Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
0F
l\tsse *
n"affiprnr''
lm'
AN
ptro:l
m$l[etr
T\u lrs
lfi',F
lrw
$mmllwn
ptuiUnnWf
ruo
ilhr:m
ttttttlIUmrm,nUL
rurutglnmuru
iilfindi
the,.
illlul$Mml, mrm
irilljlmmmru:p
tm
llffiilnr,nmmtq,
'1fllniululru,,
r:tM
rruunmrdlt{ffihe
210
'mulliiirunrql.rm
illl;lill,,,'Jttrdfr
DanielBuren
0ulllhilrl0lfiilm
the exhibition of the exhibition as awork of an. Here, the Documenta team, headed
by Harald Szeemann, exhibits (arnvorks) and exposes itself (to critiques).
The works presented are carefully chosen touches of color in the tableau* that
composes each section (room) as awhole.
There is even an order to these coiors, these being defined and arranged according to the
drawn design*u ofthe section (selection) inwhichtheyare spread out/presented.
It
I
i
survival ofthe museum as tableau, a tableau whose author is none other than the
exhibition organizer.
And the artist throws her- or himself and her or his work into this trap, because the
artist and her or his work, which are powerless from the force ofhabit ofart, have no
choice but to allow another to be exhibited: the organizer.
Hence, the exhibition as atableau of art, as the limit of the exhibition of art.
Thus, the limits art has created for itself, as shelter, turn against it by imitating it,
and the refuge that the
as its
justification,
reality, andtomb.
D.B.,Februaryr97z
@ Daniel Buren
Translator's noter The French word tableau hs multiple meanings; it can re{er to a painting, a scene, a chart, a lable, a board,
a picture. Since there is no adequate English translation for Buren's literal and metaphorical use of the word here, il is preferable to retain the original.
.. Translatols notei Buren uses the word dess(e)i4 a combination of dessi4 drawing, and dessem, plan or design,
2t1
Simplybecause it see
[[|HERE
be curated by an arc
absolutely linked-
Thirry-mo years ag
ANE
exhibitionwas tie fu
but excessive, and hl
claimedwas exclusrr.
of the largest numlre
often,bvfollom
in this declaration. n
-iere is an e\-ent. rhe l
\et-enheless, andde
llee
are things
m:l
:efrl:"-:rc'rgf'! to lig+
:ne :aCoftlosew:
n:rlq- Eer.-e- it seerx
lfrftrrlJ:
r:E'rzec l:e
212
::,r1 i :gU1gl
pr:eih_- :l -,cs
,{d,n|lmf "::mfS :rr- m:S ;-ithr
r:Xm:rryindplTnrnl:
r@nmdimum$ .ss
DanielBuren
l]l[mMlt
ar a::SE
r:Fflr ft
5]
m. esmgtr'-:1prr
is a bit like a good deed. The perfect organizer's good deed. There is no reference to the personality ofthe organizer
in this declaration, nor any pretension to "create" the event. This implies that if
there is an event, the invited artists will have created it, not the organizer!
Nevertheless, and despite his comments or his denials, my text indicated and could
not have invented that other things were already at play.
These are things which H. s., more than any other organizer of the period, had already brought to light, since he was by far the most gifted and easily the best of his
time (and ofthose who, afterward, tried to imitate him) in the realm ofgroup exhibi-
tions. Hence, it seems to me, the accuracy of the text "Exhibition of an Exhibition,"
which analyzed the possible perverse effects oflarge group exhibitions that were
emerging at the stan of the most promising exhibition organizef s career.
Judging from a tendency that could already be felt in tgTz,today we can assert rhat
2t3
The
BiennialRder
to claim theywere the artists! Even ifit had been the case, to say so would have denigrated the invited artists, who would not have hesitated to let them know in no uncertainterms, andwhowouldhave undoubtediyrebelled. Buttimeshave changed (fig. t):
We have come fu1l circle and the generalized passivity of artists in the face of this
situation is even more serious than it was thirly years ago. Since if in r97z thev
could still turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the ways in which they were being used.
the straightfor"wardness of our epoch (which others might call clmicism) makes it
entirely improbable that anists today do not know what is being plotted and what is
being declared and the kinds ofdiscourses surrounding them!
