School art

School art is not the same as it is called young art. These terms are not synonymous. Moscow school of photography and multimedia named after A. Rodchenko was created to establish the production of young art. After all, it appeared when the lack of content for city exhibition sites became especially noticeable.

Obviously, as a functional part of the institutional system, the Rodchenko school was created in order to produce new content for exhibition institutions, whose spatial capabilities at some point began to exceed the cash circulation of artistic contents. The subjects-artists produced in it are only a side effect of this function. This institution appeared when a feeling of poverty of artistic life clearly took shape in the city - there were too many sites with an understandable urban function, and there were too few names of artists to maintain life in these clusters: now some joke that they were not so far when the only young artist was Rostan Tavasiev. Since then, the school has perfectly coped with this function of the production of content, and the increased number of “normal” video artists responds that has changed over the past couple of years of the institutional situation, when the former is always not too confident in the art-how-as-objects, has been cringing to a completely applied existence, but the number of institutional cooperation between large urban venues and galleries has increased. At the same time, as the school has established the release of viable art producers, the logic of objects has gone the past, without justifying either fetish expectations or iconoclastic fears, and the logic of projects has come to the fore: recently against the backdrop of a favorable policy of the city, the gallerys cooperate with the exhibition halls, putting them content, and it is clear that for a large project, they are more suitable in large space. Large-scale videos and installations, not individual artifacts. Galerists turned into project managers, and even suffering from eternal accusations of vulgar fetishization of the art of the Triumph Gallery, “cleared”, being in the forefront of those who support young video artists - then to make video projects in a large arena with their participation. Thus, the school as a whole, no matter how ideologically diverse its teaching staff plays an important role in the reproduction of changing institutional mechanisms. But it would be pointless and boring to start a conversation about the school, only to prove the obvious thesis that it is somehow affirmatively involved in such cultural reproduction.

So, school art occurs only as a side effect in the process of establishing the production of young art. Of course, it cannot be ruled out that, produced as a school one, it will fall into a large institutional turnover, but it does not require it. Young art is already pure content.

Almost to the same extent, in which school art becomes the production effect of young art, subjects are also side effects that are at the same time produced at school as artists. And what they do at school is often a product and a reflection of that specific social situation that becomes visible when you come across a video medium. This can be seen from a number of works carried out at the Rodchenko school by her students and recent graduates. Many of these videos will forever remain on hard drives in the 1st Course folders, and some, on the contrary, become the most vivid and generally significant representations of school discourse, fully circulating outside the narrow-school context, as happened with the film “Crazy imitators” of Dmitry Wenkov or to a lesser extent with the film “The Path of Homemade” , filmed The Vidiot group of the group in the school. These are video works in which students and graduates reflect the fact of stay in an art school and in the school community (or community of artists), the process of formation, being as an artist, entering the system of art and being in it.

Vidiot, “Samodelkin’s Way”, 2009, trailer

In 1976, in the article “Aesthetics of Narcissism”, Rosalind Krauss described a video work device as a structure for which the only relevant critical tool is the psychoanalytic model of narcissism. It does not make sense, she said, to transfer to the work of video art a modernist understanding of the “reflective” picturesque medium, which in its material flatness indicates itself. That is, there is no need to materialistically describe the internal device of the camera and video monitor: we are not interested in what is inside these technical boxes, only the effect of reflection and broadcasts that they produce is important to us - this is no longer a modernist (Greenberg) autoreflexivity of the medium of painting, but “reflection” ( Reflection ) of a different order. The artist, left one on one with a camera and a monitor to which the image is immediately transmitted, finds himself in a situation of dialogue with a mirror, and we interpreters are dealing with all the effects generated by this situation. Here it is time for art historian to turn to Freudo-Lakanov theories of narcissism, since the video for Krauss in 1976 is a medium that, in structure, reproduces the “psychological conditions of the“ I ”, split and doubled in the reflection of synchronous reproduction (on the monitor).” Turning to the video camera, the artist no longer invests in the objects of the outside world (as the painter does this), he turns it to himself.

The article Crouss we are talking about video artists of the 70s: Vito Akkonchi, Linde Benglis and others-about those who first turned out to be alone with a video camera and encountered themselves with a reflection/others on a monitor closed with a camera in the classic Closed Cirquit .

The structure of the early video works described by Crasse is surprisingly elementary - they are really generated by the determinism of the medium and the human psyche, as described in the same “stage of the mirror” of Jacques Lacan. In this sense, the very simple works of Akkonchi are almost exercises, they are attested to what, if necessary, should have occurred between a person and a camera in their very first meetings. And therefore, it is so simple and logical to make the transition from these “known” works to school works, which are also evidence of the first meeting (young) person and medium - but the first, of course, not in the “History of Art”, but in the specific social history of this particular generation that lives at this particular time in this particular city.

