Found Gifts by Pavlina Mladenova

[Contents] Foreword

Found Gifts

Interventions

Experiments

Credits and Acknowledgments

[Foreword] The concept of the project Found Gifts is based on the hypothesis that the universal nature of gift is an integral part of art’s processes, creation and presentation. We present gift as ‘motion phenomenon’ that has the intrinsic element of movement. Based on the gift theory we distinguish two kinds of gift in context of art, such as: ‘gift before art’ and ‘gift after art’. Both of these two we assume are ‘hidden’ and they need to be found. The project attempts to describe art and gift in an endless process chain, where each appears to be a provider for the other. While the text on the project displays some particular facets of ‘art as a gift’ concept, the art interventions and experiments portray an idealistic visualization and an experimental approach of the project idea in a site-specific context, where the audience is a reliable project partner. Real art objects were temporarily gifted to Delhi locals during their daily activities in crowded city areas. This series was displayed in two stages - firstly, as proper standing museum objects and, secondly these same art objects ‘accidentally’ knocked down on the ground. The interactions of the passersby with the gifted art objects were filmed and photographed. Simple gifts, hidden in the Sanskriti Complex, were given to serving staff members of Sanskriti Foundation. They were given beautiful handwritten enveloped letters in Hindi with directions on how to find the hidden gifts. The letters were sent from an unknown Indian lady, pretending to know them, as a token of her gratitude to them. This experiment depicts the author’s token of gratitude to Sanskriti serving staff. The project Found Gifts has been worked out within the Residency Program at Sanskriti Foundation, New Delhi, India, with the support of the UNESCO-Aschberg Bursaries for Artists Programme 2012.

Found gifts* [Found gifts*] “It is in art as in life: what you give is what you receive.” Jochen Gerz, conceptual artist

[Where is the gift?] Gift in the Oxford Dictionary is (a) ‘a thing given willingly to someone without payment; a present’ and (b) ‘a natural ability or talent’ (Oxford Dictionaries Online, 2012). Though generalized and far from complete, we can take these definitions as a point of departure for our study. In the first case, emphasis is placed on particular attributes of the whole gift-giving process - when a gift moves away from gift-giver to gift-receiver purposefully, whilst in the second, the meaning refers to only a particular gift-receiver who has a priori faculties. In terms of art, these two separate senses of ‘gift’ may run next to each other in a process chain. If we juxtapose these two senses of gift with Hyde’s distinctions of gift, such as ‘outer life of art’ and ‘inner life of art’, apparently they describe the processes of art presentation [(1) = ‘outer life of art’] and art creation [(2) = ‘inner life of art’] (Hyde, 1983, p. xii). In the current writing, we name these two as ‘gift after art’ [(1) = ‘outer life of art’ = art presentation] and ‘gift before art’ [(2) = ‘inner life of art’ = art creation], as both of which we assume are ‘hidden’.

[Gift before Art] Heidegger, in his essay ‘The Origin of the Work of Art’ (Heidegger, 2008), initially questions the source of a work of art. He says that artwork and artist exist in a dynamic where each appears to be a provider for the other. Art as a concept (separate from both work and creator) exists as the source for both. Art becomes a force that uses the creator for art’s own purposes. Heidegger’s ‘art’ in that sense is the Hyde’s gift, which he calls ‘inner life of art’. Hyde explains the content of this gift as follows: ‘Thus we rightly speak of ‘talent’ as a ‘gift’, for although a talent can be no effort in

