NICOLAS BOURRIAUD Trajectorial forms. The problematics of time in contemporary art.

This was the lecture I went to last night. I had looked up Nicolas Bourriaud  and he had credentials “up the wazoo“!  Curator of the Tate, philosopher, educator and from some of his writings that I could Google, very open minded and a creative thinker. Besides the fact that as you can see from his photo – super hot looking!

I arrived to lecture hall, Arison Auditiorium in Tel Aviv to find it almost full! A good mix of students and others like me (you know, too old to pass for students anymore 🙂 )

I must say that Nicolas Bourriaud is every bit as yummy looking in person as he is in his pictures, and with his deep, sexy, French accented voice, ……let’s just say I was very interested in listening to him 🙂

Unfortunately, this is also when I began to have some issues with his lecture. Although he spoke very clearly, his accent and intonation made it difficult to understand, especially when he would pronounce names of artists or writers. For example, when mentioning Robert Smithson, American artist – I wrote in my notes “look up artist that sounds like Hoperts Mithgan”.

His use of the English language was that of an intellectual foreigner who uses precise written language when speaking – in other words,  complex multi-syllable words, that work wonderfully when writing, but throws off the listener from the natural flow of storytelling. There were no slides to show the audience the art in which he was speaking about and no online site where I could read what he was saying. There was not even a single joke.

He spoke not as a speaker, but as a writer. When I began watching TED lectures, I started to understand the vast skill involved in giving lectures. It is not enough to be an expert in the subject. The speaker must know how to transfer his knowledge. I realized the importance of entertainment and storytelling and how crucial they are to maintaining the interest of the audience.

I began making a connection between this lecture and the final exhibition of Bezalels MFA students this summer. I felt that the artists failed in their ability to communicate with the viewer.

It is of my humble opinion that if there is no communication, than art and speaking is very much like self masturbation – the creator/speaker enjoys the act, but how much enjoyment will the rest of us have by watching and listening?

My favorite part of the lecture was at the end. The usual questions and answers.   At this point I felt the lecture moved on to the next stage of “mutual self masturbation” whereby the person asking the question was saying, “I can be as intellectual and complicated in my questions as you can be in your answers” and then of course there were the usual “pat on the back” questions that I interpret as, “ aren’t we all super intellectual and everyone else stupid”

The thing that gets me is that it wouldnt take much to make Nicolous Brourriads lecture amazing! he has such insight and knowledge, and a good voice and sexy look.  With a little work, he could be the rock star of intellectual artistic elitism!

Again, I am not criticizing in any way Nicolous Brourriad nor Bezalel. The subject of the lecture fascinates me. I thank them for opening it up to the general public. I just think that more time needs to be spent in the world of intellectualism on how to communicate knowledge.

I will end with an excerpt from novelist Robert Heinlein from his novel “Stranger in a Strange Land”:

“Jubal shrugged. “Abstract design is all right-for wall paper or linoleum. But art is the process of evoking pity and terror, which is not abstract at all but very human. What the self-styled modern artists are doing is a sort of unemotional pseudo-intellectual masturbation. . . whereas creative art is more like intercourse, in which the artist must seduce- render emotional-his audience, each time. These ladies who won’t deign to do that- and perhaps can’t- of course lost the public. If they hadn’t lobbied for endless subsidies, they would have starved or been forced to go to work long ago. Because the ordinary bloke will not voluntarily pay for ‘art’ that leaves him unmoved- if he does pay for it, the money has to be conned out of him, by taxes or such.”

“You know, Jubal, I’ve always wondered why i didn’t give a hoot for paintings or statues- but I thought it was something missing in me, like color blindness.”

“Mmm, one does have to learn to look at art, just as you must know French to read a story printed in French. But in general terms it’s up to the artist to use language that can be understood, not hide it in some private code like Pepys and his diary. Most of these jokers don’t even want to use language you and I know or can learn. . . they would rather sneer at us and be smug, because we ‘fail’ to see what they are driving at. If indeed they are driving at anything- obscurity is usually the refuge of incompetence. Ben, would you call me an artists?”

“Huh? Well, I’ve never thought about it. You write a pretty good stick.”

“Thank you. ‘Artist’ is a word I avoid for the same reasons I hate to be called ‘Doctor.’ But I am an artist, albeit a minor one. Admittedly most of my stuff is fit to read only once… and not even once for a busy person who already knows the little I have to say. But I am an honest artist, because what I write is consciously intended to reach the customer… reach him and affect him, if possible with pity and terror… or, if not, at least to divert the tedium of his hours with a chuckle or an odd idea. But I am never trying to hide it from him in a private language, nor am I seeking the praise of other writers for ‘technique’ or other balderdash. I want the praise of the cash customer, given in cash because I’ve reached him- or I don’t want anything. Support for the arts- merde! A government-supported artist is an incompetent whore! Damn it, you punched one of my buttons. Let me fill your glass and you tell me what is on your mind.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land