The difference between the Americans of the late 1960s-1970s like Vito Akkonchi and the freshmen of the Rodchenko school of the late 2000s-early 2010s is that if the former turned out to be one-on-one video with the medium (when there is no other option left but to include the camera and direct it towards themselves), now, entering the school of “new media”, where they should be produced as “artists”, students are always in front of the camera already in the camera. The form of the group. Therefore, it is obvious that the narcissism, in which they will inevitably fall into a meeting with the medium, is always the narcissism of the community, or the narcissism in the community, as well as the narcissism institutional. After all, the one who is reflected is no longer reflected as an autonomous, isolated mental structure (this really could afford only in the very first historical meetings with the medium), but as an individual existing in a particular institutional and social context. The school situation is arranged so that a fragment of this context always falls into the frame. And if there is some kind of media theory that can adequately describe this situation, then this theory of media is no longer exclusively psychoanalytic, but to a much greater extent social.

1) The girl sways on a tarzanka suspended to the tree, then flying up, then flying out of the frame. In a disharmine-child’s voice, she reports that her name is Sophia and she is an artist. He says that he lives in Moscow and teaches English. Her mother will soon marry a rich foreigner who will support her. She does not have to waste time on part -time jobs, she will have money for “Production” and study in London, she will be able to do good work, be a good artist and exhibit on the Biennale.
(Sofya Tatarinova, DHP )

Sofya Tatarinova, DHP, 2013

Although all this was presented as a joke, the text that the girl pronounces is almost a spell, a magical action: we don’t know if she says the truth, she probably says this so that she wants to become true. It falls into childhood, both mental and social. This resembles a Freudian story about a child who repeated himself in repeating actions and corresponding vocalization in the absence of a mother. Throwing a coil so that it disappears out of sight, and returning it back to the thread, he found a way to extinguish an alarm caused by the lack of a beloved object. In the same way, the girl either appears in the frame, then disappears from it. Rising herself in this way, she finds an emphasis on an infantile way to cope with anxiety caused by the situation in which she found herself, entering the school to “become an artist”.

In a situation beaten in this characteristic study, everyone who has received is. Social action, admission to the school of contemporary art, becomes the result of the release of a certain possibility - suddenly the released some time and other resources that make it possible to use themselves for inalienable activities, which is presented to the production of art. The price of such inalienability and generally the difference between alienated and inalienated activities, as a rule, is understood, having already gained certain social experience: the experience of the first entities - legal, economic, accounting, designer, etc. The school of new media (in contrast to traditional art universities where people have been gathered from childhood, marked with “ability” for mimetical drawing and thus having a certain social purpose) hardly anyone dreamed of becoming an artist “since childhood”-here artists become after other options cease to consider. “To be an artist” is an option that (not to be not allowed) is provided by society for those who do not find more effort to alienate in other activities. If you switch to situational language, then everyone who does not have power over their own lives is oppressed-and admission to the art school seems to be a way to regain their life.

2) the thesis on how the thesis is removed. The lyrical hero of the video (he is the author) is a neurotic person who is in the process of becoming as an artist. The wife, irritated by his uncertainty, advises him to take an example from those who have succeeded. He decides to make a film about rich people: this is a series of interviews with businessmen, designed to clarify how those who succeed are arranged. During the filming, it becomes clear that something is not glued: it seems to the author that he is not decisive enough, he is scared to ask acute questions. He complains about this to his wife and his psychologist: during an interview with successful people, he with even greater acute feels like a loser. Scenes with his wife and psychologist are included in the film. The film is nominated for Kandinsky Award .
(Andrey Kachalyan, "Interview" )

Andrey Kachalyan, Interview, 2013

As soon as having been at school, students fall under the action of institutional pessimism, uniting with the imperative of institutional reflection, to which teachers call. The narcissism of this situation consists not only in the specifics of the video of the video, but also in this imperative, urging the students' mental gaze primarily at themselves in an attempt to understand what social situation they found themselves. And as soon as this view is turned on, it becomes clear that the school is a transshipment point between the world of “ordinary” professions and an art system that is arranged no better than the usual world. Gradually, students are revealed to the doubtfulness of existence as artists. The nebula of career prospects, difficulties with the financing of work, instability of income, the narrowness of this world, where often there are no other options, except to endlessly continue artistic education, being in this intermediate social condition of the “inalienable” student of the art school, evading nothing but disgust, the requirements of the big world.

Another key point is that the subjects who, undergoing training at school, are produced as artists, are faced with the need to formalize themselves relative to the new and most important now for them - this is “art”. The whole discourse about art is arranged in such a way as to maintain the illusion that this meaning is at a fundamentally different level than the social and institutional circumstances described above. It, as it were, is separated from the living conditions and conditions of the school by the presence of a certain own, autonomous content. But all attempts to talk about him or in any way to fix it only show his elusive character.

3) a brisk animated television setting in the style of the 1990s. 3D objects are carried through the cosmic space under the croaking electronic bit. In school television studio with a classic back (skyscrapers against the background of the evening sky), parodying American evening talk shows, the host is welcomed by the audience-a famous exhibition observer. In such superpopular shows that go to the prime time, they usually discuss the fact that, in the opinion of the producers, it is interesting to the mass viewer: moral issues or their opposite side are the issues of sexuality (the format “condemn and discuss”). But instead, the presenter talks about “contemporary art”, hoping for a journalistic manner of making this specific object at least as universally interesting as morality and sexuality. Guests come to the studio - this is, in particular, the teachers of the School Rodchenko. The host and guests talk about modern and non-modern phenomena of contemporary art: photojabs, the Femen group, youth, young artists and for some reason about the visit of Nikita Khrushchev to the arena. It is felt that the painful imperative of wit is weighing over them. Gradually, it becomes clear that neither general nor special interest that appears in the discourse of transmission as a meaning “art”, it does not represent, moreover, it is unclear what is behind it. This is really just a signifier that allows guests and the leader to continue his speech and, along with it, the attention of the viewer, aimed at the monitor.
(Antonina Baver, "late at night with Valentin Dyakonov" )

Antonina Baver, "Late at night with Dyakonov", 2014, Issue 1

Antonina Baver, "Late at night with Dyakonov", 2014, Issue 2

4) in the same school studio (against the background of the same skyscrapers): one young girl (freshman) interviews another. They fulfill the task “Interview with a classmate” - they need to talk to each other about art. The training task, it is performed to learn how to record sound, put light, take a person. "Hello, today we will talk about contemporary art." - "Sveta, what is art for?" “Art is primarily the spiritual achievement of mankind.” “What do you think is not a place in modern art?” “High art should be moral.” “Well, thanks for such comprehensive answers.” For the whole interview, one girl smokes an electronic cigarette, the other examines her nails. With all appearance they demonstrate that they are very bored. Unlike the famous exhibition observer and his guests, they do not try to pretend that some real content that could be discussed behind the facade of the meaning “art”. And there is no reason for the viewer to look for interest in himself to watch this video. Therefore, despite his artlessness, watching him is pretty fun.
(Olga Deryugina, "Interview with a classmate")

5) again in the school studio. A naked presenter sits on a chair with his back to the viewer. In front of her is a fully dressed interviewee. This is again the training task "Interview with a classmate." Instead of talking about art, it is as interesting as sex, or, conversely, demonstrate the failure of the “art” as an object of conversation, it was decided to immediately move on to discuss sex, so the presenter asks “personal” issues. But the conversation is not glued. The guest of the studio wants to talk about anything, but not about sex. The format of night talk shows for adults is threatened with breakdown. The next guest is a restrained young man. The presenter asks him what girls he likes from the course. It turns out that he does not like the girl at all. The presenter is embarrassed. Вслед за молодым человеком на стул садится еще одна девушка. Мужчины ее не интересуют. Все заготовленные голой ведущей вопросы оказываются неуместными. Ей неловко. Этюд удался, но не в том смысле, в каком это было задумано.
(Алена Булычева, «Интервью с однокурсником»)

С одной стороны, форма интервью, которая задается в этих видео, — элементарное пропедевтическое упражнение для технических навыков. С другой, выбор именно этого формата имеет большой смысл: едва только поступив в видеомастерскую, студенты получают задание взять интервью друг у друга. Едва только они оказываются в школе, их нарциссический интерес запускается по кругу: отрефлексировав свое место, каждый должен обратить свой взгляд на другого такого же. Это императив сообщества, когда каждый заворожен образом другого и отражается в нем. И именно эта структура фиксируется затем камерой. Показательна давняя идея преподавателя школы Кирилла Преображенского, ведущего мастерскую видео, запустить регулярный сериал о школе, который бы делался силами студентов.

