On Militant Art: Part 3 - Chris Burden

Chris Burden

Chris Burden is an American artist working in installation and sculpture but he is best known for his performances. Burden is a useful example as, although he might be recognised as violent, he is not immediately thought of as “militant”.  By way of example he allows us to question what Militant Art is.  He is also a useful example of the aesthetic ancestry of Militant Art. 

1970s Performances

Shoot (1971)

Transfixed (1974)

747 (1973)

During the early to mid 1970s Chris Burden made a series of violent and controversial performances that helped to define the genre of performance art.  He is perhaps most famous for his 1971 performance “Shoot” in which an assistant, from 5 metres, shot him in the arm with a .22 rifle.  In “Transfixed” (1974) he was nailed to a Beetle car, as if crucified.  The car was driven out of the garage, revved for a couple of minutes and then taken back in.  For “Deadman” (1972) he lay, completely covered by a tarpaulin, on La Cienega Boulevard in LA with two fifteen minute flares placed nearby to warn cars (Burden was arrested and charged for this performance but acquitted when the jury failed to reach a verdict).  In 1973 the FBI questioned him after he fired several shots at a Boeing 747 as it took off from Los Angeles International Airport (he was out of range at the time so the FBI decided not to press charges). 

"747. January 5, 1973. Los Angeles, California. At about 8am at a beach near the Los Angeles International Airport, I fired several shots with a pistol at a Boeing 747." Chris Burden (BLOCNOTES editions, 1995).

Works such as these are violent, but what makes them militant? How is shooting at an aeroplane not an act of militancy?  Burden’s cold-blooded description (above) leads us to believe that it was a purely formalist action, not politically motivated. He later spoke of how the work was not about shooting a plane but about impotence, about the bullet never reaching its target, but this too could be read politically.  Do actions need to be politically motivated in order to be militant?  Or do Burden’s artworks, in fact, bear a message? 

White Light/White Heat (1975)

In “White Light/White Heat” (1975) Burden placed himself on a triangular platform, at about ten feet above the floor and two feet below the ceiling, in the corner of the Ronald Feldman Gallery…and there he remained for 22 days.  During the entire performance Burden did not eat, talk or come down.  He did not see anyone, and no one saw him.  The performance built on “Bed Piece”, in which Burden stayed in Bed for 22 days (but did eat and get up to go to the toilet – when the gallery was closed) and “Five Day Locker Piece” (1971) in which Burden locked himself in a college locker for 5 days.

Visitors to the “White Light/White Heat” exhibition spoke about feeling his presence, although none saw him and few heard him. As the viewer waits and listens their experience of the room and its sounds is heightened. Who would have known if he had died? 

This work can be seen as a critique on religion, with Burden playing the role of the invisible God “up above”.  One can also draw parallels with Saint Simeon Stylites, the Christian who lived on a pillar for 37 years.  Mortification of the flesh; fasting; voluntary seclusion; trial by ordeal, Burden presented the trappings of Sainthood.  Although the title of the exhibition came from a Velvet Underground song it also carried religious significance and his previous exhibition was entitled “The Church of Human Energy”. 

Burden has a longer track record of religious iconography in his work.  For “Jaizu” (1972) he was dressed in white and wore dark sunglasses while he sat, motionless, in a director’s chair for two days while viewers contemplated him while seated on cushions.  In 1974’s “Transfixed” he was literally crucified on a VW Beetle. 

By presenting a vacuum, in “White Light/White Heat” Burden was able to elicit thoughts from the audience.  Such thoughts may indeed have turned to religion, or they may have reflected on the IRA members who were on the seventh week of their hunger strike at the time, and clearly prepared to die for their cause.  If a political motive is needed to be called “militant” then perhaps Burden’s motive is to get people to think.  By evoking religious iconography such as exclusion and fasting perhaps Burden asks us if we too should reconsider our consumerist lifestyles.  If this is the case, then Burden does have a political message and the fact that he is prepared to break the law (Dead Man, 747, Cole to Newcastle); risk his personal safety (Shoot, Dead Man); and that he displays a militaristic, fanatical approach to endurance (White Light/White Heat, Locker Piece) means that at the very least his methods do indeed echo elements similar to those of a militant.  

