2006 Rose Bowl Flea Market Biennale
by Sergio Munoz-Sarmiento (b. U.S., lives in Cambridge, MA and Truth or Consequences, New Mexico)October 8, 2006 at the Rose Bowl Flea Market in Pasadena.
The "2006 Rose Bowl Flea Market Biennale" is a performative/sculptural installation within the Pasadena Rose Bowl Flea Market that invites local and international artists (including from Mexico, Canada, and the U.S.) to submit items or artworks for sale within the flea market grounds, and within a "sculptstructural" stall to be designed and fabricated by the artist�s company, CLANCCO (Clandestine Construction Company International). visit www.clancco.com for more information.
The "2006 Rose Bowl Flea Market Biennale"
will take place on October 8, 2006
from 9:00 am - 4:30 pm
at the Rose Bowl Flea Market in Area 'E'
in the Arts and Crafts section.
1001 Rose Bowl Dr. Pasadena, CA 91103
$7 entrance fee
visit www.rgcshows.com for location details about the Rose Bowl Flea Market.
1 comment:
[The following entries were copied over from the CLANCCO website blog on September 25, 2006. They are still available there as well.]
Dorit,
To answer your question re: the difference b/t the Bronco and Rose Bowl projects, I’ll begin by saying that as one already knows context determines meaning, and by this I include historical timing within the notion of context as well. So the CLANCCO Swap Meet Biennale’s are not, in my opinion, the same or test the same structure over and over again (ex: the oil boom of the 80s tested Wall Street in much different ways than the intellectual property boom is currently doing).
Furthermore, it is precisely the testing of each location and site that interests me about this project. In other words, El Paso is of course not an “art center” and not immediately linked to contemporary art production the way that L.A. is. So a Stephen Prina “piece” will most likely be a “person’s” piece in El Paso, whereas in L.A. it will most certainly be known as a “Stephen Prina” piece. The other obvious issue that arises in relation to each context is of course (1) the pricing dynamic, and as Evan Holloway also noted, (2) the potential availability of collectors in L.A. that perhaps would be missing in El Paso. In this sense, the CLANCCO Biennale’s look to not only question the notion of exchange, but also to allow the participant/artist more say in the distribution of their object(s); in effect, more control over its ownership and accessibility. Thirdly, and as is well known, the question of ownership and collecting come into play. There are accounts that since the late 70s, as far as certain markets are concerned, art has been and is the only one to not devalue.
For now I’ll synthesize this: what I noticed in the El Paso Biennale was a feudal/capitalistic forum that very much mirrored current ruling economic systems (artistic as well as industrial and knowledge-based systems), yet at the same time allowing for another structure that questioned these ruling forms of exchange and access. This is somewhat related to “black-market” systems which Hernando de Soto clearly delineates in “The Mystery of Capital.”
I’ve attempted to not be too instructional in this project so as to question the ability of contemporary artists to engage with such dynamics and its space. Some have opted for free distribution, some have opted for bartering, and others have simply chosen not to participate. This is curious and very interesting to me because in our current political and cultural climate, why would any “artist” or cultural producer chose to opt OUT of a “free” or readily-established distribution network?
I’ll leave my thoughts as to why this may happen for later, but I’d be interested in reading other responses to these issues.
-sergio
On September 16, 2006 3:38 PM, dorit cypis said:
Hello Sergio,
I understand your points and question the context seriously. You say that a "Steven Prina" is only a "Steven Prina" within an art collector's market...but I imagine that the context you are testing, the LA Rose Bowl, is a 99.9% audience of non "art-collectors". Are you testing how many collectors venture out as far as the Rose Bowl to buy art? Are you testing what "art" means to to non-art audience? Are you testing how clever an artist can be in this context? What difference that this make? If a tree falls.....How are we seriously questioning market politics when anything goes?
By the way, I am very interested in this discussion and intend to have it participate as my inclusion in your Rose Bowl sales context. "Out out damn spot".
xdorit
On September 16, 2006 8:23 PM, Sergio said:
Hi Dorit,
You bring up some interesting and relevant questions.