the world can cause its initial appearance. We also rightly speak of intuition or inspiration as a gift. As the artist works, some portion of his creation is bestowed upon him.’ (Hyde, 1983, p.xi - xii). Thus the gift is a talent - it is not a gift which one can get by one’s own efforts, which one can buy, either acquire through an act of will, or develop as a skill through hard work; it is a bestowed intangible ‘power’. The same is said in the repeatedly quoted Emile Zola’s maxim: ‘The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without work.’ (Chang, 2006, p.55). Following this trajectory, we may elicit that ‘gift before art’ is the source of the creative process. This process illustrates firstly the interdependent bond between the artist and the artwork. Secondly, it stresses the mobility of the gift as a vehicle. Hyde elaborates deeply on the moving idea of gift, arguing that a gift is only a gift when it is passed on. It gains in value when it keeps going. He says: ‘…Whatever we have been given is supposed to be given away again, not kept. Or, if it is kept, something of similar value should move on in its stead … The only essential is this: the gift must always move.’ (Hyde, 2007, p.4). The ‘essential’ element is thus the gift in motion. Certainly, it moves from being a part of the artist to being a part of the art work and then to being a possession of society. That is how the ‘gift before art’ turns into ‘gift after art’.

[Gift after Art] In a general prospect, if any ‘objects, services, and experiences may be conferred as gifts’ and if ‘virtually any resource, whether tangible or intangible, can be transformed into gift’, then art can be a gift too (Bruck, 2004, p.4).

While anything can be a gift, there must be something inherent within an object alone that makes it specifically a gift. Derrida, for instance, says that ‘there is no gift without the intention of giving’ (Newheiser, 2012, p.2). Likewise, the emotional involvement of the parties in the giving process is discussed by Bruck, who says that, ‘the gift is accompanied with high levels of affection by the giver towards the receiver’ (Bruck, 2004, p.10) or ‘the giver of a gift remains an element of the good or service and does not alienate himself from it’, according to Bell (Bell, 1991, p.156). Art in a sense of being as a gift and the society as a primarily receiver of the gift, is implied by Hyde’s gift in ‘outer life of art’, when the art work ‘has left its maker’s hands’. As a particular point of view about the gift nature of art, Hyde explains that if art is ‘the emanation of its maker’s gift and if it is received as a gift, it is so, too, a gift. But he also notes that, ‘Even if a work of art contains the spirit of the artist’s gift, it does not follow that the work itself is a gift. It is what we make of it. And yet, that said, it must be added that the way we treat a thing can sometimes change its nature.’ Hyde goes on to say: ‘…. That art that matters to us - which moves the heart, or revives the soul, or delights the senses, or offers courage for living, however we choose to describe the experience - that work is received by us as a gift is received. Even if we have paid a fee at the door of the museum or concert hall, when we are touched by a work of art something comes to us which has nothing to do with price.’ (Hyde, 1983, p. xii). The last elucidates what makes gift and how the gift nature of the transferred object becomes an intrinsic property of this object. This gift’s essence, which we apply to art, is defined in the specialized literature, with particular emphasis on the relation between the giver and receiver. One of these aspects is called communication. ‘And just like art, a gift is communication, and if communication is to exist it first needs to function.’ (Assmann, 2007, p.10). Different thinkers describe from different perspectives the communication function between the parties of exchange, but one of the few things they agreed upon is that it implies an intention to develop or maintain a social relationship, based on a certain kind of obligation. By that way, ‘gift after art’ transmutes into an object of possession with social values. This concept is a basic assumption of Mauss’s (Mauss, 1966) study, which portrays community as the main motive underlying the exchanging of gifts. A gift or service must be reciprocated in a return service. In other words, to accept gifts means to acquire obligations, thus forming the basis for lasting bonds between the parties. In this view gift exchange acts as the cement of society. By giving a gift a relationship between people or parties is established.

