New Kinds of Art

21 Sep

– A society organized around the exchange of immaterial values will and must favor movement in front of stability. The time of dance is now.

– In a society where immaterial property is a much more pressing issue than material ditto, the museum will store art-works in the backyard and install movement practices and dynamic processes in what was previously known as exhibition spaces. Dance.

– In a society where subjectivity is a more important property than material things, where your figure is way more crucial than the size of your car, experience will be essential not paintings, choreographic pieces, poems, priceless sculptures or performances obsessed with identity politics. Dancing.

– In a society where the individual’s subjectivity is highest priority, the aesthetic experience is supposed to improve and celebrate the individual’s subjectivity, not the nation state, the people or celebrate art.

In order to correlate with our present predicament and notions of subjectivity the aesthetic experience will and must partly be designed by the experiencing individual. He or she should absolutely not be provoked to participation but engaged “creatively” in a way that makes him or her feel a little bit more real. Dancing.

– In a society where the aesthetic experience is designed to enhance the individuals subjectivity the content of an art-work becomes subordinate to the quality of the experience. Abstract dance.

– In a society where the aesthetic experience is supposed to increase the individuals ability to act, an art-work that aim at communicating a political injustice or urgency, or supports a position or opinion – especially through language – will at best be treated nicely because it’s well-meaning, but hence it beckons the individual to support a general and given opinion, thus canceling out the creative investment of individual’s subjectivity, it will not be given recognition as an aesthetic experience proper. Forget dance theatre, dance.

– In a society where the individual’s subjectivity is centre fold, we visit the theatre, with its homogenizing and stultifying dispositive, only for sentimental reasons. Because it feels good, in the same cute way as a charter travels, but seriously it’s something you do once with your boyfriend.

It’s not a matter of forth wall, participatory theatre, singalong, deconstruction or socially engaged something, art in our present society will and must be unbound and offer the possibility for each individual to be the protagonist of the event, however without any kind of instruction, boundedness or conditioning. Art has left notions of effectivity and engages in affective production.

Most importantly, it is an art that makes no claim what so ever on the audience member. It’s an art that has more to do with internet 2.0 than with central perspective, with Facebook than with archive, with choreography than with architecture.

– In a society where the individual’s subjectivity is the shit who bothers to see a bunch of dancers utilizing a general dance technique, it’s an insult to any subjectivity engaged in practices of self-improvement. In a society where to be a member of the collective is a malaise any decent person don’t want to watch skilled workers. The contemporary dancer need not have any skills except being special, specific and more him- or herself.

– For a society that ages ago abandoned Fordism a theatre that presents repertoire, abonnement, season program, international stars or pieces that have already toured the world is a waste of time. The aesthetic experience of highest value is one-off, here and now and individual [which is not the same as unique], anything that can be circulated as a general commodity belongs to the past.

– In a society that has abandoned Fordism the, so called dance company, reminds us about a time past. Any ballet or dance group, any company that calls itself as a name reminds us most of all about a factory, of anonymous underpaid workers with stupidly simple job descriptions. Stop making pieces, engage in projects [good or bad], stop rehearsing three months for five performances, be a little bit smarter and engage in performance management, and stop treating dance as material practice.

– The aesthetic experience emphasizing parameters of the art-work that could be associated with hard-skills [welding, carpeting] has been succeeded by aesthetic experiences that accentuate soft-skills [charm, personality, looks]. De-skilling in the arts has been replaced by subjectivity, by the artist, dancer, curator, choreographer and so on being special. It’s all about being specific, do what nobody else could do – whatever that is. The subjectivity of the artists is way more central to art-worlds and markets than what the artists do. We don’t talk about art but about artists.

– In a society where time has become corporatized into attention economy, and the soul is at work, an art that keeps the visitor or spectator busy, an art that demands attention, that claims the time of the visitor has or will be exchanged for an art that allow the spectator to have the experience of being rich enough to afford time. In other words an art that leaves the spectator alone to create his or her own, specific experience.