I have to say that at this point of contemporary art and popular culture, i.e.- cultural production, I'm not too sure that art can raise these issues within an art context, but rather that it must attempt to be functional rather than simply unveiling.
That having been said, there are a few premises which, for me, the swapmeet biennale's are founded upon. One is the bringing of(and making accessible) "unique" and artistic art projects to a larger "non-art-world" audience. Secondly, to see how the art object/item holds up when it is read within a non-art context and a non-art crowd, and yes, thirdly, to see how creative and inventive artists are these days. Fourth would be to use the funds raised for a self-perpetuating nexus which feeds similar interest (grant and/or fund).
The third point is more in line with testing art schooling now and the current state of so-called institutional critique, and whether or not the latter is still relevant within a U.S., global, and artistic framework.
I'm interested in how you frame the project in terms of "testing," which I associate with "critique." I suppose that in order for a "project" to test or critique it would still presuppose an outside of the system. Either way, I am well aware (I hope, we'll see), of the overwhelming nature of capitalism.
However, I do believe that art collectors (and their agents) are LESS likely to venture to a low-income flea market (El Paso) then a historically successful and more affluent one (Pasadena). In the end, what's to keep any collector from buying the whole stall, artists included?
Lastly, although I'm not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, I am quite interested in its discourse but more so in its applicability. I would venture to say that the current global market is already at the "anything goes" stage, and if this project will "test" anything it will perhaps test the vendor's power to elect/decline a purely capitalist mode of commodification, valuation, and dissemination (accessability).
p.s.- this links tightly to my current interest in art as a corporate enterprise...but more on that later...
-sms
On September 18, 2006 5:44 PM, dorit cypis said:
I just lost my response and begin again...
I think we already know how an art object is seen outside of an art context...as an object without an art context. That is not so interesting.
Artschools have been known to exist and perpetuate a market ecomony for a long time. Some of us were asking that question in the mid 70's before the crazy era of the 80's market. Not many were listening then though. Howard Singerman wrote about the history of the MFA turning into a commodiification factory in his book Artist as Subject in 1999. Questions take time to form into statements.
My question has always been, how am I colluding? How are artists unwittingly and wittingly dependent on late capitalism for thier identities? When I worked for Michael Asher as his editor at ther Nova Scotia College of Art and Design in 1972 (I was a young undergrad) I understood the irony of critiquing the system you are within...protected by that same system. Is that then still a critique? Only in the art world. How do you take that scholarship of critique and remain viable outside? Artists are babies at that question because they have been dependent on patronage and hermetisism/exotisism. I am not speaking from all the way inside and not all the way outside. I have asked that question from many angles and always feel in between. My peers have often asked me if I am still an artist...that is because the elephant in the room is the old paradim of dualism, either/or, inside/outside.
Last year I received a Masters of Dispute Resolution form Pepperdine U. When a law student explained to me that,"We see both sides,"...I asked "Which two?" The power of Foucault was that he was both inside and outside simultaneously...and did not make a big deal of it. Just did both. Law professors were always calling out "Think outside the box." After hearing this refrain a dozen times I called out "What box?"
30 years ago, when Allan Kaprow and John Baldessari were teaching side by side at Cal Arts, Allan's students more often graduated to become insightfull, critically save professionals outside the arts while John's students often graduated to become famous art professionals within the gallery/museum structure. Who was better off...and more imporatantly within this discussion, who was more effective culturally?
Today, if the MFA is the new MBA, why are graduated students so naive about creating new markets reflective of the globalism and its malcontents, and so reticent to do so...as if only the dealer/collector/critic market/box can ensure their identity? Artists are not well educated in relationship building, engagement, psychology of politics etc....While artists hold invaluable tools of perception, context analysis, representation and meaning....they are (most often) children in the social sphere. (By the way, on the other hand, in my experience with Mediation, the reverse is true of mediators.)
Our savings grace is that as children, we are not afraid to act...but we must act noticing the roadblocks we have already agreed to.
xdc
On September 19, 2006 10:52 AM, Sergio said:
Dorit,
In general I see an observation by you that mirrors your first entry—“what are we [artists] doing?”
