How far can Art Practice facilitate social action in addressing the effect of individualisation
on the individual in neoliberal culture?
Positive social change has traditionally been associated with operating within the social sector,
local government and charity solutions. However, in this essay we will be discussing the application
of artistic practice in tackling and creating solutions to social deficits as a form of art. We will
investigate the relevance of contemporary art practice in addressing positive social change,
investigate the neoliberal concept of individualisation, and whether art practice can be a means of
tackling it’s impact on individuals. Through studying specific artists and their art practices, we will
assess their methods, and apply what is learned to the specific social issue of ‘atomised’ society as
a result of individualisation. Atomisation is the notion that society is now comprised of individuals,
and the social structure of community is no longer present or at least exists in a weakened form.
We will draw upon the works of theorists such as Alfred Gell, Boris Groys, and Mark Fisher among
others, offering both a critique and a theoretical backing for the success of art practices facilitating
direct social change. Through understanding individualisation, and the effect that neoliberal and
capitalist influences have on the strength of community in our society, we can ask whether art
practice can provide a platform for challenging the effect of individualisation. We will end the
investigation by assessing my own artistic practice in relevance to the artists and theorists we have
discussed: a project called ‘Congregate’, aimed at directly challenging the atomised nature of
neoliberal society by creating a space where community can assume itself over meals cooked in
an art studio for any person who wants to participate.
In order to understand the position of contemporary art practice in the culture it embeds itself in, an
understanding of neoliberalism needs to be established. Neoliberalism operates on a set of values
and assumptions about human behaviour and interaction; in the case of individualism,
neoliberalism assumes the individual as “isolated, and competitive” as the “basic unit of human
experience”1 . In Ulrich Beck and Elizabeth Beck-Gernsheim’s book titled ‘Individualism and its
1
common ground jeremy gilbert preface viii
Social and Political Consequences’, they refer to the individual’s life as their biography, being
influenced and shaped by the set of conditions and decisions surrounding them on a day to day
basis. The decisions made by the individual, as an individual, are influenced constantly by the
conditions of the welfare state, education systems, the market and social influences, which all
operate within the competitive market of capitalism: when viewing the biography of the individual
this way, it can be argued that individualisation is a “social condition which is not arrived at by a
free decision of individuals”2 which puts reinforcement behind Jean Paul Sartré’s statement that
“people are condemned to individualisation”3. In Beck’s writing they refer to individualisation as a
“guideline of modernity”4, which resonates as a possible alternative term for neoliberalism when
analysing further in to the set of societal influences which incubate the conditions for
individualisation. It can be argued that despite the presence of “common good will” being
embedded in to people, the lost sense of community continues to surround the biography of the
individual. This creates the affect of a double moral standard operating within the mechanism of
individualisation, which remains intact so long as no one wishes to call it in to question. One of the
ways it has been addressed is through contemporary art; historically, forms of contemporary art
practice have provided a platform on which to ask these questions. Contemporary art awards itself
a position of criticality when researching society’s mechanisms as a subject matter and therefore
practicing art as a response. This position of art practice, and the ability to critique and question the
society which art practice is embedded in has the potential to be more than a mode of critique - it
can be discussed that if - as a result of its unique standing in society and culture - contemporary art
can successfully critique the mechanisms of neoliberalism and capitalist society, it could provide a
platform to facilitate positive social change as a means of art practice.
22
Beck, Ulrich and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim. "Losing the Traditional: Individualization and
‘Precarious Freedoms’." Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political
Consequences. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2002. 1-21. SAGE Knowledge. Web. Theory,
Culture & Society. 19 Apr. 2018, doi: 10.4135/9781446218693.n1.
3
4
Jean Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness.
Beck, Ulrich and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim. "Losing the Traditional: Individualization and
‘Precarious Freedoms’." Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political
Consequences. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2002. 1-21. SAGE Knowledge. Web. Theory,
Culture & Society. 19 Apr. 2018, doi: 10.4135/9781446218693.n1.
