A Critical Exploration on Contemporary Physical Reality
by Maximillian Piras, 2011.
Piras
A Monolith Assumed
2
We have all been made asses of. This is my crude revelation on our society’s contemporary reality. That is to say: it is considerably anything but definitive reality, as we have known. The result of acknowledging the event will either allow liberation from an assumed reality in place of the absence, or a reestablishment of our definitive existence. Because if we were to consider reality in a traditional definition, along the lines of a state or quality of having substance, the distinction of physicality will eventually come into discussion. For what is substance without physicality? When considering the physical reality of our society, its presence is eclipsed by the abundance of virtual representations through technological mediators. The occurrence is so vast that technologically mediated reality, mainly the various degrees of virtual representation, has often come to unofficially represent the physical in lieu of its absence. So if one were to consider our reality in a definitive scope, they would find its majority to be merely an assumption of that definition. Characterized not by its complete fulfillment, but a supposition of two key concepts’ connection: event & representation. The absence of physicality is necessary to negating these two keys as reality’s entirety. As our existence has become dominated by assumption, we therefore have been made asses of. The evidence echoes out from practically every corner of our developed world. From the televisions, computer screens, cell phones, billboards, magazines, and even literature. From all the vehicles of communication we have inadvertently placed abundant reliance upon. We have created a complacent system of interconnectedness in which a globalized, homogenized, & multi-cultured awareness is not only easily accessible, but also liberated from the unbearable weight of physical adherence. So it becomes easy to assume, especially for generations to come, that we can use this knowledge of existence
Piras
A Monolith Assumed
3
in place of the real thing. This is problematic because it skews reality through overly mediated representation, a verbatim fact might be the easiest example, as this reliance on secondary, tertiary, and so on, sources makes it increasingly harder to trace back to a primary. I do not believe the intention of these inventions, such as Television, Cinema, Internet, etc., was ever to abstract or diminish the physicality of reality to such an extent. But as the event further comes to constitute the majority of our reality, an accurate awareness is important to efficiently move forward. This revelation illuminated itself to me during a reading of Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle, in which he divulged his theory: “All that was once directly lived has become mere representation” (4). From his writing I elaborate that we have immersed ourselves into our contemporary society under the assumption of globalized interconnectedness, the assumption of security under monolithic oversight, & the assumption that there is anybody on the other end of this lifeless technology. Debord calls it “the spectacle”, essentially it is the notion that what has currently come to often constitute a person is nothing more than their “mere representation”: an image, video, or anything else that brings them into recognition. Debord explains that the spectacle is “a social relation among people, mediated by images” (4). Today, this is how we have technologically achieved relationships with people across the globe without ever having to leave our home: through their pictures, videos, writings, & so on as a representation of their person. And this is how we have come to vividly know of those relevant in our history: those in our textbooks, movies, musical recordings, & so on. Though to “know of” and to “know” are two very different things. It is obviously impossible for anybody born after 1955 to know Einstein. But it is
Piras
A Monolith Assumed
4
equally impossible for a person to know another in terms of definitive reality if they have never greeted each other in physical proximity. They will only know each other’s mediated representation. So how has this become so confused? It is thanks to the acceptance of assuming virtual representation in place of physical reality. As a member of a generation on the cusp of this societal shift I can only preconceive, after witnessing the implications it presents in my own time, that it will be increasingly convoluted if due attention is not paid. In that assumption we must realize its main fallacy is replacing an original with a reproduction. Seemingly, it is simple enough to consider the case in “the spectacle” and designate a person as an original with their representation as a reproduction. However, this argument becomes ambiguous when it attempts to discuss physical constructions outside the body as more than representation. Therefore, we must discern this phenomenon as well in concerns to the lifeless: it is possible for objects to suffer the same fate of assumption as people. Some objects you cannot denote to the same category as “mere representation” along with any other external biographic material, because then why are certain instances considered with such value and importance in concerns to their original? Consider an original painting. If you consider a painter to be relevant through his work, then his paintings become relevant to his existence. For I would not know of Jackson Pollock if not for his paintings, and in light of the Abstract Expressionist movement: paintings like many of his are to be considered extensions of the artist. This is obviously contextually divulged, but very relevant in that context because if mere representation of Jackson Pollock’s existence is not as valuable as work by Jackson
