Death and Art

objavil Jože Barši dne 18. februar 2011 ob 8:19

Death is most certainly a true event. Dealing with death is real. On the other hand, similar to sexuality in the 19th century or smoking in the recent times, death is pushed into the sphere of hiding/private. This is mainly because it belongs to the field of the unconquerable. It is a border where everything that we call life ends. Even though death is wrapped into mysteriousness and incomprehensibility, I have something much more profane on my mind. I am interested in the thought process produced by the closeness of death and art. After all this is an exhibition - an art exhibition - on the topic of death. Is the closeness or rather the constellation of these two facts operative; do they function in such a way that they produce something? Of course I do not mean this in the sense of the ‘death of art’ metaphor. The exhibition title leads in a different direction - towards deaths that are actually occurring. This is not about imagination, entertainment or a metaphor. What I am interested in is the relation between the seriousness, the reality of the pain that emerges when somebody close to us dies and art. Of course I am not trying to state that art should be serious, deadly serious. Far from it! To start off I am interested only in this relation and the possible consequences of this relationship. I am aware of the dangers of being pathetic, but this is a risk I am willing to take. In 2005 I wrote the following[1]:

»Igor Zabel has died. An unusual beginning for a text that should discuss the Academy of Fine Arts in Ljubljana or the works of the students presenting their works at the exhibition mentioned in the title. Igor Zabel was not a lecturer at the aforementioned school, he was a curator at the Modern Gallery in Ljubljana. However, he was linked to the school. He was frequently a guest at my seminars, and he always showed interest in the events at the academy. He was interested in the works of the students; he linked and commented upon them with his excellent knowledge of contemporary artistic practices. With his death we lost a sensitive viewer and a friend of contemporary artistic practices.

Death as a fact is an extremely harsh comparison to works of art. However, this strictness is applicable by all means. In a time of popular culture and exceptional technological tools, the search for a space for performing art practices is extremely important. These are no longer great ontological questions on art or sculpturing as a medium, it is all about some sort of arbitrariness of individual artistic statements. Or to put it differently: with a single way of observing it is impossible to differentiate between the individual statements, one has to face the fact that observing contemporary works demands a constantly refreshed definition of our own views and measures. /…/«

In the relation death/art I have in mind contemporary artistic practices, towards which I am often extremely critical, even though I am a part of them. If we can doubt that art, contemporary or not, has an impact on our everyday lives, there is no doubt when it comes to death. Even though it is hidden from the public it works. Death works, for at the end we all die, and this affects the living, the ones left mourning. How does contemporary art work? According to Agamben art is contemporary when it affects the present. Its affect automatically brings with it a certain imperfect match with the present. Contemporaniety could be defined as diagnosing the present, which means perceiving what is hidden by the symptom. Agamben states that the contemporary is not fit for its time. Contemporaneity is therefore a special attitude towards the current time, which accepts time while distancing itself from it. However, the transformation of the universality (this is the affect) does not take place through a series of particularities, but the other way round, it occurs with the aid of rebellion – creation. The work of art that affects the universal is an exception within the common practices, knowledge and opinions. It is not a rebellion just for the sake of it. It is not a rebellion that would be automatically incorporated into the existing practices and as such serve the existing order with the intention to preserve the stalemate, for nothing to really change. On the other hand contemporary art has no peculiarities. Nothing specific should be sought in the field known as contemporary art. Mainly because the attempt to seek for particularities hides a command within it that immobilises the singularities of individual works of art. Art exists merely because works of art exist. The peculiarities lead to expertise, towards something that is not available to all. Of course I do not advocate the ‘anything goes’ attitude, far from it. I advocate peculiarities only within each individual work, structured in a way that brings with it comparability with the complexity of something outside the art territory. If the thesis on profanity[2] of contemporary art holds true, this is comparable to the profanity of death. Death is most certainly an event that truly/unavoidably belongs to us all. Can death be used as a measure/tool to turn art back into a serious business?[3]

Jože Barši Ljubljana, August 2009

[1] One of the texts in the catalogue for the EXORDIUM exhibition (exhibition of art academy students from Venice, Ljubljana and Vienna) in Udine, Italy, 2005.

[2] The term that in opposition to the expression dedicate (sacrare) denotes the removal of something from common use, profanation (profanare) means the return of something back into common use, which contrary to the sacred (sacrare) denotes something that belongs to all. (Georgio Agamben, Profanations, New York 2007)

[3] In its shortness the text has a pamphlet-like quality, mainly so it will stimulates me to continue. The speech that will represent my contribution to the exhibition is of course not yet completed and regardless of the ideas in this text should be understood as a current act that is still open and brings uncertainties.