Issue 15 - Pdf Ctrl+P - CTRL+P: a journal of contemporary art

kubilay akman
Flashing Emin: Critical Analysis of
“Spectacular” Contemporary Arts
First Words
The conceptual gravity of “conceptual arts” is becoming much weaker every
day as the artists involved in contemporary art movements are increasingly trapped by
narcissistic tendencies and an extremely pronounced intrigue with domestic objects.
Some examples are turning into a “big joke” without causing a big laugh. Where is art
going? Or, perhaps a better question, where has art been? The answer is still ambiguous
and many of the attempts to answer this question most probably would be swept aside
by the actual happenings in the art world. In this article, my intention is quite far away
from providing “substantial answers” to the issues and problems of the contemporary
art world; however, this text is intended to contribute to the current theoretical and conceptual
problems of art in the 2000s through some modest questions, with a particular
focus on the art works of Tracey Emin. This was not a random gesture to emphasize “art
works” with italics. Whether to call her and other contemporary artists’ works “art” or
not has been a crucial separation for the last decade. On the one hand, there is a chorus
of art critics, writers, publishers, editors, curators, collectors, etc. chanting and greeting
these works as outstanding masterpieces, without any critical process. On the other
hand we find the most conventional and conservative critics blaming these contemporary
tendencies with a preference for previous art styles and schools, and denying their being
art in fact. I personally prefer to say: “Nice to meet you Achilles. I have no suspicion
that you are Achilles. However, I am as sure as your name that you have that vulnerable
heel. Although it is quite difficult to catch you there, still I will try to direct my arrows
right there!” Yes, this is art. At least for the beginning we should accept that the works of
Tracey Emin, Damien Hirst and the others; are art. Actually works of all the significant
conceptual artists aroused after the “aesthetical breaking point” of Marcel Duchamp
could be considered as art. Here I will not get into a discussion around “What is art?”.
However I can clarify a little further my theoretical position in this issue:
1. Being or not being art cannot be determined by any collector, art dealer or by
any art critic or scholar.
2. Art as a social process and a social production from the caves to the galleries of
modern cities.
3. The current contemporary art is art in spite of all the reactionary critiques. Not
because it is called art by spellbound followers, but it is art if only on account of the
social, cultural and artistic structures that produce, reproduce and make it as art in a
dynamic process.
What is the point in her scandalous art works? Essentially, her point, like many
other contemporary artists, is based on her “flashing” objects of her personal life and
happenings. This kind of “exhibitionism” aesthetically created and performed, is still a
premium seductive factor for the art audience. Especially when there are the fading shades
of “innocence,” in the artistic expression, creation and production of art pieces, in spite
of the dense coquettish style of the artist, the enthusiasm of the audience is growing. As
Jean Baudrillard said, “There is no aphrodisiac like innocence.” Tracey Emin makes this
balance perfectly, and through her all exhibitionism in the artistic activities, she keeps
a semblance of internal innocence intact somewhere, and this is always catching the attention
of the art crowd. Hence, I would claim that the “innocent” stratagem is the real
factor of attention, rather than all the flashing ceremonies.
28 Ctrl+P September 2009