Piras
A Monolith Assumed
5
Pollock then they are not one in the same. If you take a snapshot of Pollock and a painting by Pollock, the painting will undoubtedly hold more relevance. One item must serve as an extension of the artist’s physicality and the other as a mere representation of it. Although despite the very relevant designation, both are easily reproducible. Which is why the argument’s nuances become augmented to such a degree with this realization: the idea of physical relevance in relation to definitive reality is not limited to physical life forms but also their manifested presence extended through any relevant works. So just as it becomes important to designate a virtual representation from a physical reality, the designation of an original work from a reproduction should be considered as the same. German-Jewish intellectual essayist, Walter Benjamin, discusses this distinction in his 1936 publication The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Benjamin differentiates the original from the reproduction on the basis of uniqueness juxtaposed with objectified equality in the form of likeness. It is referred to as the “aura” (2) and can be defined as the distinctive atmosphere or quality surrounding or generated by a person, thing, or place. The aura is perhaps the only part of an original that cannot be reproduced, as Benjamin discusses, because it must exist in “the unique phenomenon of a distance” (3). The obscure notion of distance is the key in prescribing an original with meaning, however it is quite hard to quantify in description. The difficulty in describing distance in relation to aura is due to the same uniqueness that qualifies an original. It can be discussed as a historical testimony, a claim to any authority an object might hold and designate it as authentic. Perhaps distance is at least the consideration of impossibility for a reproduction to be conceived in the same circumstance as the original. An event that even the artist cannot recreate. At the moment
Piras
A Monolith Assumed
6
which the work detached itself from the artist and became its own entity. This moment is detrimental for why a work can be held in equal regard, if not more, than the creator of that work. For this moment designates the work itself to have its own aura. Whether this aura is perceived as a singular entity, or a split from the artist now taking on its own substance. The key is that once a work has split from an artist it becomes authentic in its own right, despite that it will inextricably be tied to the artist and the artist tied to it. It is important to designate an art object with its own aura because it explains how the object’s aura is also subject to diminish under reproduction. It is under reproduction that an art object and a person transcend from physically existing into a representation of existing. It is when a painting is reduced from a physical construction into only an image. This designation also conversely explains the lack of importance an artist’s physical relationship must be with their work. Only recently has the discussion of authenticity come up in response to an artist’s absence in their work’s physical construction. Yet the event is nothing new at all. Before one condemns artists like Sol Lewitt and Andy Warhol for utilizing the “Duchamp-ian” point (pointing and calling something art) they should reconsider the presence of studio assistants to the Old Masters. Marcel Duchamp’s theory on the future of art was actually true centuries before he said it. The importance of an artist’s hand touching a piece is rather irrelevant in considering its aura, and a reverse conception would only belittle artistic practice. An artist’s role is to create the art, but should not be limited to laboring over it. The idea and concept is what should be foremost considered, and it is the artist’s purpose to develop an execution for the idea as best suitable. This should not be limited to the artist’s own physical capabilities, as he or she should be a designer at their very least amount of input.
Piras
A Monolith Assumed
7
The design is what will ultimately dictate a piece’s success, but this is not to assume execution is not important. Execution should as well fall under what an artist deems best fit, be it his or her own hand or otherwise. If an artist hopes to design not only a composition but also a systematic production of their ideas, then there should be no dispute in their credit if they assign a team of silk screeners to produce portraits of Marilyn Monroe. Just as their should be no dispute that Michelangelo should receive credit for the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling, despite that the project took 20 months of his life for completion and still extended past his physical capacity. The expansive painting was physically dependent on a scaffold full of assistants to complete, in addition to his directorial participation. In the case of Pollock, Newman, De Kooning, and the rest of the Abstract Expressionist movement: their emphasis on physical interaction in their work was relevant because they had designed a system of painting which was meant to run perpendicular to their biography. In a sense the painting was meant to represent them beyond all reference, in their purest sense, though in this consideration Abstract Expressionism potentially teeters on the edge of some sort of metaphysically mediated representation. However it is relevant in its own right because as much as these paintings are meant to represent their creators, just in the same their creators are nothing more than representations of their paintings. Both can then be traced to a purer form of existence, and then as well be rendered as nothing more than mediations of a very distant metaphysical purity. Yet, this specific discussion is little more than a necessary digress, left in brevity.
