Intervention art

Art intervention is an interaction with a previously existing artwork, audience, venue/space or situation. It has the auspice of conceptual art and is commonly a form of performance art. It is associated with the Viennese Actionists, the Dada movement and Neo-Dadaists. Stuckists have made extensive use of it to affect perceptions of artworks they oppose and as a protest against existing interventions.

Intervention can also refer to art which enters a situation outside the art world in an attempt to change the existing conditions there. For example, intervention art may attempt to change economic or political situations, or may attempt to make people aware of a condition that they previously had no knowledge of. Since these goals mean that intervention art necessarily addresses and engages with the public, some artists call their work "public interventions".

Although intervention by its nature carries an implication of subversion, it is now accepted as a legitimate form of art and is often executed with the endorsement of those in positions of authority over the artwork, audience, or venue/space to be intervened in. However, unendorsed (i.e. illicit) interventions are common and lead to debate as to the distinction between art and vandalism."Incidents of art vandalism"
cabinetmagazine.org. issue 3. Retrieved March 22, 2006 By definition it is a challenge, or at the very least a comment, related to the earlier work or the theme of that work, or to the expectations of a particular audience, and more likely to fulfil that function to its full potential when it is unilateral, although in these instances, it is almost certain that it will be viewed by authorities as unwelcome, if not vandalism, and not art.

Authorised

There are many art interventions which are carried out in contexts where relevant invitation and approval has been given.

Detroit MONA goes kaBOOM!, 2002

The extreme to which an authorised intervention can go and yet still meet with institutional approval was shown in 2002, when the Museum of New Art in Detroit staged a show ''kaBoom!'', with the announcement, "Over the course of the exhibition, museum visitors will be invited to smash, drop, throw and slash artworks..."Announcement of kaBOOM!
Retrieved March 20, 2006 The show was scheduled for two months, but by the end of the first night had been totally destroyed by visitors:
:"They even destroyed the pedestals and wall shelves," one museum staffer shrugged in disbelief. Fires were set in isolated galleries and a wrecking ball for one display had been removed from its chain and used instead as a bowling ball, taking out an installation as well as the corner of one wall. "In a twisted way, it was a wild success," MONA’s director Jef Bourgeau says the morning after, on a surprisingly bright note as he wades through the carnage and debris.kaBOOM! reviewed
Retrieved March 20, 2006 This follows the precedent of the Dadaists. At one of their shows, visitors were invited to smash the exhibits with an axe.

Hanging Old Masters backwards, 2004

A more usual authorised art intervention in an institution is done with great care to make sure that no harm comes to the existing collection. In 2004, the Old Town House in Cape Town, South Africa, hung its Michaelis Collection of 17th century Dutch Old Master paintings facing the wall. The curator Andrew Lamprecht said this exhibition, titled ''Flip,'' "would force gallery goers to reconsider their preconceptions about the art and its legacy." Knowledge of intent is integral to such a process, as it would be perceived differently if it were announced in a conservation context, rather than as an art piece. However, in this instance there was some ambiguity about the purpose of the exercise as Lamprecht, although stating, "I'm asking questions about the history," also added a more standard "educative" comment, "the reverse of the paintings revealed a wealth of detail not normally on view to the public, ranging from old attempts to preserve the canvas to notes from different collectors over the years," thus lessening the confrontational impact of his actions.

Lord Napier in red tape, 2004

An authorised art intervention which required considerable effort to gain the requisite permission was the wrapping in red duct tape of the equestrian statue of Lord Napier of Magdala, situated on Queen's Gate in West London. This was done by Eleonora Aguiari, a Royal College of Art (RCA) student for her final show. When questioned as to whether she had considered a clandestine act, she replied, "No, not my style, I like to challenge the institutions." In order to do this she needed clearance letters from the RCA Rector, a professor, the Victoria and Albert Museum conservation department and the RCA conservation department, bronze tests, a scaffolding license, indemnity insurance, and permission from English Heritage (who own the statue), the City of Westminster, two Boroughs (Chelsea and Kensington, as their boundary bisects the length of the horse) and the present Lord Napier.

Then a layer of cling wrap and almost 80 rolls of red duct tape were applied by 4 people working for 4 days. Aguiari described it as "a Zen action up there in the middle of traffic, but alone with a beautiful statue. Every detail on the statue is perfect and slightly larger than normal," and said that "statuary that symbolizes military past, or imperialism should be covered to make the topics of the past visible."
"The Red Tape of Red Tape," arcroyal.co.uk
Retrieved March 22, 2006 Aguiari then received a phone call: "Saatchi wants to talk to you," but, on keeping the appointment, she found herself talking not to Charles Saatchi but to Michael Moszynski of the advertising firm, Saatchi & Saatchi, who thought her idea would be suitable for "a Tory advertising campaign," and wanted her to wrap an ambulance in red tape. She declined the offer."Artist Caught up in Red Tape and Tory Ad Campaign", The Guardian, June 12, 2004
Retrieved March 22, 2006

Despite her official clearance, the action caused controversy through press coverage, including a Reuters press agency photo reproduced in the ''Daily Times'' of Pakistan.

Paul Kuniholm at Nordic Heritage Museum, 2013

Paul Kuniholm intervened his steel and textile sculptures worn on the body, with wicker art of his great-grandfather John Emil Kuniholm, posed by The Nordic Heritage Museum in 2013. The action was repeated several more times at locations such as Seattle Art Museum, Taipei, Taiwan, New York City's Central Park, and in Sweden for the Jönköping Municipality.

Illicit

Some artists challenge the orthodoxy by not seeking, or perhaps not being able to obtain, permission, but carry out their intention anyway, contravening regulations—with official reactions of differing degrees of severity.

