shop owner.
I
illustrate this story to not just bash an individual that was living above his
means and yet another individual who recognized this and exploited this other
individual from there on out. That
would be to miss the point altogether.
I bring this little story to the fore to illustrate how close I was to
the spectacle with out even realizing exactly what I was witnessing. George was very aware of what he was
seeing with this new development and probably was expecting this at some point
in Kevin's hiring process. What I simply
saw at the time, was yet another individual that was living beyond his means in
order to gain (buy) some sort of instant acceptance into a clique (i.e. showing
off). What George saw instead, was
a classic exploitation opportunity.
By recognizing Kevin’s attempts to buy his way into a clique that
would never allow his entrance, he
would forever be held at arms length.
This distancing would only further increase the desire for acceptance to
the clique. A desire which Kevin
would probably read as a need to purchase more "stuff" that would
further his image, thus increasing his chances of acceptance.
What
were talking about here is the spectacle in action. More specifically, an individuated
occurrence of the spectacle of control through debt expansion. I feel, by taking on this topic at the
end of my tenure at
Much
like addressing the spectacle now in this paper, all things in the
"I
do not believe in Luck. I think
Luck is Preparation Meeting
-
Oprah Winfrey, Investors Business News,
2000
Now
that we have a nifty, but relevant little story (I will be readdressing it
often through out this paper) to start off this discussion, and a brief summery
of events and artworks completed while at Vermont College that have led me to
the spectacle, let's get to the topics addressed in this paper. Topics that will be addressed in this
paper will be: In addressing the spectacle - as it relates to the artwork I am
doing - it becomes important to first define what the spectacle is, how the
spectacle manifests itself in society and how it controls and directs our daily
lives and events. After asking
these questions, it’s then important to ask - based on this study of the
all-encompassing nature of the spectacle - why then do I choose to do the work
I do as it relates to this new knowledge?
What are my influences and where do they come from in regards to the
work I do? Finally, where does my
art fit into this cultural landscape (who is my audience and how am I
contributing to my interest and/or subject)? Well we've got a lot to cover, so let's
get started…..
What
is the spectacle?
The
spectacle, for me, is something so big
and complex it is difficult to grasp and imagine it's full impact. It has been a true task of endurance to
research the topic to fruition - which frustratingly enough, I now know will
never happen due to the complexity of its nature and the chameleon-like
qualities of its being. I also now
realize that recognizing the spectacle is very much a learned endeavor. More specifically, an unlearned
endeavor. What this means is
one would almost have to completely unlearn much of what one has held
commonplace and relearn a tactic of distancing and objective observation to
such a degree as to find and track trends within the spectacle currently
developing or developed. These
trends are oftentimes so buried in the fabric of society, that it becomes increasingly
difficult (if not impossible) to formulate a set of characteristics in
determining future outcomes and variables.
I'd like to illustrate with this quote I came across that really piqued
my interest in this subject:
“It
is the nature of the spectacle that it cannot be realized either immediately or
equally.”
- Situationists International Anthology, Page 157
What! It cannot be “realized either
immediately or equally!” How
on earth can we prove it even exists?
I came to the conclusion that the only way to really recognize the
spectacle is to break it down into smaller parts. The spectacle is a vast singularity that
cannot be used or appropriated by any one individual. However, individual images, spaces
and/or narratives can be subverted
and changed. Since the spectacle is
everywhere, all the time, I find it’s easiest to track its trends and
narratives in my "own personal neighborhood." This realization of the spectacles
immensity and with time invested in research (and it takes quite a bit of it in
the beginning), will make recognizing the spectacle “in your own
backyard” a bit easier. A
good way to think of this is to think of the spectacle as a huge monster that
simply, in time, gobbles up everything.
What it does not digest by way of incorporation, it spits out as
ostracized matter.
This
has led me to the conclusion, that all things I had previously considered
independent and autonomous phenomenon seem to be forever linked. Events such as patriotic celebrations,
the media itself, the internet, television, books, magazines, children's toys -
all the way down to the Tommy Hilfiger label on the blue jeans of the
individual sitting at Starbucks yakking on a cell phone thumbing through a copy
of Architectural Digest, are forever interlinked in this thing we call the
spectacle.
