Araki, N., Bochner, M., Breer, R. “Hans Ulrich Obrist: Interviews”. Volume 1. Edited by Thomas Boutoux, Charta: Milan, 2003. pp. 393-401.
Thomas Hirschhorn (b.1957) a Swiss born artist produces transient and unstable constructions beyond the boundaries of the museum or gallery.(1) Hirschhorn combines detritus with cultural references in his displays that are spontaneous public memorials. As a creative practitioner, Hirschhorn’s motivation is to investigate knowledge production. His thinking is underpinned with a leftwing thrust that he pursues with a zest to produce difference and have a global dialogue. Hirschhorn’s leftist political motivations grew from his time with Grapus, a Parisian collective of communist graphic designers and are embedded in his work.
Hirschhorn approaches his work as a philosopher and a thinker. Questions are more important than answers in his work. In 'Archeology of Engagement' 2001, Hirschhorn questions what exists outside of the hierarchy of values in the archeological excavation site as a whole.(2) He is interested in raising consciousness of engagement in a value-free, nonhierarchical approach whereby everything has layers that add value. It is the hierarchy of value rather than the hierarchy that he is interested in. The layers added through engagement, are things such as time.
A thinker with a similar energy as Hirschhorn is Hans Ulrich Obrist (b.1968) a curator and art critic, also Swiss born. Time is also important in the thinking of Obrist as it adds new elements that produce difference and have global dialogue.(3) Delays in time translate into new ideas in art. Ideas from the 1950’s can be translated in the 1990’s and they generate new meanings. In 1993 Christian Boltanski, Bertrand Lavier and Obrist had a discussion that focused on the use of written instructions to make works of art to observe the effects of translation based on Walter Benjamin’s essay, The Task of the Translater. It became an exhibition that has travelled to 43 countries around the world.(4) The open and unpredictable nature of the exhibition relied on collaboration in the local context to give difference. Obrist was investigating knowledge production through providing written questions to be explored in the local context, as well as questioning the master plan of the curator and the homogenization of ideas.
Obrist sees the ‘role of the curator as a catalyst, generator and motivator – a sparing partner, accompanying the artist while they build a show, and a bridge builder, creating a bridge to the public.’(5) He states successful 'shows are journeys that get written along the way: you don’t know the end point.’(6)
Thinkers like Hirschhorn the artist, and Obrist the curator render visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are by communicating the layers or strata’s of meaning through engagement and open-endedness. They provide a toolbox for thinking in terms of hierarchies of value that exist externally thereby opening up meaning and value. In their explorations of knowledge production, questions are more abundant than answers.
(1) Araki, N., Bochner, M., Breer, R"Hans Ulrich Obrist: Interviews. p.395. Volume 1. Edited by Thomas Boutoux, Charta: Milan, 2003.
(2) Araki, N., Bochner, M., Breer, R"Hans Ulrich Obrist: Interviews. p.395. Volume 1. Edited by Thomas Boutoux, Charta: Milan, 2003.
(3) "Hans Ulrich Obrist: Interview. http://www.archive.org/details/HansUlrichObristDoItVcaCfi. Interview". Retrieved 4 October 2008.
(4) "Hans Ulrich Obrist: Interview".http://www.archive.org/details/HansUlrichObristDoItVcaCfi. Interview. Retrieved 4 October 2008.
(5) www.timeoout.com/london/art/features/248.html. Hans Ulrich Obrist: Interview. By Sarah Kent. Posted Mon Apr 24 2006. Retrieved 4 October 2008.
(6) www.timeoout.com/london/art/features/248.html. Hans Ulrich Obrist: Interview. By Sarah Kent. Posted Mon Apr 24 2006. Retrieved 4 October 2008.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I found your discussion on Hans Ulrich Obrist very intriguing. An aspect that particularly resonated with me was your phrase about Obrist seeing the ‘role of the curator as a catalyst, generator and motivator…’ I recently read that in Relational Art ‘the artist is catalyst.’ I see that in Relational Art they are also generator and motivator, there to kick-start a point of consideration, or to highlight a moment. This crossover between the role of the curator and the position of the Relational artist resulted in me seeing points of correlation I don’t think I was aware of previously.
I agree that Hirschhorn's key interest is thinking and global dialouge. I visited the Tate web site where Hischhorn was giving a interview about his work. Some of his core elements were to do with making connections between disparent groups of people,(especially the street audience as he calls people who may have no interest in contemporary art) so that the act of particapation is the activity of thinking. Therefore art may break down walls and have the potential for exchange and dialouge. In this approach also the layers of hierarachy are disturbed.
I like what Hirschhorn is saying, he's not about exclusion, or categorization. He's trying to discover beauty from what many others see as valueless, and he keeps his search wide open. I think art plays an important role in this respect - it's like discovering a pearl from a mud covered shell...Hirshhorn's approach is an intelligent way of generating more questions (important questions that we could has missed).
Post a Comment