Gizela Horvath

On the Periphery of the Artworld. The Case of the 55th Venice Biennale The Venice Biennale is sort of a patent agency for art: if a work is exhibited at the Biennale, it is already regarded as being in the center of the contemporary artworld. This year the peculiarity of the Biennale was the emphasis on peripheral works: outsider art is brought to the center of the artworld. The notion of outsider art is paved with contradictions – it’s difficult to find its place either in traditional art theory, or in avant-garde conceptions. This paper aims at making a parallel between outsider art and the readymade, highlights the similarities and differences, and proposes a new term instead of outsider art: “institutional readymade”.

Arthur C. Danto convincingly argued that works of art are not differentiated from common objects by aesthetic properties. With this he broke down the system of aestheticism, which discussed art as a sub-category of the aesthetic experience, looked for the universal, historically and culturally unconditioned significant form in works of art. At the same time, Danto’s theory can also be read as one considering the aesthetic point of view irrelevant for the essence of art. The paradigmatic starting point of Danto’s theory is Andy Warhol’s Brillo Box. However it was the Brillo Box that created the opportunity for the questioning of this anti-aesthetic consequence, both Andy Warhol, when he created the Brillo Box, as well as Arthur C. Danto, when he chose it to be the starting point of his art philosophy, were driven by aesthetic motives. This inconsistency can be resolved by accepting that common objects are “transfigured” in the framework of an art theory, while adding that from the moment they have transfigured into a work of art, their (new) aesthetic properties become substantial.

Le problème de l’identité dans le monde de l’art est pertinent sous de nombreux aspects. Cet article vise à examiner l’identité de l’oeuvre d’art. L’examen est construit en trois étapes : le problème d’identification d’un objet en tant qu’oeuvre d’art, le problème des propriétés pertinentes d’une oeuvre d’art et la question de l’auteur de l’oeuvre comme décisive (ou pas) pour l’identification d’une oeuvre d’art. Ces questions se sont posées avec l’évolution de la pratique artistique et de la théorie de l’art au siècle dernier. L’apparition du “readymade” a déstabilisé l’identité solide de l’oeuvre d’art de sorte que nous devons maintenant déterminer quelle est la différence entre une oeuvre d’art et son pendant perceptuellement identique. Les caractéristiques traditionnellement pertinentes ayant perdu leur importance dans l’art conceptuel, nous devons déterminer quelles sont les caractéristiques pertinentes, même aujourd’hui, des oeuvres d’art. Enfin, la pratique de l’appropriation dans l’art post-moderne défie la notion d’artiste et celle du sens de la création authentique.

Ancient Greek philosophers claimed that the particular task of art was mimesis. This kind of view about the relation between art and the world was dominant until the beginning of the 19th century. The theory of genius rethought this relation, and it did not presume that art needs to mirror the world. On the contrary, it expected originality, that is, the creation of a new world. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the artworld operates under a wider notion of the ‘work of art’, e.g. Duchamp’s “readymade” and “institutional readymade”, which are linked to outsider art. In both cases, the creation of an object and the creation of an art piece are separate actions performed by different individuals. This paper attempts to tackle these problems and prove that the contemporary art does not relate primarily to the world, but mainly to the artworld. Thus, the path from art to the world goes through the artworld.

Technical reproduction in general, and photography in particular have changed the status and practices of art. Similarly, the expansion of Web 2.0 interactive spaces presents opportunities and challenges to artistic communities. Present study focuses on artistic activism: socially sensitive artists publish their creation on the internet on its most interactive space – social media. These artworks carry both artistic and social messages. Such practices force us to reinterpret some elements of the classical art paradigm: its autonomy, authorship, uniqueness (as opposed to copies and series), and the social role of art. The analysis is aimed at Hungarian and Romanian online artistic projects from Transylvania region of Romania, relevant as intercultural communication endeavours. Our research question is the way they differ from the traditional artistic paradigm.

