Peter wrote on Manzoni's merda d'artista:
>But it puts things into context surely.... 'I can can up my
shit and flog it for millions' is surely a either a good
case against art or a good way of taking the piss out of it.<
As far as I know Manzoni did not sell these for very much, due to Manzoni's
untimely early death the items fell prey to spectacular commodification by
collectors.
I don't think this is really a case against art. I always view this set of
multiples in terms of the artist presenting something he created in a
specific way. This is why I emphasised the fact that he went to the bother
of canning..this elevates his waste product to the status of "a sculpture
incorporating his waste product"..so I feel it's art and that such works
strengthen art rather than chip away at its foundations as the whole notion
of anti-art would suggest.
In fact anti-art as a concept only really works with readymades and even
then it could be argued that the arrangement of a readymade constitutes the
artist's creative intervention with the pre-existing object and that such
works are art because of that. The whole idea of anti-art is based on
arguing that something is art even when you yourself do not necessarily
believe it, merely to get across the idea that anything can be art which
anyone whose viewpoint is not constrained by tradition realises anyway. It
is an antagonistic stance that ties up with the whole problem of galleries.
For instance Duchamp's readymade that featured a wine rack was only
controversial because of the gallery setting. It's power would have been
next to nothing if it was made for a site-specific exhibition on the site of
a vineyard for example.
Of course the point may be that anti-art only works upon the forces of
conservatism within the arts. The way I feel is that I can simultaneously
appreciate Manzoni and, for example, Titian as art because they are both
creative individuals whose creative products I am viewing and enjoying in
the manner in which they have intended me to view them. I think this is
because I do not have particularly conservative tastes. A more conservative
art audience may feel the need to understand Manzoni in terms of anti-art
because otherwise they have difficulty evaluating the aesthetic aspects of
his work (i.e. they consider it devoid of any aesthetic value).
Maybe the point is that anti-art is a redundant term in the current
age...unless we're going the Marlon Brando route:
To Brando in "The Wild One":...what're you rebelling against...
He answers:....well, what have you got...
I believe there is a case against the gallery system that must still be
solved but mail art (providing it maintains a healthy tradition of
exchanges) and now net.art are solving those problems of "access for all"
presented by traditional galleries.
Anyway, I've said enough,
cheers,
Sol
