by Michael Frederick Langhoff
With every work of art there is a contract moment where the curator, administrator, institution, or organization must formalize an agreement about the artists' work and his or her intent upon its exhibition. Agreements may take place as formal contracts between the exhibitor and the artist, or as informal correspondence through email, but either way there is some sort of agreement from each party as to what to expect in regard to the exchange of work for space. In an ideal setting, the exchange is mutually beneficial for both parties. All of this we know.
But what about work that doesn't require physical space, or work that
only requires space for a brief moment such as a performance art or art
that diminishes over time? The introduction of non-object art
throughout the late 60s and early 70s required a dynamic shift between
artists and museum institutions. This shift was a reminder that with
each artist there requires a sort of learning curve for every
institution and with or without the help of contracts, there needs to
be a willingness to learn.
I will for the time being avoid the looming institutional critique and
instead focus on the artist and his or her relationship to these
entities as moving and changing support systems. Without a malleable
framework, the support system hardens into an institutional archetype;
An old paradigm for old forms.
We must not build on top of outdated paradigms. If new trends outmode
our current frameworks, perhaps it would be best to develop new ones.
If the contract is constructed from what we know or expect from a
proposed work of art, what good is it when we encounter something that
exceeds the agreeable parameters or contract limitations? Do we shift
the system or do we shift the work of art? Not often does the work of
art make it out on the other end of this question without changing
slightly, but once in a while the system is required to make a greater
shift and it is these instances which I hope to elaborate on over the
course of the next few weeks. By honing in on the dynamic between
these important love-hate relationships, we can highlight an important
exchange that takes place that will perhaps give us the ability to see
eye-to-eye as collaborative forces rather than opposing ones.
As an institution that is obligated to the manner of contemporary art,
it is within reason that such a place would be looking for new,
innovative, unique and often times (admittedly) strange works that are
tapping into uncharted territories, or at the very least, the
not-so-charted territories. However, the artist, and all his or her
vigor, must undergo a laundry list of liabilities and sanctions that
prevent the work from being what it could be in order to exhibit it how
it must be seen rather than how it ought to be seen. This frustration
is nothing new to artists who have interacted on any form of base level
with any institution or organization. And occasionally this limitation
brings to bear a much stronger work of art in the end.
Let us take for example Jun Nguyen-Hatsushiba's Breathing is Free
project in which he is attempting to run the distance equivalent to the
diameter of the earth (12,756.3 km) as a memorial to refugees who spend
their lives searching for a new home. After speaking with Trevor
Martin, Director of SAIC's Department of Exhibitions, there has been a
number of 'contract moments' with the school in preparing for this
particular event to happen in the city of Chicago. Just to name a
few, they had to negotiate costs for hiring two assistants to
photograph and film the run as well as a driver, not to mention the
navigator that would drive across the city with them. Another concern
was the liability in hiring these sub-contractors. Let us not forget
risk. What if the artist gets injured while running through the
unforgiving traffic ridden streets of Chicago? To top it off,
Nguyen-Hatsushiba was injured after agreeing to the project and now
they are negotiating to have 15 runners complete the run in place of
him. This proposes a new sort of development that could potentially
enhance the outcome of the project by launching it into a more
collaborative gain.
Although contracts, loan forms and letters of intent have significant
value for all participating parties, it is within these seemingly minor
negotiations that require flexibility between the artist and the
institution. The communication that takes place (at variable degrees),
is what I would consider the contract moment. It is within this moment
that I am proposing a platform, framework or at the very least a
resource for use that will be helpful for all ends of the spectrum when
considering this agreement between persons and entities that is perhaps
much more than signing the dotted line.
Lets face it, with new forms, non-forms, non objects, temporary and
dematerializing art, there often lacks an adequate framework for
institutions to license an exhibition that will host these types of
projects. When works of art push against the etiquette, there must
then be a reevaluation towards the limitations in relationship to the
mission of the institution. and it is exactly these dimensions which,
when explored will create a learning curve for all ends and perhaps a
resource of types that will challenge the re-scripting of contracts in
order to be able to host a new kind of work.
Instead of understanding these agreements as limitations, let us begin to view them as platforms for something new.
Filed under: Uncategorized
