Showing posts with label art law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label art law. Show all posts

Mar 5, 2016

Law as Symbol: Taryn Simon’s "Paperwork and the Will of Capital" at Gagosian Gallery


(c) Taryn Simon


Taryn Simon, Paperwork and the Will of the Capital is on view at 
Gagosian Gallery 
555 West 24th Street 
February 18 - March 26, 2016

           Throughout much of her artistic career, Taryn Simon (b. 1975) has utilized the power of visual media—including photography, sculpture, video, and performance—to critique systems of power. Her work exposes the dark side of existing practices and, in particular, the ways in which law affects the lives of people. Simon exploits the dual record-keeping and fiction-making role of photography to document and fabricate the invisible. For example, in The Innocents series (2003), the artist shames the flawed American criminal justice system by photographing wrongfully convicted men at the sites of their alleged crimes. Such works reveal the inadequacies or, more often, harms that result from the current systems in place. Her works compel the question: whom are these laws meant to serve?
            Simon’s work answers that the law is meant to serve its people, but the practical applications of law often do not reflect this purpose.  Law exists to maintain order that will facilitate a free society in which people can pursue happiness without impinging upon the pursuits of others. However, law is often used against the very people it was meant to serve and protect.

(c) Taryn Simon
  
          If Simon’s previous work exposed the perverse applications of law, her most recent body of works on display at Gagosian Gallery reveals another side of law: its empty and symbolic nature. Part humor, part lament, we often joke that politicians are full of crap. Unfortunately, the statement is funny because it is often true. Simon’s photographs and sculptures highlight the artificiality and hopelessly symbolic nature of international treaties: perhaps some of the emptiest promises by one group of politicians to another.
            The power of these works—the large photographs in particular—stems from captivating images that, despite their startling vividness, remain harmless to the viewer.
We use flowers as harmless speech. We buy flowers most often as symbolic gestures to commemorate an occasion or to express particular sentiments to others. We use flowers as harmless objects of contemplation, to provide visual reminders of such sentiments and occasions.
Such speech-flowers are fragile and ephemeral. Their visual and olfactory pleasures expire as quickly as the feelings of the occasion begin to fade from our memories. When they lose their value as sensory pleasure-givers, we toss them out. Unlike other symbolic gifts, we readily dispose of flowers because of their purpose as temporary symbols.[*]

(c) Taryn Simon

            Simon highlights the utterly symbolic and superficial role of flowers—and the occasions they were to commemorate—by exaggerating the surface beauty of flowers that were once sitting on the tables where international powers signed various agreements. Most of the photographs show exquisite arrangements in intensely vivid colors, all against equally striking and beautifully color-blocked backgrounds. However, the texts accompanying the mesmerizing centerpieces state the common fate of all these treaties: failure of the signatories to implement them.
The artist thereby disturbs the easy assumptions held by many people, that once codified into law, the harms addressed by the law will remedy themselves. Her beautiful photos and their accompanying texts expose this as a faulty assumption, which presumes the automatic integration of such agreements into real life. However, laws do not execute themselves—people do.
            First, many international treaties are not self-executing; local governments must pass laws that allow their execution. Even after the agreements are passed as local laws, law truly exists—and therefore holds power—when it is enforced in everyday life. Without enforcement, these international agreements remain as mere words on paper, nice and fanciful ideas, and nice gestures by participating governments, yet nothing more.
            The horror bestowed upon us by Simon’s beautiful work stems from the realization that this is actually how legal systems in general work, and that substantial harm can result from the nature of law as a multi-step process. A law may be passed because of a felt need to address existing problems, but the law can only fulfill its initial purpose when it is executed properly in everyday life, down to the police men, government agencies, and the judiciary.

(c) Taryn Simon

Today, when instances of misapplication and faulty enforcement of the law continue to demonstrate the shortcomings of the current system, Simon’s recent work prompts a second look at law as “mere words,” and invites us to emancipate it from its purely symbolic status toward a working system that better serves its true master: the people.


[*] The other side of this sad fate of flowers as symbols is that if one does not wish their flowers to meet their inevitable destiny in the trash, one must prematurely remove them from their life-extending environments in water and place them between the pages of a book—or a flower-press, as Simon has—and crush them live in the name of preservation.

Oct 16, 2014

Absence and Neglect


For some reason
I actually thought that there actually did exist some sort of ontological dispute taking place through or under the guise of an ostensibly linguistic dispute about the definition of art, as manifested by recent lawsuits involving appropriation artists.

Silly me.

It all comes down to money.

Why did I think I could place art in a category that operates differently from others? 
Even though I made conscious and even performatively public criticisms against the infiltration of money into the way in which our cultural products are distributed and legitimized…

For some reason
I thought my discovery of the intersections between law, language, art, philosophy, and other abstract ways in which we understand the world around us was somehow special. Law, especially, because I had never quite understood anything about it until recently.
Art is the same. Money dictates its operations. 

