This essay will explore the artist’s position in contemporary European society by investigating Katerina Šedá ’s participatory art [1] project ‘Over and Over’
Samantha Penn, Time Based Media Year 2. Unit 202 April 2009
[2]
In April 2008, Czech artist Kateřina Šedá [2] brought 40 people from her home town of Brno-Líšeň to the Berlin Biennale. Alongside the Berlin wall, she and her neighbours built a structure, a large circle made from exact replicas of fences from their town. Šedá proceeded to climb into this structure, again with the help of her neighbours. At home two months later, Šedá travelled through the town of Líšeň in a straight line, enlisting the people whose houses she encountered on the way to help her cross their property. The project was entitled ‘Over and Over’ [3] [4] [5] [6].
[1] Participation in Contemporary Art, by Xavier Roux, describes the difference between participatory and participative art. This essay looks at participatory art in general.
[2] http://www.kopenhagen.dk/interviews/interviews/interview_katerina_eda/ [Internet] Interview Sebastian Quedenbaum-Katerina Šedá
[3] Hernandez Chong Cuy, S. (2008) Introducing Katerina Šedá , Modern Painters, Vol. 20 no9 October 2008, p 64-66
[4] Walker, H., My grandmother could do that., [Internet], The Renaissance Society at the University of Chicago Available from <>
[5] Uhlířová, M., (2006) Nothing: An Interview with Kateřina Šedá, [Internet], Edition 1, Umelec International, Available at
The primary theme in Šedá ’s work is the isolation of the individual in a democratic society, the invisible barriers which have been put in place by what Guy Debord calls the ‘Spectacular’ Modern European Society [7]. Šedá is responding to the social changes that have taken place in the Czech Republic since 1999, when the country’s communist government was replaced by parliamentary democracy. [8]
“Before 1999 there was a big fence around all my country. And now this fence is all over – between the people.” [3]
She uses simple motifs, ideas that people will understand but, conversely, which could be dismissed as publicity hungry sound and image bites from someone who understands the power of the image. [9]
While Šedá’s work is clearly focused on those around her, she chose to show it at the Berlin biennale. This strikes critics as hypocritical. [10] What can the art world gain from her piece? Where can the art world place it? Is it sculpture or performance? Is it contradictory to claim to be an artist, someone who works with the visual, when one actively involves people and consequently social themes in ones work? How does one successfully classify and critique such work? How on earth do her participants feel? Is she not simply trying to secure herself a little funding so that she can continue with her personal project? Is she arrogantly and childishly trying to be artist, revolutionary and counsellor at the same time? I hope that this essay will provide the answers to some of these questions.
[7] Debord, G. (Translated by Knabb, K) (2002). The Society of the Spectacle, [Internet]. Available from:
< http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/>. AND Debord, G (1988, Translated by Imrie, M., 1990) Comments on the Society of the Spectacle. 2nd Edition. London, Verso.
