Startseite > Exkursion, Exkursionsdokumente, Inhaltliches > Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev zu Ausstellungsschildern, feministischen Fragestellungen und den Kategorien Kunst und Wissenschaft

Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev zu Ausstellungsschildern, feministischen Fragestellungen und den Kategorien Kunst und Wissenschaft

11.06.2012, 10:45 / Fridericianum

Ergebnis einer zufälligen Begegnung mit der leitenden Kuratorin der dOCUMENTA (13), die im Fridericianum einer Gruppe für Fragen zur verfügung stand. Aufgrund von Sound und Wind-Installationen sowie Distanz schlechte Aufnahmequalität hier rekonstruierend in Text transformierter Audiomitschnitt (wordpress erlaubt zudem keinen upload von Audiodateien):

Frage aus der Gruppe:  [schwer verständlich, etwas zu fehlenden Daten bezüglich Geburtsdaten der Künstler und Nationalitäten]

C C-B: Um, on the signage , well you can see it in the guidebook. I think that if you really want that information it‘s in the guidebook you can see it in our website, but anyway. But I like art to be in a way somehow timeless, and somehow… well you can see the date of the work, so… .

And I think that the date of the work is more important than the date when the artist is born, ‘cause sometimes the artists grow to maturity when they‘re really old. It‘s something between reality and real-life […] art as an understanding of what answers my question is, so a sort of […] perception of the world and,… and posing… and, and. It‘s like mathematics or quantum physics it doesn‘t really matter what […], what matters is the timeliness of the questions being used to in that experiment, and in the world of art, right?

Frage aus der Gruppe: [Nachfrage zum Thema Nationalität]

C C-B: The nationality, um it‘s in the guidebook. It‘s always in the guidebook. I don‘t really like labeling, and we happen to be in Germany, so…, there‘s been a lot of labeling […] So I emerge to be delicate on that one. And I actually believe in a way, a kind of not-universalism, but I think we‘ve really gone through the whole question of post-colonial studies, and that‘s part of our consciousness, and I think that, that one should build alliances between equal and different parts in the world, sharing, uh sharing ideals as a course to continue. I mean, I think my predecessor, my predecessors worked very clearly on a redefinition of the locations of where art is […], and to break that fragile unquestioned eurocentricism, what‘s very strongly already done by my predecessors in documenta. So for me what‘s important now is to…, is what do I share with an artist in Phnom Penh. You know, what does an artist in Libanon share with an artist in Phnom Penh. So, so.. yeah, I think so it‘s a kind of transnational horizon, but actually trans[flu]ent. Alright, so that‘s why the quantum physicists and the biologists are in the exhibition, or the […], because we all know what the difference is. I‘m not arguing for artworks inter[lay] together with the scientist, that‘s ridiculous, ha. Sometimes curators do that. You know they but a [scientist] and an artist together so what you got is a mishmash of nothing. It‘s not science and it‘s not art. But I am interested in bringing the visitors into […], what is in…, what is common between the questions a quantum physicist is asking himself and the artwork made by the artist today. And that‘s the… . You see that in the past quite clearly: we got that relativity and […] and then you got there Picasso. You understand that cubism is very much of that time – or Renaissance philosophy on time and perception. So it‘s a […] attempt: More that interdisciplinarity but at providing a platform that we can think about goes similarities in our knowledge is also about in the here and now as a posted ordering  […] to a history of physics and a history of art in the early twentieth century, or optics. So it‘s an attempt. It might not work in a sense that you might walk through the […], and to say : What the hell has this to do with it, or with, with anything of the artist? But I do think that it does. So that […]. I answered that [quote] – the question of not focusing on the nationality and I extended to not focussing on the field, either.

Frage aus der Gruppe: Being on stage…, being on the stage…, being on the stage, do you think that in a way to the feminist ermist should include, by way of women quoting feminist theory really forcibly on the stage due to the scope of the media, the main gaze. …

C C-B: Of course….

Frage aus der Gruppe: …due to the main gaze that keeps em on the stage in a […] …

C C-B: …Yes, uh I think that that‘s very true, but it was not intentional. So I welcome your comment, cause I haven‘t thought of it. But now that you bring it up it‘s actually quite true: there is a lot of feminist theory, that has its core to that question of being object in a male gaze, and the contradictions between, um, you know, any woman[, er, knows] this, that wheather you‘re veiled, and therefore you‘re not allowed to be visible, um in subsocieties, or wheather you‘re on […] plattform shoes with […] with consumer objects: cars and computers and things in advertising and that their gaze… Uh there‘s an obscenity in an excessive wearing and an excessive pornography in display of the woman‘s body – for sure… for sure, that that‘s probably in the background of my thinking but it was not intentional at all.

reb.: Um, concerning the, you seperated between art and science before, and er…

C C-B : […] in your answer before, you said that science and art are two different things and if you mesh them up there is some blabla coming out, so would you really think that these categories…

aus der Gruppe: Sorry, can I. We‘re with a different group so sorry: If you want to ask Carolin.

C C-B: Oh it‘s a… it‘s a museum tour…

reb.: So it‘s closed to us?

C C-B: …But I‘m happy to answer your question, but then I think you should. … They have to see the exibition so…

aus der Gruppe: I think everyone is getting eager to see the exibition…

reb.: Yeah I‘m sorry. Didn‘t know.

C C-B: …so I can‘t answer that right now, but uh, no I don‘t think uh […] but I think that‘s an intersting question, so I think that you might wanna know the answer, so let‘s let […]. I think that, the fields of human activity have been defined in many ways, at different times in different historical periods, and obviously the definition of the field of art, as we know it didn‘t exist in ancient Egypt, or didn‘t exist in China in the Seventeenhundreds, because there the calligrapher, the philosopher, so the writer-philosopher and the painter was one category for example. So we have to understand the relativism of all categories and fields. If you think in terms of big history obviously prehistoric humans didn‘t have the category of art as we have it. That category of art turned up in the Seventeenhundreds with Winkelmann [and] modern aesthetics. The ancient Greeks didn‘t have it either. They didn‘t even have a word for art and […]. Therefore it‘s a very good question and um it takes a long answer. But let‘s say the way that scientists work… Uh, first of all you can‘t say science, there‘re many different kinds of sciences: fundamental research, there‘s a [quite] science. So I‘m only looking at a few small sectors of scientific practice that I find very close to artistic practice today, such as quantum physics because that is based on the understanding of the entanglement between the observer and the observed. So that‘s the short answer to your question.

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

%d Bloggern gefällt das: