ANTHROPOLOGISING ART
A work of art, as it was traditionally understood, has ceased to exist. In the infra-structure of art, the art object has been replaced by the artist. The artist - the per-son - has become more important than art itself.
That is, in a nutshell, the state of art today. The way that has led art to this stage has been described in my other texts, therefore I shall not explain that matter further here. In short, it is connected with the idea of the direct presence of a person in all artistic formulas worked out by the great avant-garde movements, which appeared most often as their late or final form. This process was culmi-nated in the supermodernist (for not yet postmodernist) projects of conceptual art and performance art - the most absolute embodiments of the par excellence modernist idea of „art for art’s sake”. In this article I am going to focus on some of the effects of that process. As a background and at the same time examples to my discussion I shall use the performance of Andre Stitt that has taken place at the QQ Gallery.
The priority of the artist over the art object means that art arises from the matter of life. Life becomes the matrix for artistic solutions. Forms of art become shaped in existential manner, through being in the world. Art finds its material in the physiology and motorics of the human body, in situations or gestures that are often very simple, taken from everyday life; in psychology, thinking and feeling, in all spiritual matters. Art has its point of reference in the whole of the psycho-physiological condition of man, presented directly in art forms and as art itself. Further, what also shapes contemporary art (wherever it is worththat name) is the duality of what is human and what belongs to an individual artist, the duality which is permanently inscribed into art forms and which results from the inseparable character of life and art. The consideration of that duality is a permanent refer-ence in further discussion.
One more general remark. The anthropology of specialists and scientists is something different from the anthropology of intellectuals and artists. The fol-lowing text refers to that difference, hence the differences and similarities will be constantly stressed. Those differences are crucial for the perception and defini-tion of art, as it is through them that the thinking of the artists and execution of their projects is defined. It is thanks to those differences that one can talk about the anthropologisation of art. Anthropologists themselves perceive an increasing influence of their discipline on the humanities, although their responses to the problem vary (for references in Polish science see: B. Olszewska-Dyoniziak, C. Robotycki, W. Burszta). Perhaps anthropology goes through the same boom phase as hermeneutics, whose range of meaning has broadened from a special-ised one into all discourses of contemporary postmodernist culture. As a result of such a broadening of meaning, the understanding of hermeneutics (anthropology) has become unclear and ambiguous, especially from the point of view of scientists, but thanks to that those disciplines have become ready for their creative use in culture.
What interests non-specialists in anthropology is its philosophical back-ground, and its results are treated by them in a general way. Where a scientist reconstructs ancient life discovering the internal mechanisms, the spirituality of a given culture, its extra-scientist, or rather a post-scientist point of view, he refers it both to the whole of the human spirit and to himself. An art object, here a per-formance, is a meeting place to fuse the universalities and particularities of the spirit. The point of such an approach is to learn about the roots of one’s own spirituality, to discover it behind the layers of civilisation, therefore it is an individ-ual approach. That is a way of exercising a private archaeology of one’s own spirit and at the same time exercising anthropology for the sake of art.
Individual spirituality needs a form in order to be expressed, to become communicated, therefore in order to become a message. The anthropology of scientists, book knowledge, therefore a mine of ideas for art and procedures. Certainly, it is not an intention of art to immitate specific forms of religion. Neither is it a syncretic attempt in the neo-pagan style. The use of archaic forms of mate-rial culture, as well as religion or ritual behaviour serves to build up and stress the rank given individually to one’s own spiritual experience. The choice of anthropol-ogy in the context of art is the more correct, as in the worlds studied by the scien-tists the whole of practical life was closely related to religion. In that context the whole of the material world was constructed, all architecture and urban space were subject to religion. All that existed in those worlds was at the same time a result of human work and had a spiritual reference. Perhaps that is the reason why in those communities there was no separate world of art, no division of peo-ple into artists and audience.
In order to prove the relation between contemporary art and anthropology it is enough to have a look at a book containing descriptions of site works. The similarities between such descriptions and performance, installation, sculpture and painting are striking. Those objects are ready-made art objects. A historian of art would say that since the Middle Ages in European art there have been fashions for Oriental art, then for Chinese and Japanese art, and recently, in the modernist avant-garde movements, cubists and surrealists have consciously used forms taken from other cultures (African art was a novelty then). It was, however, only a formal, aesthetic similarity, while in contemporary art there is an awareness of genetic kinship, understood also in the literal sense. In that context it is most appropriate to refer to Mircea Eliade and his perception universalising the human spirit, and in the context of the performance of A. Stitt, to his work „Shamanism and the archaic techniques of ecstasy”.
