The ideas that artist Thomas Hirschhorn mentions in this interview, particularly with reference to the historical cultural significance of such things as graffiti, are very interesting and have prompted further contemplation and personal reflection.
Hirchhorn’s story of the graffitiing soccer fan highlights that aspects of our community which we dismiss as vandalism are integral components of our current social climate and in some instances should be valued as historically significant, and as Hirschhorn points out could be worthy of archeological research in the future.
In a recent online article it was proposed by Tracey Avery of the National Trust in Melbourne that inner-city graffiti is artwork and may need protection. "Well some graffiti has historical significance and, yes, much graffiti can be considered a scar, but there's a small proportion that has cultural significance for its political and artistic associations." The proposal was slammed by opposing groups and no other plans have been put forward for other forms of protection.
This mentality of devaluing and dismissing present forms of expression can be translated to other aspects of society and it seems important to question how will the mentality of our current communities affect how our history is viewed in years to come. Our society is one of ephemeral and disposable consumerist ideals and this means that everything is easily thrown away or disregarded when something new comes along. We value the new and discharge the old. Our digital generation leaves much information and current cultural artifacts in a virtual or non-physical existence. It is interesting to think how this will make our historical documentations eventuate. The attitude that time determines significance is in direct opposition to our disposable society with its ideals that present cultural relics are not worthy or significant. This may result in the future that such relics will be slim in existence, things that could be historically significant in the future are often disposed of in society today. Rapid and numerous technological innovations mean that we are constantly disposing and replacing, with little thought given to preserving and reflecting.
Author unknown. ABC website. “National Trust considers heritage listing for graffiti”. Jun 23 2008. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/23/2282814.htm.
Boutoux, Thomas, ed. “Thomas Hirschhorn interview with Hans Ulrich Orbist.” Hans Ulrich Orbist: Interviews volume 1. Milan: Charta, 2003. 393-400.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I really like how you question the 'current mentality of our culture' within your response, and what implications that mentality may have in regards to the documentation of history and future populations in general.
We as a society do seem to be obsessed with technological advancements and developements, constantly rendering the latest produced thing outdated and insignificant in the face of the next, everything has to be done faster and more efficiently. I read in a book once that speed instinctively is associated with forgetting and slowness with remembering. This was illustrated via describing how when we are walking along and we want to remember something we instinctively slow down, and on the contrary if we have had a bad day our walk will be significantly faster than usual. That is a fact I couldn't argue with. So then I would like to ask your question again; Does the passing of time determine significance? We can in the light of the cave drawings answer that it does....... However like you asked furthermore, why then do we have this disposable obsession?
Why is speed and efficiency so highly rated then?
Are we via this pace trying to forget the past?
In regards to the question about how people of the future would find out about our culture, i would like to propose that while looking for urban detritus such as graffiti is productive, instead they should treat our rubbish dumps as an archaeological dig. A format in which Hirschhorn extols. The speed in which we expel waste has left mountains of culture in layers like stratified rocks. Value determined by how broken the item is. If it is broken beyond repair, the item must have been valuable to our time. If it is almost as good as new, it was only a bleep on our cultural radar. Yet another fad which is sold to us to boost our developing identity.
I enjoyed your take on the interview with particular reference to the point of disposibility in todays 'throw away' consumerist society. I would arrgue that although it is true that the western contempory culture gives little thought about the importance of current cultural forms and objects becoming relics to our passing, for some future civilisations inqury, the very synthetic nature of disposibile items will ensure there survival for millenia, (some plastics do not fully disolve for 1000 years and nuclear wastes half life is many thousands of millenia.) I think rather then the digging up of forms of some past civilisation, such as the rock with prehistoric signs carved into it, (and the issue that defacement of graffiti had on this relic), a thousand years in the future one will only need to shovel a piece of earth in the back yard to find many synthetic particles and elements left over from todays world. Then the issue of signifigance of 'the artifact' will have to shift form and function into a more decentralised territory.
It is definitely thought provoking to wonder what will survive of our times for posterity. Graffiti for the most part will probably not endure, as forms of revolution and resistance to dominant culture are less carefully preserved. I like Jess' point about how the broken things will be considered most valuable to us; think of all the ipods, replacing broken CDs, replacing broken cassette tapes... of course, one can only speculate how an item was used in society without having the knowledge of its function. Crafty and subversive uses of things will not be known. And with the amount of our refuse, do you suppose they will even speculate that we practiced recycling?
Post a Comment