State of Art - A Conversation with G.H. Hovagimyan
A conversation between G.H. Hovagimyan and Mark Cooley conducted through
electronic mail - January 2008.
MC: Over the years, you've had experiences with various authorities that have
tried in one way or another to censor your work. I'm interested if you could
identify and comment on particular sites of censorship that exist in and around
Art institutions and identify some the taboos that tend to generate negative
responses from potential censors (curators, board members, sponsors,
politicians, and other interested parties).
GH: The most blatant example was a piece called, Tactics for Survival in the
New Culture. It was a text piece. I was going to put it in the windows of 112
Workshop (the first alternative space in New York City & the US) in 1974. Since
112 depended on grants from NYSCA and National Endowment for the Arts I was
told I couldn't do the piece because it would jeopardize their funding. I did
do the piece later for another exhibition called the Manifesto Show for COLAB
(an artists group I was a member of). When I first started working on the
internet twenty years later in 1994 I put the piece up as a hypertext work. I
have also updated it from a manifesto to an interactive textual maze
http://www.thing.net/~gh/artdirect . The piece is not cute. It deals with the
dark side of the American psyche. It is a meditation on the psychological
states that would bring one to be an anarchist. It is a New York Punk Art
piece. Punk was a rebellion against the fake hippy utopian art that was
being produced at the time. That type of art is still being produced. It gets
a lot of funding because it uncontroversial.
There are of course several ways to censor artists for example the simplest is
to not include the work in an exhibition or ask the artists to alter the work
to make it more acceptable. This happens to me a lot in the US. Several of my
artworks in particular my net.art works have sexual content. One of my first
internet pieces Art Direct/ Sex Violence and Politics
http://www.thing.net/~gh/artdirect was always raising hackles because of the
sexual content. It was not included in several major internet shows because the
museums were afraid that children would come upon the images and they would be
liable. In this case both the government and the institution censored the work.
In France the same work was featured in a centerfold of Art Press magazine in a
special issue on techno art.
People who censor are often corporations flexing their muscle. One of the
pieces in Art Direct ... called BKPC http://nujus.net/gh_04/gallery6.html ,
used Barbie, Ken and G.I. Joe dolls. At some point the isp host, *the thing*
received a letter from Mattel toys demanding that the site be removed for
violation of copyright. I had to get a lawyer and send them a letter saying it
was fair use and for them to back off. Luckily the people at the thing were not
intimidated by Mattel so the site stayed up. By the way BKPC is about
interracial sex so it makes people uncomfortable or it's titillating. When I
showed the physical work in a Christmas showed called Toys/Art/Us , I was asked
by the curators to make sure that children could not view the art work. I did
this by mounting the works in glassine sleeves on a podium that could only be
seen by standing adults. I was lucky the curator wanted to show the work and
was willing to work through the problem with me. In other cases the
curator would not be that imaginative and simply shy away from showing
anything that was vaguely controversial.
Another case of censorship was the Whitney Art Port an online new media
projects gallery. I did a piece called Cocktail Party that featured synthetic
voices in conversations as if they were drunk and at a cocktail party. I was
asked to remove three sequences because of their sexual content. I wanted so
much to be included in this project and the curator was a friend that I altered
the piece, removing the offensive parts. The curator was afraid that the
corporation would stop funding the project if I offended them with my overt
content.
This happens all the time to every artist and it's quite a dilemma. If you do
the work unaltered it often means that you are not ever selected again for
exhibitions. But then again Michelangelo had to paint a fig leave on the
Sistine Chapel.
MC: The funding issue is interesting to me and seems to come up in many of your
experiences. Censorship stories, as rarely as they are covered in the news,
seem to focus heavily on the ideological component of censorship and whether
public money should be used to fund controversial art. I'm interested to hear
more about how anxieties regarding funding (public or private) influence
curatorial decisions inside art institutions. I'm interested to hear your
thoughts on this sort of economically determined censorship and its effects on
art and public discourse around art. I'm also interested to know if these
funding anxieties have worsened or changed as art institutions have switched
over to the Arts management model and have made themselves so dependent on
corporate sponsorship for programming?