The ‘museal’ approach to art has been attacked from many angles in the last decade; the main issue raised by most of these attacks was that such an approach would promote a certain idea of art which has little to do with real-life or the layman’s interest. Some artists have protested by stepping out of the museum space with projects deliberately designed as non-museum items (performance, land-art, public art etc.). Art, however, is always meant for a public, so, as an “unfortunate” consequence, those artists who wished to become famous were not able to avoid certain art institutions, such as museums, galleries, curators or critics. Until now. The internet, especially Facebook, provide genuinely new options/ opportunities for the virtual display of art pieces, an option that artists are eager to take advantage of. In the following, I will present the process of expansion of the public artistic sphere, I will attempt to show why Facebook serves well as a public artistic arena, and finally, I will present some salient Facebook-art-projects. The presented projects will include works by a street artist (Banksy), a performance artist (Gusztáv Ütő) and a graphic designer (Dan Perjovsky). These three artists are intrigued by current social issues, which are usually reflected in their works, also they all wish to spread their messages to the widest possible public. On of their favorite channels is the Facebook Wall.

Abstract The awakening of art to self-awareness and the statement of its autonomy are modern phenomena. The way we think about art in the modern age may be derived from the Kantian “beauty without concept”. Beautiful art is the work of the genius, who creates a work of art that is valuable in itself and is admired in museums by the public. That which I call here “the modern paradigm of art” is based on an absence: the non-conceptuality of the beautiful, i.e., the fact that objective qualities cannot define the beautiful. This absence establishes originality as the essential requirement for modern art and creates the possibility for artists to push the boundaries of the modern paradigm. Thus, the 20thcentury sees the appearance of strategies for overriding or substituting originality. The artist withdraws from behind her work, and the work of art is no longer an unapproachable object with an aura, just as the museum is also no longer the temple of the arts. But do these experiments overcome the frontiers of art’s modern paradigm? And, more generally, can this paradigm be overcome at all? Here I deduct three elements of the modern paradigm of art from the idea of “beauty without concept”: (1) the original artist, who is seen as a genius, (2) the work of art with an aura, and (3) the museum as the temple of art. Then I present how artists, based on the requirement of originality, worked on dismantling the frontiers of the modern paradigm.

Immanuel Kant és Marcel Duchamp munkássága egyaránt értelmezhető úgy, mint a művészet világát átrendező új kezdet, új távlatok forrása. Kant Az ítélőerő kritikája című munkájára úgy tekintek, mint a művészet modern paradigmájának forrására. E paradigma három alapja – a zseniális alkotó, a műalkotás és a múzeum mint a művészet temploma – levezethető a fogalom nélküli szépből. Mivel a szépnek nincs definíciója és nincsenek szabályai, az alkotó szükségszerűen eredeti kell, hogy legyen. Ezáltal a zseniális művész adja a szépművészetnek a szabályt, és alkotására rávetül a zsenialitás fénye. Ezt az alkotást imádják a művészetek templomában, a múzeumban. A művészet modern paradigmáját mozgató zseniális alkotó ettől fogva a kísérletezésre van ítélve, és előbb-utóbb ennek a kísérletezésnek a tárgya maga a művészet paradigmája lesz. A huszadik századi művészek destabilizálják a művészet paradigmájának mindhárom pillérét, és ebben úttörő (kútfő) szerepet játszik Marcel Duchamp. Munkásságában megtaláljuk a műtárgy hagyományos fogalmának megszüntetésére, a művészeti világ intézményrendszerének szabotálására és a művész-szerep átértelmezésére irányuló kísérleteket. Duchamp úgy folytatja Kant művészetfelfogását, hogy a legtöbb ponton szakít vele.

The necessary condition for the reception of art is aesthetic distance, which paradoxically relies on direct experience: one has to be there in front of the artwork, has to live the experience. Therefore, the current pandemic and the practice of social distancing, which attempts to slow it down, is a serious challenge for the arts. This text analyses the ways in which artists and the institutions which mediate art react to the conditions caused by the pandemic. I will present some creative practices which turn the adversity of the pandemic into an asset (the White Cuib Facebook project and the series by Sándor Bartha). So, there are projects which mine the gap (social distancing) and use it creatively. Then I will analyze the practice of some museums and galleries, focusing on the positive examples (e.g., the “Stay at Home Museum”) as well as on the difficulties. The examined cases will reveal the fact that while the artists were able to react in creative ways to the constraints and to create artworks which point beyond the contextual value, art institutions generally attempted merely to get through this period, hoping that they would soon be able to get back to life as usual.

