ah5 2nd assignment - nikolaosbogiatzis.files.wordpress.com ·...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Thomas Hirschhorn’s Bataille Monument (2002): A story of resistance or adaptation?
‘Nothing is impossible with art. Nothing’ (Hirschhorn, 2005:87).
This essay focuses on Thomas Hirschhorn’s Bataille Monument (2002) and analyses its
production and reception. I look into the professional, economic and ethical perspectives of
his project and examine the latter in relation to the above. I will argue that although
Hirschhorn’s project used neo-‐liberal modes of management and was part of an art
institution like ‘Documenta 11’, it also challenged the mainstream, capitalist narratives from
an alternative, anti-‐capitalist point of view.
Hirschhorn often uses plastic, foil, cardboard and packing tape for his constructions; he does
not create saleable artworks but temporary projects and installations that are influenced by
philosophy, poetry and popular culture. Moreover, he chooses to exhibit his work both in
art institutions and public spaces (Doherty, 2004:133). Hirschhorn created the Bataille
Monument for Documenta 11 at Kassel, Germany. It was the third in his ‘monuments’ series
and it was dedicated to the French intellectual and philosopher Georges Bataille. The first
and the second were dedicated to philosophers Baruch Spinoza (1999) and Gilles Deleuze
(2000) and the fourth to philosopher Antonio Gramsci (2013). Although the Bataille
Monument was funded by Documenta 11 (Child, 2012:224), Hirschhorn situated his work
out of the main site, in a working class suburb of mainly Turkish inhabitants. His work was
consisted of eight elements that interacted with each other:
• A Bataille library with books that drew from the intellectual’s oeuvre; the books
were arranged in the categories of art, image, sex, sports and word. Hirschhorn
2
collaborated with art historian Uwe Fleckner on this construction (Fig. 1).
(Fig. 1)
• A Bataille exhibition with a map and books of and about the French thinker; the
exhibition was curated by writer and poet Christophe Fiat.
• A sculpture made of cardboard, plastic, tape and wood.
• Various collaborative workshops.
• A television studio that broadcasted a daily brief show from the Bataille Monument
on the Kassel public channel.
• A website with uploaded photographs from web cameras which were installed at
the Bataille Monument.
• A stand which provided food and drinks.
• A shuttle service operating to and from the main Documenta 11 site (Buchloh et al.,
2004:98).
3
Hirschhorn made his intentions clear from the start:
The project is to make a Bataille monument in the Kassel suburbs, with the local
people living in Kassel. A precarious monument in the public space, accessible 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, free for everyone…The links are artistic links. Links that
come from the artist’s decisions. These links can create space for ideas, reflections,
for positions, for questions (ibid.:100).
It is obvious from the first three lines that there was a will for social engagement and
democracy in Hirschhorn’s project. However, the artist ‘protected’ his terrain in the next
line by affirming his leading role, as he stressed that he was the one who would decide
about the links of the project. He continued by claiming that there could be a free space for
intellectual activity, ideas and reflections, but he wanted to have the managerial role. This
role of the artist as ‘project manager’ (Child, 2012:227), is in accordance with the neo-‐liberal
tropes that appeared since the 1970s in Britain and America. Furthermore, the worker who
resembles the independent and creative artist who is also willing to cooperate with others
in projects, became the norm under neo-‐liberalism (ibid.:218). The role of the artist as
model worker is reflected in Hirschhorns project; the Bataille Monument’s production could
set the example for a business project under neo-‐liberalism where the project manager uses
his networks and collaborates with heterogenous groups of people for the production and
completion of a project. Hirschhorn claims that his intentions are to challenge the ‘capitalist
garbage bucket’ (Hirschhorn, 2011:163). However, he does not find problematic the concept
of institutionalised art and moves flexibly inside its logic and terrain; in an interview with art
historian Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, he has already highlighted that he does not want to
criticise the institutions (Buchloh, 2005:79). In the Bataille Monument he worked closely
with Documenta 11 Artistic Director Okwui Enwezor, as they both set the basic features of
4
the project (Doherty, 2004:134). This project-‐driven work is common practice under the
neo-‐liberal economy, as sociologists Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello argued in their 1999
publication The New Spirit of Capitalism (Child, 2012:218). Boltanski and Chiapello examined
network-‐based organisations and post-‐Fordist work structures which took place from the
middle of the 1970s and encouraged employee initiative and work autonomy. They argued
that the new spirit of capitalism used the ‘artistic critique’, which after May 1968 challenged
the alienation of everyday life caused by capitalism and its effects (Verso, no date: online).