Just as it is hard to know if the chicken or the egg came flrst, it is also diffrcult to make
out if this situation stems from the suicidal passlvity of artists, automatically engendering organizers capable ofbypassing or even replacingthem at a moment's notice.
or if the artists, having other fish to fry when confronted with the impertinence o:
certain organizers/manipulators, would have literally pushed themselves to the side
by disparagingly watching the spectacular emphasis of the exhibition organizer tc
his own detriment, and above
a1i
of the exhibition, which it naturally should be, for better or for worse.
2U
Today, it is possible to imagine that we are not far-off from having a large-scale international exhibition directed by a great organizer-author who proposes the flrs:
a1ll
Enough of these nightmares, and without wanting to specifu all of the reasons fc:
such a slippage here, it is certain, however, that the affirmation ofone (the organizer
as author or artist) and the passivity/acceptance ofthe other (the work ofart as a
,.1i
i*
-t
215
'l
Harald Szeemann at Documenta 5, 972
The
BinnialRdq
colored stroke in a large fresco that escapes him or her) are two sides ofthe same
problem: the present crisis of living an and how it is shown.
It is also, in most cases, proofthat the couple "organizer versus invited artists" is no
longer homogenous, but one that looks even more like a forced marriage just asking
to be broken up. All the more so since, as everyone today knows, this infernal cou-
ple is made up of one who dominates and one who is dominated. The same people
always play these roles, without any possibility for reversal. The former are always
more dominating while the latter are always more dominated.
lf{fil1llI5
innovation!
from Lyon to Istanbul, this has been evident for years. All ofthe large-scaie international exhibitions are currentlyin a state ofcrisis, and I would not be surprised ifone
nr',qilmmmr-
21
seems to me that the current situation is not movingin this direction; onthe contrary-.
:r :11:
:f :te :::rFr,m
r[lrllltlur-
inrn:mr eg:m.br:Lr:L
ffi
11 nrri
sut"
lxn*
:.:
slrtqe:
:s
:rr:
:nm We:iff-,e
fi
lr5fil:rr :5;i
T!i6 *Tn$:rflsi:eI::il
l,nruLr: a .:*r:e-:r:r.c :
m]fgl^r::Ut-i=: I
*rcs" " !:rr':i*
ir:*t-:r
:Gm'glenftrtE r:frtr:rJa:
:* :n sii: --,:
If,f nr :rt-:e:'rr:ir:
mfl!{tdgrry
llllb!*
Ths
wqllt
:e a -'-t::e:
"r
tr :
'nmr,f nmrl :*A: :l-=e g
rur,Ci,rrir"nl,rui|lfi* I y,E: l
rrumftlfie IrS l::'Ar L:3er.
lltuil- PEll :Ynenl::rE
i0si 1trre
nnnr;r:r*-;5161-
lHw runrr:l:.Ece=Lf=
*rul"r
:r ;
mru:r rse:-=e:
i::nuurLnm
mlmruruu
nurl:,r- iirl
iIrrfl'lm irrnlsd
bwmE
Is it possible todayto do without the organizer-artist or the organizer-author and retum to the organizer-interpreter? In the absolute, the response is yes, ofcourse, bur it
r:*r:[,q :
lb&lllle-r'ltr
However, if most invited artists were to refuse the role assumed by cenain exhibition organizers, it is worth betting that theywould no longer work in the atrocious
way that some of them have been working, and we would never again see Robert
rFi
;Lh r*Er h
:r:q
",rq"
::
5:-".
iltilllhu:
nnrs ::rs:rs-_]
Misb?
BUH
Daniel
organizer-authorl What a relief! We put a1l of the works in the same basket and we
throw praise or criticism at whomever has put them in it and carries it; that is, the
author of the compilation. And just as we go from compilation to compilation, we go
from exhibition to exhibition, taking off or adding one or two pieces just as we take
offoradd
singer ortwofrom
question remains: How do we get out of this cul-de-sac, this vicious circle?