[8] Radio Prague (1997) The “Velvet Revolution” , The Czech Republic Today [Internet]. Available from:
< http://archiv.radio.cz/history/history15.html and http://archiv.radio.cz/history/history15.html >
AND https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ez.html
[9] Gillan, P. (2008) Obituaries: Patrick Ireland, 35, Enigmatic Artist Who Worked Ceaselessly for Peace. Modern Painters Vol.20 no.5, June 2008. P115
Kuspit, D. (2008) A Critical History of 20th Century Art. Art Criticism Vol. 23 no.1/2 2008 p11-350
[10] Coulter-Smith, G. (2008) Katerina Šedá @ 5th Berlin Biennale 2008 [Internet]. Artintelligence. Available at: <http://artintelligence.net/review/?p=595 >
Šedá is showing people to the art world. There is something anthropological, something a little Victorian, about this. Non artists are brought before artists, their actions scrutinised. They did not ask to be put on display. If their garden happened to fall in the way of Šedá’s invisible line, they were forced to either submit to the artist’s demands or to be criticised for submitting to the demands of a spectacular society. This is incredibly ironic. In attempting to combat elitism the art world is being elitist. In its quest ‘to merge art and society’ [11] it is creating new and confusing social divisions. The art world, including Šedá (whether she knows it or not) is totalitarian in its egalitarianism. [12]
Kant introduced the idea of the autonomy of the artist, [13] and this autonomy, the separateness of the art world, has enabled artists to make ambiguous statements with as much purpose and dignity as any academic, and what’s more has allowed them to permit themselves to make a comment on any issue they choose to. This is extremely worrying to some critics. [14]
The image is an incredibly powerful tool, particularly in a society, like ours, where information is so readily available. The internet has made almost anything available to almost anyone. It has allowed almost anyone to have their say, under alias or disguise if they please. Any viewpoint is represented somewhere on the internet, with variable amounts of control. The internet is a representation of opportunities and an advertisement for freedom of speech. The problem with the internet is precisely this, according to critics. [ADD A FOOTNOTE 15]
[11] Benjamin, W. (1936) The Work of Art in the Age of the Mechanical Reproduction [Internet] Excerpt available from:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
Adorno, T and Horkenheimer, M (1944) The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception: The Dialectic of Enlightenment [Internet] Available from:
< http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm>
[12] Kekes, J. (2008), Assault on a Fine Ideal. New Criterion, Vol. 6, no. 6, Feb 2008, p.25-31
[13] Johnson, R. (2008) Kant’s Moral Philosophy [Internet]. Available from:
< http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/>
Beech, D. (2007) Autonomy v Barbarism. Art Monthly, no. 309, Sept 2007. Features p.1-5
Beech argues against autonomy as isolation and for autonomous decision making in a theory of theory’ both alternative to and convergent with the one proposed in this essay
An artist may create something that is meant to be ironic, which has been thoroughly researched, but in the hands of a stranger on the internet all irony could be lost if an image is not properly explained. Critics feel that clarity and integrity are being lost, [16] and what’s more, that the celebrity endorsed, well promoted art world is infringing on the space previously occupied by academia. That in a visual society, books and reading are under threat, and that boundary crossing art like Šedá ’s (I am talking about the fact that her work has social as well as aesthetic aims, not the fact that she works with fences) is acting as a decoy whose ambiguity and publicity courting is extremely dangerous to academic development.
[10]
I will now look into Šedá’s work to see how specifically it fits in with these criticisms. It certainly could be called ambiguous, and it certainly does explore more than just aesthetics. It could be said, in response to accusations of elitism, that Šedá is in fact making an ironic comment about the way people are forced into following perceived social norms. [17]
[14] Townsend, C. (2009) Knowledge as Spectacle, Art Monthly no 322 Dec 2008/Jan 2009, Features p11-14 “The claim that was made for Sherman and Prince in the 8os, that the very act of transformation is understood as itself a critique, neglects the degree to which the autonomous sphere of art has been subsumed by celebrity, mass culture and the marketplace.”
Fowkes, M and Fowkes, R. (2009) Art & Philosophy: Or how Philosophers got Curated. Art Monthly no.323, Feb 2009, Features p.11-14
Grant, D. (2009) The Disappearing Catalogue Essay. American Artist no.73, April 2009, p.74-5
[INTERNET FOOTNOTE 15]
[16] On Ambiguity. Gaddy, J. (2008) Stack the Vote. Print, Vol.62, no.5, Oct 2008, p.14.
To the idea that Šedá’s work could be damaging to knowledge, there are a number of responses. It is true that Šedá’s work dips into politics and social structures rather than delving deep into the issues. Her responses are personal, phenomenological [18] ones. Her work is autobiographical, combining and bringing together art and Brno-Líšeň. She is acting out her ideals. This could be called dangerous if her ideas were taken up and followed vehemently, obsessively, by someone with political goals. However, this could be said for any idea. Šedá pursues her ideas, but makes it clear, by placing herself within the art world, that she is an artist. Her work asks questions and acts out answers, but does not propose them. Her position as an artist means that her work can be ambiguous and contradictory without posing a threat to society. In addition, that which interests her, she researches, and thoroughly. [19]
So what is the art world’s purpose, if it offers the artist the chance to act out any wish, to explore any idea without fulfilling it in ‘The Real World’? One could say that such an ideas space is extremely useful as without it ideas would have to be tested in the real world.