Neoliberalism is widely established on the promotion of an atomised and fractured society driven
by capitalism which makes it “difficult to imagine belonging to a group on any scale which is
actually capable of getting things done”5 : this act of atomistic individualisation is what has
seemingly created an environment where groups and collectives of political or social activists find it
increasingly difficult to achieve noticeable systemic action which successfully brings about positive
change in their area of activism. In the case of Mark Fischer’s book ‘Capitalist Realism’ he speaks
of the ruling ontology “denying the possibility of a social causation of mental illness”6, and by
considering mental illness as an “individual chemico-biological problem”7 , it has enormous benefits
for capitalism by enforcing the drive of individualisation. This provides a good example for how
society operates on a wider basis, concentrating the issues of society so to consider the individual
responsible for instigating change. It is widely understood that change that comes from the
individual cannot have as large an impact than if the action is aimed at a systemic level. Here, the
artistic practices within contemporary art have a noticeable advantage on individual activism by
providing an environment for collaborative art practice which can act in facilitating social structures
or “creative interventions”8. We will examine artistic collaborations later in the essay which have
managed to do precisely this, and evaluate their operative success.
Neoliberal culture and individualisation of the individual are interwoven in their operation in society,
and directly interact with all aspects of culture which combine to form such communities within
society. Contemporary art practice is embedded in the neoliberal structures of society as much as
any other aspect of the market, but unlike other aspects of the market (business, politics,
democracy..) contemporary art rewards itself with the ability to critique and challenge the social
structures that govern our society from a position exclusive to itself. The initial, most probably
5
common ground
6
capitalist realism mark Fischer
7
capitalist realism mark fischer
8
William Davies - Nervous states
apparent social governance comes from money, and the marketisation and monetisation of public
sectors, political sectors, educational sectors, among many more, the economic business sector: it
is not to say that contemporary art isn't monetised or capitalised on, because it is just as much as
other sectors of the market, however, contemporary art has the ability to operate on other
currencies than a monetised form of transaction. Contemporary art has wealth that is not defined
by money or capital worth - it has an alternative system of value available to it. For art practice,
there can be an exchange or translation between different systems of value, or different cultures: in
his book titled After Art, David Joselit puts an emphasis on the significance of scalability - “of
multiple branching of connections that lead away from the individual to the locale, nation, and
world”9, and the worth of connectivity through art practice. He uses “connections” as a definition of
power, and the scalability of art practice to magnify its connection and therefore power to impact on
the individual on a global scale: in the context of art facilitating social change, the idea of valuing
an artistic practice by its connectivity is interesting to consider. Cultural capital is a term widely
used by art critics when discussing the position an art practice or art object has in society and its
social mobility among other aspects of society, relating nicely to the alternative “cultural currency of
exchange” that Joselit discusses in his book. The equivocal term for monetary value is financial
capital, which can be used when referring to the economic value of an artwork - the fact that art
practice and objects can operate on two separate systems of value can be seen to increase the
importance of the cultural capital due to its purposeful categorisation of definitions of capital,
segregating it from the capitalist value of financial trade. ((bring it back to socially motivated art
practices………after art, currency, social transactions, currency of social interaction, ))
The difference between art which insights opinion and reaction, and art practice which practices for
the purpose and outcome of positive social change must be made clear here. Art practice which
has been given agency can work as a mechanism to produce change, as opposed to art which
evokes a reaction in the viewer but the impact of the work ends when the viewer no longer
engages with it. Here, Bruno Latour’s ‘Actor-network theory’ can be applied to art practice as social
9
AFTER ART : David Joselit pg 59
agent: the theory focuses on the fact that agents in networks of power, activism and knowledge do
not have to be limited to conventional humanist assumptions - they can be non-human, organic or
inorganic and can act with the same valid agency as a human. On this premise, an ‘actor network’
is a series of actions and reactions which determine a set of outcomes, and in the case of social
change, it may be the series of actions which lead to positive social action. To apply this theory to
artistic practice, the practice would be understood as something not just for artistic gain, but
credited in playing a decisive roll in determining positive social change. In the same way, art
objects can be afforded with value further than having an aesthetic function, and understood as an
agent in the ‘actor network’ chain. Art having agency can be argued as wholly necessary in
bringing about social change - without agency, it is hard to functionally instigate positive change
through a practice rather than an individual. Alfred Gell discusses the values of art that go further
than aesthetic value in his book called Art and Agency: as an anthropologist, he evaluates the
human impact of art upon culture and the way it affects social interactions. He explores the
instrumental action of art and the means by which art practice influences the thoughts and actions
of others; he argues that art objects and practices have “complex intentionality's and mediate
social agency” and speaks of “persons and art objects merging together”10 . If what Gell argues has
legitimacy, it reinforces the recognition that art practices have the potential to use that agency in
facilitating positive social change. Gell speaks of art as “a system of action, intended to change the
world rather than encode symbolic propositions about it”, which is important in considering the part
that artistic practices can play in facilitating social activism.
