I had a university professor, who at the beginning of my academic career said something that I have never forgotten. He said that there exists in theater life a certain belief that helps perceive if a play went well or not: the number of chairs scraping during the spectacle. It seems stupid, but I never forgot to pay attention to something that practically no one observes after the curtain has gone up: the public. Unless the public are rowdy or someone pushes your chair with their feet, it is difficult to find those who are interested in this story of turning ones head to the side to spy, in the dark, what the neighbor’s body language is saying. Unless, of course, the play is boring – then you will have the so-called seat choreography.
As it may be, the fact is that I have taken up this eccentricity. In theatres, dance and exhibition spectacles… In addition, it was from this same professor (Luís Reis, one of the greatest spectators and knowledgeable people in being cynical that I know of) that I learned to perceive the spectator of a work of art with one symptom. Rich indication of how a piece evolves its dialogue when it leaves behind individual emersion and reaches a direction – given by its peers. Art does not exist without society. Even if it is from the legitimization of a group of people specialized in recognizing it as such – within the so-called art world of Howard Becker, or artistic field of Pierre Bourdieu, even from an angle of recognition of “mortal mediocrity”. It is a sin to say that art does not exist without the public. It is so obvious. Who in fact dedicates themselves to paying attention as to how the spectators behave, in questioning whom they are, in counting the number of tickets sold or signatures in a visitor’s book? Who would still risk observing the public with a little bit of pre-judgment?
All of us are the audience when we resolve to get off our high heels and mix with the multitudes. In art, they are the principal part in all this, which is nearly always remembered when needed to strengthen a dominant discourse (starting from a layperson’s “ignorance”) or to measure the “success” of some work, while the critics go in the opposite direction. In the case of contemporary art, the public has become a type of time bomb, whose setting of the hands remains with the art-educators. They are different from the curators and directors of institutions as they deal face to face with each one of those present, and the reactions. Nearly always as we try to “bring them into line” or persuade them of a truth. Theirs is the mission, in name of an omnipotent curatorial discourse, to attract the public to the showing and prepare them to face up to the work presented. Still, when someone finally approaches them, crossing the frontier between the front door and the street they say (again!) one of the phrases that we have already heard – or said…
“Look here Maria, even my son has done art like that… You should learn from him” was once said to the author Márcia Tiburi. “Is this what you call art? This is art?”… Those who go to exhibitions of this type maybe have heard something similar said. It is a common thing in the art world to expect of the lay public these strange reactions when installations, videos, performances and other visual experiences come on the scene and acquire their social status. It is nearly a declared cynicism. Everything leads to the belief that there are more scratching of chairs of this imaginary theatre than we imagined.
In 2006, the publication of the book and video “Quem tem medo da arte contemporânea?, taken from the lectures administered by the critic Fernando Cocchiarale of the Joaquim Nabuco Foundation in Recife, only serves to enforce this premise. “… understanding seems to be growing,” announced Cocchiarale, who has become a reference when there is relations between the public and contemporary art. This year it happened to be the Itaú Cultural, through the Continuum1 magazine, that put more fire on the subject in an edition almost entirely around the debate in question. And there we find Cocchiarale’s book being quoted, as well as a good number of weighty accounts, otherwise, much less concerned in understanding the public starting with themselves ( not that we suppose it is), and more driven in carrying out a defense of contemporary art.
Generally, it happens like this, everyone wants to admit that there are murmurings, but the “problem” is not on the part of the artists, curators or institutions. The public have not yet captured what really is contemporary art. In addition, we have explanations on what rules logic of this “new” art, accompanied by a series of investments in the educational sectors of museums. “Today, the education of the public has become an essential preoccupation. The public is now being seen as something to be permanently informed,” commented Cocchiarale in the same Quem tem medo…It is praiseworthy and coherent that the initiatives to which we refer to exist – more and more. The part of the institutions goes along these lines and so arrives at maturity. It is their function in the field.
However, there is something for us to think about in the discourse under formation. Are they extremely didactic and relevant as to the understanding of logic of art? Yes, as we need to recognize that the same production of visual contemporary art operates “conventions” (or “reading contracts”) different from those used between Rebirth and Modernism, for example. However, from another point of view, the same discourses enforce a certain inconvenient prepotency in which the specialists insist on putting into the position of owners of the “truth” – at times so overlain with bias such as the opinions of the public who, speaking generically, weave with respect to the works of art.
The sociologist Vera Zolberg said, “Art professionals in general give little credit to the capacity of the lay public to give judgment of artistic value.” In reality, they give little credit to the public at all. Thus, if we consider that the spectator does not have an eye for esthetics, we must also consider that the so-called art professionals do not seem to respect (or consider as legitimate) the education of the public – who, we westerns conveniently have – with respect of what we call art. Reading between the lines it seems the educational projects have the necessity of tremendous catechism. From top to bottom, instantly.
There is nothing wrong with the process of socialization. There is nothing wrong in wanting to unite efforts with the educational sector. As a matter of fact; these matters do not come under a valuable judgment. However, up to what point are these educational strategies not unequal? Where will we find that contemporary art can come into its own (and at times, everything) because it is very near to daily routines, or dialogue with the “spirit” of our times? Contemporary art could at least give us new perceptions of reality. Are we going to tell everyone that the toilet bowl in the hardware shop will help him or her to realize this…
Without folklore, it is necessary to remember: there is a lack of research on cultural consumption in Latin America, as the Argentine Nestor Garcia Canclini has pointed out. In Brazil, very few art institutions invest in research with the public. They little know who visits from out of town or their e-mail from the visitor’s book. When are we going to look at the chair at our side? When are we going to understand that the public needs to be observed and not just “groomed” to interact with works of art? Before we tar everyone with the same brush, we could look a little in the direction of the audience in the sense that, with some generosity, we could try to understand the centuries of education that conducts the keys of artistic readings. Understand not necessarily to convert or co-opt. Understand to put yourself in their place, instead of judging. An educational sector does not need to have the omnipotence of convincing shoved down their throats. Neither does the curator.
To map out and make a problem of the public (or various publics) and their education, to discover which variables are working making a difference between liking and judgment would be a good beginning. We are a country where, according to recent IBGE research, more than 90% of the population has never ever entered a museum. We are a country where the scanty art teaching practically passed as canons, enforcing discourse of what is beautiful and of the visual tributary delight of the cultural matrix of romantics. A beautiful panoramic vision, the same that is the basis of hedonism and, according to Collin Campbell, the basis of the phenomenon of modern consumers. The same that makes us feel love as a natural sentiment.
There is nothing wrong with this. We do not always see everything. We only see what we learn. We learned much about what we like before we even were born, The liking of one form of art that has “essence” is sublime and above all, for example. A discourse on pure esthetics running through our veins. All of us, whether specialists or not, have, to different degrees, these cultural legacies from a long time ago. Our values are expressed in the so-called subjectivity. According to the French philosopher Anne Cauquelin, the legacy of an essentialist vision, promoted by the “theories of the 18th century (Kant, Hegel and the romantics)” – is enforced in the autonomizing of the artistic field – is solidly rooted and forms a picture, a mask through which we try in vain to learn to contemporize.”
Maybe she has reason. However, before we come up with a quick reply, we could try to understand that this is a supposition. Therefore, as it is a supposition we find that the majority of people are afraid of contemporary art. If we try to forget for just a moment these speculations, which in a certain way are used in the legitimization of art professionals, in their paradoxical will of distancing (see our inheritance coming to light), we could maybe leave this fragile terrain of common sense and advance our more consistent and interesting conclusions on ourselves.
