Referential Art

By Pascal Unbehaun

For a few years a certain type of art has been challenging viewers in a completely new way. Some artworks, regarding their outer appearance, are so close to narrative genres outside of art that they almost do not differ from these. This art doesn't look like art because it lacks anything obviously artistic. It is not 'artsy' enough so to speak. But what means the term 'artistic', anyway? The identification of something as art arises from a learning process: a framed, colored canvas in a gallery indicates art. There is a range of characteristics we take into account to tell art from anything else. If these are missig it can be tough to identify something as art even if it is meant to be some. But how to read, how to understand such artworks in the absence of any obvious artistic intervention?

Visitors of documentaXI faced this kind of art frequently. A momumental work by Hanne Darboven constituted the main axis of the exhibition space: „Kontrabasssolo, Opus 45“ can be considered as concept art still but indicates the general idea of the documentaXI already: storytelling, documentation, rewriting the code are the large-scale concepts of curator Okwui Enwezor. While these might not be new as topics, they more and more influence art also formally and aesthetically. Why is a subtitled interview about urban development shown on a monitor art? Where is the creative act in an office-like setup with tables, chairs, shelfs and books on display?

It almost seems as if art has stopped its self-digestion of transgressing its own boundaries after more than a century. Art is leaving the game grid, moving in its own complement. But, using some more terminology of set theory, doesn't art have to be a subset of the real world to differ from it and to look at it from a distance? If we would remove the protective shell of the white cube it would appear to us as if we couldn't tell art from the real world anymore. As a consequence, would art die a heat death?*1 I won't speculate on how art will develop in the future. Right now, this art can be seen as referring to art – the concept of the 'reference' is crucial to it. In addition to that I think that the connection to the protective shell mentioned above is not coincidental – the question of what has to be protected at all has become obsolete.

The reference ist not meant to attack the idea of an artwork in general: like everything were art even if it didn't look like it. This would be anachronistic and, in a postmodern context, implausible. We are talking about a shift or expansion of the notion of a 'work'. Neither do we conjure a new style of art, we only look for new ways to approach art.

„Reference“ derives from (re-)ferre, lat. to carry sth. (back), to retrieve sth. Derrida's idea of the 'différance' originates there, too: dis-ferre, to carry apart. In german, the 'Referendar' (junior lawyer) is the one to get the files from the archive.

Brockhaus*4 defines the reference as 'a relation between linguistic signs and objects outside of language'. It is difficult to give a solid definition since words like 'link' and 'relation' have to be used which are almost synonyms. Apparently, the reference is a most elementary, if not axiomatic, idea.

References become more and more important. They play a crucial role in the idea of virtualization as expressed in Beaudrillard's idea of the simulacrum. To set an example think of the internet. The visible part of it contains references as 'hyperlinks'. Information that has been structured in position space – like different libraries – is now arranged in information space, where 'distance' means how close two topics are related. Of course the importance of references makes them interesting for artists.

Art as Reference

How do we usually 'read' art, and where do references come in? Let's give some examples.

First, imagine some painting. As such, i.e. a painted, framed canvas it is easily recognized as art, even if it were not placed in a gallery. Our attention is drawn to its content immediately. Maybe we try to recognize the art style it belongs to or examine the content in Detail. We could also try to interpret it. Of lesser importance is probably the comparison to different kinds of art. That would just be one question among many, but probably not the first to arise. If it belonges to a classical style like surrealism our judgement will base on some kind of canonical interpretation.

The second example is a sculpture made of any unusual material (you might think of John Chamberlain's scrap metal sculptures or Duchamp's ready-mades). We might speculate whether it intends to criticize artistic craftsmanship or not. In fact it denies some features of classical sculptures, but one thing is not in question: that this is supposed to be art, since it can be told from numerous signs: The context of the museum, the alienated use of the material, maybe a pedestal and a sign on it. But obviously this artwork makes a reference to a more traditional notion of a sculpture. Although we find a clear appearance of the reference here, it does not make it difficult to recognize the artwork as such. Rather it makes it easier just because the reference is obvious. When the development of art moves on, it distinguishes itself from its past but at same time sets itself in relation to it.

One the other hand the elements are distributed over a large area, from no position whatsoever everything could be seen. A border to the rest of the exhibition hall was not apparent. This made it impossible for the people to act in the same way as if they faced a classical statue: to step back and watch the whole object from a distance, and afterwards approach it to inspect the details.

Some people ignored these conditions and stepped right up to one of the info terminals. It seemed as if they assumed it was all about the content of the videos. In any case, people were inside some kind of sculpure that actually could be entered: we have to step inside the world of the sculpture because the sculpture enters our world.

Armaly and Masharawi's work ist characterized by affirmation and denial. They deny a closed, straightforward form. This is on the one hand due to the exhibition space in which the work fits in naturally. It's not so easy to tell where the artwork ends and the area around it begins. Our classical sculpture from the 2^nd example seperates itself perfectly from the exhibition space, the pedestal acting like a frame. On the other hand, Armaly's work might not be an artwork at all but an actual info-counter of the documenta: there is no obvious creative intervention or any kind of alienation. Now, there are two importans aspects. First, as already mentioned, the visible elements of the artwork look like objects of everyday life, But this is true for many works of art - which are not 'referential' - as well. The second aspect is more unique. These elements just do what their real life counterparts do. The info terminals can actually be used as such by the visitors. At this time the artwork becomes indistinguishable from real life.