[17] This is disproved in interviews with Seda-for example in this interview excerpt about another of her projects, ‘There is Nothing There’“…manipulation doesn’t necessarily imply forcing and taking advantage of someone, it is also any given structure that can direct, control or mould something. I think that every game is a form of manipulation of those involved, one that brings with it certain ideological problems (e.g. winner/loser, stronger/ weaker, and most of all the act of following the rules). The fact that it’s a voluntary manipulation is another matter. Watching TV, a soccer match, a wedding, and what happens in the doctor’s office are also forms of manipulation, even though we mostly choose to do them.
I might be oversensitive to that word. When it has been used in describing my projects, it has usually been in a negative sense. Some see working with people as very simple. I often hear how I put too much effort into something that might be done more easily. But I wonder how, when no one trusts anyone anymore. It is important to me that the whole project is understood in a positive way, not as an example of the terror of mechanized activities, but as a picture of something collective.
[18] Kriegel, U. (2008) Self-representation and Phenomenology, [Internet]. Published online: 8 February 2008. Springer Science+Business Media B.V. Available from: < http://uriahkriegel.com/downloads/phenomenology.pdf >
Flynn, Thomas R. (2006) Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction. ‘Very Short Introductions’ no.153. Oxford: Oxford Press, p17
[19] “Since becoming a student at the Academy of Fine Arts in Prague, Czech Republic in 1999, KateřinaSeda has staged interventions into the life around her she identifies as “normality”. These experiments have taken place in small villages near Brno, her home environment, as well as in the urban setting of her second home Prague. Based on rigorous research into behaviour and communication patterns in both art and non-art communities, Seda has developed some poignant sociology-driven themes and spun around the truisms about production, consumption and meaning of contemporary art.” –From [6]
In fact, one could say that the ironic nature of the art world could be more dangerous than its ambiguity. If everything is a parody of itself, what is real? What is life? Šedá, amongst others, could be seen as challenging this irony from the inside, from within the art world. There are those who prefer to make visual responses to philosophical and social questions. [20]
Significantly, Šedá ’s comments on her own work are ambiguous, or open to misinterpretation. It seems from interviews with her as though she is actually acting entirely without irony, which would suggest that she herself is an anthropological specimen.
Our modern/post modern society is continually in awe of achievements, developments, and rebirths. The problem with such rapid ‘progress’ is that its speed and magnificence are perhaps too enthralling, that it distracts from such vital progressions as learning, deducing, rewriting. [21] Young children frequently dissociate themselves from situations in order to learn from them. [22] In a similar way, the art world’s continual self examination, process analysis, [23] and open ended
[20] Carey Young’s work questions, very knowingly, the relationship between the art world and the world at large. She is aware of the limits of artistic contributions to society and makes clear, through her comparison of ‘intervention’ and ‘insertion’ [1] and works such as I AM A REVOLUTIONARY (www.careyyoung.com)
Allan Kaprow its synthesis thoroughly questions the nature of participatory art and its playfulness and transience. http://www.moca.org/kaprow/
M. Lederman Ukeles deliberately avoided the gallery setting in ‘Re-Spect for Givers’- Lafuente, P. (2004) Art On Parade, Art Monthly, no.280 Oct 2004, Features p.1-4
Cai Guo Qiang, like Kateřina Šedá , grew up in a communist country which underwent a revolution at the end of the 20th Century. Unlike Šedá, he involved other artists in the production of his work entitled ‘Bilbao Rent Collection Courtyard’. His work could be an example of both a critique of regimes and organisation, particularly communism and capitalism, and also a piece of art which is participatory in its intimacy and use of recognisable imagery.
Guggenheim Bilbao (2009) Press Release-Cai Guo Quiang. [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.undo.net/cgi-bin/undo/pressrelease/pressrelease.pl?id=1236942542&day=1237244400 >
Robert Barry’s piece ‘It has Order’: : ‘ ... it has order ... it is always changing ... it is affected by other things ... it affects other things ... it is not confined ... it is not in any specific place ... it can be presented, but go unnoticed ... to know of it is to be part of it ...’ (It Has Order, 1969-70). Heiser, J. (2004) Robert Barry [Internet]. Frieze Magazine Issue 80, Jan-Feb 2004. Available from
<http://www.frieze.com/issue/review/robert_barry/>
[21] Debord, G (1988, Translated by Imrie, M., 1990) Comments on the Society of the Spectacle. 2nd Edition. London, Verso.
Debord claims that the integrated spectacle has led to widespread ‘illiteracy’
[22] http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/dissociation.htm
questioning could be a widespread and sustained attempt to make sense of the world as it is through a sort of detachment. Perhaps a lot more questioning needs to be done; perhaps, as Guy Debord says of the spectacular society, this abstract thinking is going to stick around for some time. Perhaps it is even here to stay, and today’s artists are internet generation incarnations of the artist as the romantic analyst of society.
I feel that to say art is obscuring knowledge ignores the fact that art has never been something that claims to know. It has always been subjective. Perhaps the issue as far as art and knowledge is concerned is to do with the different ways in which text and image are received and shared, and the limitations of image and text. Images are limited in that they make an immediate impact on the viewer, and thus when viewed out of context their meaning can be skewed. Images can easily have multiple meanings, and as such must be ‘read’ and understood with care. Text is limited by language-which is why certain texts fare better in one language than another. The plus side with text is that, through language and through statements, it makes its intentions very clear. Writers use only one language, a linear, 2D sequence of symbols, which is understood by a certain number of people. The image may have more than one language, (languages of space, of time, of symbol etc [24]), and also one combined language, the specific phenomenological language of the creator. It must be remembered that art does not always wish to be understood, that artists can knowingly create something which is confusing because, were it not confusing, it would not be itself. As writers have a voice, the artist has a voice, and with both academic writings and the ‘fine arts’, this voice must be taken into consideration.
There is something universal about that which only requires, factual knowledge to be understood [25]. As such, art may teach and continue to teach, for years to come. I feel that what is needed, in order to remove confusion, is for the artist (or the individual) to become aware of the dangers of both irony and idealism through reading, through understanding, and through maintaining integrity. Debord puts it forward that one must compromise oneself today in order to achieve success. [26] One must be aware of the risks. There have always been those who have pursued success. Every person is different, and different words and images take hold of different people, encouraging them along different paths. For those who choose to try to bring people together, for those who wish to teach and, really for those who wish to make art, it is important to be aware of the possibility of success, to be aware of those around you who have achieved different things in different ways, but at the same time to be very aware of your own self and the progress you have made, the nuances of every influence.
It is and has always been impossible to satisfy everyone. In a society so full of information (or at least which has undergone such rapid change) it is advisable to treat every event as something never before studied, something completely new. This does not mean abandoning history, but rather studying the source of the piece of information, the person who has put it together, the significance of the information to different people.
The Situationist International, which sought to break apart capitalist social structures, itself split down the middle in 1972. [27] Both divisions wanted to eradicate the Western notion of ‘high art’ and ‘low art’. While the aesthetes in the group wanted art to become‘for everyone’, the politicos saw art as a part of the spectacle and called for a recognition of this followed by the integration of art into society. Both factions wanted the same thing but wanted to go about achieving in very different ways. Hoping for the sudden dissolution of the art world seems rather big ask. Today, despite the disbanding of the SI, there are still attempts from various
[23] Klein, J. (2008) Repeat Performances: Seriality and Systems Art Since 1960. Art Papers, Vol. 32, no. 2, Mar/Apr 2008, p 65
[24] This links to post structuralism, which I have not read much about but would like to begin thinking about
[25] (Though in these times, as Guy Debord argues in ‘Comments on the Society of the Spectacle’, all information could be considered suspect. (The chapter entitled ‘Disinformation’) Perhaps rather than taking this stance I would say that all information is potentially suspect, and that every piece of knowledge is limited because developments are continually being made that could change perceptions of it.)
[26] ‘Permanent self denial is the price the individual pays for the tiniest bit of social status’; ‘Comments…’ p 32
groups, both political and art based, who attempt to make ‘being an artist’ possible for anyone. I have mentioned this firstly because the Situationists are an example of how ideas can break down and become new ideas for different people.
There are two final points I would like to make, in response to my own utopian conclusions. One is that, as the Situationist politicos felt, simply scratching the ideas of the last century or two, and revert to a system where art and science and philosophy are one ‘academia’ rather than separate categories, could have positive outcomes. As it is, some artists have taken up Situationist ideas, like attempting to remove categories and the isolation that comes with them. The ‘spectacular’ society may yet, slowly, disappear. Conversely, it may be said that the work of artists such as Šedá is the very epitome of the spectacular, that Šedá is a specimen, an example of how deluded and confused people are, how audacity brings glory. The long term benefits of trying to ‘insert’ [28] art into society are unclear. It would perhaps be better for artists to make work only for those who will certainly know what they are being shown, and as such to avoid bringing into the ‘art world’ people who not only confuse but also become confused.
[27] (http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/242). Black, B. (2000) The Realisation and Suppression of Situationism [Internet]. Available from:
<http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/242>
[28] “The idea of an artistic intervention, with its implication of stoppages and blockages, has always seemed a little naïve to me. Why is this word so over-used in connection with art? I hope I am not being over-literal when I ask: since when did an artist actually stop anything to do with mainstream Capitalism? Insertions seems a much more useful and provocative term. It implies that the artist has the knowledge and the tactical cunning to define a system (perhaps by combining disparate systems) in formal, conceptual and indeed rhizomatic terms, and then find a gap from which to insert or divert something which reframes an understanding of the whole. Such a tactic exposes and manipulates the dynamics and asymmetries of power around us: a form of Kinetic art employing a systems aesthetic. This is art as software: it implies a potential reprogramming of the physical and the immaterial. We should explore this model further.
Young, C. (2008) On Clido Merieles [Internet]. Tate Magazine, no. 14, 2008. Available from :
< http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue14/playingthesystem.htm>
Also, where knowledge is concerned, Sartre said that we can only give the name knowledge to that for which we have indisputable evidence. [29] In this respect, artists like Kateřina Šedá could be some of the only people who really know anything, because they admit that they really only know what they themselves perceive. Sharing such information, while it may seem mundane, is at least aware of its mundanity, and in this sense art could be called the least abstract, the most thoughtful of schools because it minimises the possibility of foolish decisions becoming law. However, what people like Šedá [30] do actually know is art, and artistic approaches to life.
Katerina Šedá will most likely continue in a similar vein to her current one, her style of work being linear, the theme of each project based on a theme which has arisen in the previous project. In choosing to analyse her work, I have focused my attentions on one person’s outlook, one person’s output. Šedá is one of many ‘participatory’ artists, each of whom has a slightly different processes and themes. Šedá is just one of a number of people trying to learn phenomenologically, trying to invent a way of learning [31] And I do believe she is trying to learn something, or trying to produce something of philosophical value. She refuses offers from residents of other towns who believe that her charming intrusions will perhaps give residents (or at least those in charge of ‘culture’ in the area) a sense of solidarity. She does this on the basis that she cannot teach anything to people she does not understand [32]. It is this along with a total lack of irony in her statements and interviews
[29] Flynn, Thomas R. (2006) Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction. ‘Very Short Introductions’ no.153. Oxford: Oxford Press p71
[30] And me
[31] Mark Leckey is another artist who does this
[32] “In fact, far-flung art institutions have appealed to the artist with descriptions of their local tribulations, followed by an invitation to propose and develop works in situ. "They invite me for a three-day visit to their venues and cities," Seda recalls, "and I am supposed to become inspired in that time and propose a project that can address one of their problems." The artist
questions whether such an undertaking is feasible.” [3]
that leads me to believe that Šedá is not merely narcissistic. She may be naïve in thinking that through art she can ‘reach out’ to society, or she may simply be a Czech woman for whom working with the visual and spatial works well but who has questions about the situation these preferences has left her in. Artists are not required to be academics (or rather they are required to be more than academics) Perhaps Šedá showing her non academic, non capitalist work to academics and capitalists, to people who look for patterns rather than making ‘insertions’ is pointless. But that would imply that one can only share ones ideas with those who know what you know, which would surely stop learning in its tracks. We can only go forward. Šedá ’s claim that she is ‘showing people each other’ is fair enough but it is not clear whether she knows who she is. Within her work she acts out various roles, such as that of travel agent, traveller and healer. She is an artist who has been trained at an art school. She understands the power and language of the image and the art market. She knows how to make bold statements, how to appropriate, juxtapose and collage. Why is it that her profession is the only one to force itself upon others, to proclaim its superiority? Do other professions simply have more integrity? What we have learnt is that conversation is seen as useful in today’s art world. Perhaps this is because conversation is lacking in our society, because everything is becoming institutionalised. Perhaps it is because the art world, a network which deals in aesthetics, made the mistake of looking in on itself and discovered there was very little to discover, and so began to try to make links with other social groups to justify and try to understand its existence. Perhaps this mistake, moreover, will become useful as it highlights the dangers of making ambiguous, uninformed decisions. At best, art like Katerina Šedá ’s is food for philosophical thought. As worst it is cultural dross stemming from ambiguous, uninformed and above all self serving decisions. For me and for those who study art, art is what we make of it. And that leaves us with tremendous freedom and tremendous responsibility. Perhaps for people like Šedá , whose experiences and love of the visual lead them to create participatory art, it is immensely important that they think before involving people about exactly what the consequences of their actions will be.
The criticism that knowledge is being destroyed could be countered by the argument that art is working towards something through the existentialist principle that one must always continue, that one has no choice. Art, which is more ambiguous and more capable of the snap decision than academia, is becoming more widely available. Maybe this is fantastic, maybe exploring ways of communicating is an amazing thing, especially when trying to make sense of a rapidly changing world. Modernism, rapid and incredible change, fuelled imaginations, caused questions to be asked. These may take a while to answer, and art is full of ambiguities, possibly in awareness of this. Is art not an equally valid form of knowledge, provided it is kept at arm’s length? Is this cautious distance not one of the great things about art in a society that so often leaves questions unanswered? Is art not trying to do what the existentialists, particularly through Husserl, [18] tried to do, which was to find an irrefutable ontological principle? Conversation has always existed. However, for conversation to be valuable to learning, a new approach to learning should come into play, one which is both experiential and situational but also broad minded, all encompassing, diplomatic [33]. I will, to finish, and aware of my own lack of knowledge, mention the essay ‘The Palimpsest’ by Hakim Bey, [34] which proposes an approach to art which requires one first to be well informed, able to distinguish recurring patterns in the history of art and to place one’s own work in relation to them, and thirdly to act “not looking for delicious ironies, but for bursts of light.”
[35]
[33] Pethick, E. (2005) Resisting Institutionalisation [Internet]. Nought to Sixty Magazine. Available from:
<http://www.ica.org.uk/Resisting%20institutionalisation,%20by%20Emily%20Pethick%20+17441.twl>. “As Brazilian artist Ricardo Basbaum (who realised the project Re-projecting (Utrecht) with Casco in April 2008) describes:
'Conversations' are a way of thinking, where the self opens to the outside, producing a special social space where no single language of truth is prevalent. It enables the transformation of the voice of the other...'Conversations' are a sort of dialogue that have their own dynamics, always surprising the participants...'Conversations' succeed as a play-like situation, and involve a certain practice on how to keep yourself in a permanent state of awareness and change (flexibility). There's nothing specific to be achieved in a conversation, except that when the participants feel they are out of it - that is, when they finish a particular dialogue - they just cannot go back to the same places they left before (some transformation might have happened). Therefore, 'conversation' is a modality of movement.”
[34] Bey, Hakim, The Palimpsest [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.hermetic.com/bey/palimpsest.html>
[35] The Novgorod Codex, a palimpsest. http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/csad/Newsletters/Newsletter10/Newsletter10d.html
3086 words
0 comments:
Post a Comment