Just
to show how big this monster can get - and again for illustration purposes -
let's take this example a notch higher with this quote:
“The
spectacle is universal, the same way the commodity is.”
-
Situationists International Anthology,
Page 158
Countries budgets and capitalism in
general, are all linked in this notion of separation for the sake of
control. This is done in many
different ways, a few being: Debt
accumulation = Control. Race
Separation = Control. Educational
Credentials = Control. And so on. However, this control of the proletariat
by the means of commodity accumulation (i.e. Debt Accumulation, thus
reinforcing the idea of the need to have "things" with expensive
monetary values symbolically attached to them in order to have acceptance), can
be seen as an uncontrollable phenomena on the part of the uneducated
buyer. As stated before, this
attempted buying of acceptance is something that will never be achieved. In fact, it only further re-enforces the
class separation.
Since
the spectacle is unavoidable and everywhere and since it consumes everything or
ostracizes what it cannot tolerate; labels are oftentimes utilized as control
mechanisms. Labels such as:
radical, terrorist, fundamentalist, fanatic, separatist, rogue, communist,
Christian, freshman, doctor, citizen, comrade, et. al (the number of examples
is infinite); all are intended as control, separation and/or identity
mechanisms. This use of labels as
control mechanisms is achieved through association and separation in mainstream
society. By not allowing the
labeled individuals a face, their individuated message is neutralized. The end result being liquidation of
their individual and/or (in extreme cases) groups potency.
The
spectacle is also uncontrollable.
This is not to say there are not tools utilized in order to attempt
control or redirect the outcome back to what is considered the situational
“norm.” Some tools
utilized to set the symbolic order right again are: the police, the military,
Department of Homeland Security, interest rate adjustments, state sponsored
welfare programs etc. These tools
are used as deterrence to ensure that the commodity culture, which is the
driving force of the spectacle, continues to live unabated.
However,
simple and individual acts of defiance are beyond the control of the puppet
masters. Individuals can talk about
it, make work about it – but short of a revolution, the likes of which
the world has never seen, the spectacle cannot be done away with or profoundly
subverted in any significant way.
Because of its co-opting nature, the spectacle overtakes the
“revolution,” reducing the insurgent effectiveness of the message
and thus naturalizing the threat.
But when simple acts of defiance and uncontrollable acts of resistance
hit such fevered pitch as to really
threaten the reality of the spectacle; this threat is then systematically
separated and labeled – depending on the severity of the threat, say in
the example of Iraq - and forcefully made "right" again. An example, of this would be the much
heralded labeling of
What
does the spectacle have to do with my artwork and why do I choose to do the
work I do?
Mainly
background. My personal historical
background - as a military dependent with the constant moving associated with
the military lifestyle, has contributed to a sense of
"homelessness." This has
sense of homelessness has had a tremendous impact on the subject matter
addressed and the art work produced at
Probably
the biggest reason I choose to do the work I do, is the more I've learned of
the spectacle the more I want to go out on the street and scream at individuals
for not seeing all this control around them. I just want to scream at them about how
they are being controlled, among many other ways, by debt accumulation, and WHY
IN THE HELL THEY DON'T DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
Then…… After I take a deep breath and count to
ten, I realize the moment I get in another's face and scream these contrary
ideas and seeming underlying realities they appear to be living; I'm
immediately labeled: a fanatic, dangerous, crazy weird "o" -
whatever. The outcome is always the
same. Either I'm left alone to
scream to myself, jailed or poked in the eye. It makes no difference. My message has been diluted as soon as I
opened my mouth and I'm sent to the fringes of society until I can again play
by the rules. Then, and only then,
will I be granted acceptance back into “the game."
How
then is a concerned individual to get his message out with out getting a fat
lip or having oneself committed?
And more importantly….
How has this new knowledge and past experience translated itself into
my artwork?