For me this is the crux of the fallacy of contemporary artists, but no so much in those that commodify the object (Baldessari) but rather more so in those that believe there is no frame, inside/outside, or that an artist can occupy both (Kaprow). It is precisely this deviance from any form of reality (I like saying this, it drives Lacanians crazy) that leads certain “artists” to believe they can critique or worse, use an artistic discourse and space to further a “better system,” or “enact social change.” And if I’m wrong, then perhaps my question is “what are THEY doing?”
In fact, it is precisely this identity crisis that calls for frames and propriety. There is a very clear reason why a litigator would know both sides of the argument and why an artist or art student can privilege herself with the abstraction and intricacy of that question: a litigator is not an artist, but a professional (a person in a profession). A litigator does not pretend, or more on point does not involve herself with such questions or pretenses because (1) it is not her duty by oath, and more importantly but linked (2) her client depends on her, at times for life, to represent her and not some social ideal.
The “box” that you reference is precisely your opponent’s box; the box holding the argument’s of both parties; and the box established by the non-legally trained mind which believes that free speech protects all sppech. It is the duty of any good litigator to think outside THOSE boxes.
Unfortunately, and as many artists or social activists do not understand, in an adversarial legal system there are only two sides—those of each party. It is not up to the litigator to perplex the judicial system, and more importantly her own client, with Foucauldian ideas. If at all, that would be the legislator’s role.
I tend to like, and believe, in this framework. I would not go to Baldessari, Kaprow, or Nauman for representation in a court of law, nor would I go to Tribe, Tigar, or Boies for aesthetic or conceptual engagement with images or the casting of negative space.
Perhaps it is when artists realize that art does have a framework and place, and that that place may not nicely hold both a commercial and social activist position, that art will begin to attain relevance again. Perhaps Rainhardt was right, “art is art as art, and everything else is everything else…”
I say this relinquishing art as commercial or financial investment to those that desire it to be as such (no different than Hollywood), but I would (hopefully not arrogantly) state that I position myself as using “art” as the space where I can do what is NOT law. I take comfort in this knowing quite well that if I care about Guantanamo detainees I can help write an amicus and/or partake in research for a brief. Unfortunately (or fortunately) art does not touch the everyday, but pick up any newspaper and notice each front page respectively peppered with references or direct articles on/to law.
Fortunatly, or unfortunately, law has practical traction—art doesn’t.
This is why the “MFA as the new MBA” (a catchy phrase now) does not work. Artists aren’t MBAs. They don’t have to deal with the relationships, engagements, or psychologies you are referencing but perhaps engage with those that are necessary only within the artworld framework, or box.
Incidentally, you give much too much credit by assigning artists “invaluable tools of perception, context analysis, representation and meaning.” Have you watched MTV lately or My Tube.com? or seen ads by Sony X-Box? Now those people have invaluable tools! I’m not sure which artists you’re talking about but last time I checked people are still hanging stuff on walls and putting stuff in middle of rooms (and being taught this at most schools no less). Are those the artists with invaluable tools?
Not that there’s anything wrong with the wall/middle-of-the-room practice. Mike Kelley is a phenomenal artist and so is Ruscha. But that’s the point; they’re artists and not trying to expand public parks—that project’s for an urban planner from Yale Law to contend with.
On September 20, 2006 1:14 AM, dorit cypis said:
Sergio,
Then I don't understand your project....so this entry will be mostly questions.
Since I have never met you before jumping into this virtual conversation...I have not had opportunity to share physical space and time with you which conveys meaning this space cannot. Here, I feel in the box...and since I am an artist whose priviledge is to question, I must at this point ask, who are you? Are you an artist? Are you a litigator? Are you a Colombo detetective? Are you an arsonist setting fires? Are you a collector? Can you further reveal yourself and why you are architecting this project for artists to engage in outside of the art "box".
Are you suggesting that good art must have commercial value to be great?