GH: I did a large billboard piece called Hey Bozo... Use Mass Transit
http://nujus.net/gh_04/gallery2.html . It was five large billboards scattered
around New York City to convince people to use mass transit. It was part of a
competition put on every year by the MTA and Creative Time. I received an
Honorarium of $500 and they produced the billboards. The piece caused such a
stir that it was in the papers for a week straight and I was on TV on all the
networks. One of the upshots was that conservatives wanted to know why public
money was used to produce an artwork that insulted motorists and the other
thing that happened was that Bozo the Clown tried to sue me for trademark
infringement because I used the word Bozo. These are symptoms or indications of
a deeper issue albeit a populist one. One the one hand you have a media figure
(bozo the clown) who tries to sue anyone who uses the word Bozo. He's got a
sort of cottage industry. This is the way that corporations deal with
the avant garde they can't control. On the other hand you have mass media that
tries to produce outrage in order to keep the attention of the population. This
is also called delivering eyeballs and is a way to sell advertising. As you can
see the main tool to attack an artist is money. either cut off funding or sue
them. This is a way to stop them from getting their message out whatever that
message might be. But there's a flip side to this coin. We live in an
information environment. There really is no way to stop information from coming
out. It will be presented in a different venue for example the internet or in
the case of art, alternative festivals, galleries etc.. So the idea of
censorship is media specific or venue specific. It becomes a power game that is
about who controls the venue and therefore controls the message. In this case
it's a reflection of the capitalist marketing system and art is a part of that
system. But I see art as something beyond that system.
There are essentially two economies for art. One is the market for objects this
includes galleries, museums, magazines and all the ancillary services of art
fairs etc.. The other is the academic economy, which trains artists, curators
and all the people interested in art. These systems shape what art is seen and
what the content and style of the work is about. Both systems have self
perpetuating mechanisms. In the market it is about the object. If you don't
make art that has a physical object you can't be in the market. There is a
component that has to do with entertainment and ticket sales in museums. This
allows for installation and performance art as well as digital art and screen
based art. Indeed, the economies of temporary museum spaces are a reflection of
corporate manager style art.
The academic system on the other hand allows for artists who don't necessarily
fit the market to have some financial patronage by teaching. The problem is
that the artist's work and creativity is all about getting students to attend
the university and their own class. This is another form of marketing.
I believe in a different type of art, an experimental, anarchic art that shakes
things up and operates outside the existing art economies. In many instances
this has been confused with the idea of an alternative life style that is a
sort of well of inspiration for entrepreneurs looking for new products, ideas
and people to sell to. Anarchic art is about something different it's about
challenging and critiquing the existing systems. Why? because I believe that
art is about seeing things clearly and is one of the few areas that has
freedom. That form of art becomes dangerous because it is uncontrollable. It
can't be packaged and marketed. That is why there is always a move towards
censorship of radical art works.
There is also fake censorship or more precisely using outrage as a way to
manipulate the art market. This is used successfully by people like Maurice
Saatchi who had a show of his Young British Artists at the Brooklyn Museum.
This show was also shown in England and there was outrage in London as well.
The outrage in the US was about Cris Ofili's use of elephant dung in a virgin
mary painting. A nice piece of art that was about his African roots. The
outrage in London was about a photograph that portrayed a famous criminal child
murderer in England. The public and the press demanded the works be censored.
The works themselves went up in monetary value because of the outrage. The
position is that of an artist that uses an epatez de bourgeois position in
their art. This reinforces the patron's sense of being better than the masses.
It is an elitist position. I happen to like the art works but the content of
the pieces are standard for the art world. The Ofili piece is
multiculturalism and the other work is punk. Both styles were first presented
in the late 1970's and I view these latest pieces as stylistically
conservative.
