Home

Exhibitions
Current and Upcoming
Previous

Artists
Francis Alÿs
Sven Augustijnen
Pierre Bismuth
stanley brouwn
Manon de Boer
Rineke Dijkstra
Mario Garcia Torres
Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster
Douglas Gordon
Joachim Koester
David Lamelas
Sharon Lockhart
Tino Sehgal
Philippe Thomas
Tris Vonna-Michell
Ian Wilson

Newspaper

Library

E-news

Instagram

Never believe an artist who says their work is about nothing
by Pierre Bismuth, 2001

"Your paintings are like my films, they are about nothing... with precision" (Michelangelo Antonioni to Mark Rothko, 1962)

"Polyphemus, what dire affliction has come upon you to make you profane the night with clamour and rob us of our slumbers? [...] Is someone threatening death to yourself by craft or by violence?"

[...] "Friends, it is Noman's craft and no violence that is threatening death to me."

"[...] If you are alone, then this is a malady sent by almighty Zeus, from which there is no escape."

Homer, The Odyssey (trans. Walter Shewring)

 

One often has occasion to observe the remarkable degree to which the public simply

accepts an artist's statement about a work of art, and in a way, maintains its trust in the

faithful correspondence between the statement and the realisation. As if the statement

was not a production in its own right with its own logic and motives but offered

unmediated information about the way the work is to be perceived. And yet it must be

allowed that a work may be motivated by circumstances that are alien to its definition.

Quite simply because this definition corresponds either to what the artist wants to show

(as opposed to what can be seen in the work) or to the position that the artist wants us

to adopt with regard to the work. To call into question the meaning or value of the

statement would not, however, imply calling into question the artist's good faith or

intelligence. It is not a matter of knowing if the work is or is not what it is said to be but

of understanding the motives behind a choice of definition and being aware of the

possible gap separating it from what it designates.

 

It's very simple. Art that claims to be about nothing, absence, silence, emptiness,

vacuity, nothingness, ugliness, meaninglessness, uselessness, trivia, the negligible,

the absurd, boredom... never is. We could even say that for the observer who is not

taken in or deluded by the statement, such works produce precisely the opposite effect.

How can it be that nothing is always something, and what is it that makes an artist

want to attain this dimension of absence if, ultimately, they already knows that the

undertaking is vain, the project impossible? I am not going to try to analyse the ways of

formally expressing nothingness here, or the strategies of formally incorporating

nothingness in the actual making of an artwork. I would simply like to show that the use

of this concept of nothingness, as applied to the artist's statement about the work,

constitutes a strategy designed to dash our hopes as viewers.

 

But what are these hopes and on what are they based? More than ever, on the political

and social context. Since art now speaks to an increasingly wide and, therefore, not

necessarily educated audience, it cannot be presented on the basis of a shared artistic

culture but must use values that are not specifically related to art and its history. These

values are for the most part produced by an economic system based on production

and consumption, on the belief in information and communication, on the need for

events, tourism, distractions and signs of progress. Curiously, though, even the most

disenchanted consumer may still harbour some credulity towards art. While he would

be spontaneously sceptical towards the discourse surrounding consumer goods, he

might well tend to believe an artist who vaunts the absence of aesthetic qualities in a

blank canvas and to consider that there is indeed nothing here to be looked at. We are

aware of the commercial impact of lies about quality when it comes to consumer

goods, but we find it harder to understand why an artist might wish to devalue his or

her own work. Why this publicity concerning the emptiness of the work if that was not

really the case?

 

One of the answers put forward by maladroit upholders of an art based on negative

values is to attempt to develop a discourse on the hidden qualities of nothingness. This

presumptuous position makes the mistake of thinking that vacuity is a materially

achievable quality and not just a concept. "Nothingness" constitutes a strategy that

enables an artist to free his or her activity from any form of social pressure. This

nothingness defines the absence of qualities from a sarcastic viewpoint, referring to the

idea of an economic system based on the daily production of artificial values. The idea

of making nothing both marks a refusal to take part in the blindness of all the hype, and

anticipates the viewer's value judgements and possible disappointment. The artist who

claims that his work is about nothing is doing nothing more than using the public

language and judgmental values produced by this system. A work on nothingness,

assuming it could exist, would in a sense be the essence of aesthetic production as it

is habitually seen from a bourgeois perspective.

 

If viewers are not aware that this "nothing" is merely a trick of language embodying a

critical attitude towards the social system and expectations of art, it is because they

never think of assessing the discrepancy between the definition of the work and its

physical reality in other words, of analysing the way in which it is implemented and

made and presented. If viewers do not undertake this task, that is because in most

cases they position themselves as cultural consumers, outside the creative process,

whereas in fact they should always consider themselves as the potential creator of the

work. Each one of us creates at each moment of the day in the way we live and

understand reality. The artist's sole quality is to be aware of this and to make it

manifest in the context of art and in accordance with the artistic conventions to which

he subscribes. Artists are artists only because they define themselves as such and, by

using the strategy of nothingness, they confirm the old idea that the artwork is made by

those who look at it. In art, "nothing" exists only for those who are ready to believe in it.

 

Pierre Bismuth

London, December 2000

 

Translation, C. Penwarden

 

 

Source: Gallery Newspaper 28: September-October 2001