Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology - uncopy

gallery or museum signified “this shovel has become art.” And it actually was. The action itself
is art, because the artist projects himself in choosing the shovel, and especially in placing it out
of context. It is art in the sense that the imprint of a hand in a cave is art, the Mona Lisa is art,
a happening is art, etc. It is a problem that touches on the ethics and function of the artist: he
assumes the right to have this supra-human calling that allows him to say to others, “everything
that I touch with my hand is transformed into art.” The artist imposes his anguish, his vision
of the world, and himself on others. The artist emasculates the observer. Maybe he thinks that
the latter deserves no better...Theartist assumes the right to show you what you can see for
yourself, what you could obviously see much more clearly without his intervention.I contest
this right.
G. B.: So you are questioning the misuse of power by those whom we call artists and the
respect that society gives them, even when society contests it. What is interesting, and what I
would like you to explain more precisely, is your notion of art. Today we take an old yoke,
stand it up, and it seems just as beautiful as an African sculpture.
D. B.: You say “today.” I say that artists have always proceeded in this manner. What’s
more, you say . . . “just as beautiful” . . . which implies a notion that may be the one most
commonly associated with the idea of art, namely beauty. Artists have shown us beauty in all
its aspects, including its most ugly ones. Beauty equals ugliness equals art, and it’s no longer
my problem. Furthermore, it’s high time we left yokes where they belong!
G. B.: To continue, I would like you to contrast two different points of view. On the
one hand, an object is taken and transformed by being put in another context and sometimes
by being placed in another position. Conversely, the view of the new realists is to return the
object to its original function. You must not put nails on an iron as Man Ray did—Arman’s
iron only has value as an iron and should not be surrounded by pretension.
D. B.: First of all, as I indicated a few moments ago, it is known that an object taken
out of context, whether or not it is altered, no longer has the same meaning, and right away it
is automatically surrounded by pretension. However, when there is not one but a dozen irons
together, the problem changes. There is organization of these irons in a space as there is organization
with Mondrian’s lines and Piero della Francesca’s characters. In short, there is art. There
is always the same cry of the artist who says, “Look! Everything around you that I have transformed
is remarkable.” There is always the same need: “Look, you have the good fortune to
have artists in your society to show you their subway, their one-way streets, their cultural revolution,
their high-rises, their sex, their Coca-Cola, and their problems. Accept theirs as your
own, accept your artists.”
(...)
georges boudaille interview with daniel buren 67