As you can see the notion of censorship is more of an unfulfilled demand by an
outraged person in the street than any sort of actuality when it comes to the
marketing of objects. Those works that are actually censored one never sees or
hears about.
MC: I'm interested in what you call "fake censorship" or the use of public and
media outrage as a marketing tactic. I'm reminded of an article -
http://rtmark.com/rockwell.html - by Jackie Stevens concerning "Paradise Now:
Picturing the Genetic Revolution," a 2000 Exit Art show concerning
biotechnology. The article points out that, though the show included some very
hard hitting criticisms of the biotech industry, it was nevertheless sponsored
by biotech companies - companies that would have much to lose if consumers in
the U.S. had the same sorts of concerns about biotechnology as some of the
artists in the show. The obvious question of why would the biotech industry
sponsor exhibitions that are openly critical of the industry's practices is
answered with the help of interviews with the chief biotech investor behind the
show. Stevens writes, "The reason is simple: art about biotechnology,
especially with a critical edge, serves to reassure viewers that serious
concerns are
being addressed. Even more importantly, biotech-themed art implicitly conveys
the sense that gene manipulation is a "fact on the ground," something that
serious artists are considering because it is here to stay. Grotesque and
perverse visuals only help to acclimate the public to this new reality." I am
also reminded of a transcript I used in a piece once in which a Sara Lee
Corporation executive, speaking of the corporation's "gifts" of impressionist
art to the Art Institute of Chicago, stated, "Sara Lee's art collection has
made a statement - a quality statement - about our company. Art is all about
excellence and vision and striving for perfection - the same standards that we
uphold for our portfolio of leading brands. We are quite certain that the
brand names of Monet, Renoir and Degas have been a great complement to Sara
Lee and have become icons of excellence that reflect our approach to doing
business." It seems that the mythology of fine art or the aura produced
around fine art itself (namely, mythologies concerning artists being prophetic
or ahead of their time, that art is about transcendence, universals,
timelessness and so on) is a very useful context for the deployment of
marketing schemes. Cases like these I've mentioned could almost make one
nostalgic for old school censorship - the kind in which an authority comes down
on an artist for producing work that is perceived as being offensive. At least
in these scenarios the content is working - the work is having an effect. All
this raises a couple of questions that I'd like to know your thoughts on.
Firstly, do you agree with Stevens' assessment that the content of an artwork
as intended by the artist can be eclipsed (effectively censored) by the
curator, sponsors and institutional framework surrounding the show and fine art
itself, and if so, should artists be trained (in academia and elsewhere) to be
able to anticipate how their work is being used in a larger context and be
prepared to engage in content production beyond the frame (so to speak)? What
are the lessons you have learned over the years in these regards?
GH: This goes back to Wittgensteins Dictum, the meaning of a word is its
meaning, and The meaning of a word is its use.
Look at it another way Steve Kurtz http://www.caedefensefund.org was creating
some bio-art that was also political when he was arrested. The event caused the
USGOV to come down hard claiming hes a bio-terrorist. The art world has
rallied around Steve and is doing what it can to stop his persecution. Steves
artwork was in process and never exhibited so you cant say that it was
censored and yet the USGOV is trying to pin a terrorist label on him. The
context here is fluid between a media occurrence, freedom of speech, and forces
of unreasonable paranoia. Steve and the people around him now have an ongoing
performance work that is a cause célébre about free speech. In the end it
doesnt matter if anyone ever sees the actual work, the censorship and
repressive activity of the USGOV is the key factor. When realpolitik comes up
against art, art always loses. On another level both sides of the Steve Kurtz
dilemma are winning because they are using the event to create meaning
for their separate actions.
Back to your initial question which is the context created by the venue and the
funders. There is always a deal struck between the funders/patrons/venues and
the artists that show in the venues or accept support from the patrons. The
patrons are seen as progressive and open because of their support of the arts.
