The Arts Research Center at UC Berkeley is sponsoring the symposium MAKING TIME: Art Across Gallery, Screen, and Stage taking
place from April 19-21, 2012. Participants have been invited to respond
to the prompt “what does the phrase 'time-based art' mean to you?” in
advance of the event. This posting is by Laura Richard, graduate student in History of Art at UC Berkeley.
As a
description, “time-based art” has always struck me as a bit off. But not
so much because its baggy scope enables a sometimes arbitrary and lazy
lacing together of dizzyingly disparate works across media. In fact,
this ruled but unruly interdisciplinarity seems mostly a virtue, the
whole point: to think through dance, film, visual art, music, theater
and performance adjacently and synchronically. To consider works
primarily in relation to a shared structuring element of time, rather
than diachronically according to a specific material-driven conception
sprung from traditional genealogies and histories. Of course, this
possibility pivots on whether we consider time to be a principle or a
medium, an issue to which the hyphenation “time-based” offers little
traction.
But
if the term is silently indifferent to the way it might structure
discourse in the humanities, it does call out a use-value in another,
perhaps less welcome or intentional discipline: Business. Time, after
all, is money, and indeed, in the marketplace “time-based” is the lingua
franca of global information economy expounded and expanded in the
pages of the Harvard Business Review and
elsewhere. “Time-based strategies” focus on the reduction of time
required to accomplish tasks: “time-based competition” seeks to compress
the time required to propose, develop, manufacture, market and deliver
products, and “time-based pricing” depends on the length of time it
takes to provide a commodity or service. False-cognates between the
languages of capital and culture seem no longer possible. And a loaded
loanword like “time-based” functions not just as a portmanteau on which
to hang a multitude of artistic practices, but implicitly smuggles in
the mantle of the market. As a result, rather than enriching,
“time-based” risks diluting and packaging complexity and difference
across practices into a single fungible, brand-ready category born
from—or based on—a lowest common denominator. The need for more precise
and subtle subheaders for, distinctions within, and theorizations of
“time-based art” is driven then as much by the value of acknowledging
the particular ways in which duration and individual works shape each
other, as it is necessary to resist cooption by the
culture/entertainment industry and the flattening, time-indifferent
logic of capital.
No comments:
Post a Comment