I read with interest Peter Goldie’s articleabout deception and conceptual art on the BSA website today. (To read click on text). Although the paper is certainly interesting and thought-provoking, in this post I will discuss what I think is wrong with some of Goldie’s claims (I am not going to consider the claims he makes relating to deception in social psychology). In the article, Goldie uses two examples of conceptual art, Space Closed by Corrugated Metal by Santiago Sierra and Going Places by Leeds 13 (for details of the works see Goldie’s article). Goldie claims that the deception involved in an artwork can increase its aesthetic merit even though it is an ethical demerit. In my opinion, although it is clear that deception was involved in the production of both the artworks mentioned, Goldie has given the deceptive element way too much priority over the central content and aim of the works which is ‘provocation’. To discover that one has been deceived is ultimately to be provoked in some way. One can either get annoyed, angry or sad at the deception, if it is serious or harmful, or laugh at it, if it is genuinely funny. However, for a lot of people many of the provocations offered by conceptual art, as with many April Fool’s jokes, are horrifically unfunny and a bit of a bore. As with the bad joke, one often feels forced to laugh in these situations because one doesn’t want to be seen as ‘not in the know’ or lacking a sense of humour.

Since Duchamp’s urinal it has been quite obvious that the aim of a lot of conceptual art is not to ‘deceive’ (deception is not a central part of the ‘content’ of the work) but to ‘provoke’ (emotions, ideas thoughts etc.). Deception has sometimes been used as a tool with which to provoke. Surely then it is the ‘provocation’ of the artwork (not the ‘deception’) that may increase its aesthetic merit, although how much aesthetic merit/cognitive value there is in being provoked is another matter. For example, I might decide to do something that will provoke a pompous and self-important member of staff in my department in order to expose the intellectual vanity and egomania present in academia. My fellow students (and perhaps even other faculty members) might find this amusing if done cleverly and with wit but I doubt very much that my act would have aesthetic merit. If I chose to record the act in some way and present it as a work of art people may then desire to see some aesthetic merit in it even if there were none there. I (and others) might then have a laugh about this search for aesthetic merit or claim that the point of the work is to hold a mirror up to these aesthetic pretensions.

However, I think the main problem with these two examples of conceptual art (as well as other pieces) - is that although they may indeed provoke strong reactions, how, if at all, do they differ in value from well-executed practical jokes? In the Sierra work - Yes it is amusing to see self-congratulatory members of the art world turn up to an expensive new gallery expecting canapes and champagne only to discover that its all boarded up (tee hee). Likewise, I think it is amusing and provocative for the Leeds 13 students to get external funding for their ‘art project’ and use it in the way they did. Both works are out to provoke and possibly to have jokes at someone else’s expense. I disagree with Goldie’s swift dismissal of the Leeds project, Going Places, as lacking merit as compared to the Sierra work though. A critic and layperson could easily argue that the cognitive value (or aesthetic merit) of the piece was the way in which the students showed how easy it is to get funding for projects which lack merit, vision or genuine talent, under the auspices of ‘art’ or other intellectual pretensions, if one has the right methods or contacts at one’s disposal. Its a funny and direct way of making this important point. Another point the work seems to make (via the hilarious exhibition of drinking sangria, listening to music and pretending to go on holiday) is the fact that a lot of funding is frittered away and wasted on undeserving projects. I’m sure we can all think of lacklustre or worthless projects in the arts and humanities that have been generously funded to the incredulity of many. A further point to Going Places may be to demonstrate that the way people get external funding or financial sponsorship often implicitly involves some form of mild deception. Deception about the merits and originality of the project, the talent of the people involved etc. Although this kind of deception is not necessarily unethical or completely dishonest it is common practice and something we are all guilty of to greater or lesser degrees. For example, who has never felt personally that they slightly overexaggerated their merits/talents to try and get a job? Or alternatively, knew they weren’t the best person for a job and yet got it through knowing or sucking up to the right people? (Personally, I do object to the second kind of deception but I am all too aware that unfortunately it is quite common for people to operate this way). Anyone who has ever experienced art school and the success of fellow students without merit or talent (the artworld is not only very nepotistic but also littered with mediocre people who have rich patrons (i.e. wealthy parents) or benefactors (i.e. powerful contacts)) will certainly recognise the sentiment behind this work/event. The Leeds 13 work demonstrates these points perfectly and the students should be applauded for their courage and integrity in making such a statement.

Goldie’s failure to see the aesthetic merit of Going Places may be because he does not recognise the points being made by the artwork, or he does not think they are valid points or (as seems more likely from the article) he ethically objects to the fact that financial sponsors were deceived. Whatever the reason Goldie’s view of the work surely says more about his priorities/ethics than about it being a worse artwork than the Sierra. Furthermore, I do not see why the financial sponsors (who would be considered members of the ‘artworld’) would not have the capacity to aesthetically appreciate the points the project was making. Goldie suggests that the sponsors would have just felt ‘duped’ or ‘misled’ and thus resentful. However, this realisation that they have been ‘duped’, if indeed they all did feel that way, should not necessarily lead them to feel resentment. They themselves may (or should) appreciate the point of the work at a deeper level than others and although it may show something about their environment and working practices that is not particularly flattering it may nonetheless be something they can appreciate without resentment. In my view, then Goldie’s claim about the Leeds 13 work (if one is using the same standards applied to the Sierra work) is grounded on his own personal sensibility and preference rather than on ‘aesthetic merit’.

To summarise, both artworks (on paper at least) share one common feature which is the aim to provoke and possibly to have a joke at someone else’s expense. Although this may be a merit of the works surely we also have to ask what is valuable about a clever joke or provocation at someone else’s expense. If both these artworks are structurally no different from an April Fool’s joke, as Goldie appears to suggest, then although both types of activity can be extremely funny it is not at all clear why we would value this kind of art anymore than a clever stylish joke. Alternatively, if it turns out that most conceptual art is no more than an elitist joke or provocation then so be it. As we are all too aware though, the problem with jokes, when told too many times or when not that funny in the first place, is that they have a tendency to grate and bore. Likewise with provocation. Provocation is an important element in culture and is essential for change and development. Provocation with substance can be powerful and unsettling. Some people still find listening to The Sex Pistols’ ‘God Save The Queen’ and ‘Anarchy in the UK’ offensive, and for many the songs are still as powerful and relevant today. However, other kinds of provocation (what I term ‘provocation for provocation’s sake’) akin to the teenager who enjoys shocking her parents by dyeing her hair green etc are viewed by most adults (with patronising fondness) as not only transparent and pointless but also juvenile. A fate that many people feel has happened to how we we view most conceptual art. As the former chairman of the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, Ivan Massow, eloquently put it two years ago: (most conceptual art is) “pretentious, self-indulgent, craftless tat…in danger of disappearing up its own arse.” A statement which is both provocative and quite funny. But is it art though?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 25th, 2004 at 11:13 amand is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.