The artists are seen as giving their support/approval of the patron and the
gallery system by participating in it. Thats the simple deal. The complex deal
has to do with the content of the artwork. When the church is your patron you
do religious paintings. When the Dutch merchants are your patrons you do
domestic scenes. When the government is your patron you do heroic art that
glorifies the government and its programs. In America the market has become the
patron or more correctly corporate marketing capitalism and its technocratic
bureaucrats/ managers are the patrons. The content of art reflects that reality.
However, there are many forms of art that operate outside these realities. The
notion of experimental art is an art that doesnt function in established
arenas. Maybe we can call this theoretical art because it posits an art that
can function outside of the normal venues set up for art.
In terms of censorship it may be more of a case of power and control. If one
chooses to work in theoretical art one can expect no support from the existing
patrons of the arts. This is a very fundamental struggle about who controls the
meaning of art (content). Who controls the how, when and where of art? That is
one of the reasons that I choose to work with the internet and digital art. The
venues are much freer. There is little or no market action attached to this
type of artwork. Indeed, this very interview is an artwork that uses the
internet as its vehicle. I can state that it is an information/meditation that
comes from the use of the networks. In this case it is an outgrowth of all the
other communication artists that have come before me such as Fred Forest or,
Joseph Bueys or Allan Kaprow.
MC: Earlier, you spoke of an anarchistic art practice that would function in
opposition to the status quo. I'm assuming that this art practice would take on
the political economic structure of an anarchist community. What might this
look like? Are there examples of art subcultures that operate on anarchistic
principles like anti-authoritarianism, free association, nonhierarchical
organization, consensus decision making, egalitarianism, etc? I'm also
interested in your estimation of online communities and new media art portals
(like Rhizome.org for instance) who seem to reference some of these concepts in
their mission statements yet seem to fall short in their editorial structure
and policies. Perhaps, the concepts that sites like Rhizome imagine -
decentralized and nonhierarchical - and indeed the internet itself seems to
offer - would work in such stark contrast with what the dominant values of the
fine art establishment (and our dominant political economic systems) that
it becomes impossible to maintain funding, affiliations etc. Do you think the
openness and opportunity for alternative systems and practices that electronic
networks offer(ed) is now closing up, or do you see as much opportunity now as
in the mid-to-late 90's when it comes to networked art practice?
GH: There are many artists groups that are functioning at the moment. There is
always a struggle and a dynamic where groups are involved. Rhizome has set up a
sort of blog/news reporting website that has a brand name and a loose community
around it. They have a mailist than functions somewhat as a place for critical
discussion but the fundamental question is how does one move from discussion to
action. The answer for rhizome is to be techno-centric and highlight emerging
artists and technologies. They also spend a lot of time fundraising. The
original project of rhizome by Mark Tribe was a simple anarchic mailist. This
was also happening with nettime and thingist lists. There is one functioning
now that is called [empyre] that comes out of Australia. Empyre was one of
several list/communities that was featured during the documenta 6 in Kassel. I
was actually involved in the discourse. My position was that I wanted to have
my thoughts presented at the documenta
http://magazines.documenta.de/frontend/article.php?IdLanguage=1&NrArticle=1718
.
Theres a back and forth flux on the internet that has some onerous aspects of
fake digital democracy and fake creative freedom. This is web 2.0 where
everyone can be creative and be content providers ala blogs and youTube etc..
This is the corporate bullshit of Facebook and Second Life. Theres an
interesting piece in the Guardian about facebook that has be re-published on
post.thing.net http://post.thing.net/node/1883 .