In performance art, the importance of the human condition for art is seen through a trance form of the show, although performance relying on ritual or para-ritual forms need not include trance. Trance does give art strenght, yet it is an extremely difficult form, not only in the sense of the performing technique, but also in the sense of making the fundamental decision of raising it to the rank of art, as here we depart from a traditional understanding of art. Anthropologists studying the trances of ecstatics of all religions affirm that these trances can be genuine or pretended, yet the difference is not relevant. Trance is the necessary form for a celebration, ritual or event to be valid and effective. I stress: it is a form. Its genuineness or profundity are not relevant.
An anthropologist would also say that the point of a trance is not an indi-vidual experience, an egoistic fulfillment. It has always a role (in medicine, protec-tion, meteorology). It is also an act serving others (individuals, family, community). Its sense has always been altruistic. That is an important difference between art and anthropology, especially in case of the trance characteristics of performance.
Trance therefore cannot serve as a basis for evaluating religious or artistic forms. Neither can it serve their objectivisation. It is rather a question of rele-vance: there is a close bond between the form and the content. The form of trance in religion (and in performance) has the function of a medium in the proc-ess of transformation into message: here the form must also be relevant, as that is the only way for communication to happen and only then communication takes place.
Form is the key to the meaning of this type of performance. It is not impor-tant how deep and real the trance was, the individual experience of the performer is not relevant. What is crucial is his use of the form. To the theoretician of art seeking for generalisations, this type of performance gives a lot of information about changes in art. Instead of trying to find a visual, aesthetic form, the artist seeks a model of behaviour as the form of art and finds it in archaic forms (in the sense of their origin, as they are often a part of everyday life) of worship, magic, rites, etc.. It is, however, a message concerning contemporary art, not those cults, magic or religions. In that way, through anthropologising art, the need for a re-definition of art is manifested (and achieved). It is also a proposal for a new definition supported by artistic facts, which is: the artist is art.
Emphasis on individual and spiritual experience, „seeking for oneself”, romantic ideas, which modernism established as the ideal relationship between the artist and art, are obvious today. Yet the autonomy of the artist from art, where it is he who decides on art’s value and definition, is a recent discovery. The artist used to be appreciated only in the sense that it was assumed that a perfect piece of art can only be a result of a perfect spirit (open promiscuity of artists dates only from the modernist times). Such perfection was, however, a gift from Heaven or Nature. The contribution of the artist was limited and as a result he was not important in art, the more so, as the value of art was defined by the recipient. It was only the modernist artist who could decide on art and his own individuality, only then his spiritual condition was literally the original impulse for art. The artist, his body and mind, were the medium for art. Since then art has had to be defined by the artist, by a human being. This shows in the forms of art. Finally, the artist through the strength of his individuality not only creates art, but becomes art. Performance, which is based on the findings of anthropology (in the most general sense every performance is anthropological), gives the means to express oneself in accordance with that definition of art. The performance of A. Stitt is an example which enables us to perceive the principles discussed above.
My digression here: the definition of performance art is too strict, and therefore it limits the range of possible art phenomena and the definition of art. For that reason it is necessary to broaden the understanding of such art onto the whole area of artistic phenomena, so that it covers all sorts of „direct presence art”, that is where the psycho-physical condition of the artist decides on the form of art. Such subjectivity of art is a de facto subjectivity and confirms its contempo-rary character, at the same time questioning the term „art” as used so far .
The individual matter in performance shows not only in the individuality of the experience (trance) and its form of expression, but also through the choice of props used by the artist, or just present during the show. In performance the artist defines the initial content of the message and to that he subjects the universal meanings or meanings bound to a given culture. The artist uses the elements of meanings „found” in anthropology, using the Dada-surrealist rule of object truvé which not only is still valid but also is one of the most important formulas accord-ing to which contemporary art is created. An anthropologist would say here that all substances, things, or „objects”, „installations” found in anthropological litera-ture have their own purpose and a utilitarian function. Also, it is not the responsi-bility of the performer of a celebration, operation or rite to invent a meaning for them. They do not have a personal character, as they are eternal and come from a non-human world. Just as in case of actions and trances, objects must be used for the event to be valid and effective.
I shall now try to point out all the above mentioned moments of anthro-pologising art in the performance of A. Stitt. His art, being conscious of its sources and contexts, is indeed anthropological. It is also aware of its potential consequences. The performance shown at the QQ Gallery was a form of trance. It was constructed so as to make it possible to go through various stages leading to the final trance. At each stage different props were used, which includes dif-ferent objects, substances, and different activities.
