But is it Art? A Reflection on Documenta 15

A criticism levelled at Documenta 15 by some arts professionals is that there isn’t enough art. In this blog, Helen Pheby argues that that depends on how we conceptualise art, and how we see its role in society.

A criticism levelled at Documenta 15 by some arts professionals is that there isn’t enough art.

I approach this criticism through my training and practice as an art historian and curator, not least problematising a definition of art. In Europe and North America, art has become bound within a capitalist ideology. Artists make something that experts deem to have particular aesthetic and economic value. Museums are populated by ‘blue chip’ artists whose art objects achieve ever higher record-breaking figures at auction. Cultural capital was defined by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) in his essay The Forms of Capital (1985) as part of a system that facilitates, perpetuates and exacerbates advantage and disadvantage.

I believe strongly that this definition of art as something of value in an economic system is only one manifestation of the human intuition to create and appreciate. This intuition, if nurtured and encouraged, brings about problem solving and innovation across all activity and is a defining feature of our species. It helps people to fulfil not only their individual potential but their potential contribution to the world and its future. For me, this iteration of Documenta embodied such a philosophy, a celebration of collective creativity and endeavour, but also play and non-productivity, that left me optimistic and hopeful about the future. This future, for me, did include excellent quality art, as understood in the capitalist context, but also suggested major shifts:

of axis to global south

from product to process

commercial to community

individual to collective

education to the centre

urban to land

elite to all

art world to world

consumption to action and redistribution

Documenta, rightly, has a reputation for ‘setting’ the scene of what is happening in contemporary art and also leading the way. It is an essential research moment for people who programme, curate and share contemporary art. It benefits from not being commercially driven as it can share practice for its own sake rather than needing to sell art. It is generously funded by the local government and international stakeholders to the region of €42m for this iteration3, intended to be more than recouped through ticket sales and tourism. Documenta has generated controversy and debate, including the last iteration overspending by €7m and the current sparking an antisemitism scandal. It isn’t the purpose of this blog to analyse this, which has been significantly covered by other, more well informed, commentators.

I visited Documenta 15 in July 2022, with two of the other co-investigators of the AHRC-funded research project initiated by the Centre for Applied Human Rights at the University of York. An over-arching question of the research is whether art can save human rights. This is the fourth Documenta that I’ve experienced, an art initiative founded in 1955 by the German artist and professor Arnold Bode in part as an attempt to banish and repress the culture of Nazism. It takes place every five years in Kassel, Germany, and only opened up to non-European artists in 1970. 

I, necessarily, experienced Documenta through the lens of my education and experience, not least the work of the Yorkshire-born art critic Sir Herbert Read (1893-1968) who wrote Education Through Art in 1943 as well as that of Sir Alec Clegg (1909-1986), Chief Education Officer of the West Riding County Council (1945-1974). It was under Clegg’s progressive direction that Bretton Hall College was founded in 1949, out of which Yorkshire Sculpture Park grew, having begun as an exhibition of sculpture in the College grounds in 1977 proposed by lecturer Peter Murray.

Clegg was a passionate advocate for the importance of creativity in the lives of young people as being critical to their fully-rounded development and fulfilment of their potential. In his 1968 book Children in Distress he asserted that “Every child, no matter how impoverished their circumstances can be creative if given the opportunity” (Clegg and Megson, 1973 [1968]). Clegg was committed to breaking the intersectional cycle of disadvantage. His approach to transforming the educational experience of children in West Yorkshire was predicated on his belief that the existing system perpetuated privilege. He drew on evidence such as the facts that in 1965 “white-collar workers (20% of the population) produced 40% of the brightest children, who secured 60% of ‘Sixth Form’ places, and 80% of university places. Conversely, manual workers produced 60% of the ablest children and yet secured only 20% of university places” (Lawn, 2021:38).

I not only benefited from, but share, Clegg’s commitment to understanding that life chances and the opportunity to make the most of opportunities are inequal, and that the education system tends toward exacerbating the situation each generation. The idea of meritocracy is deeply flawed and one of the fundamental ways to encourage social justice is to nurture creativity in young people. It was thrilling for me to see that one of the main exhibition spaces in the main Documenta venue had been given over to young people, allowing space to express their own energy and capacity to create. This undermines a typical hierarchy in the museum and gallery architecture, which is usually given to artworks by pre-eminent artists. I’m not suggesting that every museum do this immediately, not least because being able to fulfil our potential also depends on being inspired by incredible art by other people. But I welcome the possibility of more balance. What we need now isn’t just extraction of the world’s resources to create objects for the aesthetic pleasure of a minority, but creative solutions to the immediate and urgent crises we face. This is completely dependent on nurturing everyone’s creative and problem-solving capabilities.

After experiencing Documenta 15 I am more convinced than ever that all human endeavours might be considered and celebrated as art. So, to those who criticised this iteration for not having enough art I draw their attention to Joseph Beuys (1921-1986) who made his name at Documenta 6 in 1977 and is now recognised as a leading artist of the twentieth century. Beuys radically demanded in 1969:

 “an artistic involvement in all realms of life. At the moment art is taught as a special field which demands the production of documents in the form of art works. Whereas I advocate an esthetic [sic] involvement from science, from economics, from politics, from religion – every sphere of human activity. Even the act of peeling a potato can be a work of art if it is a conscious act".

 If we embrace this idea of art we are also embracing how we can each fulfil our individual and collective potential – what we put in not just take out. This idea of art is capable of saving human rights.

References:

Lawn, M. (2021). The Work of Alec Clegg in post-war England in Burke, Cunningham and Hoare (eds.) Education Through The Arts for Well-being and Community: The Vision and Legacy of Sir Alec Clegg. Abingdon: Routledge.

Clegg, A. and Megson, B. (1973 [1968]). Children in Distress. London: Penguin.