In any case, I am involved with three very vital digital art groups that have
online/offline communities. One is called [PAM] http://perpetualartmachine.com
- this is a video-artists community that has a physical kiosk presentation mode
that is very much about non-hierarchical presentation. Another is locus sonus
http://locusonus.org in France - that is an experimental sound art lab. Ive
also organized an artists group called Artists Meeting
http://artistsmeeting.org that is just beginning to pick up steam. Part of what
these groups are about is using the technology to create a media space for
group interactions to occur. The funding model is pooling resources. I maintain
the server nujus.net that Artists Meeting and locus Sonus use. The sysadmin is
an engineering student in Split Croatia who is donating his services. Locus
Sonus is funded by the French Cultural Ministry as an experimental lab. [PAM]
got its' start by being included in the SCOPE art fair and artists
Meeting is bootstrapping it at the moment.
What these groups have in common is the notion of doing projects together
rather than having an individual artists voice. I like to engage in both
positions, that is, I do individual pieces and I do group works. Two previous
projects are accessible on the web right now. One is called rantapod
http://spaghetti.nujus.net/rantapod and is a series of performance/meditations
that is downloadable to ipod. The other is called Art Dirt Redux
http://spaghetti.nujus.net/artDirt , which is a podcast/sound art piece. These
all challenge the art market in some way because they exist and are seen by
large numbers of net audiences without any artworld support whatsoever. So I
can say that the internet does still function as a good venue for experimental
anti-hierarchical art.
ADDENDUM
MC: In preparing this conversation for publication I noticed that in one of
your initial emails to me - before we actually started the interview - you
stated that you'd been censored for not using particular software or hardware
in the production or display of your work. I think this ties in nicely with our
discussion concerning corporate funding, but something that seems more of an
issue in new media art then anything else (I can't imagine a paint company
sponsoring a show and requiring the artists to only use their brand of paint).
Perhaps you have some thoughts on this.
GH: There's a lot of net.art and digital curators who set up defining
parameters for new media shows. These often focus on a piece of hardware or a
type of coding as an organizing principal. This plays into or is a symptom of
the computer/technology scene where there are *platform* wars such as internet
explorer vs. netscape or mac vs pc. There are software wars such as Dreamweaver
vs GoLive. These competitions are about dominating a market. This also happens
in digital art where a group of artists insist that for example they are the
only net.art artists that exist and try to corner the market with the willing
help of a number of curators. Often artists working in new media believe that
you must write your own code in order to be a digital artist or you must use
JAVA or you must use open source software or .... You get the idea. I remember
once speaking at a panel where there was a net artist who was using perl and
php and Peter Sinclair and I were using Max MSP. The other
artist talked only about the coding structure. Our piece used custom built
software as well but we were interested in the content and the user
interactions. This happens all the time where a person mistakes writing code
for art or insist that digital art is only code. It's a rather boring
discussion about hardware and software.
About the artists
G.H. Hovagimyan http://nujus.net/gh_04/index.html is an experimental digital
artist working in a variety of forms. He was one of the first artists in New
York to start working with the Internet in the early nineties. His work ranges
from hypertext works to digital performance art and installations. His streamed
video talk shows, Art Dirt and Collider explore and document the artists of the
digital art scene at the time circa 1995-2000.
In 1996 he began collaborating with Peter Sinclair a British artist who lives
in Marseilles, France. Their collaborative works have been shown
internationally in Europe and the US. In 1998 their work, A SoaPOPera for
Laptops received a prize in the Computer Music category at Ars Electronica in
Linz, Austria.
Recent awards include: 2003 fellowship from Experimental Television Center,
2003 TAM Digital Media Commissions, 2002 Artists Fellowship from Franklin
Furnace, 2002 pilot artist in residence program from Eyebeam, NYC.
He lives in New York City but is often in France, which has become a second
home.
Mark Cooley http://www.flawedart.net is a new genre artist interested in visual
rhetoric, forgotten histories and political economy. His work has been
exhibited in many international venues - online and off. Mark is currently an
Assistant Professor in the Department of Art and Visual Technology at George
Mason University.
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search._______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