Tracing Militant Art’s Aesthetic Ancestry

During his undergraduate course Burden made two giant, outdoor, tunnels – essentially like poly-tunnels.  His tutors, who were advocates of Minimalist Art, were an influence on him at the time.  Burden’s tunnels failed on two counts.  Firstly, they were vandalised; this led Burden to live in them during their exhibition, in order to protect them.  Secondly, wind cause one wall to cave in, which had the knock on effect of drawing in the opposite wall – by way of vacuum; you couldn’t walk down the tunnel as the walls collapsed in on you.  However, Burden noticed that if you ran down the tunnel you made an air pocket: the tunnel opened up in front of you and closed behind.  This led Burden to consider interactive art involving the “viewer” who would henceforth become the “participant”. 

Burden’s performances have a direct link to sculpture through minimalism and, I am claiming, Militant Art has an artistic heritage leading back to sculpture through performance art.  Militant Art groups such as Black Mask and King Mob have cited Dada, Futurism, Surrealism as influences so Militant Art should therefore be seen as expression drawing on these artistic histories.

Further Reading: 

http://juleswidmayer.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/intro-to-chris-burden/
http://www.volny.cz/rhorvitz/burden.html

http://toobbox.com/blog/the-artist-mr-burden/

http://toobbox.com/playlist/chris-burden

The Emasculated and Infantilised Strike Back

“I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables - slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We’re the middle children of history man, with no purpose or place. We have no Great War, no great depression. Our great war’s a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives. We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires and, movie gods and rock stars – but we won’t. And we’re slowly learning that fact. And we’re very, very pissed off” Fight Club

The fact that Fight Club is over 15 years old is startling.  It was eerily prophetic - and not just in this quote.  Two points, you could argue, from the quote above are now inaccurate though.  

1. Our generation already has its own "great war" - the continual war on terror and 
2. We are entering our "great depression", that of the wake of the global banking crisis.

But the war on terror is not "real" in that it does not directly affect that many of our citizens (compared to WW2 for example).  There is no "excitement" no conscription or blitz spirit.  It just drags on, being used to excuse the erosion of civil liberties. 

Indeed we are living in a neo-liberal consumer society though: proven by the looting of trainers.  That's all these people have left to aspire to.  And the system is broken, we all know that.  The banks have collapsed but so unthinkable is it that capitalism might fail, the state intervenes to ensure it's business as usual.  Bankers still get their unlimited bonuses - someone else will have to pay. 

We are living in an emasculated society where Dads are demonised (see Fathers for Justice) and all men are treated as potential sex offenders.  Traditional "masculine" industries have gone.  As you'll see below, young men in particular, and young people in general, are treated like children.  It is this kind of nanny state approach that makes people act like children and makes young men violent.  

Croydon Clean Up Brigade

Croydon Clean Up Brigade2

I went into Croydon this morning to take photographs of the aftermath of last night's riots - which spread across the Capital and, now,  the country.  I've spent the day talking to people on the street and watching the news footage as well as reading articles online and through Twitter etc.  One thing that strikes me is that everyone wants to know "why" (as if the youth are asking for something and if only we could give it to them they'd stop).  When anyone tries to explain underlying reasons they are quickly shot down as "not good enough" and the rhetoric returns to "it's all just mindless opportunism and criminality" (as if the two things are mutually exclusive).  What people can't grasp is that it is mindless opportunism but this doesn't mean there aren't reasons for this.  No, it's not a coordinated political uprising.  It's a load of people who are fed up, bored, and have got nothing to lose.  Yes, they are having fun (they're having the times of their lives).  They can't believe that they're getting away with it, no one is stopping them and this makes them feel empowered.  The other thing that I hear repeatedly is a patronising infantilisation of these people, who are usually referred to as "kids".  There are repeated cries of "what are the parents thinking....why have they let them out, they should be at home".  The Met has called for parents to check on their children and keep them in tonight but at the same time they have admitted that 80% of those in custody are in their twenties.  And those in their teens? Should we be referring to them as children?