From this perspective, your question has the advantage of redistributing the cards.
Could a large-scale exhibition like Documenta be entrusted to an artist? If the
tendencyremarkeduponhere continues to hold, myresponse wouldundoubtedlybe
,fres." For the artist-organizer would erase the faults inherent in the organizer-artist.
Forexample,itwouldbeworthbettingthatthe announcement of an aftist-organizer,
whoever he or she might be, would cause an immense outcry of lamentations from
the choir ofthe majority ofall the other panic-stricken and destabilized artists.
This will be a varied and serious song. Its reasons for being will be intelligent, stupid, and revealing at the same time. They will be founded on jealousy on the one
hand, and fear of the artist-organizer's positions on the other. Artists, exacerbated
individualists if ever they existed, would show that their corporatlst spirit is not as
remote as it may seem. One would notice, then, that the critiques suddenly raised
by the announcement of the name of an attist-or ganizer had never been raised by
the announcement ofany organizer-artist. This a priori predictable reaction already
bears within itseifthe fruits ofextremely positive debates, for they reveal a state of
fact that has been occulted for over thirtyyears.
Undoubtedly other kinds of faults inherent to the choice of the artist in question
would crop up, but given that an experiment of this sort has yet to be attempted
(apan from much more modest experiments undertakenhere andtherebyartists as
different as Duchamp or even Kosuth or myself), it seems abittoo earlyto mention it.
What other reasons-besides opening up a real debate-are there for welcoming an
2I
The
Biennial Reader
verifiable in the works, does not exist when an exhibition organizer, whatever his
or her talent, suddeniy becomes an organizer-araist or author of an exhibitlon. His
or her talent is linked to nothing else than the exhibition in question and the theme
he or she has decided to develop, which in most cases is a bit too insubstantial to
be a "work"l However, the theme chosen by the usual organizer-author, which will
enable commentators to exercise their eloquence, is never remarked upon by the
invited artists, whether it interests them or not. They will just as soon agree to participate in the exhibition ofanother (or the same) author-organizer that develops a
diametrically opposed theme, which their (same) works will aim to illustrate as well
(that is,
as
poorly)
as
210
"details" exhibited are, by definition and in most cases, completely and entirely foreign to the principal work in which they are participating, that is, the exhibition in
question. On the other hand, if the organizer of the exhibition is a full-time anist,
lt is wonh betting that he or she will take enormous risks and that his or her vision
will be more explicit, less neutral, more engaged; in a word, it will make more sense
than that of an organizer by profession, whether or not he or she proclaims him- or
herself an author. The latter will only be able to work by using the work of others or,
if you 1ike, byusingwork that is docile enough to f,t into their own discourse, which
strongly risks correspondlng to current, fashion, or tastes.
Whffi
tfE A,'tists?
Danid BUH
Are
For at least thirry years now there have been abundant examples of organizers rigging up group exhibitions in their own way in order to make '$,iorks"; and their own
wayis not always up to the works employed, to saythe least. A1l the more so because,
in most cases, their "works" are nothingbut even more large-scale imitations of certain artistic movements or research that they pillage for their own benef,t, r,r-Llgarize, and. attach to all of the invited artists, who, generally lacking in mistrust, flnd
themselves cursed with a costume that does not f,t them, when it isn't a big red nose
that the organizer-author/clown has placed smack in the middle of their face. At
least with an organizer chosen from among artists (those capable of assuming and
willing to take on such a delicate and dangerous role would ceitainly not be very numerous !) we would know a little bit more precisely the spirit in which they position
themselves in relationship to the world. We could read the exhibition with much
more perspective and more seriously than we seem to be able to do under the reign
it
of
the plastic arts, whereas, priori, it would not pose any problems in other cultural
realms? Without pretending to respond to this strange situation, it could be usefui
a
Who is most often nominated to be the head of an opera house? A highly skilled musician (interpreter, composer, or director ofan orchestra, or all ofthose things at
once). Is an artist, a painter or sculptor, nominated to run an important museum?
