re: Television Delivers People by Richard Serra
re: Television Delivers People by Richard Serra
Hold My Life by The Replacements
The distinction made between "video art" and "guerilla TV" is one that has its
uses, but should not be considered definitive. There are few, if any, "avant-
garde" videotapes that could truly fall within one of these categories. Rather,
most video makers integrate both socio-political and aesthetic issues in their
work. This should demonstrate that "art" and "activism" are not two opposing
impulses, but simply words given to specific forms of creative expression
within the medium. They refer to certain aspects of independent video
productions, and serve to place these works within a generalized interpretive
framework, but they are not antithetical nor mutually exclusive concepts.
This seems so obvious as to cause one to wonder how this false dichotomy arose.
No doubt it was due to the political agendas of the individuals who first began
working with the new medium. They specifically abdicated their status as
"artists" -- at least in name. This was done to remove the work from the
context of the "art world," with all of its ties to commerce and government.
Thus, independent video makers could be liberated from the constraints of the
Establishment, and so set about to dismantle it.
However, this was an exercise in self-deception. These people were artists, and
they were engaging in creative activity, regardless of what they called it. The
mere fact that this work was immediately absorbed into the art establishment
illustrates its true nature. One can say "This is not art" until one is blue in
the face, but if the work ends up being studied in a college art history class,
the claim appears completely ludicrous.
Of course, the first people to make this mistake were the Dadas. They, however,
can be forgiven, considering the novelty of the idea at the time of its initial
exposition, and the overall historical context. Dada was a necessary phase in
the development of modern art: the belated assassination of social conventions
and academic restraints. It enabled artists to start afresh, to explore
hitherto inaccessible realms of expression.
Unfortunately, the Fluxus movement, as well as those "guerilla" people (who
claimed not to be artists at all) merely resurrected an art form which was no
longer valid. This derivative approach was the first sign of the degeneration
of the arts, later to be canonized as "postmodernism."
The art/activism polarization also disintegrates when one considers guerilla
actions undertaken by "established" artists, who willingly operate within the
systems of state and commerce. Surely among the most radical of acts was
Richard Serra's broadcast of Television Delivers People. Here, a well-known
sculptor has chosen to brazenly display anti-establishment sentiments within
the context of corporate broadcast TV. (How did he get away with this???) There
can be no doubt that Serra considers himself an artist. He has used that status
to infiltrate the System to attempt to effect revolutionary change in mass
consciousness. This is true activism, even though it was placed in an aesthetic
context from the outset.
The lines get even more blurry when those activist messages are finally co-
opted by the very industries they seek to criticize. For example, the music
video for "Hold My Life" by The Replacements has a somewhat radical character
in that it violates the conventions of "commercial art." However, one cannot
consider it "fine art," because despite its superficial overtones of consumer
alienation, it remains a product to be parlayed solely for customer
gratification. (It seems paradoxical that alienation is now a commodity, but a
quick review of the punk rock movement shows that rebellion is easily bought
and sold by multinational corporations.) Nor is "Hold My Life" effective as a
guerilla action, and for the same reasons. Ultimately, the video reinforces the
status quo, and does not threaten the capitalistic structures which sustain it.
It is infinitely significant to note that the only intelligible text in the
piece other than the chorus line, "Hold my life," is the copyright message at
the end. After three minutes of ersatz political rhetoric, the viewer is given
a glimpse at the true underlying meaning of the piece ...
Hold My Life by The Replacements
The distinction made between "video art" and "guerilla TV" is one that has its
uses, but should not be considered definitive. There are few, if any, "avant-
garde" videotapes that could truly fall within one of these categories. Rather,
most video makers integrate both socio-political and aesthetic issues in their
work. This should demonstrate that "art" and "activism" are not two opposing
impulses, but simply words given to specific forms of creative expression
within the medium. They refer to certain aspects of independent video
productions, and serve to place these works within a generalized interpretive
framework, but they are not antithetical nor mutually exclusive concepts.
This seems so obvious as to cause one to wonder how this false dichotomy arose.
No doubt it was due to the political agendas of the individuals who first began
working with the new medium. They specifically abdicated their status as
"artists" -- at least in name. This was done to remove the work from the
context of the "art world," with all of its ties to commerce and government.
Thus, independent video makers could be liberated from the constraints of the
Establishment, and so set about to dismantle it.
However, this was an exercise in self-deception. These people were artists, and
they were engaging in creative activity, regardless of what they called it. The
mere fact that this work was immediately absorbed into the art establishment
illustrates its true nature. One can say "This is not art" until one is blue in
the face, but if the work ends up being studied in a college art history class,
the claim appears completely ludicrous.
Of course, the first people to make this mistake were the Dadas. They, however,
can be forgiven, considering the novelty of the idea at the time of its initial
exposition, and the overall historical context. Dada was a necessary phase in
the development of modern art: the belated assassination of social conventions
and academic restraints. It enabled artists to start afresh, to explore
hitherto inaccessible realms of expression.
Unfortunately, the Fluxus movement, as well as those "guerilla" people (who
claimed not to be artists at all) merely resurrected an art form which was no
longer valid. This derivative approach was the first sign of the degeneration
of the arts, later to be canonized as "postmodernism."
The art/activism polarization also disintegrates when one considers guerilla
actions undertaken by "established" artists, who willingly operate within the
systems of state and commerce. Surely among the most radical of acts was
Richard Serra's broadcast of Television Delivers People. Here, a well-known
sculptor has chosen to brazenly display anti-establishment sentiments within
the context of corporate broadcast TV. (How did he get away with this???) There
can be no doubt that Serra considers himself an artist. He has used that status
to infiltrate the System to attempt to effect revolutionary change in mass
consciousness. This is true activism, even though it was placed in an aesthetic
context from the outset.
The lines get even more blurry when those activist messages are finally co-
opted by the very industries they seek to criticize. For example, the music
video for "Hold My Life" by The Replacements has a somewhat radical character
in that it violates the conventions of "commercial art." However, one cannot
consider it "fine art," because despite its superficial overtones of consumer
alienation, it remains a product to be parlayed solely for customer
gratification. (It seems paradoxical that alienation is now a commodity, but a
quick review of the punk rock movement shows that rebellion is easily bought
and sold by multinational corporations.) Nor is "Hold My Life" effective as a
guerilla action, and for the same reasons. Ultimately, the video reinforces the
status quo, and does not threaten the capitalistic structures which sustain it.
It is infinitely significant to note that the only intelligible text in the
piece other than the chorus line, "Hold my life," is the copyright message at
the end. After three minutes of ersatz political rhetoric, the viewer is given
a glimpse at the true underlying meaning of the piece ...