Art and Education

Presentation
'Duchampian-Beuysian Turn'
Art is increasingly asked to take on a social
role. This is something which has accelerated
since the start of the worldwide economic crisis
which has deeply affected Europe and the
USA. Yet the roots of social art - often called
'relational aesthetics' rests arguably in the two
statements of Duchamp - 'Anything can be art'
and Beuys 'We are all artists'.
As is known, Duchamp submitted an upturned
urinal to an open exhibition in 1917. This
statement, that even banal objects can be 'art',
is often felt to have created a break with
previous forms of art. However, arguably,
Duchamp understood previous art forms better
than anyone ever had. For art has always been
about declaring an object to have a particular
undefined value, precisely 'as Art'.
Duchamp's statement merely demystified the
artistic process, bringing it closer to the
everyday person.
Previously, the art viewer had always been
presented with a crafted painting, sculpture,
drawing or print. Looking upon the illusory art
object it was possible to become lost
momentarily, before the reality of the objects
material-being would throw the viewing subject
back upon themselves.
This - what Adorno called the moment of
'Shudder' - is arguably made more direct and
accessible - more 'democratic' - by Duchamp's
statement. The declaration of a simple pre-
made object as Art makes this process more
direct, yet not arguably entirely democratic. In
1964 Joseph Beuys performed a series of
Actions called 'The Silence of Duchamp is
Overrated'. For Beuys, Duchamp's failure to
extend the role of artist to everyone was a
failure.
For Duchamp only the 'artist' could declare
something as 'Art', maintaining the hierarchy
between artists and non-artists.
To challenge this Beuys said 'We are all artists',
giving everyone the possibility to declare
anything to be 'Art'.
By calling something art we give it an illusory
higher status. Yet at the same time we
recognise that the higher status is made by us.
The declaration of something as 'art' puts the
responsibility for the illusory, for perfection,
beauty, or utopia on the human viewer of 'art'.
The combination of Duchamp's and Beuys's
statements, which democratise the ability to
declare art and make anything potentially an
artwork naturally brings forth a political
responsibility. The democratic nature of the
combined statements 'anything can be art' and
'we are all artists' obliges artists and other
practitioners within the art world to use the tools
and resources available to them to contribute to
a more democratic society.
It is in this light that we can see the statement
'anything can be art' extend to politics itself.
Politics can be art and therefore can be
undertaken with relative autonomy within the
ostensibly free space of the art world.
Here the illusory nature of the artwork is crucial,
because as illusion the art world can claim the
autonomy and freedom to think new social
alternatives even where that freedom does not
exist in reality.
However, it is difficult to think those alternatives
when our ability to think is shaped by the world
which we inhabit. For this reason the first social
service that art should arguably mimic is that of
education.
If we can re-educate ourselves we can begin to
build positive social systems within the art
world. Yet even in rethinking education there is
a contradiction, in that we cannot critique the
methods of education which taught us how to
think.
To think outside this contradiction we must
seek answers in other cultures. It is in this
sense that it becomes useful to ask here 'What
is Education?', and by listening to the answers
of others we can identify our own weaknesses
in
responding to the same question.