Well
first and foremost, it has translated itself in my need to be much more subtle
in the handling of potentially disturbing and contradictory subject
matter. This translates itself in
my art by making full use of individuated images, spaces and narratives that
are subverted and changed to achieve the most poignant end result. This is the art - the art of process as product.
Now
if these individuated images, spaces and narratives can be orchestrated on a
wide scale, by many individuals and over time; the hope is that some sort of
macro effect would take place and disturb the spectacle, thus revealing - in
certain circumstances - the spectacles true face. However, one has to be content with
giving up a certain amount of power and persuasion in how the work is to be
received in order not to seem too directed and cohered.
To
pull another terrific quote from the Situationists International Anthology as
an apt description of this:
"Representation must always be kept at a minimum - used
as little as possible.
-
Situationists International Anthology, p. 84
Subtlety
is key here.
What
then are my influences and sources on a given topic? Where do they come from and why?
This
all-encompassing stance on society (via the spectacle) is often vague and
daunting in and of itself. Because of
its size, how then is one to direct their energies and creativity in
effectively dealing with issues of the spectacle? How is one to become, in my case,
socially and visibly active - with out looking socially and visibly
active? The answer, I feel is that
it is best to conduct research, talk to colleagues; and decide for myself: What are the influences and experiences that
piqued my interest in this particular subject?
Well,
I have come to the conclusion that the answers to those questions are the influences
and experiences influencing the production of the artwork I do are everywhere. Seriously. I derive so much from so many different
sources. This is especially
important when dealing with the spectacle.
This scattered approach to research helps in illustrating how various
sources – seemingly unrelated – all contribute to the
meta-narrative that is the spectacle.
Some of these influences and sources include: newspapers, magazines, web
sites, other artists, television, books,
Also,
I have to admit I am drawn to the work of other artists. Artists such as: The Situationists, CAE,
Guerrilla Girls, Paul McCarthy, Hans Haacke, Abbie Hoffman, Ali G, and so
on. I fought this for a long
time. My thinking was this practice
would somehow color the effectiveness of my own work (i.e. loose its
originality). I am now very
interested in studying the use and poignant subtlety of artwork already done by
other artists dealing with related topics.
I'm interested in the artworks public responses, its faults, its
accomplishments, etc. I like to
track the responses to artists' works with the hopes of incorporating the
effective elements into my own work.
I'd
like to further illustrate my evaluation practice of other artists work by
spotlighting a couple of successful and unsuccessful works by two of the
artists listed previously. For
example, I'd like to hold up a particular artwork by Hans Haacke to illustrate,
what I believe to be a pretty successful artwork:
Therefore, Hans Haacke’s Isolation Box becomes a very accusing object indeed. Haacke simply "presents" this work to the public and lets it speak for itself without blatant artistic comment or slam. This work is successful in its subtle slap across the face. This work successfully levels its accusations in four ways: 1) At the U.S. Army for violating the Geneva Convention on Human Rights, 2) the complacent silence of public opinion, 3) the aloofness of minimalists sculpture and, finally, 4) at the discerning critic. For Haacke was not simply “recycling minimalism,” he was chiding its usefulness. The argument being, that if minimalism lacked a “contemporary use” then what other use could it offer? (possibly, to house prisoners?)
Now
contrast that successful/subtle work with a not-so successful work by the same
artist. Hans Haacke, in his work Sanitation 2000 (which was premiered at
the Whitney Museum Biennial of that same year), seems to have played the
public, and more specifically, then Mayor Rudy Giuliani to a
“T.” The purpose of the
work was essentially to take the ‘then mayor’ to task for his
public crusade the previous year against the
Haacke reacted to this public persecution (mostly for political gain) of Ofili and the Sensation show with the artwork Sanitation. Haacke's work Sanitation is in a small-darkened room with three American flags hanging in the center of one illuminated wall. They are flanked by six quotes[2] from political figures condemning artworks they have deemed offensive from the original Sensation exhibit. All text made use of Gothic Fraktur font, a font favored by the Nazi regime during the Third Reich. Three of the comments are from Guiliani himself and his condemning of the Sensation show. The other quotes in Sanitation are provided by three of Haacke’s favorite targets: Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson and Jesse Helms. A passage from the first amendment is on the floor, surrounded by twelve Rubbermaid trash cans. Finally, reverberating out of the trash cans is the crunching of military boot steps. However, the artwork didn’t stop there. Gauging the public’s outcry to the comparison of the Nazi’s and their violent suppression of freedoms, Haacke soon became the spotlight of public attention in his public sparring with Guiliani. Each side then accused the other of “trivializing the Holocaust.” No stranger to public controversy, Haacke took it in stride in his various public appearances where he was further able to state his case. Taken together, this slam strategy of the Sanitation artwork ultimately lead to the overall failure of the original intent. That original intent was the attempted repression of the arts by the threat of withholding much needed operational dollars - thus, leading to censorship.