The artist performed in a special costume, which in itself is an anthropo-logical element, as in all cultures a special costume is worn for special occasions. The performers of ritual functions used to prepare their costumes personally, but according to the ancient rules, in the universalising religious context. It was a part of the effort to achieve knowledge. A. Stitt prepared his costume personally, but according to his own concept, and even if he used elements drawing on a well-known symbolic meaning, the decision to use them, their contexts and juxtaposi-tions of meaning was his own, resulting from his own contemplation, and just as the whole of the performance, it was a consequence of the spiritual autonomy of the artist vis-á-vis art. The individuality of the form itself proves that we are con-fronted with contemporary art and not religion or some sort of magic. This remark is valid for all elements of his performance.
One more digression concerning symbols and symbolization. The artist’s use of symbols in contemporary art and the use of ritual elements are similar: it is less important to restore their meanings and context precisely (as that is the job of a scientist), what is important is the appearance of those objects in art. Even with the full knowledge of the content of the symbols used and their cultural con-text, their use is individualistic and not objectivising. Symbols are taken over or interpreted in a different way by the artist, or they are a form of presenting his own findings in the archaeology of the spirit. Therefore what has been the primary layer of universal meanings appears as if casually, it is the background, not the horizon of the performer’s activities. The symbols have also a tendency to multiply their meanings, reaching contradiction, which in modern terms is defined as con-stant deconstruction of meanings. Such a flexibility and relativity of meaning in-scribed into symbols proves to be a desired characteristics and the reason why symbols are used now as a way of encoding message, also in art.
The costume of A. Stitt was made of a rack fastened to his back, on which the central place was occupied by an animal skull, together with objects and plants more or less identified as symbols (e.g. garlic). His head was covered by a helmet with a mask in the shape of a triangular grating. His thighs were covered by a band with a fake ithyphallus fastened to it. The rest of the body was naked, but smeared with molasses (a brown, sweet, sticky lubricant) and feathered in pink and yellow. The costume is a mixture of elements known from anthropologi-cal descriptions (feathers, skull, mask), yet in the context of the performance, therefore of contemporary art, they are to be perceived as visual elements, not bound to any particular culture or religious form. Anthropology has been trans-formed into art and thus re-entered culture. The archaic forms of the human spiritual life are again made useful in the form of contemporary art. Through that operation a new layer of meaning has been added to them, now the meaning related to contemporary art. Anthropologising art means the restoration of the spiritual existence of man.
The artist began his trance dance by making circles inside the gallery in front of the audience. He beat the rhythm with a rattle held in his hand. Violent movements and dramatic actions escalated and accordingly new props were used: substances poured and sprinkled over the body (oil, milk, wine, herbs, salt). The strive to give the performance the character of a trance was becoming more and more visible. The actions were more sudden, and followed one another at a quicker, ecstatic pace: there was a symbolic copulation with the symbols of Earth hung in the gallery, which ended with convulsive movements on the floor, after which the symbols of Earth were burnt.
During the performance the artist shouted „go home”, „home”. The per-formance was a way of returning to the symbolic spiritual home. All the actions accomplished on that way served as preparation to entering that home. Through art the artist underwent a catharctic experience leading to his acquiring of a new spiritual condition. That is also a constitutive element of all religious forms, their essential meaning - regardless of their particular use.
The climax of this „way home” was the last part of the performance. Ac-cording to the subtitle „Yellow Sky/Yellow Rain”, that part began with turning the gallery space yellow. The wall was splashed with yellow paint. Against that back-ground the artist performed the last act: he climbed the rope-ladder towards the ceiling (he arrived to his symbolic home). That reminds us of the „rope trick” and other forms often described by anthropologists which serve to present the sym-bolic unification of the spheres of Heaven and Earth. Having reached the end of his way (the end of performance), the artist changed into self-made leather coat covered with black feathers, according to the title of his performance - „Crow”. At the end was read a poem which had the same trance rhythm of a mantra or a litany.
"The artist is a healer”, says A. Stitt. It is also that communicative or dia-logic value of art which anthropologising seeks to achieve. Through ascribing to an individual experience a form of performance the artist opens the way to this experience (to himself) to others. And this does not concern an abstract recipient or the anonymous audience, but it is a face-to-face meeting, a direct contact of individualities who find universal (common) meaning. Art heals - that is it gives such a strong impulse to individuality that this individuality can be changed; it can restructure thinking, shake the psyche. Such art cannot be aesthetics. It must be supported and validated by the artist who experiences it. The final conclusion is: it is not art that heals, it is the artist who does.
£ukasz Guzek
translated by Justyna Pi¹tkowska