Do You Speak Synergy?
group exhibition at Harlan Levey Projects gallery curated by Denis Maksimov with support of Harlan Levey
Emmanuel Van Der Auwera. “Cabinet d’affects” (2010), exhibition view
In his essay “Cézanne’s Doubt,” l French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty describes Cézanne’s impressionistic and paradoxical approach to painting, and implicitly draws a parallel to his own concept of radical reflection. Looking at the relationship between science and art in the context of Cezanne’s struggle to apply “intelligence, ideas, sciences, perspective, and tradition” to his work, he concludes that theory and practice stand in opposition to each other. He sees art as an attempt to capture an individual’s perception, and science as anti-individualistic. From this perspective, natural science cannot grasp the profundity and subjective depth of the phenomena it endeavors to explain.
Ella Littwitz. “Uproot” (2015), exhibition view
Art and science may indeed oppose each other in certain senses, but they also share many things, for example a vigorous research drive that goes beyond practicality. In the currents of contemporary cultural discourse, this characteristic is becoming challenging to maintain, for science and art alike. “Key performance indicators” are applied literally to everything, including the traditionally metaphysical subjects of love and death. Art risks leaning towards the language of “social engagement” in regard to state funding, falling into categories of purely utilitarian design or vanity symbols for luxurious consumption. Science, on the other hand, is getting cornered exclusively into the “applied” category. This process is not a novelty: with constant re-learning and easy forgetting, valuable insights and original perspectives are often lost in favor of the “mode du jour” – sometimes by chance, sometimes in result of deliberate decisions by dominating institutions of a particular time.
Imposed planning and bureaucracy turn both artist and scientist into “eternal applicants” for grants rewarded to visionaries for design “solutions.” Research, findings, and output of each are quickly translated to market speak: Where is the business case? What is the product? Is there a customer for this? How are you going to promote it? The discourse of market economy is perhaps the most crippling enemy poetry has ever seen.
Benjamin Verhoeven. “Sculptural Movement, chapters I & II” (2015), still from video
Both art and science resist. Fundamental scientific research eludes pressure by forecasting long-term outcomes to illustrate a future where we’re all dead already anyway, and artistic energy continues to insist on the power of purposelessness in unveiling the truth content in art and commodities in general. A growing number of collaborations between artists and scientists, formed under the flag of “artistic research” firmly establish a vocabulary for this discourse. Following the logic of Merleau-Ponty, “Do You Speak Synergy?” aims to “return to phenomena.” It does this through a transdisciplinary conversation about the poetic essence of scientific and artistic investigation. The notion of “transdisciplinary” investigation is used more and more often in discussions about the future of research. However, the pathway towards meta-levels of inquiry is not so straightforward. Research has become the victim of an obsession with efficiency, predictability and target driven utilitarianism.
Haseeb Ahmed. “Fish Bone Chapel” (2013), exhibition view
The selected artists share the research language of transdisciplinary inquiry while remaining free from any disciplinary or corporate mandates. Modern physics calls this their “unified field,” ² which we refer to as “synergy,” where fundamental forces and elementary particles are approached as if they compose a single field – a field of truly universal language.
References:
¹ Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “Le doubt de Cézanne” in Sens et non-sens, Gallimard, Paris, 1945. English translation by Hubert L. Dreyfus and Patricia Allen Dreyfus in Sense and Non-Sense, Illinois University Press, Chicago, IL, 1964.
² Peter Weibel, Beyond Art: A Third Culture. – A Comparative Study in Culture and Science in 20th Century Austria and Hungary. Passagen Verlag, Vienna, 1997.
pdf version of the book “Do You Speak Synergy?” co-written by Denis Maksimov and Harlan Levey
more images from the exhibition
Is art a luxury or a necessity?
”The Dream” in Chicago, by Jaume Plensa
For those who shrug off potential side effects of this trend, it should be noted that creativity, when it is ‘directed’ out of practical concerns, hardly has any chance to flourish.
Is it possible for these two opposing dimensions to meet somewhere? A place where it is plausible to be economical and assess impact, and at the same time provide necessary resources for artistic innovation while omitting layers of bureaucracy, corruption, nepotism and systemically ill hierarchies?
Yes. Absolutely. Case studies exist. It’s a new trend
in the making, but is taking time to catch on. One
reason this may be slow to happen is that art may
be the only ‘product’ of human activity that can’t
be reduced to a utilitarian relationship in the sense
described by Jeremy Bentham or Daniel Bernoulli
before him. Art is the dimension that makes us
human and provides us with the essence of the difference
between ‘existing’ and ‘living’. You can certainly
‘exist’ with good provisions of water, electricity,
defence and other ‘common utilities’. But when
can you say you ‘live’ a full, exciting and rich life?