An understanding of ‘social change’ as a phrase or notion next needs to be made in order to
debate its possible facilitation through an art practice.
‘Art Activism’ is a phrase coined by many art theorists and critics to label artistic practices which
operate to change social conditions by means of their practice. Boris Groys wrote an essay for Eflux journal on the subject of art activism, and amongst a detailed critical analysis, his narrative
10
Art and Agency - Alfred Gell.
defines the genre of art activism as a means of art practice: he writes of “Art activists”11 rather than
artists, which suggests a separate label for a certain discipline of art practice, not based on
discipline but rather on intention of the artist. Groys recognises the difference between politically or
socially charged art, and art that operates in order to facilitate social change: the notion that art
activists want to go further than criticise the art system, or the general political and social
conditions under which the system functions. Art activists want to change these conditions by
means of art - “not so much inside the art system but outside it, in reality itself”12 . This brand or
genre of art practice which Groys, along with other critics speak of, is the area of artistic practice
which would seem to be most likely to address the effect of individualisation on the individual in
neoliberal culture. Rather than a movement of art practice, it can be argued that art activism is
defined by the intention of the artist/ artists, under which most disciplines of art practice could
operate beneath. That is to say that an artist such as Ai Wei Wei can be seen as an art activist, but
who works in sculpture among other material practices, who’s work did not result exclusively in
objects, but in the exercise of power. Ai’s artistic practice took the opportunity to be politically
charged as a result of his international recognition, but he went further than political opinion or
critique - he used his artistic platform and his wide spread recognition to post on his blog
(2006-2009)13 quoting statistics about the many deaths of students in the inadequately built
schools that got destroyed during the Sichuan earthquake: this achieved global awareness of the
systemic failings of the Chinese government in the aforementioned series of events. It is clear that
Ai Wei Wei can be referred to as an ‘art activist’ through artistic decisions in his career, however it
is still worth noting the difference between art practice by means of social change, and raising
awareness of socio-political issues so that others in other sectors of the market address the
problem to instigate social change (as in Ai Wei Wei’s case).
11
Boris Groys on art activism for e-flux journal
12
ibid.
13
Ai Weiwei's Blog: Writings, Interviews, and Digital Rants, 2006-2009 (Writing Art)
To bring clarity to the margin between these two forms of artistic practices, a study of a variety of
artists operating under the bracket of ‘art activists’ must be done. In order to understand whether
art practice can be a means to addressing or challenging the atomised nature of individualised
society, we must first visit a variety of artists/ art groups who have applied their art practice by
means of change to relevant social issues. Some of these examples apply directly to the label of
Art Activists - other art groups do not identify with a certain label of art practice, but something they
all have in common is that their work can be seen as ‘art practice by means of social change’14 .
Through analysing the intention and results of these artists’ practices, it will be made easier to
assess whether artistic practice can directly address and facilitate change in the atomisation of
neoliberal society. Despite the artists/ art groups addressing different social issues, it is important
to analyse whether their success is as a result of their unique position as artists, and whether it is
affected by the welfare state, education systems, the market or social influences, which all operate
within the competitive market of capitalism. When analysing the practice of these artists, the
credibility and social mobility of their work must be considered - the unique position of an artist in
society has been previously discussed as a positive and advantageous perspective to have,
especially when addressing social issues and instigating change: however, it can be argued that an
artistic identity can affect the credibility of socially charged work, especially when being critiqued
from a socio-political perspective. This is something we will revisit during the individual case
studies, as it is likely to affect some practices more than others - first we must come to a basic
understanding of the practice of the artists, their intention, and the field of social change they
operate within.