I disagree with you that art today lives in a privileged position of being "outside the box". On the contrary, most artists I know live very tightly in a box which often seems quite adversarial to me. Very either or, in/right gallery, or out/no gallery. And, there are many fabulous artists today who do not simply or only hang objects on walls...and of course they too eventually will be consumed as collectibles. Maybe then they will truly be great.
Yes, I do watch MyTube etc...clever but not great and the tools are crass and forgettable...needing to be replaced with another even more entertaining event...ad nauseum. Eventually its tiring. I would rather watch Simone Forti dance with a stick and raincoat as props.
Identity crisis does not require frames, rather re-framing and re-stating to question the very frames which created the crisis to begin with...and anyway crisis is really an opportunity we should welcome...
A good litigator constructs the box to purposefully develop an adversarial argument. A good litigator understands much more than 2 sides, but chooses the 2 in order to kill the other.
It's interesting to note that Litigators, at least in Southern California, are leaving their confonded proffessions in droves to become Mediators, neither inside nor out....believing that the "law" protects only some and certainly does not necesarily protect their clients.
You're right that I give Artists (big A) too much credit...Turn that A to an a and I will speak more specifically about a genre of artists I am in contact with who do deserve the credit I cast.
By the way, what is an Urban Planner from Yale Law? And where would you situate Vito Acconci?
But this argument is itself binary and really uninteresting...and not my point at all. It's not about which artist is the real artist, nor which is the real context of art. All this is highly rhetorical. If it was answered we'd all have nothing to do.
xdorit
On September 20, 2006 1:13 PM, Sergio said:
Dorit,
Before I forget, there’s an interesting article in today’s NY Times about arbitration. On that note, my understanding is that many law schools (but very few top law schools) are pushing for more mediation and arbitration, but the resistance seems to stem not only from the historical foundation of litigation in this country but also from the discrepancies (myths) that arbitration and mediation seem to have delivered—in other words that’s it’s not as cost-effective and time-saving as was once thought. Regardless, I think they are very good options to the stressful and aggressive litigation options.
Spivak once said: “one can only critique that which one loves.” I like this, and this is why I’m so critical of today’s artist and art making. By the same token, art on walls and on floors can have an aesthetic/political effect, so much so that as Buck-Morss points out, it may be what is needed to shock a people into action.
Anyhow, I agree, the question of who’s an artist is not that interesting. My point was merely that one has more leverage depending on what intent/outcome one has in mind, so long as one is being honest about that intentionality and telos.
You ask for a non-binary discussion, yet ask me to situation myself as an artist, litigator, detective, arsonist, or collector. Perhaps I’m all of them, but not all at once. I use a butter knife, not a hammer, to spread Nutella on my toast. It’s not about loss of experimentation or creativity, it’s about efficiency.
As to Acconci, it depends on which Acconci we address. I don’t think we should divorce the historical context from his identity or his definition. Early Acconci was good art within and without an art context. Acconci now is a historical artist that is known for masturbating and biting, and that is now bored with the confines of art that he helped to establish. Nothing wrong with this; I think it would be interesting to ask him if he thinks of himself as an artist.
No, I don’t believe that only art with commercial value can be great. I don’t even think art has to be great. It may be that we agree that there is a difference between an Artist and an artist, just as there’s a difference between a musician and a rock star. True, one can be both, but this is few and far between. Perhaps Acconci fits nicely here.
In the end, I find Asher and Kelley just as complex.
And since I don’t know you, here’s a question: What kind of projects or actions do you initiate, and what do you hope they accomplish (assuming this of course)?
-s
p.s.- Yale Law is notorious for accepting a large part of its incoming class from PhD's...
On September 21, 2006 1:40 AM, dorit cypis said:
My nightly post...is this my new box?
I asked Vito Acconci this past year if he considered himself an artist. He answered no. His "architecture" though owes so much to his earliest works...visceral, organic, conflating public v private space. I had an encounter with him in the early 70's. In a corridor at night, at the art school NSCAD, I was leaving the weaving studio to go to the library. There in front of the library doors stood a hairy, naked man pulling hairs off his chest and folding his penis between his thighs. I wasn't scared...rather very compelled and curious. We met each other in silence for several minutes, and then I left. I did not know that this man was Vito Acconci, but I did know that this was the end of my weaving career. I told him this story recently and he disavowed it.
