Mad For Real, 'Two Artists Piss on Duchamp's Urinal' (2000)
Mad For Real, 'Two Artists Jump On Tracy Emin's Bed', (1999)
Mad For Real [MFR] recognised that they literally had to ‘break’ into the airtight Western art canon if they were to get its attention.
In light of this, in MFR's performance: Two Artists Jump On Tracey Emin’s Bed (1999), they physically broke the established Western code. Here, without a word of warning, they jumped onto Tracey Emin’s Turner prize exhibit, My Bed (1999), and in doing so challenged the way in which art institutions see themselves. We can suggest that the act alluded to Pierre Bourdieu’s social critique of the gallery. For instance, Bourdieu’s important text Aristocracy of Culture postulates that in order to fully engage with a work of art, one is required to have relevant educational or cultural capital and that it is the dominant social class which determines the criteria of high art. I also see this work as an example of Foucault's theory of the West's need to assert dominance over the East, particularly reinforced by the Tate's refusal to acknowledge their intervention as a work of art and subsequently MFR being arrested and escorted off the premises. MFR's performance piece was not a violent act upon themselves or another person, but it was the metaphorical violation of the cultural code which hit hard at the established institutions that mattered.
MFR’s other tongue-in-cheek performance Two Artists Piss on Duchamp’s Urinal was designed to lampoon the exclusivity of a purportedly progressive gallery, such as Tate Modern. In the course of their performance, the artists urinated on Marcel Duchamp’s 1912 work Fountain. Cai and Xi said that they had specifically chosen Fountain to urinate over, due to the: ‘controversy which erupted when Duchamp first exhibited the urinal as a work of art although he had merely found it.’ [Tom Sykes, Performance art takes the…, from Mad For Real ] Mad For Real's performance piece acted in a way of broadening the context of Duchamp's original work, exactly in the same spirit in which it was made. Cai and Xi reiterate in an interview with Nick Paton Walsh: ‘Modern British art is getting worse and worse. They haven’t taken any risks. The mainstream are caught in a circle, and we are outside that circle – pissing in.’ [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,330551,00.html ]
In a discussion I had with Cai Yuan, he told me that the Tate’s stated reason for not recognising their performances was that they were considered not ‘conceptual enough’ and that they could not produce works which were aesthetically sufficient for their tastes.
With both of the interventions taking place at the Tate, it resulted in MFR being issued with the following statement (and were subsequently banned from setting foot on any of Tate's premises):
"The Pleasure of our visitors has twice been disrupted by two artists who have threatened works of art and our staff. Tate will be taking action to protect the interests of visitors, the safety of the works of art in the collection and its employees." (citing Nick Paton Walsh, It’s a new Cultural Revolution, from http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,330551,00.html )
Ironically, it is this fax which stands as testimony to what Mad For Real were trying to eradicate. It is a proof that Western society has not offered Cai and Xi the artistic freedom that it had purported to extend to one and all.
The irony of Tate's statement, became farcically apparent, as the Tate, who not only position themselves as the cornerstone of Britain's forward-thinking artistic contingent, but during their 2007 Liverpool exhibition: 'The Real Thing: Contemporary Art From China,' they invited Mad For Real to hold a talk: The Ones that Got Away: Performance Artists Cai Yuan and JJ Xi in Discussion with Simon Groom. When I posed the question to Simon Groom (who at the time was head of exhibitions and collections at Tate Liverpool), as to why, when Tate consider themselves to be at the forefront of contemporary art, they had failed to recognise Mad For Real's avant-garde contribution towards the canon, and were simply dismissed with a fax, (and thus in Tate's eyes - denied their performances an artistic status), and now, once MFR have been critically acclaimed and their interventions recognised as art in its own right, the Tate have put their authorative stamp in 'allowing' MFR to enter into 'their' canon.
Simon Groom, downright refused to answer my question... which in itself, speaks volumes.
I also find it important to mention Transfiguration (2006-2007), as it is very different to MFR's usual tongue-in-cheek intervention pieces, rather - it holds a much more sombre feel and can be considered a durational performance piece. Transfiguration acts an important work reflecting on Britain’s socio-political prejudices about of immigration. It tackles the tragic death of fifty-eight illegal immigrants who suffocated aboard a tomato truck crossing into England in June 2000. During Vital: International Chinese Live Art Festival 2006, held in Manchester, UK, Mad For Real first performed Transfiguration which consisted of Cai and Xi sitting for forty-eight hours in the back of a white van. With their faces painted in Monkey King style (as seen in the Transfiguration illustration), symbolising their ‘Journey to the West,’ they invited passers-by to come inside and join them in the drinking of tomato juice. With the passers-by on board, the Mad For Real artists closed the doors shut and commenced the blending of tomatoes.
The work was exceptionally poignant, and to me, proved that MFR stand as some of the most critically important performance artists working in the UK. They address and question socio-political issues with such immediate relevance to the current Western ethos, and refuse to be ignored. Unfortunately, their website does not appear to be working at the moment, but if I hear of any forthcoming performances, I will be sure to post them here.
MFR, Transfiguration, 2007, London
No comments:
Post a Comment