To begin we will look at an artistic collaboration called Forensic Architecture, who operate from
within the University of Goldsmiths and are currently one of the nominees for this year’s Turner
Prize. Forensic Architecture are a group of creatively skilled individuals who operate under an
artistic collaboration, and who apply their skills to facilitating justice through multiple disciplines of
14
Boris Groys on art activism for e-flux journal
practice: they bring about new material and “aesthetic sensibilities”
15
to bear upon the legal and
political implications of state violence, armed conflict and climate change. They have a processbased artistic practice, which does not operate solely for artistic value - it operates for the
facilitation of justice16 . They commit to investigating the actions and decisions made by states and
corporations and to hold them accountable for their actions through the act of ‘forensis’. Eyal
Weizman is the architect who formed Forensic Architecture in 2011, beginning their practice as
something which had not been previously carried out: when Weizman speaks of their process, he
explains their facilitation of an “operative concept of a critical practice”, not just committing itself to
investigating the actions of states, but also to applying critique to current processes of forensic
investigation in place during judicial circumstances. In a more practical or material sense, the
application of specific, skilled artistic practices to a united goal can be argued as the element of
their process which allows them to identify as an artistic collaboration. In each investigation they
carry out, it is clearly apparent where they have applied artistic practice to the case - during an
investigation in to the use of US drone strikes in Waziristan, a rare piece of video evidence and a
witness report came together with the help of Forensic Architecture to be credible evidence used
in court17. The investigation was in to the secretive drone warfare used by the US against Pakistani
people - Forensic Architecture used a video taken of the aftermath of a drone strike to piece
together exactly what had happened in the room where the drone missile had hit - the decisive
piece of evidence came from the use of artistic knowledge of photographic film development. By
carefully studying the video frame which captured the room the missile hit, Weizman noticed the
wall had been “pockmarked with hundreds of small traces from the explosion” which were identified
as the hundreds of tiny munitions heads which are designed to kill people when the blast goes off.
Through his detailed study of each of the video frames which contained the wall, Weizman could
see the “shadows” on the wall where fragments had not made contact with the wall - from this he
15
Introduction: Forensis - Eyal Weizman
16
The rise of forensic architecture: www.architectmagizine.com/design/culture/
the_rise_of_forensic_architecture_o
17
e-flux journal #64 - April 2015 - Violence at the Threshold of Detectability - Eyal Weizman
could deduct that this was where humans had been stood in the room when the missile hit. He
wrote of “the wall itself functioning as a photographic film” where the people in the room were
“exposed to the blast in a similar way in which a photographic negative is exposed to light”. The
unique angle that Forensic Architecture take allows them to create “a mediated speech of
inanimate objects”18 which through their practice they make evident, credible, and persuasive.
Through converting these inanimate objects or landscapes in to image and date, they make them
visible and audible for presentation as evidence. This is where we must question what it means for
their ‘art’ to be used as ‘evidence’: Weizman does not attempt to define his collaborative artistic
practice with a genre of art practice, and it is at the point of implementation where the work could
gain new meaning. When the collaborative work of Forensic Architecture is complete, and the
evidence, through multi-disciplinary practices has been pieced together, it can be implemented in
court as legitimate and credible evidence. Weizman has spoken of the importance of
understanding the relationship between the “architectural materiality and events”, in order for the
work to be credible in a court of law - he says “we’re very practical. It’s important to provide
evidence to convince people and win cases”. It is worth revisiting Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network
theory at this point of examination in to Forensic Architecture’s work - Latour suggests that agency
in a network of power can be awarded to anything, and is not limited to ‘conventional humanist
assumptions’. The network of power, detailed as a series of actions and reactions which determine
a set of outcomes, can be applied very accurately to the process and practice of forensic
architecture. The series of actions and reactions can be traced from Forensic Architecture’s use of
theoretical, historical, experimental and technical practices to build a “quasi-discipline”, and work
towards formulating their final outcome: credible evidence. Weizman comments on their practice
as continuously opening up “new political or technological possibilities”, ensuring that they continue
to operate “where the political edge is”. Latour’s theory applies to the facilitation of artistic practices
in a chain of actions, the final action being the work used as evidence in prosecution - their work
has been used in UN human rights courts on multiple occasions.
18
Introduction: Forensis - Eyal Weizman
Weizman and his artistic collaboration operate within an institution, named Goldsmiths University.
