Page 12 - Studio International - January 1973

The laws of chance terrorism in order to impose fashions and held in Medellin, Colombia, and the Biennale of
sudden changes on the forms of artistic Engraving in Puerto Rico, etc.
expression. I have on other occasions refused to take part
Julio Le Parc The success in aesthetic terms of a work of art in exhibitions for reasons I made explicit, as for
constitutes absolutely no guarantee whatsoever example at the last Documenta in Kassel, the
of its ability to make a revolutionary Sao Paulo Biennale in 1969, and the 72-72
contribution. Exhibition (the so-called 'Pompidou
A divorce exists between people and artists Exhibition'), etc.
Prelude which cannot be justified on the grounds of the A passive acceptance of M. Lassaigne's
M. Jacques Lassaigne, Conservateur en Chef of people's lack of culture, and which cannot be proposition would have served only to
the Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, remedied by 'bringing culture to the masses' or perpetuate the status quo of the artist's
had offered me a comprehensive one-man show by lowering standards in art, because dependence.
of my experimental work over the period avant-garde art is a bourgeois art that serves the An acceptance of this kind would show an
1959-72, the exhibition to start in mid-June bourgeois ideology; therefore the indifference of obvious contradiction between acceptance on
1972 and continue throughout the summer. the people towards art is a means of defence this occasion and my public refusal at the
This proposition has its origins in the offer against the intoxication of this ideology. 72-72 Exhibition.
made to Mme Denise René two years ago by The monopoly of avant-garde artistic For me to reject M. Lassaigne's proposition
M. Gaudibert, Director of the ARC', to stage a creation is in the hands of a minority, to the as an individual would have ensured me a
major exhibition for one of her artists. detriment of the great majority. certain peace of mind, as it would prevent my
Denise René suggested the project to me. This monopoly is practised and perpetuated becoming the object of criticisms that would
The ARC, being prepared to countenance by artists, collectors, dealers, critics, official art follow a passive acceptance.
certain experiments and confrontations, was, it bodies, aesthetes, art historians, etc. Although the Musée d'Art Moderne de la
seemed to me, the official body that came closest This monopoly is based on an abstract idea of Ville de Paris is autonomous and dependent not
to my own interests. M. Gaudibert gave his art; on the view of the artist as an exceptional on the government but on the City of Paris, it is
approval but kept changing his mind over the being; on the work of art, whether one-off or nevertheless one of the official exhibition centres
date because he was not certain whether he was repeatable, as being beyond analysis but of of Paris.
going to continue as Director of the ARC or commercial worth; on the ultimate sanction The Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de
hand in his resignation. So when my one-man exercised by the connoisseurs; and on the Paris, like the ARC, the Musée National, the
show in Dusseldorf had been settled (it opened submissive and passive attitude of the public. CNAC, etc., is financed from public funds; the
on 17 January 1972) M. Gaudibert was again To combat this situation the artist must be organization and system of selection take
unable to make any definite arrangement with put on a par with the ordinary worker; the absolutely no account of the possibility of
the management of the Kunsthalle in pretension of creating works of art must be participation by interested artists, and even less
Düsseldorf. It was at this point that M. Lassaigne transformed into a constant experimentation; by the public.
declared himself ready either to support the pretension of the connoisseurs must be The role of the artistic activities pursued in
M. Gaudibert in his venture, or to collaborate ignored and the opinion of the people listened to these centres is for the most part, whether
with him, or to take over the idea of an exhibition instead; the spectator must be liberated from the voluntarily or not, to pass on the ideology of
himself. It was not until the end of January that inhibitions imposed on him by art in its the ruling class.
M. Gaudibert asked M. Lassaigne to assume self-appointed role of superior activity and he The idea of the exclusive nature of art is
responsibility, while he, for reasons of which I must develop his capacity for action and perpetuated by the discrimination and selection
am ignorant, would give up his part in the creativity. practised in these centres; the traditional
project. In general, artists in capitalist societies merely function of the artist is held to be, in parallel
lend their support in the artistic field to the with other activities of the art world, that of
Analysis doctrines of these societies and, as a result, pass a superior individual who has a monopoly of
Here I propose to analyse the considerations of a on to us bourgeois ideology. artistic creativity in just the way others have a
general nature that were relevant to my In capitalist countries the emphasis should be monopoly of the means of production, the
particular case, that is, my own problem in shifted from artistic products to the management of the economy, political life, etc.
responding to M. Lassaigne's proposition. ATTITUDE the artist adopts towards Although a very large number of artists
These considerations are as follows : the capitalist system. arrived at a group decision not to participate
My explorations and the work I produce exist Revolutionary culture should not have the in the 72-72 Exhibition, no position has yet been
within the context of the rigid mechanisms of same structure as bourgeois culture, which adopted towards official exhibition centres
supply and demand of the bourgeois society. tends to support the privileged class; it should such as the Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville
There is no art that does not have a political be the product of the creative effort of a whole de Paris.
content; neutral art is a myth of the prevailing people aspiring to new ways of life. In the last analysis these official centres and
ideology. The true revolution in art will be brought other private centres, with all the means they
Art today is in a state of crisis because the about by the people once they are in a position have at their disposal, make only a limited effort
values of capitalist society are in a state of crisis. to make a reasoned rejection of the bourgeois at spreading art; at the same time they
Art as it is conceived today is the product of idea of art and create the possibilities of new constitute a screen which hides the social reality
the bourgeois ideology. relations between men. of the problems of the art world, precisely as
Most of the guiding ideas in the field of art I have frequently agreed to have exhibitions, did the 72-72 Exhibition with its publicity
derive from countries that practise political, simply because it is the accepted practice. displays and its considerable resources.
economic and military imperialism and employ I have sometimes given my consent on There can be an alternative for the artist to
culture as one of their weapons. condition that my demands be met — that I be that of being a sort of `long-distance runner' in
International criticism and a number of allowed to develop my analyses to demonstrate pursuit of success.
cultural organizations practise intellectual the contradictions of my situation and those of That success may very well be the result of a
the art world by means of discussions aimed at talent adapted to the demands of the art world,
'Animation, Recherche, Confrontation', a exploring ways of producing changes; as,
contemporary research group attached to Musée or of a passing stroke of luck, or of chance
d'Art Modeme. for example, when I took part in the Biennale connections, but the achievement is always