Building on this, they argued that the artistic critique allows the emergence of the
‘projective city’, a new political community which is based on networks and projects (Child,
2012:221). Inside the projective city exists ‘the great man’ who is gifted with leadership
skills and the other people whose status depend on their activity; on networking, reflexivity
and engagement. The leader, a charismatic individual, is the project manager (ibid.:222).
Hirschhorn in the Bataille Monument had the role of the project manager inside the
community which worked with him for Documenta 11. He wanted to engage with the local
residents and his intention was to encourage participation and a nonexclusive stance
(Buchloh, 2005:87). Hirschhorn, without denouncing the art world’s status quo, was trying
to open new possibilities inside the latter. The Bataille Monument was a funded project by
the system but with a nonsystemic spirit. Hirschhorn defined its nonexclusive spirit ‘radical’
(Hirschhorn, 2005:87) and claimed that this was a political stance although he did not make
political art (ibid.). This is another aspect of his artistic approach; he does not want to put
art into the service of an ideology. He believes that the choice of being an artist is already
political and claims that he rather makes art politically (Smith, 2009:298). I consider his
intentions as an ‘artistic critique’ inside the neo-‐liberal terrain. The autonomy of art is a
5
necessary precondition for Hirschhorn. This is why, although he opened up his project to the
working class people of the Friedrich-‐Wöhler Siedlung area of Kassel to participate, he
remained the undisputable artist-‐author of the Bataille Monument in a modernist way.
Carlos Basualdo who co-‐curated the project, argues that any approach to it as a ‘social work’
is an attempt to make an analysis foreign to Hirschhorn’s goals, as he essentially remains a
modern artist (Buchloch et al., 2004:96-‐97). The stereotype of the Romantic artist which
was adopted and evolved in modernism -‐the creative individual who is talented, bohemian
and never follows the common patterns-‐ moreover, the artist who cares for art and
considers it autonomous and free from any burden, could be fittingly applied here.
There are interesting questions that can be raised surrounding the production and reception
of the Bataille Monument. Hirschhorn’s aims were two: to generate friendship and social
interaction and to make people aware of Bataille’s work (Buchloch, 2005:87). The
construction of the project was a challenging process; people from different cultural, social
and age backgrounds had to coexist and cooperate. Hirschhorn moved into a flat of the area
so as to build a healthy relationship with the neighbourhood. After the first week of
construction, his flat was broken into and expensive equipment had been stolen. He
decided not to call the police but rather ask for his equipment back; his material was
returned and he considered himself accepted by the community (Doherty, 2004:136). The
opening of the Bataille Monument was celebrated by a mix crowd of Documenta 11 visitors
6
and locals with free food and drinks at the snack bar (Fig. 2).
(Fig. 2)
Whilst there was social interaction, participation, and assemblage of relationships between
the different groups, the people of Kassel were not part of the basic elements of the
Battaile Monument which I presented above. Although their part was vital in the production
of the project, Hirschhorn did not include them in his list of the press release (Buchloh et al.,
2004:101, 104). In addition, Hirschhorn claimed that: ‘…the monument could as easily be
shown in another neighbourhood, in another city, in another country, or on another
continent’ (Hirschhorn: 2004:135). That caused a lot of criticism as many considered it
abusive towards the community. I do not adopt the latter view, as I believe that Hirschhorn
primarily wanted to stress the Bataillean identity of the project and at the same time
achieved not to neglect the people of Kassel who socialised with each other and with the
7
visitors of Documenta 11. Consequently, it seems that his first goal was achieved
successfully in an alternative, out of the institution space and its constraints. He also clearly
noted that he is an artist, not a social worker (Doherty, 2004:137). With this declaration,
once again he affirmed his intentions and his authoritative status of the artist as ‘the great
man’.
Another aspect on the production of the Bataille Monument is its precariousness;
Hirschhorn’s project could be directly linked with neo-‐liberalism’s social conditions. The
‘precariat’ derives from post-‐Fordism and its strengthening could be crucial to a social shift,
if developed to a revolutionary movement. However, there is still not a unified class, as it
includes migrant workers, digital bohemians and creative individuals who are all working
under flexible and repressive labour forms and conditions (Hirschhorn, 2011:164).
Hirschhorn wanted to place his project inside the terrain of precariousness and establish
new values; he was interested ‘to squat’ the ideas of the thinkers-‐philosophers of his
‘monuments’ series and produce an alternative social narrative, this is not as a simple
depiction of the former in relation to the different groups of the precariat, but rather,
through the engagement of the people together and with the ideas of those philosophers.
In the Bataille Monument, the Bataille library’s books indirectly led to the French thinker’s
ideas through the different themes-‐subjects, whilst the Bataille exhibition directly pointed
to his work. There was criticism that most of the works on the third part of the exhibition,
the freestanding panels, were in French only and Hirschhorn admitted that the criticism was
justified (Doherty, 2004:139). However, I believe that he sufficiently achieved making
people aware of Bataille, which was his second aim. Moreover, the inclusionary and
libertarian aspect of his project is evident in its production and its reception.
8
The nature of the Bataille Monument is ambiguous; the institutionalised world could
interpret it as a spectacle or as an experience. Hirschhorn claimed that his monuments were
rather events with limited duration. Moreover, they were unpredictable because nobody
knew what could happen (Buchloh, 2005:86). He also defended his choice to produce his
project in a site which would cause ambiguity and confrontation; a monument about
Bataille in a Turkish workers’ area seemed irrelevant. Hirschhorn highlighted the autonomy
of his work under any surrounding and any sector (ibid.). It was an act of resistance which I
claim that went against any geographical or social exclusion. There was, again, a lot of
criticism even from a leftist point of view about the involvement of Muslim children with the
work and ideas of Bataille. As Hirschhorn stressed, to exclude the former or anyone from his
project would be unreasonable. I believe that Hirschhorn’s intentions and logic were
challenging any kind of borders; however, I find that his insistence about his art project’s
autonomy was clearly modernist and I side with Basualdo’s claim that: ‘To create new
values whilst affirming other traditionally sanctioned ones is the paradox from which the
Bataille Monument emerges’ (Buchloh et al., 2004:100-‐101). This is where the ambiguity of
Hirschhorn’s project lies.
Hirschhorn in his works is critical of capitalism and the Bataille Monument was no
exception. However, his anti-‐capitalist leanings do not stop him not only move inside art
institutions like Documenta 11, but also use neo-‐liberal management tropes as that of the
project manager. In the Bataille Monument, he distinguished himself from his co-‐workers
and the visitors (Buchloch, 2005:86) and became the model worker under neo-‐liberalism.
His work was not an art object; it was a temporal project in the field of contemporary art
that fits in Boltanski and Chiapello’s concept of the projective city as Child argues(2012:225).
9
Adopting this thesis, I claim that Hirschhorn’s role as project manager is in accordance with
neo-‐liberalism’s tactics of using the artist as an ideal type of worker and I question the
efficiency of his project towards the establishment of new values deriving from the
‘precariat’. By choosing to work inside the art institution, Hirschhorn cannot avoid the
effects of neo-‐liberalism and its tropes; he must, unavoidably, adapt.
Hirschhorn received a lot of criticism about the Turkish residents of the housing complex
and their treatment; the workers of the construction were between twenty and thirty young
people from the Friedrich-‐Wöhler-‐Siedlung area and were paid eight euros per hour for
their work. Hirschhorn claimed: ‘I hate volunteerism for the sake of art. I refuse to appeal to
volunteers, that is, unpaid workers, in order to implement my work of art’ (Hirschhorn,
2004:135). The snack bar was also run by residents of the complex; they could keep all the
profit but they had to organise the food and drinks and keep the place open twelve hours a
day, every day of the week (Doherty, 2004:141). The assumption that the workers were paid
nearly the equivalent of the minimum wage and the long operating hours of the snack bar
caused a lot of criticism, but I am wondering if those critics would act similarly if the project
was run by unpaid volunteers, ‘art-‐lovers’ and middle class ‘art connoisseurs’.
Leaving aside the criticism of Hirschhorn’s treatment to the Turkish residents, I rather focus
on what I consider more important; his role as project manager and as model worker inside
Boltanski and Chiapello’s projective city which in our case is the Bataille Monument. The
absorption of the artist by neo-‐liberalism and the adoption of the creative, independent,
bohemian and flexible ‘great man’ in its services is what causes the ambiguity in
Hirschhorn’s tropes. Whilst he used an anti-‐exclusionary policy and encouraged
10
participation, friendship and social interaction (Fig. 3), he remained the ‘great man’ and
author of the project and declared:
As the artist, I am not asking, can I help you? What can I do for you? Instead, as the
artist, I am asking, can you and do you want to help me complete my project
(Hirschhorn, 2004:137)?
(Fig. 3)
Hirschhorn wanted participation and collaboration by the people of Kassel and the public of
Documenta 11 but he also adopted the role of the Romantic artist; a genius who had the
authorship of the project and affirmed its pivotal position by acting as project manager. This
is a role that neo-‐liberalism encourages and uses as model in contemporary economy.
Another interesting question would be about how good was the collaboration and how
positive the interaction of the participants. The art historian Claire Bishop argues that
11
collaboration between people of different economic backgrounds continues to include the
tensions and conflicts between the observers, participants and contexts and employs
antagonism, which is fundamental to democracy and progress (Lind, 2007:22). I claim that in
the case of Hirschhorn, although he denounced the role of the social worker or the creator
of political art, he managed to create alternative possibilities through his project:
With respect to the Bataille Monument, I noticed that the tolerance, acceptance,
confrontation, and exchange grew with each day of the exhibition. One conviction
for me grew stronger in everyday practice in the housing complex; the conviction
that art can fight for and assert a space. It is the conviction that art can create a
mental space, that it can penetrate the brain (Hirschhorn, 2004:145).
In Bataille Monument, Hirschhorn found the political in the non-‐exclusion. However, when
he questioned himself about what he wanted, he found the answer in his authoritarian role
(Hirschhorn, 2011:181). I believe that being the project manager provided him with the
autonomy he needed to defend art’s autonomy as well. He is a modernist at heart who
chooses to be involved in socially-‐engaged art. He left the people of the Friedrich-‐Wöhler-‐
Siedlung area free to explore the possibilities of his projective city and interact with each
other without directing their relations. Boltanski and Chiapello’s ‘great man’ is Hirschhorn;
free, creative, autonomous and flexible. He could be a model worker under neo-‐liberalism,
where the economy favours creativity, flexibility, networking and temporal projects (Child,
2012:228). His flexibility to live with the residents in the housing complex and adjust to the
changing conditions surrounding the Bataille Monument makes him the charismatic man
who could successfully manage projects under neo-‐liberal conditions. However, he was not
fully absorbed by the institutionalised art world of Documenta 11, as I claim that he
12
maintained his anti-‐capitalist spirit and his project favoured participation, collaboration and
acquisition of knowledge about Bataille’s ideas.
Concluding, Hirschhorn could not stay unaffected by neo-‐liberalism; he chose to work for an
institution like Documenta 11 and adopted the role of the project manager. Moreover, he
used work tropes that are integrated in the neo-‐liberal economic system like networking
and that of the temporary project. He was the flexible and gifted manager who had the
authorship of the Bataille Monument and who stressed the autonomy of his art. He and his
project proved adaptable. However, the Bataille Monument resisted the hegemony of neo-‐
liberalism through its democratic and non-‐exclusionary nature, its opening of an alternative
experience and the unpredictability of its ‘result’. Hirschhorn’s words summarise my
conclusion: ‘To be in agreement means to resist, to resist the facts’ (Hirschhorn, 2011:163).