They receive funding from arts councils, artistic organisations, and educational institutions
alongside direct commissions for specific case studies. It was previously discussed that we must
analyse whether their success is as a result of their unique position as artists, and whether that is
affected by the welfare state, education systems, the market or social influences, which all operate
within the competitive market of capitalism. Here, we must revisit the analysis of an artistic practice
having the ability to facilitate positive social change: in the case of Forensic Architecture, their
purpose of operation and practice is for justice, so in that sense it can be argued that their practice
facilitates positive social change. Now we must ask how they operate so successfully in bringing
about justice, as a form of artistic practice. Forensic Architecture are recognised as an artistic
collaboration: they operate in the art world, and were nominated for the 2018 Turner Prize. In
recent years, the financial cuts to the welfare and social sector of the market have been extreme,
and groups like Forensic Architecture benefit from working as artists rather than social activists.
Boris Groys refers to the “aestheticization of activism” in his essay on Art Activism, and by
aestheticising activism in their practice, Forensic Architecture allows themselves to be applicable
for funding which would not be available to them if they were operating in the social sector. It can
be argued here that not only can art bring about positive social change, but it may be able to more
effectively than an organisation operating in the social sector: the funds available to an artistic
organisation, especially one as successful as forensic architecture are more plentiful than funding
they would receive in the social sector. One of the organisations which funds Forensic Architecture
are “The Open Society Foundations”, who work to build “vibrant and tolerant democracies whose
governments are accountable and open to the participation of all people.”19 It can be argued that
the exposure and recognition that the Turner Prize, and other artistic institutions such as The Tate
has given Forensic Architecture has facilitated funding that they would not have previously
recieved: they received their funding grant from The Open Society Foundation after they were
nominated for the Turner Prize in 2018. This brings us back to the importance of connectivity as a
system of value in artistic practice, Joselit’s book outlines the “multiple branching of connections
19
open society foundation
that lead away from the individual to the locale, nation, and world” which are awarded to successful
artists and art practices. These successes can help enhance the success of social change in an
artistic practice exponentially if the success is facilitating the increase of financial funding to the
artistic practice. The worth of connectivity through art practice is transferable to funding and
success of social change by means of artistic practice.
Joselit’s theory of connectivity and its worth in art practice is particularly relevant to an artist named
Tania Bruguera. Bruguera is a Cuban born artist, who works between Havana and New York, and
identifies as “artist and activist”, having had solo works on show in international art institutions,
namely a year long Turbine Hall commission in the Tate Modern20. Over the last 20 years,
Bruguera has dedicated her practice to challenging major political concerns - her work often
questions power structures, behaviours and values, and often aims to turn the passive viewer in to
an active citizen. She and Forensic architecture both work within an educational institution, which
helps fund their practice, and consequently their protest: the connectivity that is so prevalent in
Bruguera’s success as an internationally recognised artist, awards her with the exposure she
needs to stage the artistic interventions she is famous for, which catalyse social activism in the
audience/ participants. Bruguera also founded an organisation called “Asociacion de Arte Útil”,
which “draws on artistic thinking to imagine, create and implement tactics that change how we act
in society.”21 . This is an international online community which through different methods of artistic
practice, people are developing new methods and social formations to “deal with issues that were
once the domain of the state”. This ‘handing over’ of responsibility from the state to the artistic
community to address and tackle social issues has a strong reminiscence with Latour’s theory of
Actor Network - the interchanging model of the theory can provide a framework for “agents of
power”22 to be equally effective whether an artistic practice or a social service.