– An art engaged in clarity, transparency, meaning production or signification has become useless in a society deeply entrenched in semio-capitalism. Dance that occupies itself with language or, even worse, information or communication, is a betrayal of the art form. Dance is not information of communication it is the production of the possibility of communication, of communicability, of organic synthesis. Dance is not a language, it’s dance.

– In a society where the individual’s subjectivity has become currency, an art dealing with identity, busy with confirming belonging has been succeeded by art engaged in processes of individuation, of individual individuation emerging in and through the experience in the visitor or spectator. Dance.

– In a society that experiences change art will also change.

For the European welfare state support to art and culture were a means to create a well functioning society. For neo-liberal governance these means and the reasons behind are outdated and lost. The welfare state is not about to return and state funding is long gone. Corporate relations, sponsoring, logos, VIP openings, fundraise galas, crowd-sourcing [how disgusting] and endless so far unknown strategies will rule the game and the future. Whether it is good or bad is not an issue, it’s what we stand in front of. But one thing is certain, it will change art – and not just a little bit but fuckin fundamentally – and art will change with it, change in order to negotiate new kinds of freedom, new zones of autonomy and new kinds of art. Dance.

4 Responses to “New Kinds of Art”

  1. Marie-Andree Robitaille September 21, 2012 at 21:49 #


    Sent from my heart

    Le 21 sep 2012 22:55, “Spangbergianism” <> a crit :

    Marten Spangberg posted: “- A society organized around the exchange of immaterial values will and must favor movement in front of stability. The time of dance is now. – In a society where immaterial property is a much more pressing issue than material ditto, the museum wil”

    • Igor Dobricic September 22, 2012 at 10:17 #


      Nothing ever change. The purpose of art is. as always, to fake submission to power. Faking submission is a craft of art. If it is done in full awareness, with a skill and without bad conscience or any ethical or aesthetic hangover, faking submission is the only truly radical form of rebellion.

      Instead of making money we should all FAKE money. FAKING money is the most beautifull, politicaly relevant work of art and, as long as forgery is sucessful, the author, maker, worker, artist, by the nature of its achievement, will stay anonymous.

  2. V September 23, 2012 at 11:39 #

    “art in our present society will and must be unbound and offer the possibility for each individual to be the protagonist of the event, however without any kind of instruction, boundedness or conditioning. Art has left notions of effectivity and engage in affective production.”

    That’s a very hedonist way of seeing the production of art. I can think in all of this performance art which the pleasure in them is seeing the joy of him or her, or how super human he or she is, because of the psyco-body endurance of him/her. That’s something that will stay there, in that moment. It is something that can not go further. It is not something you can take to your own life. Is like the virtuous or the carismatic men , you get fascinated, but is not something that you can bring to the level of your own life. This narcisistic way of doing art, is the same in the other direction with this way of making the espectator be the protagonist. We have to go further and exceed this hedonistic “I” / “you” forms. It’s not about “me” the artist , is not about “you” the spectator. It is about something that is not us but we have in common. That will be a change.

    What I find interesting is to take the advantage of the time based arts, where normally it is this generosity of the spectators when they go to a performance, to give the time seeing soemthing and they stay until the end. It is not always, but at least it is more chance that what occurs with exhibitions of objects, that if they don’t catch the spectator at the first look they are just going to passs by to the next thing. So time based arts have the power of having the time to explore how it is to construct an experience. An object depends more on the spectators choice to have that time , which nowadays is pretty difficult . The people what they want is immediacy. Facebook, twiter … get used us to that instantly way of relation, where what counts is more in what you can do rather in what you do. Get focused in the “look how I feel ” rather in “look what I am doing”. Is more a projection of the “I” that a compromise with what this “I ” is doing.

    My corcern is how can the power of the emotional affection that time based arts can produce to make something meaningful? I mean, something that make the emotions to be integrated and not only consumed.


  1. Why We Listen Podcast 12 – Allison Holt « Why We Listen - October 3, 2012

    […] Rocks 2. Dengue Fever 3. Jorge Luis Borges’ “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius” 4. Mårten Spångberg: New Kinds of Art Share […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: