In the Name of Art, How Much Are We Allowed to Do ｜ Kazuya Nakayama Exhibition

Text by Jun'ichiro ISHII
Translated by Kei Ota
日本語 で読む

I was fired as a gallerist for this exhibition.

Meaning, of course, that the artist "fired" me as part of the narrative of the work without explicitly saying so. The artist Kazuya Nakayama just "hired" a new gallerist who ended up filling my role with such enthusiasm and diligence (even if only for the duration of the exhibition) that it is not much of an exaggeration to say that my role became obsolete.

Unfolding daily through amusing scenes in the gallery, Nakayama’s “act(ion)s” (oftentimes his works are not even “objects” but rather “intentions”) challenge even the concept of what "works of art” entail.

Billed as a "photography exhibition," the first thing visitors saw upon arrival was a plain B4-sized commercial resume. On the corner of the carefully (and solemnly) filled-out form was indeed a single certified photograph. This was the portrait of Keijiro Nagamine, the new gallerist hired by Nakayama.

Despite visitors who undoubtedly thought, ”A resume photo cannot possibly be a part of a photo exhibition,” Nagamine the gallerist introduced Nakayama the artist’s work to them as a gallerist. Or, should I say, he introduced himself as Nakayama's work.

◉

“Social sculpture" is a concept proposed by Joseph Beuys (1921 - 1986); together with his "extended concept of art”, they are considered to be principles of his activities. According to "ART WIKI" in Bijutsutecho, these ideas are “… exemplified by Beuys' words, 'Every man is an artist.' ‘Art’ here refers to artistic activities and works of art in an expanded sense that includes educational activities, political activities, environmental protection activities, and religion. Beuys explains that the social nature of any human activity—even the act of peeling a potato is an artistic activity if it is a conscious one. In other words, social sculpture is the idea of sculpting society for our future.”

In other words, if it is an act with the awareness that it is an artistic activity, then anything can be considered art.

Now, as we have entered the 21st century we face a major problem: how much are we allowed to do in the name of "art projects" today when both technology and human rights are rapidly developing?

In this exhibition by Kazuya Nakayama, the "gallerist" was exchanged for the artwork (with my consent, of course). If so…can we, under the name of the "art project," place the gallerists who favorably interpret our artwork in positions of social power? Conversely, can we denounce critics who have harshly criticized our work under the "art project” name? Furthermore, under the "art project” name, can we force the museum director to resign for their complicity with the critics? Or under the "art project” name, can we denounce the government for canceling art festivals, depose politicians, force heads of state to resign, dismantle the national government, or even demand the dissolution of the United Nations?

Theoretically speaking, it should be possible. Just as the sculptor demands to handle the material—wood or stone for example—as they see fit, so the social sculptor also demands to handle the material—in short, society—as they see fit. Additionally, one can say that "art activism" works more directly with society and sculpts its forms.

Now, then, what about the art of “destroying the global environment”?

◉

“Gold is superior, but iron is more profitable”.

This sentence appears in the 14th-century essay, “Tsurezuregusa [*1]”. Gold is certainly beautiful but it is no match for the practicality of black iron. According to one observation, it is interesting to note that although "sociability" and “artistry" were emphasized in the first section written in the Kamakura period (1185-1333) as important aspects of men's education, they were later downplayed in the 122nd section written during the period of the Northern and Southern dynastic wars. Indeed, “time” and its demand for “beauty" maybe something that moves back and forth between "gold" and "black iron”. In a peaceful era, people are perhaps passionate about the splendors of ornate, seemingly meaningless, and fleeting glimpses of brilliance; when they hear more troubling footsteps of the times, people may seek more utility in“beauty”.

In some ways, we are entering an era of "Arte Útil” (2013) as Tania Bruguera has claimed. Bruguera is an art activist whose work can be described as "political rebellion" itself and whose actions are always designed to “work effectively”.

In today's society where the ethics of the free market and the myth of the individualistic "I" have combined, we have put every golden form of “self-expression” on the sales channel. The 20th-century art industry (or 20th-century industrial art) has successively turned art into a commodity. And so we have reached a saturation point where today’s unhackable data is sold as limited seasonal models by our "useless, extravagant (golden) art". As industry interests shift from petroleum to rare non-ferrous metals, we will continue to melt Antarctica, burn our jungles, dig up our ocean floors, and eventually seek out rare stones in space and go to Mars to peel potatoes, scattering the debris of human activity across the solar system in a grandiose fashion, while prolonging the myth of 20th-century capitalist growth with our batteries and monitors.

This is still allowed under the name of “art". The denial of these things is also allowed under the name of “art".

[*1] Essays in Idleness, 徒然草

◉

The popular uprising in France in 1968 (Paris ‘May Revolution’) and the movement for change in Czechoslovakia (Prague Spring) were struggles for socialist gains through the liberalization of free speech. In response, Yukio Mishima (1925 - 1970) gave the following lecture at Waseda University in the same year.

“The most obvious issue of freedom of speech is the issue of 'eroticism' (...) It is said that there is free sex, but to what extent is indecent exposure allowed? Is car sex ok? These issues are intertwined with freedom of speech and expression.”

Citing the example of Marquis de Sade (1740 - 1814), Mishima said, “Human beings have nature in their humanity.”

“What kind of society would it be if humanity were completely liberated? Of course, the current social system would be destroyed. I think Sade foresaw what would be on the other side of that destruction. One example is if complete freedom of sex is allowed, there is also rape, gang rape, and if that isn’t enough, something called lust murder. There may be some people who are not satisfied unless they kill someone. If such people’s rights to sex are set free, then murder will be rampant and forgiven. If a society allows murder and therefore everything else, any political system would collapse.

In literature, humanity is completely liberated. For example, in Sade’s literature, an amoral, completely fictional world is established, but in real life, we always rescue “(hu)man” from humanity, including nature in some way. I believe that the mechanisms for rescuing the “human” are expressed through various forms of politics.”

Mishima says that society has a "probationary function" to protect its inhabitants from danger (from our own internal "humanity"), and at the same time, a "power defense function" to exercise that right. He also states that "freedom of expression" is a “tool of negotiation" to adjust the balance between society’s "probationary function" and "power defense function", and that the question of "What image do we want for our society (nation)?” lies at its starting point.

In other words, "society" is not merely how we live but is our "purpose" itself. What kind of image do we seek for our “purpose"?

There is an Italian saying, “Non si sputa nel piatto dove si mangia” (Do not spit on the plate where you eat). Is the "society" before us the plate on which we are "eating"? Or is it a plate that has already been eaten, or is it a plate currently being extra prepared for a meal about to be served? Moreover, to what extent can we recognize today as "our plate"? And by "plate" do we mean only human social activity? Or is it a problem related to “(the) Globe (Earth)“?

◉

Now, let us return to Nakayama's work.

Nakayama's works are not so-called “activism". They do not seek to change society’s form through direct action. Nakayama also does not attempt to depict a concrete polemical "image" of the end of what is possible, as Sade did in his realistic depiction of the end of humanity’s liberation. In other words, Nakayama's works are not "images" themselves. Rather, they are like functional devices containing the minimal necessary elements to make the viewer imagine, evoke, or “far-sight" the image.

Organized by Nakayama's conscious actions, the phenomena that occur within his functional apparatuses are all unmistakably "real," with an element of (or rather, only) uncertainty. Inside Nakayama's works, the viewer feels as if they have been transported into a "Zen temple garden," where the boundaries between artifice and randomness are blurred. Nakayama's uniqueness lies wherein his works break free from preconceived notions and suggest us to think in a causative-passive form . Moreover, Nakayama's work humbly encourages us to reform our perception—he does not try to control the material as he sees fit, but rather to bring out its “goodness”—in the manner of a traditional sculptor, and in the manner of a sculptor who is not a “sculptor". In other words, it seems to be congruous with the attitude of a "social sculptor”.

Organized by Nakayama's conscious actions, the phenomena that occur within his functional apparatuses are all unmistakably "real," with an element of (or rather, only) uncertainty. Inside Nakayama's works, the viewer feels as if they have been transported into a "Zen temple garden," where the boundaries between artifice and randomness are blurred. Nakayama's uniqueness lies wherein his works break free from preconceived notions and suggest us to think in a causative-passive form [*2]. Moreover, Nakayama's work humbly encourages us to reform our perception—he does not try to control the material as he sees fit, but rather to bring out its “goodness”—in the manner of a traditional sculptor, and in the manner of a sculptor who is not a “sculptor". In other words, it seems to be congruous with the attitude of a "social sculptor”.

With this in mind, I was fired as a "gallerist" for this exhibition.

—But what on earth for?

When I heard about Nakayama's proposal, I was thinking about writing this sentence: "How much are we allowed to do in the name of art projects?”

“Social sculpture" and "activism," today's precarity in seeking "useful beauty" and "freedom of expression”…In other words, upon thinking this I had already stepped foot into a Zen-like abyss of reflection.

[*2] Translator’s note: Causative-passive verb form, often used in Japan, combines both causative and passive to create “to be made to do something” sentences (causative=to make somebody do something, with passive=to have done something). In this case, Nakayama’s works “makes us think” than simply telling us to “think”. 

---

Kazuya Nakayama exhibition
« What do you think about an exhibition that uses a photograph? ~New recruitment of a gallerist~ »

2021.09.17-19 / 09.24-26 / 10.01-10.03 / 10.08-10.10
Open 12:00 - 17:00 at KIKA gallery
2021.10.01, Nuit Blanche day opens until 23:00
KG + 2021 officially registered exhibition.

---

Jun'ichiro ISHII
https://junichiroishii.com/
Ishii (b. 1975) is an artist who has traversed through the “art peripheries/interlocal sites" of Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, producing and exhibiting his work in more than 20 countries since 2004. Since 2020, as a residencies coordinator, he has been organizing a network of artist residencies at ICA Kyoto (Institute of Contemporary Arts Kyoto) while also producing exhibitions for artists at KIKA gallery, as a program manager. Ishii is also a part-time lecturer at Kyoto Seika University.