The video below shows an experiment where,
“Klara.be did an experiment with (Danish painter) Luc Tuymans. What if you take art out of its usual context and expose it in the street?”.
It’s interesting little film with a result that was to me, unsurprising.
Does this video make a joke out of all of the curators and exhibitors who wax lyrical about Tuymans work? This was what struck me when I watched it the first time through, but the narration @ 6:42 was what really made me think twice;
“Hopefully, these numbers will wake people up. Can experiments like this one, help people to take more interest in art?”
This video sets out to do something interesting, yet fails due to its non-critical bias of the work of art chosen for the experiment. Most experiments would use a variety of tests to prove the hypothesis. Would the same thing happen to different artists? To video art? Sculpture? A sound installation? Something that interacts with the people passing by?
As much as this video attempts to convince us that people on the street lack an appreciation of great art, it also shows that the contemporary art world is blind to its own self righteous opinions. Could it be that regardless of the talk and the money surrounding Tuymans work, in the end it may not really be as good as the art world says it is? It could be said that for 96% of the people that walked past, Tuymans painting lacks the power to draw people to it and hold them in its expression? Maybe the narration could have read,
“Hopefully, these numbers will wake the contemporary art world up. Can experiments like this one, help the art elite to take more interest in the world.”
8 comments
daniela says:
Apr 25, 2008
i agree with you, B.
a lot i agree.
in my opinion, a public walking street was not a good choice.
that kind of pedestrian is very unlikely to notice anything other than a fleeting sexual attraction from the hips of a stranger or perhaps someotherone might notice if their passerby was wearing the same shoes; the use of that particular crack of public space is very defined. so to add to your thought that other media of art would need to be tried too (and this would make the experiment an actual experiment- more scientific-esque), i think other ‘kinds’ of public space would have to inhabit the work.
i mean, we dont answer the phone if we cant be bothered or if we’re in the shower, but it doesnt mean that we dont like to use the phone … no?
peace.
boz says:
Apr 26, 2008
You’re right about the location as well. This video is about as honest as one of those “we picked someone at random to try PRODUCT X” clothes detergent commercials. I think the Sigur Ros track is there to make it feel more arty, lull people into a reflective mood and distract from the total bias in the clip.
innocentgirl says:
Apr 26, 2008
Is this video assuming that everyone on the street wants to have an opinion on art? What if you are late for work ’cause your baby that you just dropped off at child care threw up on your shirt and you only have to work ’cause the interest rates on your mortgage went up again and you have a barely enough money to see it through the month…. anyway I am sure you get my point. How nice it would be if we could all be privileged enough to take the time to dissect and appreciate painting all day. If a graf artist had sprayed ‘monkey sex’ on the wall I bet thn 90% of the passers by would have taken notice.
How exactly will the finding in an experiment like that allow people to take more interest in art?
Your final quote is definitely more accurate…..although I may have added ‘self-absorbed, righteous bunch of ….’ but that’s just me;-)
hobo says:
Apr 27, 2008
About a year ago I blogged on an experiment along similar lines that I’d read about in the Washington Post (link at bottom of this comment).
They had a highly-regarded professional musician (violinist) dress down and pretend they were a busker, in a busy subway station in morning peak hour, to see whether people a) seemed to recognise the out-of-place talent, and b) chose to then take the time to stop and listen.
By far the majority of people walked straight past him.
Context is important for any art, and while I find these experiments somewhat interesting/amusing to read about in passing, I think it would be wrong to read too much into them. Anyone who sniffs and says, “Well, these plebs obviously don’t appreciate REAL art”…. jeez, sorry, but I don’t have my art radar on all the time, and even when I do, sometimes I miss stuff (to which my sad attempts at photography will attest). Other times, your “art” just may not be to my tastes.
Link to the original WP article here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html
boz says:
Apr 27, 2008
hobo,
I remember seeing the article you reference in the Washington post as well and it wouldn’t surprise me to find that this film is in part inspired by it. Again however, what would have the result been if it had been a different musician playing different music?
In the case of the music played by the violinist in the WP article, it’s largely from the classical western repertoire of great works. In many ways, as beautiful as this music may be in some contexts, we have also become accustomed to ignoring it in others. Light classical music suffers greatly from abuse as muzak in many public spaces. Perhaps painting also suffers from abuse in the hands of advertising – our cities are littered with many static images which function as paintings do. Again, to preserve our mental energy we develop mechanisms to ignore these images when we can. Perhaps we could blame neither the public or the art elite, but the advertising executives for abusing both the creative talent of artists and the attention of the public?
hobo says:
Apr 27, 2008
I do think that could be part of it too, boz. Musak is a prime example indeed.
And perhaps it could also partly be a result of globalisation and the ease by which information (including art etc) travels across the world these days? Not only are we bombarded by the sheer number of art-in-advertising, but also by a much wider variety of styles now that influences travel across the globe so much more easily than ever before. Perhaps it is becoming that much harder for an art piece to actually stand out, as an individual and original concept? Which again leads to the trend towards shock art – after all, that’s pretty much what it takes to get attention, as per the “monkey sex” example above.
Fascinating. Thanks for the discussion.
daniela says:
Apr 29, 2008
ps: hope you are ok that i popped you on my very small blogroll: ?
jurgen says:
May 8, 2008
Hi there,
I noticed that Nissan made a funny spoof of this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpXrt5wRPWE
You should check it out!
Nissan had the bright idea participating in this discussion.
Have fun!
Jurgen