Concomitant, 1983

Since 1983 Eberhard Bosslet is doing site-specific outdoor intervention: so-called "Re/formations and side effects" at the Canary Islands.

File: Eberhard Bosslet Intervention Bauzeichnung La Restinga II voll El Hierro 1983.jpg, construction drawing - La Restinga II, El Hierro, 1983
File: Eberhard Bosslet Intervention Begleiterscheinung VII 1990.jpg, side effect VII, Guimar, Tenerife, 1990
File: Eberhard Bosslet Intervention Begleiterscheinung X Süd Teneriffa 2006.jpg, side effect X, Tajao, Tenerife, south side, 2006
File: Eberhard Bosslet Intervention Begleiterscheinung XI Era Lanzarote 2008.jpg, side effect X, Tias, Lanzarote, 2008

The black sheep, 1994

In 1994, Damien Hirst curated the show, ''Some Went Mad, Some Ran Away'', at the Serpentine Gallery in London, where he exhibited ''Away from the Flock'' (a sheep in a tank). An artist poured black ink into it, and was subsequently prosecuted, at Hirst's wish. The artist's defence was that he thought Hirst would benefit from the publicity and one critic (Tony Parsons) said the artist's action proved that what Damien Hirst does is art. The exhibit was restored at a cost of £1000.

Two men jump naked into Tracey's bed, 1999

A notable case of an unauthorised intervention—which did no damage, yet was still liable for prosecution—occurred at 12.58 p.m. on October 25, 1999, when two artists, Yuan Chai and Jian Jun Xi, jumped on Tracey Emin's installation ''My Bed,'' in the Turner Prize at Tate Britain, wearing only underwear. They called their performance ''Two Naked Men Jump Into Tracey's Bed.'' They were arrested for their action, but no charges were pressed. Chai had written, among other things, the words "ANTI STUCKISM" on his bare back. They said they were "improving" Emin's work, because they thought it had not gone far enough, and opposed the Stuckists, who are anti-performance art."Satirists Jump into Tracey's Bed", The Guardian, October 25, 1999
Retrieved March 22, 2006

Banksy, c.2000

"Banksy" is the operating name of one of the best-known interventionists in the UK. He has carried out many graffiti stencillings, usually with a specific message or comment. He has also infiltrated his own artwork into museums, where they have remained for varying amounts of time before being removed. In May 2005, for example, he hung his own version of a primitive cave painting, showing a human hunting with a shopping trolley, in the British Museum. He is now one of the most sought-after artists. His work now commands millions of dollars in the auction houses of Britain and America.

Lennie Lee, c.2005

In February 2005 Jewish artist, Lennie Lee, was censored for exhibiting a piece called "Judensau" (Jew pig) in Treptow Town Hall gallery, Berlin. The intervention was organized by the other artists working in the show who claimed (incorrectly) Lee was one of them. Lee's work was designed to put the institution in a difficult position. If they left it on the wall they would be accused of anti-semitism by their opponents. On the other hand, if they took the work down, they would be censoring the work of a Jewish artist dealing with antisemitic stereotypes.

The authorities were forced to take the piece down. The piece attracted considerable attention from the media. Lee offered to remove his "Judensau" on condition that a 14th-century sculpture of a "Judensau" was removed from the side of Martin Luther's church in Wittenberg.

Taking a hammer to a urinal, 2006

On January 4, 2006, while on display in the Dada show in the Pompidou Centre in Paris, Marcel Duchamp's ''Fountain'' was attacked with a hammer by Pierre Pinoncelli, a 77-year-old French performance artist, causing a slight chip. Pinoncelli, who was arrested, said the attack was a work of performance art that Marcel Duchamp himself would have appreciated.Pierre Pinoncelli on BBC website
/ref> This may be true, as on one occasion visitors to a Dada show were invited to smash up the exhibits with an axe. Previously in 1993, Pinoncelli urinated into the piece while it was on display in Nîmes, in southern France. Both of Pinoncelli's performances derive from neo-Dadaists' and Viennese Actionists' intervention or manoeuvre.

The ''Fountain'' attacked by Pinoncelli was actually number 5 of 8 recreated by Duchamp at a much later date, after the original one was lost. Another is on display in the Indiana University Art Museum, and there is one also in Tate Modern, where in 2000 it too was the target of a urination performance (unsuccessful according to the gallery) by Yuan Chai and Jian Jun Xi.

Pencils removed from Damien Hirst's Pharmacy, 2009

Artist Cartrain removed a packet of Faber Castell 1990 Mongol 482 series pencils from Damien Hirst's installation at his restaurant Pharmacy. This followed Hirst's action against Cartrain for using copies of Hirst's work. Cartrain stated:

:For the safe return of Damien Hirsts pencils I would like my artworks back that Dacs and Hirst took off me in November. Its not a large demand he can have his pencils back when I get my artwork back. Dacs are now not taking any notice of my emails and I have asked nicely more than five times to try and resolve this matter. Hirst has until the end of this month to resolve this or on 31st of July the pencils will be sharpened. He has been warned."Cartrain Steals Damien Hirst's Art (Update)"
, Clancco, 8 July 2009. Retrieved 25 July 2010.

Illicit confronts the approved

Although the legal technicalities are straightforward, when an unauthorised intervention intervenes in an officially sanctioned one, the moral issues may be far less straightforward, especially when the legal act meets with widespread public disapproval (even to the point of considering it vandalism), while the illicit reaction to it satisfies a public sense of justice.

String up the perpetrator, 2003

In spring 2003, artist Cornelia Parker

HOME


Content is Copyleft
Website design, code, and AI is Copyrighted (c) 2014-2017 by Stephen Payne


Consider donating to Wikimedia



As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases