AntiThesis: Dialogue essay

This action, Antithesis:Dialogue, was based in the principle that productive, dialectic contact between members of the human community is a prerequisite for cultural evolution. Formally, as outlined in the invitations, it was an action for communication between artist and community, for communication within the community, against the dialectic sterility of the Modern Art Gallery, where objects are worshiped and valued above human contact, against the predominant mentality of artist-hiding-behind-object, and against the consumerist commodification of art in America. The means for this affrontation of the traditional was embedded in both the form of the action and the function of the dialogue that ensued. The way art is defined, created, and shared — the role of art — is a temporal and cultural reality. This cultural reality must be constantly confronted and critically examined so that the culture may evolve to a higher state of understanding. One way to stress cultural understanding is by the conscious juxtaposition of new or different values or behavior patterns. As an artist, I have the opportunity to introduce new visions or new ways-of-being to my culture, moreover, I have the responsibility to do this. I therefore made the conscious decision to deviate from the normal behavior pattern in the execution of my thesis project, hence the title, Antithesis:Dialogue.

Antithesis:Dialogue was a continuous action that took place between the fourteenth and twenty-third of April, l989, in apartment number 3007, 1475 Folsom Street, Boulder, Colorado, United States of America. I was physically present within the confines of the apartment for the entire two-hundred-forty-hour duration of the action. Approximately one-hundred-seventy people took part in the action; one-hundred-twenty through direct attendance, and fifty by telephone (additionally, I conducted a half-hour lecture with an audience of sixty people in the Fine Arts Gallery by audio-telephone and I involved an additional seventy students from Mead Elementary School by post and telephone). On average, people stayed for about four hours, with a good number that stayed over a twenty-four hour period or visited repeatedly. An austere installation in the Fine Arts Gallery consisting of a small desk, chair, telephone, and directions to the apartment was aimed to attract interaction from the gallery-attending public. The installation also established the purposeful emptiness of the gallery: that is, a non-exhibition. Invitations were hand-delivered or mailed to over two-hundred people, with encouragement by word-of-mouth action. I required my regular students to come over and present some of their current work to whomever was present at the time in lieu of not having class. I made Polaroid portraits of a limited number of participants. Being acutely aware of the objectification that transpires through documentation of art, I avoided any systematic documentation except a personal record; having guests sign a guest book. I did not want the event to become the document of the event.

The average MFA thesis exhibition in the University of Colorado Fine Arts Galleries sees an attendance of less than two hundred people combined coming to the three or four exhibitions that run concurrently. In my experience most MFA thesis exhibitions have been structurally and monotonously identical: objects/installations brought into the gallery setting for an opening party, and perhaps a performance. Ten days later the objects are removed for the next round of exhibitions after being duly re-photographed in the gallery environment as documentation of the event. Most of the people attending the exhibition ‘interact’ with the art-objects for much less than an hour; interaction with the artist is typically formal and of limited duration. There is a narrow physical role for the artist as an invisible recluse — appearing for a time at the opening fete as a tuxedo-clad body. Seldom is there dialectic exchange or the establishment of critical connection between the artist and the audience in this context. Ultimately this sterile activity seems to be a direct result of the present confining cultural role of art. In the sense that Antithesis:Dialogue did not follow this normal pattern, it was an antithesis. It was also antithesis in the sense that what transpired is not generally accepted as a culturally consumable form of expression. That is, the creative value of the spoken word, direct and unmediated, has been placed far below the value of material objects within this culture.

My personal definition of the term art lies in the historical etymology of the word. I formulate my active conceptual relationship with art through an original Greek meaning or use as way of doing . I define my work, my art, as the generated sum of my actions, the cumulative result of my movement through the carnal, intellectual and spiritual world. In this belief, I am in direct conflict with modern, de-evolved, cultural roles for art. Among the more abhorrent contemporary roles are: art-as-commodity, art as an elite socioeconomic career pursuit, art as mediator of human contact, and art as a profane worship-of-object. Antithesis:Dialogue was in direct response to these personal, critical understandings. It was a direct positive statement of my credo as a human artist. It was an activation of my beliefs.

Impressions of the action can be examined from two broad categories: personal and communal.