‘To live is the rarest thing in the world, most people
exist - that’s all’ - said Oscar Wilde in the end of 19
century. Even in times of crisis, why shouldn’t it be
the shared dream that every person may live. He
also said that ‘when artists get together for dinner
they talk about money. When bankers get together
for a meal they talk about art.’
This is one of art’s social benefits. It provides a
mirror in which to consider what it is to live. It also
speaks towards a multiplicity of narratives that
consider how art provides a democratic and accessible
platform for reflection, motivation, self-development,
inspiration, innovation and creativity;
assets that are integral to building a better future.
Jacques Derrida famously spoke about two types
of future: ‘planned future’ and ‘real future’. One
represents our daily calendar. It includes meetings
and events, keeping in mind performance and
deliverables. It’s managerial. A ‘planned future’ is
something we design. The ‘real future’ is full of art,
which opens unknown doors, provides leads to
unexpected opportunities and boosts conceptual
innovation. Here planning helps prepare for shifts
in perspective and the forging of new futures.
As government investigates best policy, a direct
middle-way involves stakeholder outreach across
all societal sectors.
In terms of ‘art as design,’ there are many ways in which artists are currently adding value to cross-sectoral projects in science, technology, agriculture and other areas, where an artistic methodology offers measurable return to an existing workflow or framework. At the very least, artists help other types of researchers look at their work from different perspectives. Artists who are willing and able, can build sufficient support for their careers by pursuing projects that offer salaries and fuel their research. Not every artist is a research based artist however, and for many ‘pure’ art projects, the government shoulders the burden of support. Protecting the poetry of this very idea is not a weight it needs to carry alone.
In one way or another, every citizen benefits from art even if when encountering it, it is often treated as if it were a gift given by default. While art’s influence is without exception, it is a potentially much smaller number of individuals that realize the real and potential impact that art has on their life and environment. This isn’t however the case with advertising.
Why
should art not be as present? Why should the
government go at that alone?
If you answer the first question, with – ‘that sounds
interesting’, and the second with, - ‘I get that,’
there are several great examples of businesses
showing an active interest in assuming responsibility
for supporting the arts while committed to the
benefits of this contribution. These range from museum
quality collections like those of Belgacom or
the Progressive Collection in the United States, to
CSR Foundations like the “Dare to Explore Foundation”
who chose to support an NGO that created
a residency and public arts program in Brussels
or an association like Digital Europe, which wanted
to create an atmosphere that was engaging for
their employees, members and guests.
The shared attitude amongst these different
examples, can be opportunistically described as what the ‘Je Suis Charlie’ meme hoped to communicate:
an allegiance to freedom of expression
and a support of the arts even when it isn’t
headline news; an attitude that goes beyond any
‘selfie’ while paying attention to the impact of
aesthetics.
To us, this seems like a win-win scenario. In the office, art provides a way to inspire your staff and guests, both by transforming the working environment and by integrating company culture into internal and external communication strategies. This can provide a boost in productivity, innovative thinking and pleasure, as well as visualizing the values, challenges and mission of an organization in unforgettable ways. Outside the office, these kind of investments make an enormous difference in the careers of artists and provide a value that exceeds the retail price of any particular object. They feed the artistic landscape and provide models to be reviewed as best policy practices are updated.
The first step to this of course is recognizing
that art is not ‘decoration’, but rather a unique
societal product of human creativity, which
holds immense potential. It’s time to take action
and merge planned and future points of view to
make the most of this integral asset. This position
poses art as a valid form of corporate social
responsibility and should be followed with a
willingness to explore sustainable short, middle
and long-term ways to intertwine the public life of
art in private affairs.
by Denis Maksimov and Harlan Levey
Harlan Levey and Denis Maksimov are working together as a curatorial team to help companies, political
institutions and expert organisations work out their strategy of activities via contemporary art,
including visualisation of values, collecting and management of the collection. Harlan Levey Projects
was selected as the only Belgian participate to the First Call curated category of Art Brussels 2014.
published in The Brussels Times Magazine, February-March 2015
Diminishing marginal utility and arts
Maurizio Cattelan, “All” (2011), courtesy of the Guggenheim Museum
‘Austerity’ in European governance has become as popular and exposed meme as ‘selfie’ in popular use.
In the end of the last year new Belgian government announced new budget cuts, of which the arts and education turned out to be one of the main victims. Culture and education are even more pushed into the field of so-called ‘creative economy’ and ‘creative entrepreneurship’. Cutting these concept down to the baseline, it’s about marketing and commoditisation of everything as much as possible in order to make it self-sufficient and self-supplied. The trend is suggesting to get rid off ‘art for art’s sake’ and rather focus on ‘art as design’.
