“As I keep visiting a shop, I make a small display to recommend some products — and have them tell me something I don’t know.”
*
Art projects—
I still don’t really know how to relate to them.
Something happens. Someone once said that this is always a good thing.
And indeed, within art projects, things keep happening all the time.
But I still don’t know whether any of it is truly a good thing.
I still don’t really know how to relate to them.
Something happens. Someone once said that this is always a good thing.
And indeed, within art projects, things keep happening all the time.
But I still don’t know whether any of it is truly a good thing.
Creating a work through just one or two months of interaction—
that complicated process is something I still don’t know how to process.
So I decided to focus only on its root elements: visiting, helping with small tasks, and having conversations.
I wanted to participate in the project in a way that was as close as possible to not making anything at all.
that complicated process is something I still don’t know how to process.
So I decided to focus only on its root elements: visiting, helping with small tasks, and having conversations.
I wanted to participate in the project in a way that was as close as possible to not making anything at all.
---
《お店に通いながら、おすすめの商品を紹介するための掲示物を作ってみる。そして、ちょっとだけ私の知らないことを教えてもらう。》
*
アートプロジェクト。そういうものとの関わり方がずっとわからないでいる。何かが起こる。それは、いつも良いことだと誰かが言っていた。確かにアートプロジェクトの中では何かが起き続けている。だけど、それがなにか"いいこと"なのか、私には分からないでいる。
たったの1-2ヶ月間の交流の中で作品を作る、という複雑な出来事を私はまだ処理できそうになかった。だから、私はその根源、「通う」こと、「簡単な手伝いをする」こと、「おしゃべりをする」ことだけを抽出して、できるだけ「つくらない」方法で参加してみようと思った。
If there has been a clear shift—from the avant-garde to the rise of art projects, or from postwar art to contemporary art today—it is surely the emphasis on process.
Since the 1940s, through the trajectories of Abstract Expressionism, Fluxus, and Neo-Dada, artists have attempted to reveal process through performance. Around that time, events and happenings—works in which the process itself became the artwork—were also named as new artistic forms, and they continue to be discussed as such today.
My participation in the Sumida Mukojima EXPO became an opportunity to reconsider how the very form of “artwork” might be redefined or expanded within this lineage that foregrounds process.
Since the 1940s, through the trajectories of Abstract Expressionism, Fluxus, and Neo-Dada, artists have attempted to reveal process through performance. Around that time, events and happenings—works in which the process itself became the artwork—were also named as new artistic forms, and they continue to be discussed as such today.
My participation in the Sumida Mukojima EXPO became an opportunity to reconsider how the very form of “artwork” might be redefined or expanded within this lineage that foregrounds process.
My desire not to alienate those who have cooperated with me is, I believe, deeply connected to this historical current of revealing artistic processes.
In contrast to the awe we might feel before a technically masterful painting—“That’s amazing; there are people who can do things like this”—to disclose procedures, much like a YouTube “How To” video, allows viewers and participants to become pseudo-makers.
Once someone understands the procedure, they can, in principle, reproduce it themselves; even when they only encounter the exhibited remnants of an action, knowing the process allows them to re-experience or reconstruct it.
Today, the question of “how it was made” is taken for granted as a key criterion of evaluation. Art has gradually shifted from something to look at to something to make—even if only vicariously.
Sensing this contemporary resistance to alienation, I decided—together with Yoshinoya-san—to reveal every step of the procedure as a formal part of the artwork’s title itself.
In contrast to the awe we might feel before a technically masterful painting—“That’s amazing; there are people who can do things like this”—to disclose procedures, much like a YouTube “How To” video, allows viewers and participants to become pseudo-makers.
Once someone understands the procedure, they can, in principle, reproduce it themselves; even when they only encounter the exhibited remnants of an action, knowing the process allows them to re-experience or reconstruct it.
Today, the question of “how it was made” is taken for granted as a key criterion of evaluation. Art has gradually shifted from something to look at to something to make—even if only vicariously.
