Enjoy Poverty: Disclosing the Political Impasse of Contemporary Art - By Renzo Martens - Response

Enjoy Poverty: Disclosing the Political Impasse of Contemporary Art - By Renzo Martens - Response

In conversation with Niels Van Tomme

Quote:

RM “Art uses its own existence to dismantle the world” (Martens 270).

Response:

Renzo Martens’ statement on art being able to dismantle the world posed to be an interesting statement that really stuck with me after the reading.  At first, I read Martens’ statement literally, and it took me aback.  Before the reading, I did not give much thought to the concept of art “dismantling the world”.  I have always known that art is an incredibly powerful medium in getting a message across to someone, but to think about it dismantling the world makes a lot of sense from what Martens, and Richard Mosse for that matter, have to say.  Art can get to the core of things that many other means of expression cannot.  It takes concepts and things we already know and makes us question those ideals, beliefs, and modes of thought more often than not.  In short, I interpret what Martens is trying to say is that art has the ability to forge new paths and change the construct of how the world thinks, and that is an incredible feat.

Reflecting on this even more, I think that Martens’ statement can instill a great sense of fear in the mind of an artist and viewers of art alike.  The artist has this ability to change constructs and ways we think about things and the viewer/society is left to interpret that change.  The artist is the needle and society is the thread, together they mend or create new ideas and change old ones, making us more aware of the world that we live in. 

Questions:

1. When does art become more political than a body of work?  What defines it as political?  Why do people rarely use art for political ramifications?
2. Are there limits or boundaries to aesthetic?  If so, what are those limits and boundaries?
3. How can the existence of art dismantle the world?