John Welchman, “Public Art and the Spectacle of Money: An Assisted Commentary on Art Rebate/Arte Reembolso” in Space, Site, Intervention: Situating Installation Art, ed. Erika Suderberg, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), 237-251.
In John Welchmans article “public art and the spectacle of money: an assisted commentary on Art Rebate/Arte Reembolso” investigates the relationship between art and capitalism. The article states that three artist were awarded a 5000 dollar grant by the Museum of contemporary Art, San Diego for an exhibition that dealt with the controversial issues of immigration and the border.The groupo used the grant money to turn everything upside and reframe the conversation of illegal immigration. The grupo took the money and split it all into $10 dollar bills. This money was then given to the “undocumented” or “illegal” workers of the San Diego area. The rebates were not of much financial value but rather served a larger symbolic purpose, a sort of reward for the “undocumented workers.” This controversial action must always face some sort of critique, Welchman uses Marcel Mauss argument of the gift and how this can be problematic. “...Suggesting a last reversal here might imply that the Art Rebate group acts as surrogate social workers distributing someone else’s money in a trade that, while it buys their own celebrity, at the same time renders the subjects of the rebate-the undocumented workers- inert or transparent at the center of a survival of exchange, real and virtual.” (Welchman, 239). This is an argument that is no stranger to these types of performance pieces, just like the work of Minerva Cuevas. On the surface we see a group who is attempting to use their resource to bring attention to a major issues, but who is gaining the attention and publicity in this situation? Like Welchman states the undocumented workers become secondary. One thing that I want some clarity is Welchman’s statement of the “real and the virtual.” What is this in reference to?
John Welchman's article “Public Art and the Spectacle of Money: An Assisted Commentary on Art Rebate/Art Reembolso,” follows the artists Louis Hock, Liz Sisco, and David Avalos as they accomplish a public art project that was commissioned by the Centro Cultural de la Raza and the Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego as a part of the exhibition La Frontera/ The Border. The group was granted $5000 dollars to create the piece, and with that $5000, they decided to redistribute the “negative wealth” back to “undocumented taxpayers” by dividing the money into $10 bills, signing the bills, and making a certificate for each bill distributed.
Welchman's use of financial jargon and “Aristotelian” philosophy is only detrimental to the cause. First, the use of “negative wealth” is used incorrectly. Negative wealth is anything that does not contribute to one's positive wealth. Second, throwing out “commensurability,” two values are incommensurable when the two do not share a common measurement system, while it has nothing to do with the this project. Though I understand that the group is trying to bring attention to the situation and lives undocumented immigrants, They portray themselves as elitist Robin Hoods by taking money from the government and returning it to the people. As the saying goes, There are two certainties in life death and taxes.
There are definitely several concerns with this article's theoretical foundations. However, I am not sure that I would characterize the artists as "elitist Robin Hoods." Let's talk it out tomorrow in class.
In John Welchmans article “public art and the spectacle of money: an assisted commentary on Art Rebate/Arte Reembolso” investigates the relationship between art and capitalism.
ReplyDeleteThe article states that three artist were awarded a 5000 dollar grant by the Museum of contemporary Art, San Diego for an exhibition that dealt with the controversial issues of immigration and the border.The groupo used the grant money to turn everything upside and reframe the conversation of illegal immigration. The grupo took the money and split it all into $10 dollar bills. This money was then given to the “undocumented” or “illegal” workers of the San Diego area. The rebates were not of much financial value but rather served a larger symbolic purpose, a sort of reward for the “undocumented workers.” This controversial action must always face some sort of critique, Welchman uses Marcel Mauss argument of the gift and how this can be problematic. “...Suggesting a last reversal here might imply that the Art Rebate group acts as surrogate social workers distributing someone else’s money in a trade that, while it buys their own celebrity, at the same time renders the subjects of the rebate-the undocumented workers- inert or transparent at the center of a survival of exchange, real and virtual.” (Welchman, 239). This is an argument that is no stranger to these types of performance pieces, just like the work of Minerva Cuevas. On the surface we see a group who is attempting to use their resource to bring attention to a major issues, but who is gaining the attention and publicity in this situation? Like Welchman states the undocumented workers become secondary. One thing that I want some clarity is Welchman’s statement of the “real and the virtual.” What is this in reference to?
Let's talk more about this idea of the undocumented workers being rendered invisible through this process.
DeleteJohn Welchman's article “Public Art and the Spectacle of Money: An Assisted Commentary on Art Rebate/Art Reembolso,” follows the artists Louis Hock, Liz Sisco, and David Avalos as they accomplish a public art project that was commissioned by the Centro Cultural de la Raza and the Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego as a part of the exhibition La Frontera/ The Border. The group was granted $5000 dollars to create the piece, and with that $5000, they decided to redistribute the “negative wealth” back to “undocumented taxpayers” by dividing the money into $10 bills, signing the bills, and making a certificate for each bill distributed.
ReplyDeleteWelchman's use of financial jargon and “Aristotelian” philosophy is only detrimental to the cause. First, the use of “negative wealth” is used incorrectly. Negative wealth is anything that does not contribute to one's positive wealth. Second, throwing out “commensurability,” two values are incommensurable when the two do not share a common measurement system, while it has nothing to do with the this project.
Though I understand that the group is trying to bring attention to the situation and lives undocumented immigrants, They portray themselves as elitist Robin Hoods by taking money from the government and returning it to the people. As the saying goes, There are two certainties in life death and taxes.
There are definitely several concerns with this article's theoretical foundations. However, I am not sure that I would characterize the artists as "elitist Robin Hoods." Let's talk it out tomorrow in class.
Delete