The Schau Rausch exhibition: Art in 50 Show-windows
The exhibition in the public space presents itself correctly, art of the mall, art of passage. Most of the works deal with very global and simple codes, information that needs to reach the public in a certain way, short statements, direct ideas that must be included in a day of shopping. The intention is to intervene the view of the normal passerby and catch his or her attention. No criticism, no theoretically heavy works, just simple enjoyable structures. Maybe this particular way of seeing art as an ornament, as a thing that must enrich the view of the city “estheticizing” the buildings, is the usual and not very contemporary way of seeing art in the public space; a more terrible view: art seems to be working as a gentrification element for the city authorities. Works of art acting as earrings of the structures. But is it not this one a huge dilemma? Is it a problem for the public? How to deal with what is an expression of mass media? How to present ideas that are strong enough but do not cause disruption of life? Sometimes I wonder if the field of the public art and its representation is not just a form of design, giving part of the soul of the artist in pro of politically correct ways of making things, determined by the dictatorship of public policies and not by the real spirit of creation.
Certainly it is impossible to forget the importance of the law in public setting of pieces, in this case, the artist is not only responsible for the creation of a work of art, but for the articulation of a new way of producing art. The artist is no more a naïve figure installed in a room where catharsis is the only possible output. Maybe public art shows at a glance the contemporary necessity of the artist to become a producer.
And the most important problem: the Public? That problem that seems always to be left alone in the field of the arts and to my concern is one of the most important reflections to have. The observer needs always to be taken into account, not only because he/she is the receptor of the ideas and concepts, but also because it is the only place, the brain of that one that looks deeply in a work of art, where the work is finished. The piece of art not only an expression tool, but an excuse or device to generate a response that will, in-between all responses to the same work, constitute a matrix of experience which is what really determines the work of art. So to say, the “performative” consequence of a piece is what makes it and structures it. Under these terms it is necessary, then, to analyze the behavior of a person that is going to buy something and, as in the case of this exhibition, is surprised by the work of art. The context and the background of this person maybe art related but the mental disposition is certainly in another place.
On the contrary a person that is going direct to the art exhibition and encounters interventions that are related to commercial habits has a completely other view of the process. It is there, in these differences of approach that the reading of every work enters in correlation with an interesting process of creating meaning in the field of public art. This is the strength of an exhibition like “Schau Rausch”. Sadly this possibility is dissolved in superficial works of art, which barely confront the public awareness and go from telephone-mini-screens with videos, passing by white simple speakers, to painting and theatrical arrangements on the windows.
From this exhibit, it is necessary to highlight two works. On one hand, Rainer Nöbauer’s “Greifhandschue”, in spite of its esthetic approach, which I do not share, works in a realm of interactivity with very simple methods and very attractive strategies. The work consists on a shopping window that has a hole with super-big gloves that the observer can use to arrange to its pleasure the vitrine. This gives a possibility of creation for the viewer of his own display and brings a very subtle criticism in who decides what fashion is. And how the relationship media and consumer are established. Also this work talks of a very particular idea of contrasting inside and outside, giving a notion of control and dialogue from the street to the content of the shopping mall.
On the other hand, we have the impressive work of Alicia Martin, “Biografías”, where a 12 meters tall waterfall of books descends from the window of the Thalia Bookstore. Giving the idea of cascade of knowledge this piece confronts the viewer with the disproportion of assassinated books, fragments that belong now to a dead collection of wisdom. A portion that is certainly critical and at the same time paradoxical of the distribution of education in the world and how the general knowledge is a problem of quantity but not necessarily of quality of ideas. The problem, as quoted by the artist, is that these books are not more important because of their content; but because of the structural power that they represent, they have the property of emulating a particular image of the Babel tower.
The exhibition in the public space presents itself correctly, art of the mall, art of passage. Most of the works deal with very global and simple codes, information that needs to reach the public in a certain way, short statements, direct ideas that must be included in a day of shopping. The intention is to intervene the view of the normal passerby and catch his or her attention. No criticism, no theoretically heavy works, just simple enjoyable structures. Maybe this particular way of seeing art as an ornament, as a thing that must enrich the view of the city “estheticizing” the buildings, is the usual and not very contemporary way of seeing art in the public space; a more terrible view: art seems to be working as a gentrification element for the city authorities. Works of art acting as earrings of the structures. But is it not this one a huge dilemma? Is it a problem for the public? How to deal with what is an expression of mass media? How to present ideas that are strong enough but do not cause disruption of life? Sometimes I wonder if the field of the public art and its representation is not just a form of design, giving part of the soul of the artist in pro of politically correct ways of making things, determined by the dictatorship of public policies and not by the real spirit of creation.
Certainly it is impossible to forget the importance of the law in public setting of pieces, in this case, the artist is not only responsible for the creation of a work of art, but for the articulation of a new way of producing art. The artist is no more a naïve figure installed in a room where catharsis is the only possible output. Maybe public art shows at a glance the contemporary necessity of the artist to become a producer.
And the most important problem: the Public? That problem that seems always to be left alone in the field of the arts and to my concern is one of the most important reflections to have. The observer needs always to be taken into account, not only because he/she is the receptor of the ideas and concepts, but also because it is the only place, the brain of that one that looks deeply in a work of art, where the work is finished. The piece of art not only an expression tool, but an excuse or device to generate a response that will, in-between all responses to the same work, constitute a matrix of experience which is what really determines the work of art. So to say, the “performative” consequence of a piece is what makes it and structures it. Under these terms it is necessary, then, to analyze the behavior of a person that is going to buy something and, as in the case of this exhibition, is surprised by the work of art. The context and the background of this person maybe art related but the mental disposition is certainly in another place.
On the contrary a person that is going direct to the art exhibition and encounters interventions that are related to commercial habits has a completely other view of the process. It is there, in these differences of approach that the reading of every work enters in correlation with an interesting process of creating meaning in the field of public art. This is the strength of an exhibition like “Schau Rausch”. Sadly this possibility is dissolved in superficial works of art, which barely confront the public awareness and go from telephone-mini-screens with videos, passing by white simple speakers, to painting and theatrical arrangements on the windows.
From this exhibit, it is necessary to highlight two works. On one hand, Rainer Nöbauer’s “Greifhandschue”, in spite of its esthetic approach, which I do not share, works in a realm of interactivity with very simple methods and very attractive strategies. The work consists on a shopping window that has a hole with super-big gloves that the observer can use to arrange to its pleasure the vitrine. This gives a possibility of creation for the viewer of his own display and brings a very subtle criticism in who decides what fashion is. And how the relationship media and consumer are established. Also this work talks of a very particular idea of contrasting inside and outside, giving a notion of control and dialogue from the street to the content of the shopping mall.
On the other hand, we have the impressive work of Alicia Martin, “Biografías”, where a 12 meters tall waterfall of books descends from the window of the Thalia Bookstore. Giving the idea of cascade of knowledge this piece confronts the viewer with the disproportion of assassinated books, fragments that belong now to a dead collection of wisdom. A portion that is certainly critical and at the same time paradoxical of the distribution of education in the world and how the general knowledge is a problem of quantity but not necessarily of quality of ideas. The problem, as quoted by the artist, is that these books are not more important because of their content; but because of the structural power that they represent, they have the property of emulating a particular image of the Babel tower.