Sensing this contemporary resistance to alienation, I decided—together with Yoshinoya-san—to reveal every step of the procedure as a formal part of the artwork’s title itself.
During the talk event I organized as part of the exhibition, titled “Devices for Living, or Art Projects,” Kaku Nagashima spoke about neoliberalism in relation to his project Machito Gekijō no Wazawaza Kōkanjo (“The Skill Exchange Office between the City and the Theater”).
Starting from the ideology that “one must keep investing in oneself to raise one’s market value, and if that value collapses, it is one’s own fault,” our discussion moved toward feelings of discomfort and alienation.
I was reminded of something Nagashima told me when I once consulted him about an event I was organizing:
Starting from the ideology that “one must keep investing in oneself to raise one’s market value, and if that value collapses, it is one’s own fault,” our discussion moved toward feelings of discomfort and alienation.
I was reminded of something Nagashima told me when I once consulted him about an event I was organizing:
“When you present a work as an artist, it becomes your work. Afterwards, it becomes part of your career, and your credibility.”
When I confront the fact that a shared experience or object ultimately becomes mine, it follows that everyone else who helped create it is, in some sense, excluded from it.
Nagashima’s talk on neoliberalism was not only about this micro-scale alienation within artistic collaboration, but also about the macro-scale paradox of how, by continually socializing one’s value, one can in turn become alienated from society itself.
Nagashima’s talk on neoliberalism was not only about this micro-scale alienation within artistic collaboration, but also about the macro-scale paradox of how, by continually socializing one’s value, one can in turn become alienated from society itself.
In early November this year, Reiko Tomii’s book The Philosophy of Operation was published. In it, she describes the various “operations,” including those of artists, as “invisible hands.”
Starting from the hypothesis that by closely observing these operations, we might systematize the history of art from the avant-garde of the 1950s–60s to the present, her book made me think that the gestures through which artists orchestrate works to appear as works—amid various intentions and circumstances—will increasingly draw attention and demand articulation.
Starting from the hypothesis that by closely observing these operations, we might systematize the history of art from the avant-garde of the 1950s–60s to the present, her book made me think that the gestures through which artists orchestrate works to appear as works—amid various intentions and circumstances—will increasingly draw attention and demand articulation.
Toward the end of the exhibition, I held a public “presentation” in the form of a walk.
A few people joined me as I casually shared what I had seen, heard, and learned while frequenting the area.
Among them were local residents, and as it turned out, I was the one being taught and told new things.
As we finished the walk, one participant asked, “Miyamori-san, what was it that you wanted to express?”
When I hesitated, they continued, “Something like self-expression? Isn’t that what it is?”
It was only after being asked so directly that I could finally respond:
A few people joined me as I casually shared what I had seen, heard, and learned while frequenting the area.
Among them were local residents, and as it turned out, I was the one being taught and told new things.
As we finished the walk, one participant asked, “Miyamori-san, what was it that you wanted to express?”
When I hesitated, they continued, “Something like self-expression? Isn’t that what it is?”
It was only after being asked so directly that I could finally respond:
“I didn’t consider this project to be an act of self-expression.”
At the very end, when I visited Yoshinoya-san to thank him, he said, “I’m glad I participated in the Sumida Mukojima EXPO.”
Even now, I’m unsure exactly what that meant, or in what sense it was “good.”
I hope to continue reflecting on these perspectives through future practices, and to find, in my own way, a point of closure.
Even now, I’m unsure exactly what that meant, or in what sense it was “good.”
I hope to continue reflecting on these perspectives through future practices, and to find, in my own way, a point of closure.