Never. Actors, directors, authors, or Someone who engages in a1l three activities
are frequentlyhired to run theaters. Are lMng artists nominated to mn art centers?
Never. Publishing houses often entrust complete collections-from the choice of
authors to the wdting of
or an essayist.
It is not rare to flnd writers, playn'rights, musicians, and directors in charge of rubrics treating literature, theater, music, and cinema in journals, magazines, or other
reviews. Is it possible to find an afi criticism column written by an artist? Neverl
219
The
BiqnialRder
The aim ofthese reflections is not to study the reasons for the absence ofartists on
the front lines of all of the domains cited above, where certain of them, if it were possible and ifthey so desired, could undoubtedly have their place. yet, ifwe wager that
uiaterer tl;_:
we could decipher the reasons, would we be any closer to knowing what an artist is
today? what is their role in society? what do we offer them and why? what do we
never offer them and why? what role do we assign to them, realty? And why does
their place seem to become even more restricted as time goes by?
,\nd if
Given the far from briiliant state that contemporary art finds itself in today, it seems
hibitcr l::. :
If it
is incs:.=:
tils:.
Thereiore.
entirely appropriate that cer-tain ar-tists couid asser-t their presence exactlywhere it
is never solicited. The organizers/authors/anists oflarge-scale exhibitioris provide
results we already know: Documenta transformed into a circus (Jan Hoet) or even
as a
platform for the promotion ofcurators who profit from the occasion in order
to publish their thesis in the form ofa caraiogue (catherine David) or as a tribune in
favor of the developing politically correct world (okwui Enwezor) or other exhibi-
\iaether
-..}'a,1.i..,r.,--.
-j--
i-
; l:-:
:--:-
doing so, at least they should not add to the taste for such banality the pretension
of calling themselves an "author" by generalizing the attitudes of artists who have
alreadyproved themselves elsewhere on the scale of an entire exhibition.
To be an organizer-author is surely not to make fun of art at its own expense, especially since there are already a good number of anists who do so quite well and thus
one is only shamelessly imitating them.
-rre
::
<:.np-l :r i :=-.
others, undoubtedlytoo influenced bythe history ofart ofyesterday and today, forget that even if they do admire the gesture of a creator iike Duchamp for having put
a mustache on a fake Mona Lisa, or the research of artists like sylvie Fleury
or John
Armleder, this does not give them the right to hang a Bernard Buffet on a soi Le witt
wail drawing, or to place a doghouse sold by Gucci in front ofa claude Lev6que., In
22t
:l;
i\ Lri A 1L\i
western market for art consumption, which, like all markets, must ceaselessly and
rapidly renew itself in order not to succumb, hence, in order to bring about: Magz'cians of theEathbyJ. H. Martin, the chinese andthe breathless.!outh-ism,,of H.
s.
--::
:_-
There are swarms of examples of doubtful worth and I think, at such a level of "nonthinking," that occasionally putting an artist (or several artists) in charge of a large-
is indispensable that every organizer play a creative role when exercising his
or her profession (whether they are artists themselves or curators), then it is less
obvious that the result ofthis creativity, the exhibition produced, is a work in itself.
Ifit
And if this is the case, what about the "works" that make it up?
Therefore, the question that remains, and the one worth asking, is whether an exhibition that brings together a large number of different amvorks can become a
'fuork" itself.
Whether the response is yes or no, from the moment that a group exhibition is
signed and defended by a veritable author who would also be, for the space ofthis
exhibition, its organizer, strong evidence would be given on this subject that oniy an
@ Daniel Buren
lt0Trs
- Bildwelten heute,
ed. Harald Szeemann, exh. cal. Kassel,
l\y'useum Fridericianum, 1 972, Section
17, p. 29; and "Where Are the Artisis?" in Jens Hoffmann (ed.), Ihe Nexl
Dacumenta Shauld Be Curated by an
Artlst (New York and Frankfud, 2004),
pp.26-31.
Generallyspeaking,theartmag-
artists
themselves are those whose editors-inforthe
do
eveMhing
chief or associates
magaine, and those that are published
irregularly and that never fail to coliapse
(which does diminish their quality).
221