Applied to art, the concept of gift’s obligations and its social value are very clearly explained by Assmann, as the following: ‘Those who are artistically gifted are obliged to use their gift and to make something out of it. A gift obtained from an unclear structure of freedom is first of all examined in its existence; it is then socially accepted, and is finally converted into a kind of ‘exciting obligation’ - the individual gift is channeled into a social system that makes the ‘artist’s artistic talent’ a socially acceptable thing. From this point on, the artist is obliged to do something with the gift - in other words, to make it somehow accessible to the community as a whole. Even though we cannot really understand the means by which artistic talent is assigned to individual artists, it must at least be possible to pass on this gift to others, that is to say, to allow other individuals to at least benefit from the effects of the gift of art.’ (Assmann, 2007, p.10). The social value of gift-art is also approached by Sholette. In his essay of the same name, he talks about the complexity of factors in today’s society which need to be considered to understand certain art as a gift. ‘If the humble practice of art is to be regarded as a gift therefore, and if this art-gift is to avoid merely serving as a ‘protocommercial’ experiment for some new iteration of the market, then until a broader socio-economic change takes place the gift will have to do more than remain in motion as Hyde insists, it will need to be a gift of resistance aesthetically, as well as pedagogically. In other words, it is a gift that imparts an expectation.’ (Sholette, 2008, p.5). In a similar spirit, Nicolas Bourriad coins the term ‘relational aesthetics’. Rather than the artwork being an isolated experience between a viewer and an object, relational art emerges in collective encounters and comes to life through social participation. Each particular artwork is a proposal to live in a shared world, and the work of every artist is a bundle of relations with the world, giving rise to other relations, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.’ (Bourriaud, 2002, p.22).

[Gift before Art] Added to the previous, there is the phenomenon of contemporary art which brings us to another very particular gift aspect of art communication and contact. ‘Since the conceptual art of the 1960s (and possibly earlier), the observer has become a person involved in the process with equal rights - indeed, without the observer it is impossible for the phenomenon of art to be truly effective.’ In that sense, art engenders a gifted state in the viewer or, as Bik Van der Pol has said of Rirkrit Tiravanija, ‘generosity as a practise also means that the viewer/participant should have a generous approach back to the work.. otherwise you experience nothing.’ (Assmann, 2007, p.10). Thus, audiences become partners, who benefit from the artist’s gift and make use of their own innate gifts as they tap the creativity embodied in the work of art in order to locate the gift within them. This exclusive co-creation relationship between the artist and the audience is also summarized by Boorsma as ‘the stimulation of exchange with selected customers, by offering service-oriented support to the co-creation of artistic experiences and by building and maintaining relationships with these customers, for the purpose of creating customer-value and achieving the artistic objectives simultaneously.’ (Boorsma, 2006, p.73-92). Apparently, therefore society from being a gift receiver turns into a gift giver and gift moves from being a possession of the society to being a possession of the art work. That is how the ‘gift after art’ goes to the next chain’s point of ‘gift before art’. In conclusion, we will only add the odd and very much open question: ‘What really came first the ‘gift’ or the ‘art’?’

[Notes:] * Please, consider this writing as an experimental text, dealing with amalgam of meanings and interpretations, suggestions and assumptions, opinions and claims about ‘art as a gift’. It doesn’t aim to present the complex character of the used terms, as well as to create a comprehensive review of definitions and literature sources in the interested field. Rather, we hope to give a basic understanding of few particular facets of ‘art as a gift’ phenomenon, presenting ‘art’ and ‘gift’ in a process chain where each appears to be a provider for the other.

[References:] 1. Assmann, P. (2007), “Art, gifts and giving”, Think Tank, Edition 11, 2007, From: http://www.thinktank04.eu 2. Bell, D. (1991), “Modes of Exchange: Gift and Commodity”, The Journal of Socio-Economics, Volume 20, Number 2, University of California, Irvine 3. Boorsma, M. (2006), “A Strategic Logic for Arts Marketing: Integrating Customer Value and Artistic Objectives.” The International Journal of Cultural Policy Vol. 12, No.1 4. Bourriaud, N. (2002), “Relational Aesthetics”, Les Presses du reel 5. Bruck, J. (2004), “The Evolution of Gift Giving”, MA Industrial Design, Central St. Martins 6. Chang, L. (2006), “Wisdom for the Soul: Five Millennia of Prescriptions for Spiritual Healing”, Gnosophia Publishers 8. Heidegger, M. (2008), “The Origin of the Work of Art”, Martin Heidegger: The Basic Writings. New York, HarperCollins 9. Hyde, L. (1983), “The gift. Imagination and the erotic life or property”, Random House, New York 10. Hyde, L. (2007), “The Gift: How the Creative Spirit Transforms the World”, Canongate Books 11. Mauss, M. (1966), “The Gift. Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies”, Cohen & West Ltd. London 12. Newheiser, D. (2012), “Eckhart, Derrida, And The Gift Of Love, The University of Chicago, From: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com 13. Oxford Dictionaries Online. (2012), From: oxforddictionaries.com 14. Sholette, G. (2008), “Gifts of Resistance”, From: www. gregorysholette.com

