-
ADD TIME NEWS
- NEWSLETTERS
Guest Blog: C-Monster Sees the Art-Shrink

Bert Rodriguez's therapy cube at the Whitney Biennial/ All Photos: C-MONSTER
When I first heard that part of the 2008 Whitney Biennial would consist of "events" at the Park Avenue Armory that aren't usually thought of as art, I wondered how I might cover one or two. But which one. The 24-hour dance marathon? Too tiring. The gypsy feast? Too fattening. The tequila bar? Too much....tequilla.
Then I learned that my distinguished blogging colleague C-Monster had scored one of the limited number of appointments for one of the most curious undertakings of the whole Biennial, the Bert Rodriguez "therapy sessions". Lightbulb! Have her go to her appointment, I decided, and then write about it. And since Rodriguez isn't actually a therapist, there wouldn't be any of that inconvenient doctor-patient confidentiality stuff to worry about.
So here it is, C-Monster's daring inside account of the talking-as-art experience.
I somehow managed to finagle one of the few coveted spots for a “therapy” session at the Whitney Biennial with Miami artist Bert Rodriguez. (The piece is officially titled In the Beginning…) Inside a furnished, white-walled cube, Rodriguez has been conducting hour-long therapy appointments with “patients”. (i.e. volunteers) Those are transmitted, with ample distortion, into the gallery space outside. To anyone outside, the broadcasts sound sort of like the mumbles that Charlie Brown hears when the grown-ups are talking.

If only I'd had a big Sharpie — in the waiting area outside the cube was a table of blank magazines
I've never been to therapy in my life. But seeing as the session was free and I'm seriously lacking in health insurance, I figured it couldn't hurt. That was until I sat in the waiting area, wondering what I was gonna talk to Rodriguez about for a whole hour. My parents love me and I'm happily married. So I focused my thoughts on all of the things that make me apprehensive—art, war, my perennial lack of funds. In the process, I became increasingly anxious. (Is this what therapy does to people?) By the time Rodriguez opened the door, I was ready to talk.

“When is this crazy lady gonna stop talking?” No doubt what the kindly Rodriguez was thinking around minute 58 of our session.
For our session, Rodriguez and I faced each other, Sopranos-style, over a round, low-lying table, box of Kleenex at the ready. He reminded me that he wasn't a real therapist and told me I could talk about whatever topics I wanted. We chatted about blogging, iPhones, getting mugged on the No. 4 train and what it's like to have a steady stream of New Yorkers come in and blab to you about their existence. (FYI: It's exhausting.) But for most of the hour, we discussed art-induced agita—the twitchy, nervous condition that comes from poring through impenetrable museum catalogues and blustering exhibit reviews. I wanted to know why the art industry has this bizarre impulse to bury itself in fancy lingo. Rodriguez couldn't provide firm answers, but we did come to the conclusion that it's a way for people with expensive degrees to give themselves purpose, to tell us what we purportedly know.

Biennial visitors desperately try to figure out what's going on inside the cube.
All the while, outside Rodriguez's perfect white cube, passersby were straining to understand what was happening inside. People tapped and even slammed on the door in frustration. Rodriguez had had to install a lock early on in the process because a number of visitors were barging in (despite the sign on the door asking them not to do so). It was a perfect metaphor for the art industry. Inside, was a simple conversation between two people. Outside, with all the added layers, everything was distorted, incomprehensible and inaccessible. Just the way the art industry likes it.
-
1
i feel more normal already. ;-D
-
2
"I wanted to know why the art industry has this bizarre impulse to bury itself in fancy lingo. Rodriguez couldn't provide firm answers, but we did come to the conclusion that it's a way for people with expensive degrees to give themselves purpose, to tell us what we purportedly know."
I don't know if I can agree on that, mainly because I'll be matriculating into a PhD program next spring. My reasons for wanting to conduct research have nothing to do with self validation or a need to have a purpose. My own research experience with monographs and periodicals has lead me to the conclusion that art writings are dry and difficult because their writers are rhetorically challenged. Simply put, many academics just do not know how to write. Too many scholars use "million dollar words" when a "five dollar word" will do. Too many scholars fail to realize the benefits of using varied sentence structure in proving a point, and thus take fifty pages to make a point when twenty will suffice. I also believe that the appearance of certain names in a monograph lend an artist or an argument an air of credibility. Has anyone else noticed the number of times the reknowned Rudi Fuchs has popped up in monographs from artists at the White Cube Gallery? How quickly Fuchs wrote something about Hirst's "For the Love of God" to give it credibility in all of its media frenzy?
-
3
C-Monster! Lovely article. Love the bit about the bizarre impulse to bury itself in fancy lingo.
JR Irwin - the problem goes beyond scholars and academics. If you go to the UK Tate Modern, or the NY MoMa, they succeed in having incredibly clear and concise explanations that invite the viewer to consider the work, while other modern museums that shall remain un-named, insist on creating incredibly dense and unintelligable explanations that exlude the viewer from any consideration.
Personally I think it's done to cover a work's lack of artistic merit. When was the last time you saw a Lucien Freud or a Banksy, for example, accompanied by a page of nouns that read like the bastard child of a computer manual and a communist manifesto?
More to the point, who would tolerate it?
-
4
I still think that the problem boils down to research. Much of the scholarship that tends to be an unintelligible mess of words tends towards the new-wave philisophies outlined by James Elkins in "Is Art History Global?". While Elkins focuses on scholarship and art, I think that his findings really speak to exhibition design and curation as well. It takes a year or more of graduate study to obtain a degree in exhibition design and curating - the topics aren't something that pop up in the average undergraduate course offerings. Considering that exhibitions, permanent or traveling, all start with a concept or an idea that involves further research, I'm wondering how the sources of the designers and curators affect what they end up writing to explain a work, and if 'new wave' analysis or shaky methodology could have a bearing on why we're spoon-fed crap explanations about crappy works.
Most Popular »
- Palin on Oprah: Can You See the Real Me?
- Curb Watch: Seinfeld 2.0
- The Bishops' Line in the Sand
- Motorola DROID review (Verizon Wireless)
- Cell-Phone Bills: Even Economists Can't Make Sense of Them
- 'Expert' Wine Sippers Take Us All for Suckers
- IA Poll: Culver Far Behind In Battle Of Govs
- Doug Hoffman Tell Glenn Beck He's Hoping for Miracle
- Palin Was Against SNL Before She Was For It
- 20 Money-Saving iPhone Apps
- Obama's Half Brother Mark Ndesandjo Speaks Up in China
- Five Things the U.S. Can Learn from China
- China: Two Die After Swine Flu H1N1 Vaccine
- Abortion Funding in Health Care Reform Splits Democrats
- Spain: Teen Masturbation Sex Ed Workshops Spark Outrage
- The Vanished Army: Solving an Ancient Egyptian Mystery
- The Meaning and Mythos of Manny Pacquiao
- Manny Pacquiao vs. Cotto: Filipino Phenom Wins by TKO
- Why Does the U.S. Want to Seize Mosques?
- Forgotten Australians Remembered by PM Kevin Rudd













RSS