Описывая устройство воображаемого регистра человеческого «я» (для психоанализа «я» эквивалентно не сознанию/разуму, оно является эффектом бессознательной структуры), Лакан конструировал ситуацию, в которую могли бы попасть субъекты, если бы единственной их способностью было такое взаимное отражение: «предположим, существует некоторое количество искусственных субъектов, каждый из которых пленен образом себе подобного. Чтобы система не обратилась в огромную концентрическую галлюцинацию все более и более сильного парализующего воздействия, чтобы она работала безостановочно, необходимо было вмешательство третьей регулирующей стороны, которая создала бы между субъектами некую дистанцию приказного порядка» .

Эта третья регулирующая сторона и есть символический закон. В случае со школой его функционирование обеспечивается тем самым означающим «искусство», собственное содержание которого, как показали описанные видео, так сложно ухватить. Чтобы понять, в чем тут загвоздка, стоит воспользоваться тем, что мы находимся вовне школьной ситуации, как говорят аналитики, «экстренсек» (то есть снаружи) своего симптома. Говорить об «искусстве» на камеру с «другими такими же» оказывается так сложно, поскольку в реальности «искусство» вовсе не является чем-то отдельным от социальных обстоятельств, ведущих к конкретному решению больше не заниматься отчужденной деятельностью. Просто в момент пребывания в школе, чей дискурс структурирован через означающее «искусство», у этого самого «искусства» нет (и ему не нужно) никакого другого содержания, кроме того, которое возникает в результате встречи специфического социального действия (и его агентов — людей, принявших социальное решение быть художниками) и медиума видео. Результатом этой встречи и становятся видеоработы, по необходимости строящиеся вокруг затруднений и эффектов, вызываемых пустым означающим «искусство» в сообществе студентов, которые в этот момент производятся как художники.

(Детерминированный нарциссизм сообщества, который обнаруживается у видеохудожников, забавным образом модифицируется у обучающихся параллельно с ними фотографов. В отличие от видеохудожников, которые сходятся в сообщество немало и в силу особенностей самой своей практики, фотографы на самом деле «учатся снимать». Уже беря в руки орудие производства, фотографы стремительно оказываются на рынке в виде рабочих рук. Они работают как кустари-одиночки и не создают сообществ, подобных тем, что складываются у видеохудожников, чьи трудовые перспективы куда более туманны. Может создаться впечатление, что если видеосообщества интересуются только своей структурой, то взгляд фотографов обращен вовне особой школьной ситуации, описанной нами, и что в их работах есть некое дополнительное содержание, которое часто обвиняют в вульгарном социальном репортерстве — в том, для чего существует термин social porn : документация страданий других, поданная как внимание к угнетенным. Но если вдуматься, содержание у студентов-фотографов не совсем внешнее. Вся разнообразная топология их репортажных вылазок становится результатом чисто языкового решения: их нулевым километром всегда остается «внутри школы». Этот нулевой километр и есть то, чем занимаются видеохудожники. Фотографы же занимаются тем, что оказывается оборотной стороной такой ситуации. Их содержание — это просто-напросто то, что не в школе: социальный низ (стриптизерши, бомжи), богатое и бедное, Рублевка и деревня. Решение о локации явно принимается не в результате столкновения с некоей реальностью, а на уровне решения «куда поехать» — и координаты заранее определены в языке.)

Евгений Гранильщиков, «Позиции», 2013

У художников просто нет иной возможности по формированию какого-либо содержания, кроме как непосредственно отражения той завораживающей социальной ситуации, в которой они себя обнаруживают. Самым блестящим примером работы с такой концентрической групповой структурой и самоостранения сообщества стали, конечно, «Безумные подражатели» Венкова. Другой вариант — «Путь Самоделкина» сложившейся в мастерской Кирилла Преображенского группы Vidiot , еще одно отражение или эффект группового существования вокруг пустого означающего «искусство». Тут, в отличие от описанных выше простых видеоинтервью, искусство не профанируется, но, наоборот, мистифицируется за счет детективной структуры сюжета, являясь, на самом деле, только поводом для вхождения в некое особым образом структурированное сообщество. Или, например, более новое, псевдогодаровское видео Евгения Гранильщикова (работы этого художника можно увидеть в Манеже до 16 февраля . — Ред .): в нем он занимает относительно сообщества иную, внешнюю позицию, технично воспроизводя vanitas групповой жизни и становясь по выходе из школы «индивидуальным художником с сольной карьерой» именно в результате изящного предательства, совершенного им по отношению к этому «пребыванию в группе». В конечном итоге все это сводится к взаимодействию с другими и тем конфигурациям, которые оно может принимать относительно камеры и означающего «искусство».