Piras
A Monolith Assumed
8
Much of the contemporary art world is already fittingly aware of this argument. Artists like Jeff Koons, Vik Muniz, and others, have been employing this to a great degree by often initiating a conceptual idea to be applied on such a grand scale far out of their physical capacity. Koons’ “Puppy” for example is applied on a scale of 43 feet high, through a construction of steel then decorated by florists. As well, Muniz’s project with Jardim Gramacho was more an artistically plotted social intervention, which rose above any part of his physical involvement. Muniz’s presence no doubt transcended through his photographic style, as it was originally his photographs that were then appropriated into the large garbage structures and then once again photographed by his eye. However it was specific prints that were designated with such attention, attested to by their $50,000 sale at Sotheby’s, which we could designate as the final physical representation of this project. As the photographs were the only lasting tangible physical pieces (from a collector’s perspective), the specifically chosen prints are what now contains the aura. This emphasis on a specific photographic print is important as well to our larger discussion, as it reminisces a turning point for photography as discussed in The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism by Douglas Crimp. Photography may be the medium of most deliberation in regards to its ability to maintain an aura. The prolificacy of the medium has led its use to be more suited for mass media, and this is why initially considering it as an art form was problematic. However the designation of aura into specific prints, appropriately chosen, is what ultimately allowed the hybridization of photography for mass media use as well as artistic expression. If the solution to the problematic prolificacy of the medium’s reproducible capabilities was so easily achieved
Piras
A Monolith Assumed
9
by designating specific prints with authenticity, then there too is hope for my initially proposed dilemma on assumed reality. In relation to the acceptance of assumption, what has just been discussed is necessary in a historical scope. This problematic lack of accurate definition when comparing our assumed reality to our definitive is not a sudden event. It has been in development for decades and perhaps only now, or not yet even, has constituted irreconcilable inconsistency or ambiguity. The relation to artistic development represents the artists’ ability to discuss society through their work. This could not be more apparent than in relation to the drastic societal shifts due to the Internet Age. Appropriately so, if artists’ hoped to continue accurately discussing society under the drastic rearrangement, then artistic practices as well had to undergo drastic rearrangement. In response to the practices came the theoretical elaboration and discussion, which as well had to break free from pre-Internet mentality. The result was initiated by Nicholas Bourriaud, with a new artistic criticism coined Relational Arts. Bourriaud has remarked in his 1998 book Relational Aesthetics that as a result of the drastic change in art of the 1990s in comparison to its predecessors, it was “no longer possible to regard the contemporary work as a space to be walked through” but “a period of time to be lived through, like an opening to unlimited discussion” (4). This was mainly in response to the majority of art during the 90s, which ceased to offer any objectivity at all. Rirkrit Tiravanija had been designing solo exhibitions that consisted of a curry dinner he would serve to all of the gallery’s visitors. As well pulling the gallery manager’s office furniture into the main gallery space and convincing him to work in the middle of the exhibit. Tiravanija is one Bourriaud discusses in Relational Aesthetics along with Liam
Piras
A Monolith Assumed
10
Gillick, another artist most relevant to the 90s who often installs – amongst other things – text in different material and configurations. Gillick’s installations could be considered effective instigators of conversation between the audiences. Suggestive of the main relevance considered of Relational Arts to its time period: as an introspective and accurate reflection of society. What Bourriaud had witnessed in Relational Arts – aside from its adaptation of proper Internet age nomenclature into artistic discussion – was a possibility to democratically represent contemporary social interaction. An opposition to Bourraiud’s democratic perception of the movement was brought up by Claire Bishop, in her essay Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics. Bishop theorized that Relational Arts do not actually have the capability to democratically represent widespread social interaction because the only interaction instigated would be between members of common interest. Gallery goers. Due to this common interest the resulting interaction and discussion would lack friction, which Bishop links to Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau’s equations of democracy encompassing a development alongside friction, as opposed to its absence or erase. Yet, this antagonism was only met with more antagonism. Gillick criticized Bishop’s rational in his essay, Contingent Factors: A Response to Claire Bishop’s “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics, as failing to notice the contingency of the situation in which most of Bourriaud’s writing had been constructed. Mainly that his definitions were quite unstable, which arguably was intentional as Bourriaud hoped the definition as well would be subject to ongoing interpretation. The implications of Bourriaud’s definition can be considered more on a personal level, as the instability is
Piras
A Monolith Assumed
11