References Basualdo, C. (2004) ‘Bataille Monument, Documenta 11, 2002’ In Buchloh, B. H. D.; Gingeras, A. M.; Basualdo, C. (eds.) Thomas Hirschhorn. London: Phaidon, pp. 94-‐109. Buchloh, B. H. D. (2005) ‘An Interview with Thomas Hirschhorn.’ October, 113, Summer, pp. 77-‐100. Child, D. (2012) ‘The artist as project manager: Thomas Hirschhorn’s Bataille Monument (2002).’ Journal of Arts & Communities, 4(3) pp. 217-‐230. Egenhofer, S. (2011) ‘What Is Political About Hirschhorn’s Art?’ In Hirschhorn, T. (ed.) Establishing a Critical Corpus. Bern: Swiss Federal Office of Culture; JRP|Ringier, pp. 98-‐123. Foster, H. (2011) ‘Toward a Grammar of Emergency’ In Hirschhorn, T. (ed.) Establishing a Critical Corpus. Bern: Swiss Federal Office of Culture; JRP|Ringier, pp. 162-‐213. Hirschhorn, T. (2004) ‘Bataille Monument’ In Doherty, C. (ed.) Contemporary Art: From Studio to Situation. London: Black Dog, pp. 133-‐147. Lind, M. (2007) ‘The Collaborative Turn’ In Billing, J.; Lind, M.; Nilsson, L. (eds.) Taking the Matter into Common Hands. London: Black Dog, pp. 15-‐31.
13
Smith, T. (2009) ‘Notes’ In Smith, T. (ed.) What Is Contemporary Art? Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 273-‐305. Verso (no date) The new Spirit of Capitalism. [Online] [Accessed on 16th January 2017] https://www.versobooks.com/books/259-‐the-‐new-‐spirit-‐of-‐capitalism Bibliography Arts Plastiques Académie de Rouen (no date) Corps et Sculpture Commemorative au XXe Siecle. [Online] [Accessed on 15th January 2017] http://arts-‐plastiques.ac-‐rouen.fr/grp/sculpture_commemorative/thomas_hirschhorn.htm Billing, J.; Lind, M.; Nilsson, L. (2007) Taking the Matter into Common Hands. London: Black Dog. Boltanski, L.; Chiapello, E. (2007) The New Spirit of Capitalism. London: Verso. Buchloh, B. H. D.; Gingeras, A. M.; Basualdo, C. (2004) Thomas Hirschhorn. London: Phaidon. Buchloh, B. H. D. (2005) ‘An Interview with Thomas Hirschhorn.’ October, 113, Summer, pp. 77-‐100. Child, D. (2011) Socialised Labour under Change: Collaboration, Contracted Labour and Collective Modes of Production in Art since the 1960s. PhD. The University of Leeds. Child, D. (2012) ‘The artist as project manager: Thomas Hirschhorn’s Bataille Monument (2002).’ Journal of Arts & Communities, 4(3) pp. 217-‐230. Coulter-‐Smith, G. (2006) The Social Realist as Entrepreneur: Thomas Hirschhorn. Installation Art. [Online] [Accessed on 18th January 2017] http://www.installationart.net/Chapter3Interaction/interaction03.html Documenta11 (2002) Archive. [Online] [Accessed on 14th January 2017] http://archive.documenta12.de/archiv/d11/documenta_gelb.html Doherty, C. (2004) Contemporary Art: From Studio to Situation. London: Black Dog. Gladstone Gallery (no date) Thomas Hirschhorn. [Online] [Accessed on 17th January 2017] http://www.gladstonegallery.com/artist/thomas-‐hirschhorn/work#&panel1-‐5 Hirschhorn, T. (2011) Establishing a Critical Corpus. Bern: Swiss Federal Office of Culture; JRP|Ringier. Smith, T. (2009) What Is Contemporary Art? Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.
14
Verso (no date) The new Spirit of Capitalism. [Online] [Accessed on 16th January 2017] https://www.versobooks.com/books/259-‐the-‐new-‐spirit-‐of-‐capitalism Illustration List (Fig. 1): Documenta11 (2002) Thomas Hirschhorn’s Bataille Library. [Online image] [Accessed on 14th January 2017] http://archive.documenta12.de/archiv/d11/documenta_gelb.html (Fig. 2): Arts Plastiques Académie de Rouen (no date) Thomas Hirschhorn’s Bataille Bar. [Online image] [Accessed on 15th January 2017] http://arts-‐plastiques.ac-‐rouen.fr/grp/sculpture_commemorative/thomas_hirschhorn.htm (Fig. 3): Gladstone Gallery (no date) Thomas Hirschhorn’s Bataille Monument. [Online image] [Accessed on 17th January 2017] http://www.gladstonegallery.com/artist/thomas-‐hirschhorn/work/fullscreen#&panel1-‐5