It is a remarkable adventure which still strikes me as an epideictic piece of reporting --- epideictic as in confirmative epideictic oratory made on special occasions like national holidays, birthdays or funerals. Traditionally, the epideictic speaker is seen to represent the community. The epideictic rhetor knows what values and ideals the auditors basically agree on, and in and by the speech these values must be enacted and consolidated. By the rhetor for the audience and on behalf of the audience which means that the epideictic speaker is constituted as some sort of cultural hero (Dale Sullivan’s term). So back to Camilla Stockmann as an investigator on the art scene – what is she then?
Well, she is a determined reporter who actually finds out who the two unwelcome guests are: Alexander Brener and Barbara Schurz who have a history of making aggressive opposition to commercial and institutional art and who published Anti-Technologies of Resistance back in 1999. And Stockmann puts herself on the line in her story insofar as she tries to confront the two in order to be allowed to ask some questions and has a glass of water thrown in her face. Later on, by means of a determined look and a well-chosen line, she successfully wards off a glass of urine.
Camilla Stockmann never gets a chance to speak to the couple though. And after having identified them she doesn't fill the readers in about their artistic ambitions, at least not in any detail. And she never attempts her own answer to the question which is posed on the front page of Politiken on this occasion: "Is it art to piss on art?" - or actually: She does imply a reassuring no. Stockmann keeps herself detached along with the people she is talking to along the way. People who feel at home on the art scene and whom the readers of Politiken can happily identify with:
The people who are bothered by the activists include "the actor Ulrich Thomsen".
It is an artist (who "is originally Swedish-French") who eventually recalls having seen the two before: "Slowly he recalls their names: 'I believe the woman's name is Barbara ... Barbara Schultz... no Shurz.' ...
A gallery owner characterizes Shurz as "berliner-cafe latte-punk" which Stockmann confirms.
And a German visiting professor at the Royal Danish Academy of Art who is witnessing Shurz peeing in a plastic cup still keeps his conversation with Stockmann going and remarks with cool detachment that
"this reminds me a bit of fluxus artist Carolee Schneeman back in the 1970'es who read aloud from a strip of paper which she pulled from her vagina. Something was at stake then. But the woman there is not good - you can tell how she doesn't feel good about herself after doing this."Journalistic handbooks speak of the reporter's role as that of acting as a substitute for the reader and my point is: this is exactly what Stockmann is doing all too carefully. She seems to presume timidity in the readers so she offers us comfort. She keeps us classy company all along and assures us through arguments of authority not to worry: These people are harmless. They pose no threat to our community.
6 comments:
Kære Christine
Tak for tankevækkende analyse. Havde aldrig set mig selv som konfirmativ skribent. Den professor, som endte på skadestuen efter at være blevet bidt i benet af manden fredag, mente omvendt at jeg gav parret for meget medløb, fordi jeg stillede diskuterende spørgsmål til kunsten, f.eks. galleristen Jesper Elg. Mh Camilla
Selv tak! Og mand bider mand - det var da alligevel utroligt (og velsagtens strafbart?) I al fald den ene af de to er altså ikke udpræget harmløs in real life, selvom han (efter min mening) bliver det i teksten.
Men jo, jeg kan godt se ved genlæsning, at du i samtalen med Jesper Elg udfordrer den umiddelbare konsensus om at diskvalificere de tos projekt som amatøragtigt, retningsløst eller bare 'set før'. Men også Elg kan afvise projektet med kunsthistorisk overblik ('Tiden er løbet fra den slags aggressive kunst', 'I dag forventer vi at man formulerer et alternativ').
Du tager så også spørgsmålene med videre til Brener og Shurz, men de besvarer ikke emails. De har jo imidlertid udtrykt sig i deres, ja, symbolske praksis. Du har både erfaret det helt korporligt og sat ord på det, og desto mere interessant synes jeg det havde været at høre din personlige vurdering som den udenforstående, der ikke lige har kunstfaglige kategorier klar til at tæmme oplevelserne med. Jeg ville gerne have hørt dig stille de diskuterende spørgsmål til dig selv---havde gerne ladet den deltagende observatør få det sidste ord.
Jeg tror hverken, at jeg forsøger at gøre parret harmløst eller tæmme dem. Rent presseetisk syntes jeg, det var svært at tolke på baggrund af de informationer, jeg havde. Derfor kontaktede jeg parret i galleriet og pr. mail. Og måtte lade de konkrete optrin og kunsthitoriske udsagn tale for sig selv. Men du kan have ret, og jeg tager din opfordring med mig til næste gang. Hvis jeg var Tøger, ville jeg hyre dig som coach. Mh Camilla
P.S. Jeg skrev speciale på Moderne Kultur om kunstskandaler i 90'ernes og mediernes behandling. Især om kunstfeltets måde at afmontere kritikken i medierne ved at benytte sig af nogle gentagne forklaringsmodeller, som i sig selv ofte var en kliche. Derfor er din analyse meget spændende og tankevækkende. Jeg ville nødigt være én, som blåøjet placerer sig i kunstfeltet og glad skriver derfra. Hvis et mere veludviklet "jeg" er svaret so be it.
Takker for udvekslingen. Det er uvant at diskutere med dem (dig), der faktisk skriver de tekster, der plejer at skulle stå på egne ben, tale for skribenten og stå model til den retoriske kritik.
Og så lige et P.S. til dit P.S.: Med det speciale lyder det som om du havde decideret god baggrund for at kommentere og fordøje den kunstskandaløse oplevelse selv. (Og dermed ikke sagt at det havde været let... et greb i lommen efter personlige perspektiver).
Post a Comment