20
tate turbine hall commission exact details
21http://www.arte-util.org/about/colophon/
22
actor network theory
The significance of Bruguera’s work is incredibly relevant to the political context in which she
stages her practice: the political environment of Cuba is incredibly oppressive and freedom of
speech is forbidden, therefore to stage interventions and participatory artworks which create a
space where censorship is dismissed is incredibly powerful. Bruguera’s work is incredibly socially
charged, and it is this form of art activism which draws upon the writings of Boris Groy’s on ‘Art and
Power’23. Groys writes of the political significance of artistic practice, highlighting the distinction
between “arts function in markets and its political power as ideological expression and persuasion”:
this distinction between the different modes of function which art can carry out is important in this
question of whether art can effectively generate positive social change. The idea that art practice
can have the power to persuade its audience ideologically is particularly relevent to Bruguera’s
practice: she has been arrested and detained on multiple occasions for using her practice to speak
out against the political governance in Cuba. In terms of her artistic practice, she believes that art
can provide a “safe platform from which to have a dialogue about political ideas and even try new
political structures”, constantly using her practice to critique the ideologies of her government, and
challenging a totalitarian power structure. In 2009, the Biennial in Havana was taking place, and
Bruguera staged her piece for the festival at the Wilfredo Lamb Centre, the institution which hosts
the Biennial: she put up a stage with a podium, 2 microphones, and a lavish backdrop in the
courtyard of the building. She had 2 actors impersonating Cuban militaria on the stage to
‘supervise’ the proceedings. One of the microphones was hooked up to an amp and speaker on
the outside of the building, pointing out in to the street, and the other was hooked up to the speaker
in the courtyard. Bruguera invited people to the stage, for 1 minute at a time, allowed freedom of
speech, using a white dove placed on the participants shoulder by the militaria whilst speaking as a
symbol of revolution and safety in non-censorship. The work was called “Tatlin’s Whisper #6,
Havana Version”, and allowed 39 citizens to make use of the microphones to express their affinity
with the political system in Cuba or to criticise it. Bruguera encouraged freedom of expression and
worked with “reality not representation” in order to instigate political activism in a country where is
is otherwise banned and punished heavily. This can be argued to be an art practice which is a
23
Boris Groys Art and Power
direct act of social change, facilitating its unique position in a strongly governed society to create
an alternative political moment: for the first time in 50 years, a public tribune was allowed for
people to express their ideas. Groys’ theory that art has both a market value and a political power
of ideological expression and persuasion24 ties in with what Joselit writes about in After Art25 ,
where he is discussing art and power. In the case of Bruguera, Forensic Architecture, and Art Util,
Joselit’s opinion that the “specific format that art assumes lands it with a unique form of power” - it
is true to say that art which is politically or socially charged to instigate change always has a very
specific form of practice in order to achieve this goal of positive social change.
Despite it being written that art is capable of “fashioning diplomatic identities” and claims being
made that “its power has probably never been greater”26, it is important to consider the critique of
artistic practices attempting to facilitate positive social change. Groys offers a strong critique on Art
Activism in his essay for Eflux, writing about the “historically new position” of contemporary art to
try to make itself “useful”. Groys' critique is interesting to discuss, as he both writes about the
strong power of art both in a market, politically and socially, but he offers a strong critique of what
he calls the “aestheticisatoin of activism”. The question must be asked, whether the context of art
practice takes away from the validity and credit of the positive social change. If the work to facilitate
social change is operating in an artistic hemisphere and is carried out by artists - does this affect
the credibility of the outcome? It is certainly a question that is asked in respect of Forensic
Architecture’s work27 , especially in reference to the credibility of the evidence provided by them in
human rights courts if it is attained in an “artistic mode of intervention”. It is interesting that Groys
believes that Art Activism fails on a “pragmatic, practical level - on the level of its immediate social
and political impact”, especially after examining the works of Bruguera and Forensic Architecture,
who are widely recognised both as successful artists, and as social activists. Groys writes that it is
24
art and power groys
25
after art joselit
26
after art joselit
27
Forensic Architecture - Forensis
the “art” part of art activism that is often seen as the reason why the activism fails on a pragmatic
level: here we will discuss this claim in reference to an artistic collaboration called
‘Wochenklausur’. Wochenklausur is an Austrian art collective which was founded in 1992, who's
aim is to “use artistic strategies to overcome bureaucratic hurdles to social and economic
difficulties on a micro scale within specific communities”28 . They are not institutionalised like
Forensic Architecture or Tania Bruguera, and rely solely on funding and resources from specific
cultural institutions and local governments. The name “Wochenklausur” means “weeks of
enclosure”, and reflects the transient nature of their work - only working on interventions in specific
communities on specific problem-solving measures for a matter of weeks. The group has a
fluctuating number of members, but it is usually around 30, and has staged 41 interventions since
its first in Vienna in 1993. The group operates internationally, and believes by applying “an art that
acts - independent of profit and populism - in possibilities, that seeks to examine and improve
conditions of coexistence”, that they can provide explicitly local, long term, community based
solutions to socio-political problems.
