Posts Tagged ‘Visual Art Residency’

Not In My Backyard

November 14, 2010

            The New York Times reported a story on a 600 page, redacted US Justice Department report that Nazi’s were given safe haven in the US (less than 10,000). The report was 6 years in the making and, according to a Justice Department spokesperson, is incomplete and not totally accurate. One of the comments posted in regard this story was “Other nations do it, so what?”

                        In the chapter entitled The Misadventures of Critical Thought, Ranciere writes: “That is the truth of the concept of spectacle as fixed by Guy Debord: the spectacle is not the display of images concealing reality. It is the existence of social activity and social wealth as a separate reality…” (Pg. 44 The Emancipated Spectator) One of the implications of this interpretation of Debord’s insight, is that, like the commentator to the NYT article, we all take for granted that it is so. This complicity becomes startling in an instant like the 6-years-in-the-making, incomplete Justice Department report (sounds like the PHD thesis of a professional student). But what about in one’s backyard?

            A recent emailing offered application to the John Michael Kohler arts/industry residency. I guess I should have felt privileged to be included on their mass mailing solicitation. Visual art residencies are practically ubiquitous, like Skowhegan, Anderson Ranch, Vermont Studio Center, Art Students League in NYC, etc. They are also international. Participation seems to be a de rigueur presence on the resume of any self respecting, professional artist (the more the better, international earns bonus points along with frequent flyer miles). Why is this so? What exactly goes on there? Oh, art is made. It is a phenomenal opportunity for someone to “get away” and focus, concentrate entirely on their art. Learn new things. And it is where someone else takes care of the mundane, pays the bills, provides the materials/equipment along with the social milieu. One finally can make art the way it ought to be made. Etc. Can’t beat that with a stick, now can you? Wouldn’t want to even if you could.

            Conflating the NYT article with artist residencies and Ranciere’s quote, one can only speculate on the complicity of art residencies with the maintenance of spectacle. That these residencies are a separate reality is by definition (no one actually is an everyday, registered-to-vote resident there). The largest part of their attraction is their guilt by association with higher education visual art programs. The ability to work with featured artists who will provide instruction is the primary draw (usually college art instructors supplementing the income not provided by the sale of their art). In addition, the environment and economy of these programs parallels that of the higher ed. Fine Art experience. So why not do all this in your own backyard, on your own time, without making it an exclusive vacation experience? The standard retort is that too many mundane matters are pressing at home to focus on my art (where people know me and burden me with all their preconceived expectations – no one “knows” me at an art residency), that the equipment, materials, know-how, and deadline timetable are all structurally assembled there (insuring that everyone goes home with a trophy), residency involvement is prestigious (contributing to the distinguishing demands of a professional resume), etc.  In sum, one could simply reply: “Art is not made in my backyard”. It is a separate experience, like one’s college art classes. That, by definition, such art would be disconnected from the everyday lives of those experiencing it is of no concern. Along with the NYT story commentator, one could also say “Everyone does it, so what?”

            Is it any wonder that Ranciere interprets Debord’s spectacle as “social activity and social wealth” that is a “separate reality”?