I feel this helps illustrate that much of the politically charged work these days considers these public appearances and sparring as a vital part of the artwork itself. I feel this is too easy of a tactic and therefore ineffectual because of its complete lack of creativity. Therefore, in the example of Sanitation, the artwork itself was far too didactic in its pointed approach, thus solidifying each "camp" in their beliefs and furthering their resolve and their commitment to "party lines."
Paul McCarthy, on the other hand, is his own controversy. McCarthy is a difficult artist to pin down. His various works include sculpture, photography, video installations, etc. However, I feel he is best known - internationally - for his performances. I feel, for the most part his sculptures are the most successful because of their "silent scream." However, since I feel he is best known for his performances, that's what I'd like to address for this paper.
Through McCarthy's various performances, he is able to transform himself and take his public persona to even greater heights. However, the performance work by McCarthy, I feel, is so often "over-the-top" that the performance and audience indictment often get entangled in the message, thus blurring original intent. Often to such a degree that the original message in his performances is so blurred as to appear contrived, manufactured and disturbing - uncomfortable. This, of course, is the whole point of the work(s) themselves - implication - but I feel this particular "In you face" finger pointing is effective with varying degrees of success.
For example, in the McCarthy work titled “Bossy Burger,” 1991, McCarthy has outfitted himself in a chef’s costume (or disguise) and Alfred E. Newman mask. In this costume McCarthy sets about performing a cooking show parody on a homey set once used for the television sitcom The Hogan Family. McCarthy transforms ketchup and raw hamburger meat into a bloody massacre. This performance is then captured on video for presentation on a monitor outside the production set; most of the intended audience having not witnessed the original scripted event. McCarthy’s absence from the “finished work,” (i.e. a video of the event and the production set) which was totally destroyed and now consisted of what could be termed the ‘remnants’ or ‘garbage’ left over from the performance, is making a statement about the absurdity of the art market and its definitions of what art is. Much like the parody of a television sitcom, it would appear that McCarthy is mimicking or parodying the fact that these ‘art shows’ and idyllic family sitcoms, (and Hollywood for that matter) have very much in common and are nothing more than a fantasy dreamland (or spectacle) - a cheap debased construction that has never really existed in the first place and is therefore, subject to constant change and manipulation. In light of this explanation, the carnage of “Bossy Burger” mutely testifies to a strangely comic violence that American audiences have disturbingly become desensitized to. The most surreal aspect of Bossy Burger stems from the chef’s (artists) manically self-absorbed pleasure in the chaos he creates. Through the use of video monitors and masks, McCarthy allows the viewer to relate the views of the political piece to the artist himself, but – and this is key - he does so on his terms! The audience is not allowed to see anything but the simulation and the leftover destruction of the once idyllic family setting (which itself is also shown to be false).
Now
to bring this comparison and contrasting of other artists works full circle to my experiences at
In
my participation in the residency's at
In
addition to the discussion of the works, for me, one of the most beneficial
aspects of the critiques - in addition to the discussion of the work itself -
was the immense amount of knowledge I gained by watching the critters,
themselves, in action. As I
advanced in the program, I became very interested in how they (the critters) dealt with issues and conflicts with the
artists themselves in describing their work. These non-confrontational (but
effective) tactics later manifested themselves in my own artwork. For example, when an artist says something
to the effect that,
"I
only do art for myself and people can get out of it whatever they like."