I love that Vito today is doing what compels him, art or not. I don't though understand sublimating the past to underscore the difference of the present. I can only imagine that he truly hates what happened to him within the identity of being an artist caught in the gallery system.
I take him as a model, except that I don't begrudge that I am an artist and a mediator and an educator and a body arts enthusiast....My projects cover many paths....from the same heart and intention, to engage with what it means to be human, paradoxes and all, to question justice, to confound corporality, to explore social relations. I developed/extended FAR, Foundation for Art Resources, in 1979, as a forum for artists to design and explore their own destinies as producers in an urban landscape. It is still going. Many of my projects, the past 25 years, have been my lab for exploring how interiority manifests socially. I have used these projects to teach me lessons I have needed to learn about myself...and then extended them out into social projects. Kulture Klub Collaborative, 1992, was an intiative to develope collaborations between artists and homeless youth, bridging survival and inspiration. Still going. I am now developing a project, Foreign Exchanges, bridging aesthetics and mediation, to better understand the dynamics of social and personal difference...and to develop more subtle tools of engagement to offer to activist leaders in culture, business, education and philanthropy.
Of course I also show in museums and other art spaces. More rather than less. Thanx for asking.
I am hoping that others will join in our discussion.
On September 21, 2006 2:50 PM, Dorit Cypis said:
What do you hope to learn and what do you hope to give through the Rose Bowl Project?
On September 21, 2006 3:36 PM, Sergio said:
Dorit,
I don’t know what I hope to learn, because I’m always surprised by who, or what, ends up being my (best) teacher.
The question of giving is easier to answer. I would like to give what I like to receive: surprising and engaging encounters where they are least expected, and an opportunity for different people to engage with each other. Additionally, in this project, the making possible for some to engage with and encounter the seemingly out-of-place, and perhaps the added “bonus” of possibly owning one of these out-of-place “items.” In effect, giving here is like teaching for me: I teach as I would like to be taught.
I like the idea of a traveling “gallery.” but it differs here in that the gallery travels to different sites rather than asking people to come to it. There is of course the lower resale aspect (if at all), and the openness to participants.
In El Paso all the items were remarkably intriguing, and although not everything sold one aspect I quite liked was the conversations that ensued from browsers engaging with the items. One curious browser spent approximately 20 minutes engaging with Don Jamon’s book, a hardcover with blank, white pages and a cover sleeve with the author’s bio and book reviews. I’m not sure if this is learning or giving, but I certainly learned something.
I like the fact that art can give and teach, but I also think there should be a bit more experimentation and curiosity. Perhaps this project allows me this possibility. Although I strongly dislike the notion of a clueless artist, I also dislike the belief that an artist should have all the answers to their project. As you know, the one place where one must know all the answers is law, and that’s rightfully so for that territory.
Lastly, I’m currently very fascinated by corporate structures. Corporations constantly take, steal, and pay for, creative ideas in order to maximize profits. I’m working on reversing this somewhat and using corporate strategies to maximize conceptual and interventionist profits. The Rose Bowl Biennale is a great example. Thanks to Outpost, I am able to carry out this project due to their generous funding, and in return I can help replenish this funding through sales and still simultaneously fund Blue Print, a CLANCCO grant that will eventually be made available to any artist or cultural producer (including law minded people) to help in the making or researching of a project.
I like the idea of an artist—I just don’t think it’s a profession.
-sms
On September 24, 2006 2:24 PM, dorit Cypis said:
Sergio,
I love your answer, I like to give what I like to receive. It's not as easy as it sounds as knowing what we would like to recieve assumes we know ourselves. So I assume you to imply the inevitabilty of struggle with one's self (intersubjective) as a qualifier to your answer. Otherwise, recieving and giving are easily coopted by pastiche desire.
What would you like to recieve?
xdorit
Post a Comment