Downey's perspective on contemporary art as it comes to culture and collaborative work was spot on with the question of ethics and intercultural collaboration. It's true that as society shines a harsher light on the treatment of different cultural groups and the history of wrongs brought against them, that work created by members of those groups is emphasized while work centered on those groups created by outsiders are critiqued (Downey 593).
The discussion of aesthetics vs ethics was interesting to me, since the easiest ways to draw attention to one's culture are the super interesting traditions and food - the kodak moments as one would say. When using these types of events to draw outside attention to your culture, can they really be blamed for only taking away surface level knowledge or understanding when that's all that's being provided (Downey 596)? This draws attention to the acts and subjectively exploitative works of artists like Santiago Sierra and Artur Zmijewski, who rather than collaborate with culture, seem to coopt members of specific societal subgroups. When the disenfranchised are put in a position where declining work or "collaboration" means not having food, shelter or other necessities, is it truly collaboration (Downey 601)?
In that vein, what is collaboration? In my opinion the only ethical way for his projects to have been able to subsist as they are would be if the artists who acted as the foci of his work were directly asked for their input in the in work to best convey their struggles or whatever message Santiago wanted to center in an avenue that would make a difference as well as shock rather than existing solely to shock audiences (Downey 5947). Sierra's clear value on shock value above all detracts significantly from his work in that it seems to only message stereotypes of the groups he features, if their is a message other than "this predatory rich man believes that degrading minorities of low social capital makes him an artist". Meanwhile other artists featured in Downey's article like Rirkrit Tiravanija and Francis Alys do not feel exploitative as the subject is not the human but garnering community participation- this shift prevents their art from reading as forced narratives (Downey 595). There is not an underpaid "collaborator" being subjected to a struggle or standing in audience sightlines to be beheld as if galleries are now human zoos. Audiences are instead given an opportunity to opt-in which leads to greater curiosity and an increased openness to learning, which I feel is far more conducive to the goals of these artists.
The discussion of aesthetics vs ethics was interesting to me, since the easiest ways to draw attention to one's culture are the super interesting traditions and food - the kodak moments as one would say. When using these types of events to draw outside attention to your culture, can they really be blamed for only taking away surface level knowledge or understanding when that's all that's being provided (Downey 596)? This draws attention to the acts and subjectively exploitative works of artists like Santiago Sierra and Artur Zmijewski, who rather than collaborate with culture, seem to coopt members of specific societal subgroups. When the disenfranchised are put in a position where declining work or "collaboration" means not having food, shelter or other necessities, is it truly collaboration (Downey 601)?
In that vein, what is collaboration? In my opinion the only ethical way for his projects to have been able to subsist as they are would be if the artists who acted as the foci of his work were directly asked for their input in the in work to best convey their struggles or whatever message Santiago wanted to center in an avenue that would make a difference as well as shock rather than existing solely to shock audiences (Downey 5947). Sierra's clear value on shock value above all detracts significantly from his work in that it seems to only message stereotypes of the groups he features, if their is a message other than "this predatory rich man believes that degrading minorities of low social capital makes him an artist". Meanwhile other artists featured in Downey's article like Rirkrit Tiravanija and Francis Alys do not feel exploitative as the subject is not the human but garnering community participation- this shift prevents their art from reading as forced narratives (Downey 595). There is not an underpaid "collaborator" being subjected to a struggle or standing in audience sightlines to be beheld as if galleries are now human zoos. Audiences are instead given an opportunity to opt-in which leads to greater curiosity and an increased openness to learning, which I feel is far more conducive to the goals of these artists.
Comments
Post a Comment