What I had given superficial attention turned out to be a horrible monster, which I am happy I did not endorse so enthusiastically—the rich are winning the copyright litigations and “redefining” the “definition of art”! 

Is this a good thing for art or is it just the victory of those with money?
I can’t tell if it pushes art to go further and into another kind of territory, or if it merely demonstrates the reach of capitalism’s power into a variety of realms such as art and other cultural affairs. 


It feels good to rant again.

But probably another long silence will pass.

Nov 9, 2013

in defense of a legal education


if you had told me six months ago that i will be applying to law school, i would have laughed at your face. i have long held a bias against lawyers--i was raised by a liberal mother with an "unconventional" career path (at least, only few would perceive being an artist as a standard 9-5 deal), i attended liberal institutions where people often called lawyers soulless liars, and my closest blood relative (upon whom i do not look very favorably) is possibly the most famous lawyer in korea.
on top of that, i have always lived by a (perhaps childish) rebel principle. i have to do everything differently from others. my ideas have to be fresh and unique; if a lot of people wear a certain kind of color, i wear the opposite. i come from a korean household, whose culture insists that lawyers, doctors, or multi-billionaire business people are the embodiments of success. i don't agree with such a narrow definition of success. although i have toyed with the idea of med school for my dream of becoming a surgeon, i never wanted to do any of those things just because they spelled success to certain people.
i always loved reading and writing. i was that kid at dinner who was reading a different book everyday, who had to be told to put her book down because we have to eat. i wrote story after story in volumes of notebooks which i illustrated. i loved (still love) pictures and language. in high school i studied three different languages in addition to the two i knew. i went on to study art and literature in college, then wrote criticism about art while doing translations.
i found immense satisfaction in studying the way languages work, how they're used, how miscommunications occur. all this i did through writing and reading fiction, essays, criticism, theory, etc. but i often got the sense that a lot of it felt detached from the real world. it's fun, and sometimes revelatory, but so what? i come back down from the cloud and things remain the same.
then i found a new toy: law. i am ashamed to admit that i would skip over news about certain policy changes, court rulings, etc., because i thought, ultimately, the world is going to shit anyway so why should i care? but one day i realized that what lawyers do is just another way of manipulating language in order to achieve ends, sometimes with very high stakes and very direct consequences.
think about it: nothing is stable. we have things we call "facts" because they resemble states of "being" that are "generally" thought as stable enough for us to give them a name. but many of us know that regardless of what the dictionary says, what one understands by a certain word or phrase might mean something quite different from what another thinks. that's why we communicate--communication through language is the constant method by which we put "our" definitions to play with others', constantly reaffirming and/or readjusting through negotiations. these definitions come from our own experiences of understanding things in the world. and honestly, there isn't always a clear-cut right or wrong in beliefs. how else could it be? we each think with a brain located in separate physiological units.
legal language asserts a standardized system of language that (i think) is theoretically supposed to serve as the common ground by which we communicate so that we can coexist in a fairly orderly society. however, legal language is not and cannot be a democratic common ground--by a strict definition of democracy anyway. language requires interpretation, from which no legal language--no matter how seemingly straight forward--is exempt. thus, on the level of practice, the use of legal language is essentially a fight between groups of people about ontology and beliefs. a certain belief (interpretation) will be held as correct (the "definition"), depending on who holds more power among those who can speak this language.
but do the masses of people who are able to speak this language (through legal education) necessarily represent all the different kinds of ontologies? here, i am thinking about art: when policies and decisions are made about art, does the law recognize the different understandings of art? the discourses taking place? what its role is and what it should be? do the legal speakers, practitioners, advocates, decision-makers?
probably not. if some do, probably very few, because the idea of "specialized" professions gives the false illusion that certain realms are irreconcilable, when sometimes, it is just a matter of translation--moving between different languages. people shy away from these imaginary walls and try to stay within their "own boundaries." but when people shy away from legal discursive activities, they also relinquish their power of speech as well as their system of beliefs. this is all very cliche and frequently thrown around american ideals, but seriously, do many legal practitioners know that richard prince's appropriations are art, not just because of their purported monetary value?
luckily powerhouse artists like prince can afford attorneys who can win their cases, but what about others? sure, this is not just an art thing--many people can't afford lawyers--but i have a feeling that there aren't enough people who can speak and manipulate legal language in addition to being attuned to the current dialogues, developments, and beliefs in artistic practices--that is, the "definitions" of art.
my aspiration is to be a translator, a role which requires an understanding of both languages. so i have decided to learn a new language--this is my defense for pursuing a legal education.