quite fitting of that time’s rearranging social reality. Therefore the antagonistic circle was only more reassuring of his hopes for the movement. However, the concern should perhaps be intensified today as almost 14 years have passed since Relational Aesthetics was published and the instability still seems apparent. Which is perhaps a reflection that as a society we are still at an impasse for discerning the probable ramifications of undeniable technological reliance. Bourriaud himself has attempted to secure an understanding through his new movement of Altermodernism. However, at this point I am onboard with the criticism stating it is essentially nothing more than a reissue of Postmodernism. Continuing with the instability of understanding, what I have found most perplexing in the societal shift to mediated interconnectedness is the monetary democratization of monolithic presence, or omnipresence, made available. What I refer to as the Coca-Cola Paradigm. Essentially in regards to an ubiquitous, globalized language which can be recognized anywhere in the world. The word “Coca-Cola” can be categorized in that respect, as it is in reference to “a truly global company” which operates “in over 200 countries around the world” (http://www.thecocacolacompany.com/careers/career_areas.html). This is applied to Coca-Cola’s business perception of the entire world as its marketplace. It does not refer negatively in anyway to the company itself, but merely hopes to acknowledge and understand the possibility with which it has succeeded in that perspective as a reflection on globalization and mediated representation. As we have established greater contact with a globalized society, personalized an assumption of it successfully, it also creates higher efficiency for a
Piras
A Monolith Assumed
12
company to enter global recognition. It enters into what I refer to as an assumed monolith. Understanding what I refer to as an assumed monolith is simply the addition of two concepts. One being a monolith: alluding to a massive manmade structure often in column or obelisk form, therefore holding a towering presence. The other is the concept of assumption as referenced earlier, in relation to an overly mediated representation in place of an authentic physical reality. So it simply alludes to the omnipresent towering of a monolith over a society within its proximity, and as applied globally in the age of abundant virtual representation it need not be bound to physical reality. Therefore the society is the digitally interconnected world and the monolith is the omnipresent marketing and production of Coca-Cola. In advertising terms, the success of the outreach is not only due to scale but as well repetition of a recognizable element. The latter is what instigates the assumption that this is commonplace. The concept of repetition is used to create seamless recognition, and is being explored in art as well. Those who have foremost taken on this exploration are Graffiti and Street Artists. Shepard Fairey is perhaps the most notable due to the success of his Obey project. The original Obey design can be likened to, or even be defined as, an assumed monolith. The importance of an assumed monolith to our discussion relies more so on its absurdity over anything else. Especially in the case of Coca-Cola. Considering the idea that one of the largest and furthest reaching representations is ultimately an allusion to a bottle of soda. Furthermore the entire notion of trading physical reality for virtual life seems rather ridiculous, but is evidently abundant after observing how much human life has been digitized. With the entire digitization of the music industry, and the literature
Piras
A Monolith Assumed
13
industry apparently on the way, it seems that if no drastic antagonism is manifested and applied then Orlan (originally named Mireille Porte) is right to claim that the body is now obsolete. Essentially I hope this piece of literature will serve as that antagonism. It is my belief that the body is not obsolete. In negation to my own previous argument, I am not entirely concerned that the events I allude to will pose any detrimental threat to contemporary society or physical reality. I believe the problematic nature they pose is in their perception of society, mainly to theoretical, political, and philosophical thought. But these are the modes of thought intertwined with our society’s future, so specificity is key. For now I am rest assured, because the only industries cast into the realm of digitization are those already dependent on mediation. Musical recording is an audio representation of a performance. Literature is a written record of a collection of thoughts, a lecture, and verbatim. These industries were mediations from their conception. Other industries like painting have not been confined to digitized representation, the reverse actually. Their dependence on physicality has only been emphasized, in reference back to the discussion of aura and the original. Yet, musical recording and literature hold no socially relevant original: a master tape or first edition are themselves already reproductions and hold no aura, only personal value. Mediums like painting have benefited from the digital age. The representational images and videos of paintings have often promoted the original. It is a similar scenario to using websites like Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn for promoting a person. So with this assurance, alongside a distinct definition between representation and reality, we can sleep easy knowing that the only asses left in our society are chained to our chairs.
Piras
A Monolith Assumed
14
Works Cited
Altermodern. Curator: Nicolas Bourriaud. Tate Britain. Exhibition, 2009. Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.”
Germany: 1936. Bishop, Claire. “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics.” Massachusetts: MIT Press, October, Vol. 110 (Fall), 2004. Bourriaud, Nicolas. “Relational Aesthetics.” France: Les Presse Du Reel, 1998. Coca‐Cola Company, The. “Career Areas.” Accessed 16 May, 2011. http://www.thecoca‐colacompany.com/careers/career_areas.html. Crimp, Douglas. “The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism.” Massachusetts: MIT Press, October, Vol. 15 (Winter), 1989. Debord, Guy. “The Society of the Spectacle.” France: 1967.
Duchamp, Marcel. “The Creative Act.” New York: Paragraphic Books, 1959.
Exit Through the Gift Shop. Dir. Banksy. With Shepard Fairey. Documentary, 2010. Gillick, Liam. “A Response to Claire Bishop’s…” 2004. Laclau, Ernesto and Mouffe, Chantal. “Hegemony and Socialist Strategy.” United
Kingdom: Verso (New Left), 1985. Public Art Fund. “Jeff Koons / Puppy.” Public Art Fund archived projects. Accessed 15 May, 2011. http://www.publicartfund.org/pafweb/projects/00/koons_j_00.html. Rosenberg, Harold. “The American Action Painters.” New York: Art News 51/8, Dec. 1952.
Waste Land. Dir. Lucy Walker. With Vik Muniz. Documentary, 2010.
A Monolith Assumed © 2011, Maximillian Piras.