If we look at art history we are used to new developments that break yet another rule. This time, it's hard to nail down this 'style' – remember we have taken a formal point of view - to some sort of provocation, it is more the absence of one.

Art Refers to – What?

If we take a closer look, the work of Armaly und Masharawi contains a lot of artistic interventions, from the design of the furniture, the presentation of the texts to the textstrips on the ground. But these are not very dominant, and they go along with a function. It's almost paradox: The viewer is is put into a situation he knows from different contexts by adbandoning dramatic artistic interference. But if an intervention does show it can reach us in a more subtle way, because the artwork prepared a situation for the viewer (who belongs to the work).

Now, this whole situation is set up in an exhibition hall. The info terminal is not an info terminal exclusivly, it's a sculpture, too. Regarding the whole thing as art which it claims to be numerous references are revealed to topics in- and outside of art. Where is the creative act, where the artistic intervention? What is the work supposed to mediate – is this really about the content of the videos or the idea of information in general? What about the 'sculpture'? In a second step we might ask about the perception: are the visitors really supposed to watch the videos? Is there some sort of guideline or a 'right' way how to read this work? All of a sudden, the situation becomes less plausible than it seemed at the beginning. Instead of transmitting some defined content by its videos and texts the work refers to something outside of its own scope. Instead of delivering an example of some formal repertoire of art it sets itself into relation to formal approaches of art itself which it denied in the first place. The nature of these references remains unclear, they are based on our expectations of what art looks like.

Art is not primarily a way to look at the world here. It is an attractor and multiplier of references. It does not refer to anything, it is about the nature of references themselves. This art is monstrous and unobstrusive at the same time. It is located somewhere between art and the world but steps way back to induce communication between these.

If we look at an impressionistic painting closely it seems to dissolve into single brushstrokes. It's actually the same thing with referential art. If we look at it from far it appears to be a sculpture (since we expect one). Getting closer it looks like a functional object because we realize that it posesses this function. Looking yet more close the subtle artistic interventions attract attention. And the closest approach would be to actually watch the videos and read the texts. But what we have then are single brushstrokes.

However, we never know what the 'ideal' distance of viewing is supposed to be, if any. We look at art in a way that reveals to us what we are interested in. Referential art allows us the same in a more advanced manner, therefore it expands the autonomy of the recipient. This art is connected to his world, not only to that of the artist.

It's Thomas Hirschhorns „Bataille Monument“, a work from a series of four pieces.*6 The Monument itself consists of several parts: An exhibition about George Bataille, a library, a snackbar – all made of wood, a sculpture made of his typical materials like wood, adhesive tape, cardboard etc, a sequel of workshops, an improvised TV-studio that acually transmits shows on a local channel, and a website.

Furthermore there was a car and a driver to get people to the monument which was some distance away from the exhibition area, in a quarter with a socially deprived background. Youths from a local box club were payed to help with the assembly. Hirschhorn himself expressed a participatory approach: for him, art was a way to "get to know the world".  
Hirschhorn's art  does not meet traditional demands, not by refusal of stylistic means but by approaching many different genres. Therefore his art is not evasive but affirmative. So we get two main lines of references. The first follows the main content of its statements, i.e. like it were really about Bataille, a social project with adolescents, the idea of a monument and so forth.
The second ist loosly connected to art theory: what is the position of the monument in the art discourse? Hirschhorn gives us a few hints on this approach. The monument is "an artistic commitment" but not a "context work" - the latter being no contradiction to our very own analysis. The monument "is not documenta- or Kassel-related" (it wasn't even located in the documenta area). He uses elements the have a function outside of the art context, and he uses exactly these functions. You could actually buy food at the snack bar, it was not just a white cube object. What seperates the monument from the simple function of its elements is chiefly Hirschhorns intention to place it in the art context and some unusual materials typical for the artist's work but not really for the objects. To the recipient, there is a slight allusion, a faint idea of art. It's all there - the painting, the sculpture, the concept work. 'There' meaning here 'referenced on'. In the same way the different components of the work reference one another.
 
Again: all art is about references. But Hirschhorn's objects originate from the museum's context and are now transferred to their original, profane function. His library is in fact a library and can be used as such. Hirschhorn personal artistic motives my deviate from these. The producers of art may not think in a referential way. But their works may be understood referentially.
 
In that context I came across the text 'Das Ende der Ausstellungskunst' (the end of exhibited art) by Stefan Beck.*8 He states that artists have reached a frontier of what can be done in a white cube. He asks what would happen to art if it wouldn't be exhibited any longer. In some sense this might be understood as abandonment of a certain mode of production. The creative act receives lesser attention. Art leaves its playground and enters the real world. The largest, strangest,  most colorful or most impressive paintings have already been painted. The effects of art exhibitions on life outside of the museum have been negligible. Some dare to step outside. Therefore, Beck states this, too, the need for art mediation increases. Or, 'mediating art', alternatively.

Read this article in german at Büro für Kunstvermittlung

ADD2