"If you can say it... Why paint it?" A review of the key concepts of Contemporary Art

I did not think about it but, but it was so obvious!!! I' ve read an article entitled “I see a new, pervasive and global condition of fundamentalist violence directed against dissident images and thought” in the online version of the Arts Newspaper and it all became clear!! I forget to talk about it!! Ok here I go:

The article talks about an exhibition that seemed really controversial for some... Not for others...
The artist is apparently French with North African origins (it is somehow relevant, u ll see...) and the artwork is a movie made in a Mexican slaughter house... Showing animals being slaughtered and was apparently misinterpreted by a part of the audience that saw there a kind of 'Animal Snuff Movie' realised for the sake of Art. We can't really blame them, can we? I've mentioned earlier in this blog that the art world is not being tender at the moment with projects of people dying in Art galleries for the "show" (I m not discussing these artworks here... this is a whole other debate), the story of this student with her performance art piece in which she artificially inseminated herself repeatedly and then self-aborted for the sake of art, then Guillermo Habacuc Vargas who chained a dog and left it in the gallery without food for the sake of art... It is all disturbing isn't it???

This all sound really crazy to me, however I must say my opinion is a bit biased as I belong of a specific group of people recently mediatised because of its leader actions and PR operations, and girlfriends... We became notorious in the past as some of our traditions are usually perceived as foolish: eating cow tongues and snails, being really arrogant, protesting for everything and demonstrating all the time. We are known as the French people.
My opinion is biased because there are some of the things out there I take for granted (snails are really good... yes, they really are!), some I do not understand (when I say that in France, in soap advertisements, girls appear entirely naked under the shower and, I do not understand why you think this is pervert...) and some things, my people do not accept (Chinese people eat puppies and rotten duck eggs!!).
I do not say I am any better than you, I just say that I am different... I am just French! But look, I am not only French, I went to university, come from a village, a Polish family with a catholic background... and finally I am really into contemporary art things for years... It makes things easier for me to accept or understand as it is part of my culture. In fact, we all are singular individuals, who belong to groups which belong to larger groups. Therefore, when I go to see an exhibition about Chapman Brothers artworks (notorious for being particularly controversial...), I am not really shocked. Does it mean that it would be stupid of you to be shocked there?

Some ideas could be dangerous when exported in other social groups. We have recently seen conflicts exploding all around the world because of a couple of Mahomet's drawings. What kind of conclusion could emerge from this?

Coming back to our slaughter house example, it appears as I mentioned previously, that a group of people believed that the animals were killed on purpose, for the sake of the video. It led to blackmail, dangerous anonymous threats...etc. Who is responsible?
I believe that, as in every communication process, that meaning is built both by the emitter (here the curators) and the receivers (audience). Therefore, the information about the artwork was probably lacking... This is an old habit, tradition for galleries to keep a mystery around the artworks. It is part of the art culture, usually justified by the fact that every viewer must be able to enrich the artworks by building a personal relationship with the piece of art, as many different opinions as different viewers who enter in the gallery; different meanings to be shared, to generate a result that is more powerful than the simple sum of every individually built meanings!

Art exists to question what we take for granted, it somehow must shock. Can we talk about everything? I believe so, but maybe not in front of everybody... There is therefore a responsability from curators to take into account the culture in which the work of art is exhibited. This responsability lays in the dispensal of the information. The artist has the liberty of expression for him, but it is the role of the curator to dispense acurate and relevant information, in accordance with the culture of the potential audience of the exhibition. In two words: Cultural relativism.

Different communities may need different information in quantity and in nature to understand the message emitted through the artwork (Hofstede researches show that some cultures tend to use the context more than others within the communication process, for the connoisseurs ;-)).

Away from the Flock, A controversial artwork by Damien Hirst. Vegetarians protest about it, and it is vandalised with black ink while on show at the Some Went Mad, Some Ran Away exhibition, curated by Hirst, at London's Serpentine Gallery.

To conclude, I would like to say this: I know that contemporary art can appear really violent and provocative but in most of the time, it is served with an intelligent discourse. In fact, when the art is stupid and provocative, it does not go through the whole art system... So, do not be affraid to seek for information and to ask questions! This is a horrible feeling to enter in a gallery and to feel stupid because you do not understand anything (and I know what I am talking about). This is partly why this blog exists. On the other side, when you take part of an exhibition organisation... BE RESPONSIBLE AND CULTURALLY AWARE!!!