What is it to find a gift? How do you know it is a gift? What makes it a gift? And what if the found gift is art? Do you think it is a gift for you? Are you going to take it? What is it to find art? How do you know it is art? What makes it art? And what if the found art is a gift? Do you think it is a gift for you? Are you going to take it? What is it to find a broken gift? How do you know it is a broken gift? What makes a gift â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;brokenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;? And what if the broken gift is art? Do you think it is a gift for you? Are you going to take it? What is it to find broken art? How do you know it is broken art? What makes art broken? And what if the broken art is a gift? Do you think it is a gift for you? Are you going to take it?

[Intervention 1] Monastery Market, ISBT Kashmere Gate Delhi, India / November 21, 2012

[Intervention 2] Nehru Place IT Hub, Delhi, India November 21, 2012

[Intervention 3] Nehru Place IT Plaza, Delhi, India November 21, 2012

[Intervention 4] Bookaroo Festival of Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Literature Sanskriti Foundation, New Delhi, India November 24, 2012

[Experiments] Letters & Hidden Gifts Sanskriti Foundation, New Delhi, India November 19 - December 5, 2012

Ramesh

Rambaran

[Pavlina Mladenova]

Pavlina Mladenova is an artistic researcher and independent curator, based in Sofia, Bulgaria. As a researcher she examines the multi-layered relationship between ‘art’ and ‘communications for art’, using a variety of media, as the term ‘communication’ refers to the diverse acts of connection in the two-way chain of ‘public’ and ‘art’ and the various means of impacting this connection. With research projects she has been awarded residency grants by UNESCO-Aschberg Programme at Sanskriti Foundation (India, 2012); Space Beam (South Korea, 2011); GCC - Gyeonggi Creation Center (South Korea, 2010-11); and UNIDEE, Cittadellearte - Fondazione Pistoletto (Italy, 2008). As a curator she focuses in video art. She is co-founder, co-director and co-curator of the ‘Videoholica International Video Art Festival’ in Varna, Bulgaria since its inception in 2008. Her curatorial projects have been presented in Bulgaria, Italy, Ukraine, Greece, France and South Korea. Currently she works for the Bulgarian part of the project ‘ArtUP! - Media Art in Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey’, run by Goethe Institutes in the three countries.

[Found Gifts] Pavlina Mladenova ÂŠ 2012 Sanskriti Foundation, New Delhi, India With the support of: UNESCO-Aschberg Bursaries for Artists Programme 2012 Idea and realization: Pavlina Mladenova (Bulgaria) Curator: Ravinder Dutt (India) Photo camera: Pavlina Mladenova (Bulgaria) Ravinder Dutt (India) Video camera: Pavlina Mladenova (Bulgaria) Video edit: Neno Belchev (Bulgaria) Book design: Pavlina Mladenova (Bulgaria) Print: Printline, New Delhi (India) Acknowledgments: Special thanks to Mr. O.P.Jain, Seetha Venkatraman, Shubhra Tandon, Surender Sejwal, Munnilal Prajapati, Ravinder Dutt, Pankaj Protim, Nidhi Saryal, Shruti Das and Anchal Sharma; Rishikesh Tiwari; Rambaran, Ramesh, all the rest serving staff of Sanskriti Foundation; Linda Arbi, Tsonka Belcheva, Neno Belchev; Konrad Gabriel and Jonathan Farr; Dan Kwong; my friends all around the world and my family in Bulgaria for their support. Sanskriti Foundation Anandagram, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road New Delhi â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 110047, India www.sanskritifoundation.org