---
前衛からアートプロジェクトへの転回の中で、あるいは戦後美術から今日の現代美術への変遷の中で明らかな変化があったとすれば、やはりそれは「プロセス」への着目である。40年代の抽象表現主義の頃からフルクサス、ネオ・ダダといった美術史の流れの中で、パフォーマンスとして「プロセス」を開示することが試みられてきた。あるいは、プロセスそのものが作品となるイヴェント、ハプニングといったものが作品の形式として命名されたのもその頃であり、今もなおそれらは作品として語り継がれている。今回のすみだ向島EXPOに参加したことは、プロセスが重視される流れの中で「作品」という形式がどのように捉え直されるのか、あるいは拡張されていくのかということに向き合う機会となった。
“協力してくれた方を疎外する取り組みにはしたくない”という私の思いは、以上に記したプロセスの開示の潮流と無関係ではないだろう。超絶技巧の絵画を前に「すごいな〜、こんなことできちゃう人がいるんだなぁ」という感想をまず抱くこととは反対に、まるでYouTubeのHow To 動画のように「これをこうしてああするとこうなるのか」という手続きを知ることは、擬似的に参加者や鑑賞者を”制作者”にすることができる。手続きを知れば、原理的には自身でも作ることができるようになるし、手続きを知れば、行為が行われた結果としての展示物を見る際も追体験（＝再制作）することができる。今や、作品の評価の重要なポイントとして”どのように作ったか”という点が挙げられるのは当たり前であり、美術は少しずつ「見るもの」から「（擬似的にでも）作るもの」へと変化している。そういった意味において関係者を疎外することに抵抗するような時代性を感じ取った結果、行う手続きの全てを形式上の作品のタイトルとして開示し、よしのやさんと相談しながらやってみることを決めていたのだと思う。
会期中に企画させていただいたトークイベント「生活の工夫、あるいはアートプロジェクト」の中で、長島確さんが自身の取り組みである「まちと劇場の技技交換所」の話の中で新自由主義について話してくれた。”自身の市場価値を高めるために自己投資をし続け、自身の市場価値が暴落したらそれは自身の責任である”というイデオロギーの根っこの部分から、居づらさ、あるいは疎外感の話になっていったと私は思っている。長島さんに、以前自身のイベントの企画を相談させてもらった際に貰った「あなたが作家として作品を発表すると、あなたの作品となる。その後はあなたの実績になって、あなたの信用となる。」という言葉を思い出していた。誰かと一緒に作っていく出来事や物が最終的に私のものになることを正面から捉えると、一緒に作ってくれた私以外の誰かはその出来事や物から疎外されてしまう。長島さんの新自由主義の話は、「協働してくださった方々を疎外するとはどういうことか」という作品スケールの話でもあったし、「自身の価値を社会化し続けることによって、社会から自身が疎外されることはどういうことか」という大文字の社会の話であった。
今年の11月頭に富井玲子さんの「オペレーションの思想」という書籍が出版されたが、そこには作家を含めたさまざまなオペレーションについて”見えざる手”だったと書かれていた。そのオペレーションを注視することで50 - 60年代前衛〜現代に至るまでの美術を体系化できるのではないかという仮説から始まるこの書籍を読みながら、さまざまな思惑の中で作品を作品らしく演出していく手付きがこれからもっと着目され、もっと表明されていくのだろうと考えた。
会期の終盤、散歩をしながら成果発表を行なった。通いながら知ったことや見たこと、聞いた話などをしながら数人でただ散歩をする。参加してくださった方には地元に住む方も含まれ、結果的に私がいろんなことを教えてもらうことにもなった。散歩が終わる頃に、一緒に散歩してくださった方に「宮森さんは、何を表現したかったのですか？」と言われたじろいでいると、「何か自己表現？みたいな。そういうものじゃないの？」と質問を重ねられた。そこまではっきりと尋ねてもらって初めて、私は「私はこの取り組みを自己表現だと思ってはやっていません」と答えることができた。最後によしのやさんにご挨拶に行った時に貰った「すみだ向島EXPOに参加してよかった」という言葉も、”なに”にとって”どう”よかったという意味であるのかは不確かなままである。ここに挙げた観点についてはこれからの実践を通じて考え、自分なりに区切りをつけてみたい。