I
previously felt like jumping all over that statement with direct
contradiction. My feeling is a
statement like that simply furthers the art worlds (in this instance, I am
speaking of the Art galleries world) spectacle of the prized art object and the
lofty stance of the “art star” being above all reproach. However, in my observations of the critters
and the further study of the ostracizing nature of the spectacle, I have
learned better self-control and diversionary tactics, such as détournement [3]. More importantly, I have learned that
instead of hitting that problem-laden statement head on with oftentimes
contrary statements or images of my own (i.e. arguing), I have instead observed
how critters go around the objection of that statement just to come back to it
differently, but with a one-two
punch! The final message is still
the exact same message of the importance of content, meaning, audience and social
impact, thus contradicting the original message of "autonomous art"
object. However, a wonderful thing
has happened in the process. At the
completion of the critique the artist seems less defensive and better able to
consider what those issues mean to them in their own work. They
actually contemplate the message!
This is how I want my art to speak to people.
How
has my art practice evolved in this program?
Simply
said, my art practice has evolved beyond a simple homely studio practice, to a
much more involved social endeavor.
This is best illustrated with the understanding of the importance of
knowledge; influence and identification with a subject and/or movement in
helping my artwork grow and evolve beyond that "simple homely studio
practice.
How
then, is it best to illustrate the importance of this process of identification
to subject and/or moment in an artwork?
Again, I feel this is best achieved through the example of the processes
involved in approaching a subject in an artwork I'd like to address.
The
process goes something like this: first, I pick out a particular subject
I’d like to address in my artwork - in this case, the spectacle. Bone up on the research (books, movies,
magazines, internet, video, etc.) and really
study it. Being that
identification is often the springboard to understanding and knowledge, I then
start to identify with the subject (directly and indirectly) in my daily
life. The information I glean from
the source material is then internalized in my brain - picked through and
dissected. Then the imagery and
situations witnessed by me in my daily life, is held up - compared and
contrasted - to the information already stowed away in my head.
An
artwork of mine that I think illustrates this process well is the work on the
left titled: Clearance Sale 2002.
In this work I constructed a retail store
end-cap in which objects were placed that were actually bought from a
store. What was attempted in this
work was to try to illustrate, though found objects, the materialistic
patriotic control mechanisms set in place after September 11, 2001. Upon closer inspection, these objects
obviously serving no real day-to-day functional purpose, were actually manufactured
in foreign countries (namely
I
really enjoyed making this piece, because I felt it incorporated that
"quiet scream" I have been attempting to deliver in all my works for
a majority of the program. I also
enjoyed incorporating combinations of found imagery (because of the personal
connection to the viewer - this connection being the viewer could actually have
this object in their own home) and created imagery. By discovering the found imagery
connection with the viewer, I feel I found a very powerful tool to connect with
the viewer in the hopes of gaining and holding their attention.
Being
that the found imagery I choose to incorporate into my artwork is mostly of
spectacle relation and since the spectacle has limited me from directly
undermining it (through threats of rejection); to be taken seriously, I am
forced to find other more subtle outlets for self-expression. Since I am an artist, then art becomes
my outlet. And since the spectacle
is this vast singularity and has no one face (like GOD and the concepts that
GOD embodies) then I am forced to pick out smaller singularities. This is done
through the use of individuated images and circumstances. I then choose to create images or
situations making use of appropriation, détournement, plagiarism or
possible guerrilla theater in my artistic efforts to convey contrary
meaning. This is why I feel Clearance Sale 2002 is one of the more
successful works I've done in the program.
All these practices help in my effort to capture smaller individualized
images, spaces or narratives that speak of the much larger narrative of the
spectacle. To reiterate an example
of this is to again use the example of the story at the beginning of this paper
with the print shop owner and art director: Debt extension and accumulation =
Control of subversion.
