BLOUIN ARTINFO
Published on BLOUIN ARTINFO (http://www.blouinartinfo.com)

English

Marina Abramovic Advocates Serfdom for Artists in Overlooked MOCA Gala Video

  • Email
  • Print
  • Tweet
  • Pin It
Courtesy MOCA
Video still from "An Artist's Life Manifesto" at L.A. MOCA
by Ben Davis
Published: January 10, 2012

Marina Abramovic's L.A. MOCA gala, and the outrage inspired by it, was certainly one of the biggest stories of 2011 in art. If you will recall, back in November, legendary avant-garde dancer Yvonne Rainer denounced the spectacle — which was titled "An Artist's Life Manifesto," and involved diners eating around nude female models draped with skeletons and other models serving as human centerpieces —  in an open letter. Sarah Wookey, a dancer who refused to participate, penned her own open letter explaining why she had opted out: because she saw the event as economic exploitation of hopeful young dancers, who were compensated only minimally for their participation.

At the end of December, L.A. MOCA released a slickly produced black-and-white video about the gala, which, in addition to making the whole thing look strangely like a perfume commercial, will probably do nothing to disperse this controversy. It begins with shots of the rich and famous attendees (Eli Broad, Will Ferrell, Gwen Stefani) on the red carpet, grinning for the paparazzi, as Abramovic's voice intones that art is the "oxygen of our society." Then we see guests putting on their white lab coats to eat around the freaky human party decorations, an ominous score giving the decadent imagery an unmistakable "Eyes Wide Shut" vibe. The film ends with Deborah Harry performing "Heart of Glass," before she and Abramovic cut into a woman-shaped cake. (It leaves out the part where members of the audience chanted "Violence against women!" upon witnessing this spectacle.)

 

But really, it is Abramovic's narration, in which she explains her thinking behind "An Artist's Life Manifesto," that might throw fresh fuel on the fire. She distances herself from the government art patronage of her native Europe, indicating that she prefers the American way, where "industry" supports art. She points out that the Renaissance was made possible by "Popes, aristocrats, or kings" (um, Marina: patronage by "Popes, aristocrats, or kings" is also government patronage), and then she says that she thinks an artist should be a "servant." But not just any kind of servant, she goes on to say, but one who pursues a pure vision and stands above all economic considerations (like paying the participants in your performance?) 

So, to sum up: people were mad at Abramovic for economically exploiting her performers, and she's talking about how much she appreciates the wisdom of the free market and/or the virtues of the pre-modern system of rule by kings. At the very least, you would say that this is pretty tone deaf, given the controversy. We've taken the liberty of transcribing her whole narration (preserving her charmingly idiosyncratic English, for the most part):

I see the art as oxygen of our society. I come from Europe and we have a completely different system of sponsoring art. Governments give money for culture. The system here is completely different. Which is quite interesting, to look in the past and think about who actually sponsored the culture. If you look in Renaissance time, any of these great artists — it was Popes, aristocrats, or kings who actually support these kinds of artists and make it possible to support these monumental works.

Today, we don't have kings but we have industry, we have business, we have banks. The kind of people who actually have a substantial amount of money, who can support culture. I see the function of an artist as a servant. I think that art have to be shared, art have to be disturbing, art have to ask questions, art have to predict the future, in some cases, and have many layers of meaning.

When I was asking to do this kind of gala, I was really concerned with what should be my contribution, that I actually don't make any compromise to my work and do something which is different. I don't think that I should only provide entertainment. I have to create situation where we are actually not at ease and you come with an experience that you didn't have before.

I think that today we have so much concern about art as a commodity, with art market, with the times we are living in. I think that the context of the artist is very important to clarify, so I had the need to write this manifesto.

[Referring to Debbie Harry] Both of us are performance artists, and we both work with the public. It a way, offering the body for the public, that is the ultimate gesture. [Apparently referring the audience] They are not just looking into the spectacle, they are part of the spectacle, and that's a big difference.

Here's the clip:

 

MOCA Gala 2011: An Artist's Life Manifesto from MOCA on Vimeo.

Go to top ↑
by Ben Davis,Contemporary Arts,Contemporary Arts
Share:
  • Tweet
  • Email to a Friend

Comments

1 Comment
+ Add Yours
Log in or register to post comments
Oldest first Newest first

by aservais on January 11, 2012 at 4:01pm

i dont know her personnally but i consider marina abramovic a true and wonderful artist (and by the way ben davis an amazing editorialist and commentator, one of the best) but there is danger in trying to have your cake and eat it meaning that it is difficult to keep a foot in the artists’ camp and befriend the “enemy”, the glittering 1% of 1% spending money on art and on living art(1st class flying,hotel,restaurant,limousines,...) as if they had forgotten its value for the 99.9% and among them most of the artists they nominally support (mostly by eventually buying their art). does it mean that no artist of “integrity” should “collaborate” to this most glamourous celebration of the 1% of 1%? why not try making a statement even to this cynical arrogant assembly? and this is in my opinion what she tried to do and quite successfully. letting those thousands of dollars suits and dresses covered by white lab coats is genial and the rest of the performances had a strong message. but confronted with this cynical and just-for-fun always laughing and ridiculing crowd it would always appear frivolous and out-of-step. and she has friends in this crowd as she is a true star and enjoying it: people like klaus biesenbach, another character sitting between 2 chairs as an excellent curator indeed but also at the limit of being used as a legitimation by some of the most powerful of those 1% of 1% and particularly the female side of it as he is elegant, good looking and mysterious back to abramovic and the moca gala. she took on a big challenge but if true, she compounded the difficulty of it by underpaying its artists collaborators but again let us not be hypocritical as this is standard behaviour in the US and maybe in the art world in general. artists are employed in all kind of functions for a minimum wage, particularly when there is some kind of “exposure” to be gained to an attractive audience... and eventually there is this unfortunate comment about institutions’ financing in europe vs USA. again let us put it in the context that it is a fund-raising dinner for the MOCA but i cannot believe that she honestly thinks that the US system as it is is better than the european one. not meaning the european one is better but the ideal should definitely be in a balanced mix of public and private funding. in conclusion i would give her the benefit of the doubt but this 1% of 1%’ art world is definitely corrupting and helping to easily loose contact with reality. let us hope she does not drift too far away...

  • reply