The effect of sensory-deprivation, that is, being indoors primarily in one small room, was perhaps one of the dominant personal aspects of the action. While it was not in the extreme, it heightened my awareness of what transpired. I was forced to surrender my normal, structured life into a series of spontaneous acts, as, at any time during the action, anyone could call or walk into the house. In effect, my living-room became a public or communal space. During the first few days I was writing and reading, but soon quit under the stress of constant interruption.

Following are some selections from the writings that terminated by the third day:

Critical thinking early on gives way to a certain shifting in and out of dreams each second, following my mind to places here and places there ... Sometimes the effect is to feel very confined and overly energetic; I pace. Other times I feel absolutely open ... I must remove the mask of confinement just as I put on the mask of ownership ... The space changes with changing presence ... It seems that two or three persons are the limit for a conversation that begins to deconstruct the barriers of the Ego ... I dream dreams set in the landscape of my childhood in winter ...

When no one was there, I ended up just sitting, looking out the window at the world, waiting for things to happen. When there were people present I acted as moderator, observer, stimulator, mediator, host, director, victim, therapist, listener, speaker, cook, waiter, guest, photographer, writer, bartender, analyst, and grateful artist. By the end, though, the stimulation of the direct human interaction and the supportive energy of the participants persuaded me to consider extending the action.

The overall community response was enthusiastic and positive. There was open and illuminating discussion of the issues inherent in the action, its effect on the participants (their response), the progression of my personal experience during the action, and, of course, many other topics. One prominent topic of dialogue for the participants was a serious questioning of the whole action as art. In conversation, many people questioned the traditional modes of dissemination of art in the culture, and the roles that the artist and art must take. A number of people did not believe that the action was particularly art (by their definitions). Some suggested that the absence of objects of any kind made it difficult to label the action as art. For me, confrontation on this theme became an educational opportunity to expand the perimeter of this largely traditional interpretation. Critical engagement between artist and community could never take place without the artist establishing a position of credibility and providing some space within which this dialectic conflict might take place. Many people agreed that this type of action was critical but largely ignored within the normal sphere of artistic activity. In terms of my peers in the university art program, I feel that I was able to open up some alternative possibilities to the traditional MFA gallery exhibition.

Another important aspect was the interaction of strangers from widely divergent backgrounds and the subsequent establishment of inter-connection within the community. Many times there were groups of five to eight people none of which knew each other, yet almost always there was a high level of conversation and interaction. There was a definite sense of collaborative evolution, a sharing of experience. One valuable conclusion is a reflection of the form that the action took — bringing an ever-changing group of strangers (and friends) into direct personal contact with each other. Functioning as a catalyst, I was able to provide a space where a variety of people from the community could engage in free-ranging dialogue and action.

(I would note here that it is also not the aim of this essay to document the action in any way. I would just provide some understanding as to my own motivations in undertaking Antithesis:Dialogue and share some of the results.)

Antithesis:Dialogue made a strong impact on my personal development although it will take some time to be fully assimilated. There came the absolute conviction that this type of activity is essential to the healthy life of both the community and the artist. The artist must act as a catalyst for social change and evolution by bringing into contact his/her spiritual energies with the milieu of his/her community. The artist must provide some physical and/or psychic and/or intellectual space for discourse on all subjects or, at least, subjects that he/she has an intimate and uplifting understanding of. If the art object has become degraded by a consumerist cult(ure), the artist must begin to reclaim his/her rights by first speaking to his/her community. Dialogue is an indispensable spatial and temporal mode of art — a way-of-doing — a revolutionary art when in critical juxtaposition to silence. Even as the literal and visual icons of the culture carry dynamic social values, so dialogue actively carries and transmits the social consciousness. Dialogue is critical at all junctures in history: and while dialogue is historic in that word and meaning change with time in the space of ideology; dialogue is ahistoric in that each coming day brings a new imperative for spoken communication. Speaking, expression of heart by voice, is the core of all activism. It is essential that the artist realize that involvement in this living dialogue, this Logos, is the only way that art may return from the void of spiritless commodification. After dialogue is re-established, the artist may reclaim the art object as a tool for dynamic cultural exchange and evolution. The artist must not become the victim of a narrow interpretation of art as production-of-object, but must pursue strongly an independent vision that includes to a high degree an awareness of both external and internal life.

If I as an artist, working in the way that I do, might aid or otherwise stimulate this evolution of understanding within my community, I consider myself a success. I claim absolutely nothing, except that I continue a critical interrogation of self and world.