One of the artists is famously present,
the other famously absent.
In some respects they make an unlikely
pair and the coverage in national media this week of their respective
activities is a coincidence—isn’t it?
 |
| The Artist is Present, MoMA |
Marina Abramovic became famous by
staging ephemeral and often controversial performances—some of which involved
self-mutilation. Now she has leveraged her fame to build a physical institution,
a monument devoted to performance art. Some are crying foul; others can’t wait
for the 33,000 square foot Marina Abramovic Institute to open in Hudson, NY, so
that they can pay to “put on white lab coats and undergo three hours of
mind-and-body cleansing exercises.” That is according an article that appeared
in last Sunday’s New York Times.
The article quotes Abramovic as saying
“Ego is a huge obstacle to art.” It seems a curious if not contradictory turn
of phrase under the circumstances.
Banksy has become famous—some say notorious—by painting and
stenciling his distinctive brand of graffiti in unauthorized locations all over
the world. I use the term “brand” deliberately. While his work has become
commercially valuable, his identity remains elusive. Currently Banksy is
spending a month operating, publicly if not visibly, in New York City. He
himself (on a website) refers to it as an “artist’s residency.”
But now “banksy” has become a verb, his graffiti sought
after and reviled in nearly equal measures, and some of the anonymous artist’s
works have sold for six figure sums at auction.
NPR aired an interview yesterday with a Brooklyn resident
whose building was “banksied.” The family has struggled with ethical as well as
financial consequences. The graffiti first drew a large and appreciative crowd.
Then someone spray-painted over the stencils, which the family cleaned off
promptly and successfully. After that they installed a garage door over the
illicit, but potentially lucrative art that had been dropped in their laps.
What’s a victim to do these days?
 |
| An appreciative crowd gathers at a "Banksied" site in Chelsea |
Cash in is one of the options that the beneficiaries of
Banksies artistic attentions have chosen. But what happens to street art after
it has been commodified? Banksy himself addresses this issue in ambiguous ways.
A story aired on NPR Oct. 14 quotes him as saying, "I know street
art can feel increasingly like the marketing wing of an art career, so I wanted
to make some art without the price tag attached. There's no gallery show or
book or film. It's pointless. Which hopefully means something."
And was it a snub of the commercial art
establishment—even the very people who purchased one of his limited edition
prints for $249,000—when he (anonymously, of course) set up a sidewalk kiosk in
Central Park with prints priced at $60 each. The artist’s total take for the
one day sale was $420. Who got taken, I wonder?
Maybe Abramovic and Banksy have more in
common than it seems at first glance. Why shouldn’t they take advantage of
opportunities to leverage popularity or notoriety for financial gain? Or do
they, each in their own fashion, seem to want it both ways? If ego is in fact
an obstacle to art, it certainly isn’t an obstacle to commercial success.
Can either performance art or street
art survive commodification? Many critics are asking. The answer is elusive.
Links:
NY Times – Abramovic: For her next piece, a performance artist will build an institute.
No comments:
Post a Comment