The
hope is that this practice will connect with growing audiences which are in
similar situations. The end result
being that of a macro effect that would disturb the spectacle to such an extent
forcing some sort of change.
However, as stated previously, this change could ultimately be
incorporated and co-opted by the spectacle and the process would start all over
again. It's a never ending process,
but fascinating all the same.
Finally,
where does my art now fit into this cultural landscape? Who is my audience? And how am I
contributing to my interest or subject matter?
Whew! I see my work fitting best in the arenas
of public access. Such areas of
public access are the public itself (i.e. "the street"), the
internet, performances, books, video, etc. - areas of easy public access.
For
example, I might not necessarily want to construct situations in the gallery scene. At least the for-profit gallery
scene. There are several rationales
for this decision: 1) To exhibit critiques on the spectacle in a for-profit
galley space, would in my opinion, simply dilute the message by having it
co-opted in the gallery "Art as Prized Object" role. In other words the message would be
diluted because it has been set aside, co-opted, labeled and controlled in a
fragmented manner. 2) The audience
would be very narrow and most likely a very small segment of the
population. 3) The audience would
most likely be the very same group of individuals that I would be
critiquing. Which of course could
be the exact situation I'd like to be in if I were critiquing this particular
group (so I'm not totally sold on this last rational). I guess it really depends on what I'm
trying to say and who I'm trying to say it to.
Since
I am very interested in presenting contrary views in a creative and
thought-provoking manner to the general public in certain situations, I feel
the message is best received when it is contrary to what people are actually
seeing for themselves. Therefore it
becomes imperative to tailor the message to the audience who will be seeing
and/or participating in "the show." Since I am very interested in presenting
images, situations and/or narratives that are not what they seem, I want to
continue to strive for the responses such as this one recorded (overheard) at a
show of mine displaying some of the contrary advertising images below:
"I'm
in love with the aesthetic‑‑ (it/they) just suck you in and then
hit you in the head."
-
Source Anonymous, show dated 2003
However,
I feel strongly as well that it's important the viewer or audience comes to the
conclusion and/or the message for themselves. This is a difficult thing for me to
admit to since it goes contrary to everything I previously learned about
art. As stated earlier, if one is
too directional or heavy-handed in the presentation of their message, there is
the distinct possibility that the message will be immediately shrugged off as
yet another artist or group with a beef and thus reduced to simple
bitching. Therefore, subtlety,
editing and "Relying on Confusion" (contrary message to what they are
actually witnessing) are the only real successful ways to be truly effective
when addressing issues of the spectacle.
This is where I feel I am contributing best to my interest and subject
matter.
Wrapping
it all up.
Well,
what can I say…. It's been an
incredible journey. When I first
started the program at
"What
else could they (
When people ask why my art has changed so much in such a short period of
time, I feel a very apt description of my experience in the
"
It was like emerging out of a movie matinee on a cloudless, sunny afternoon in
July - Blinding in all its possibilities."
Now
I realize what a wonderful and thoroughly necessarily endeavor it is to have my
art contribute to the overall nature that is "the cultural
landscape." I feel the need,
through my artwork, theater, video, writings - whatever - to spotlight the
spectacles injustices, its cruelty and its separation mechanisms. I feel it is important to continue this
endeavor simply to keep myself sane and abreast of possible future implications
of current events and (since I choose socially active art practices) to
hopefully enable others in similar situations to recognize the extent of the
influence in their own lives of the spectacle and hopefully DO SOMETHING ABOUT
IT! Again, the hopes are that
enough participation would engender some sort of macro effect resulting in some
meaningful change.
I
have always believed that things - good and bad in life - have always had a
funny way of righting themselves in the end. However, I now realize that it takes
individuals and organizations through their various outlets of expression (mine
of course being art) to work collectively to implement that change for the
better. As I've said to others
before, when just scratching the surface of the macro affect that is the
spectacle:
"This
is some really dangerous knowledge.
Where the hell does one go from here?"
Well,
after much deliberation, study and conversation, I have come to the
conclusion: I haven't the faintest
idea! But man, am I gonna enjoy
finding out where I want to be in these activities!