This study focuses on the Hungarian impact of the 2017 “Me Too” movement, offering an analysis of some relevant online texts and of their comments. The theoretical framework is provided by the anthropological linguistic approach (Balázs 2009), linguistic world view research (Kövecses 2017, Banczerowski 2008, 2012, Magyari 2015), and discourse analysis (Berger 1998, Nemesi 2016). The research method is based on participant observation and on text analysis, which also offers the possibility of content analysis, if the researcher applies a corpus-centred perspective (Balaskó 2005). The research questions point in two directions. The linguistic approach deals with the question of how the “Me Too” movement is discussed. How do the victim and the offender appear in online media, and how is their image represented by commenting readers? According to our hypothesis, information is not always controlled in online space, and opinion formation becomes almost even more important than the fact itself. Hence, the knowledge fixed within language and language use changes as well. Our research attaches great importance to the reconstruction of linguistic images, leading to the exploration of underlying values systems, also pointing out cultural phenomena such as the dichotomy between silence and speaking out, conceptualized as social phenomena in an anthropological and ethnographic framework. At the same time, from the perspective of argumentation and rhetoric, we are interested in the emerging positions and in the typical arguments supporting these, in their conflict, and in the most frequently occurring means of persuasion. We also presuppose that the positions and modes of reasoning are clearer and relatively restrained in the online press, while the discourse of the comments is more emotionally charged.

In the present article I use the terminology introduced by Svetlana Boym of restorative nostalgia and reflective nostalgia regarding works of contemporary fine art. Restorative nostalgia implies an effort to revive the past – but without acknowledging that the desired and idealized past never existed, therefore it cannot be restored, either. I illustrate the application of this concept through the “new-academic” direction in today’s contemporary Hungarian fine arts. The reflective nostalgia is aware of the idealizing momentum of the desired past, it reflects critically upon its own desires, and it highlights possibilities in the past regarding the present – often playfully or with irony. I illustrate the latter through the works of the Chinese Ai Wei Wei and the Romanian Mircea Cantor. I argue that reflective nostalgia is not a fruitless burial into the past, but a resource for processing the passing of time in a creative manner.

Documenta fifteen in 2022 was par excellence the space for participatory art, so this edition can be seen as a touchstone for it. The research of the phenomenon of participatory art is based in this text on the one hand on the curatorial texts of ruangrupa, the collective that ensured the artistic direction of this edition of the documenta, and on the personal experience of the author as a visitor of the exhibition. Among the many issues raised by participatory art, the present text focuses on the aspect of reception of art in the case of the projects presented at documenta fifteen, and by extension, reflects on the experience of the receiver and the artistic value of participatory art projects.

A hagyományos felfogásban a művészet a szellem dolga, a test csak reprezentációként lehet jelen a képzőművészetekben. Ahogyan sok minden más szempontból, az utóbbi évszázadban ebben az irányban is megtörtént a határok átlépése: megjelent a képzőművészetben a művész és a befogadó teste. A művész már nem igyekszik eltüntetni keze nyomát. Az absztrakt expresszionizmusban a kép már nem puszta reprezentáció, hanem a művész testi mozgásának lenyomata. A huszadik század második felében elburjánzanak azok a művészi formák, amelyek nélkülözhetetlen alkotóteleme a művész teste: a happeningek, az eventek, a body-art, a performansz, az installációk, a land-art, a relációesztétika szituációi. Ha a klasszikus felfogásban a befogadó teste látássá szublimálódott, ezzel szemben a happeningek és a relációművészet számítanak a befogadó teljes testi jelenlétére. Addig, amíg a művészet a szellem dolga volt, és a műalkotást a kontempláció számára alkották, nyilvánvaló volt a különbség művészet és nem művészet között. Vajon a művész és vagy a befogadó testének betolakodása a művészet terébe nem fenyeget azzal a veszéllyel, hogy a művészet teste tényleg a boncasztalra kerül? Véleményen szerint kísérleteivel a művészet nem számolja fel magát, hanem időt és teret biztosít az ember (művész, befogadó) számára ahhoz, hogy saját testét ne eszközként használja, hanem szabadon élje meg és reflektáljon rá, mint lehetőségre.