Last night I saw Ken Livingstone give the best explanation of the rioter's motives.  He came under attack from the BBC reporter who interrupted to ask something like "but isn't it just criminality and looting, plain and simple?" to which Ken replied something like "of course it is, but why is it happening now?".  He went on to remind us that for the first time since WW2 we have a generation with worse prospects than their parents.  These youths, he says, are are criminals, yes, but they are disaffected, they feel that no one at the top of society (government) cares about them or speaks for them.  They have no prospect of a job, cannot provide for a wife and family, half the students in college don't know if they will be there next year because EMA has been cut.  That's why there is the fearlessness, they don't care, they have nothing to lose, they don't have a stake in society.  Not everyone takes to looting though Ken points out that the rioters account for less than one tenth of one percent of the Capital's youths.  It's not a political statement - it's anger and it's disaffection. You can hear the interview here.  

Of course Ken could have gone further.  He could have cited cuts to youth clubs and services.  He could have mentioned that Londoners, on average (unless helped financially by their parents) cannot expect to buy a house until they are 37, and young people now spend half their income on rent.  Ed Howker and Shiv Malik sum this up in their book "Jilted Generation: how Britain bankrupted its youth", in which they discuss what sort of a deal this young generation has got as compared to previous generations - taking into account opportunities, income, and cost of living.  To sumarise, they find conditions have worsened for young people:  

• 25% of young people are still living with their parents - long into their twenties, this affects their ability to form relationships, men who live with their parents are more likely to become violent, 
• There are 1.7 million families on the Council Housing waiting list (these are not old people), governments deal with this by giving them money to rent privately, which helps prop up landlords instead of building more Council Houses.  
• This generation cannot have a university education unless they're prepared to take on huge debt (£9K per annum in fees but the total cost, including loss of earning could top £100K).  Even if they do get a degree they can look forward to a "competitive" job market where they may have to work in low value McJobs and undertake unpaid interships until they are "allowed" to get a proper, adult job.  
• At the same time the government pays winter fuel payment to over 65s - 80% of whom don't need it.  If this was means tested the savings could pay for student tuition fees.  But they don't do that - young people aren't allowed to vote you see.  
• Any help young people get is based on their parents' income.  This is, in itself an infantilising act as an 18 year old - capable of voting, joining the army, paying taxes, etc is still treated as a child.  
• The government say that tuition fees have to increase because more people are going to university, but if more people use the NHS or the roads or any other public service what happens? The public pay more, through taxation.  This logic only affects our generation.  
• 1.5million young people unemployed (1 in 5) and they are unemployed for a significant amount of time.  If this continues we will have a lost generation.  
• Young people's careers start much later (after Uni, interships and unemployment) thus infantilising us further. 

Hear Malik and Howker discuss the book here. 

Yet this isn't a good enough "explanation" for many pundits or Joe Public.  I've still heard calls for water cannon, rubber bullets and "send them to Afghanistan".  How about treating them like adults, giving them opportunities and responsibilities?  "Sending them to Afghanistan" would, however, have a positive outcome: it would enable "them" to experience "the real", something beyond the everyday malaise that they experience - something akin to what is being experienced now.  It would be one opportunity, but there should be more for this generation to choose from, not be pushed into as some sort of punitive measure - punitive for what? These people didn't cause the banking crisis, they probably didn't vote Tory (if they were old enough to vote in the last election).  In fact, hang on a minute, who did vote to bail out the banks and pay the price through public sector cuts and the systematic dismantling of our Higher Education system? Certainly the Tory voters were not a majority and those who voted Lib Dem, who have been utterly betrayed. This government has no control of the streets and no mandate to govern.  I call for a general election now and hope that a new coalition wins - a coalition of the left - because Labour won't help these people, Labour won't restore free Higher Education or punish the banks.  We need a new politics where the Greens and the Communists can affect Labour and the Liberals to pull them away from a centre-ground consensus that a neo-liberal, free-market society based on continually increasing consumption is the only way.  That only Capital, not culture, matters.  We have seen the beginning of troubles - stemming from the banking crisis or credit crunch - but capitalist consumerism will only send us head-on into an apocalyptic scenario of global warming and a rising global population fighting over depleting resources.  The system needs to change, the question is a) has the revolution already started and b) do the left have the answers to fix the mess?