Groys’ antagonism with art activism is based on writings by Walter Benjamin and Guy Debord,
stating that the notions ‘spectacularity” and “aestheticisation” of politics, including political activism
are bad things because they “divert attention away from the practical goals of political protest and
towards its aesthetic form”: this theory can be applied to art activism. It means that art can’t be
used as a medium of genuine protest, because the use of art for activism “aestheticises” the
action, turns it in to a “spectacle” and neutralises the pragmatic and practical effect of this action.
This question of success is particularly relevant to the work of Wochenklausur, who's work
operates within political and social sectors rather than art institutions and markets. Rather than the
attention being diverted from the goals of political protest due to aestheticisation, the short term
nature of Wochenklausur’s interventions leads to long term issues - despite manufacturing specific
and sustainable solutions designed to catalyse permanent social change, when Wochenklausur’s
28
WochenKlausur
by Voigt, Kirsten Claudia
Kunstforum International, 04/2015, Issue 232
intervention is over, they have to hand the project over to local government and trust that the
project will continue to receive funding and support. In many cases, such as their “Intervention to
Aid Drug-Addicted Women”29, in Zurich, Wochenklausur secured support from local government,
both financially and politically, and produced a solution to the struggles that were met by homeless
women who had turned to prostitution and were also suffering from drug addictions - however, after
7 successful years, the city discontinued its financial contribution, forcing the facility set up by
Wochenklausur to end its operations30. As put by Hans Haacke, there are “no artists who are
immune to being affected and influenced by the socio-political value-system of the society in which
they live and of which all cultural agencies are a part”31 ; despite contemporary art being in an
advantageous position to critique the society and culture it is embedded in, it still has to operate
within the same constraints of this cultural/political environment. This means that active art like that
of Wochenklausur can easily fall victim to failure as a result of external influences, as their practice
operates so intrinsically in the social and political sector, relying on funding and resources which
are forever subject to change. The criticism that Groys offers is based around the idea of
aestheticisation, and the transformation of political or social activism in to ‘mere representation’,
building on the argument that ‘to aestheticise things of the present means to discover their
dysfunctional and unworkable character’, in turn rendering the activism element of the art
‘nonusable and obsolete’. However, it is a much less aestheticised form of art practice we are
examining here - rather than working with ‘representation’, these artists work with reality, using
functional practices which operate in the specific market they are embedded in. The work is
aestheticised, especially for the purpose of documentation, presentation and exhibition, however,
there is a catalytic element to the practice of these artists which instigates change.
29
http://www.wochenklausur.at/projwahl.php?lang=en
30
Art, Activism, and Democracy: WochenKlausur's Social Interventions, by Hawley, Elizabeth S
Peace & Change, 01/2015, Volume 40, Issue 1
31
Institute of Contemporary Arts 1974, Art into society: Seven German artists:-Albrecht D., Joseph
Beuys, K.P. Brehmer, Hans Haacke, Dieter Hacker, Gustav Metzger, Klaus Staeck : catalogue of
an exhibition held at the Institute of Contemporary Arts, 30 Oct. 24 Nov. 1974,
With this critique, and the evaluation of art practices operating for their own specific means of
positive social change in mind, we must return to the question which asks if this form of art practice
is capable of addressing the affect of individualisation in neoliberal culture. It was discussed
previously that individualisation has created an environment where groups of political or social
activists find it increasingly difficult to achieve satisfying positive systemic change in their area of
activism32 . We have learned from studying collectives such as Forensic Architecture and
Wochenklausur that operating within the art market allows for collaborative activism in a unique
way in comparison to the social sector. It is important to note that as Haacke rightly stated, it is
impossible to be unaffected by the ‘socio-political value-system of the society in which they live and
of which all cultural agencies are a part’, however as far as working collaboratively and facilitating a
movement of social change amongst a sense of collective individuals, the environment of artistic
collaboration allows for it in a unique way. It is precisely this ability to form a collective of individuals
which has the potential to directly challenge the effect of individualisation in neoliberal culture on
society. Creating a community is about bringing people together and establishing a connection
through shared experience: through an artistic practice which aims to create an environment in
which a community can function, my project ‘Congregate’ has established a space where meals
are shared, on multiple occasions during a week, bringing people together.
32
common ground