The consequences of such approach could turn out to be dreadful. Creativity, when it is ‘directed’ out of practical concerns, hardly has chances of flourishing - on the contrary, it creates parasitism and domination of those, who abuse the hierarchies.
On the other hand, it’s pretty clear that the economic situation and scarcity of resources increases pressure and dictates necessity for such actions from the public budget. Cultural funds distribution is rarely praised.
Is it possible to meet these two opposing dimensions somewhere? Be economical, assess impact and at the same time provide the freedom of creativity and artistic innovation with necessary resources, omitting overcomplicating bureaucracy, corruption, nepotism and systemically ill hierarchies?
We believe there is a middle way and it requires participation of all sectors of the society. Government and public sector shouldn’t be held solemnly responsible for artistic innovation. This ‘socialistic’ view on the cultural sector is out of touch with the reality we are living in now.
Mike Kelley, “Mobile Homestead” (2011), courtesy of the artist
Jeremy Bentham widely elaborated idea of diminishing marginal utility (which was introduced by mathematician Daniel Bernoulli before him) in his comprehensive concept of classical utilitarianism. A short reminder of it’s essence - the more utility of some kind we get, the less we value it. It concerns ‘public goods’ as well, which for the sake of all have to be distributed by the state as it’s the only feasible institutions to do it beyond selfishness of the individual. But is it really applicable to art in the same way as it’s applicable to military, defence, water cleansing, etc.? Can we say that art is the only one ‘product’ of human activity, that isn’t utilitarian per se?
Our answer is definite ‘yes’. Art is the dimension, that makes us human and provides us with the essence of the difference between ‘existing’ and ‘living’. You can certainly ‘exist’ with good provision of water, electricity, defence and other ‘common utilities’. But when can you say you ‘live’ a full, exciting and rich life? ‘To live is the rarest thing in the world, most people exist - that’s all’ - said Oscar Wilde in the end of 19 century.
Art provides democratic and accessible to everyone platform for reflection, motivation, self-development, inspiration, innovation and creativity - all that we need for moving forward. Jacques Derrida famously spoke about two types of future - ‘planned future’ and ‘real future’. Our calendar of next week meetings and events, expectable key performance indicators in the business, strategic plans with deliverables in policy management is ‘planned future’ - something we design. But there is another type of future - unknown to our plans and unrelated to them. ‘Design’ as the manner of resolving specific problems deals with ‘planned future’, while ‘art’ - with the ‘real’ one, opening more unknown doors of opportunities for innovation, leaps forward in the development of our society. It’s vital to keep it flourishing, without ‘art’ as such society looks more like a mummified body without ‘real future’.
Jon Rafman, “9 Eyes of Google Street View” (2009), courtesy of the artist
To weight all responsibility for artistic development on the shoulders of government is incorrect due to many reasons. First of all, we are all beneficiaries of art, but we rather treat is a something given to us by default. Secondly, many don’t realise potentiality of impact of art on their life if only the artistic production would be used by them in more comprehensive manner. Aesthetics inspire us, give us motivation, ideas, provide for for thought and enticing discussions in spaces. It’s not enough to have it only in spaces of public museums - it should surround us all in multiple environments.
Art in your office, for example, can make employees think of it from many more different perspectives than us a place where they have to spend time from 9 to 18 according to the contract. Art in the office (of course if selected and curated wisely) establish affinity of staff with the company values, connect them with the company as a team of like-minded people doing what they do for a bigger purpose as well.
It is just one example of engagement with arts from corporate perspective - there are so many more ways to boost team efficiency, connection of employees to the company values, finally speak of them not in the terms of dead ‘mission’ statement, that often is not even read by the staff.
Superflex, “Bankrupt Banks”, courtesy of the artists
This impact on companies, as well as similar benefits for institutions, organisations, from our perspective, is the answer on the question of how to proceed with support of art in current economic environment. Business has to step in - not with the charitable intentions - but think of investment in art from perspective of possible and accessible impact on their activities. ‘Art’ is not ‘decoration’ - it’s a unique societal product of human creativity, that hold immense potential. It’s time to unveil it to the fullest.
by Denis Maksimov and Harlan Levey (originally published in The Brussels Times Magazine, Dec-Jan 2015)
Harlan Levey and Denis Maksimov are working together as a curatorial team to help companies, political institutions and expert organisations work out their strategy of activities via contemporary art, including visualisation of values, collecting and management of the collection. Harlan Levey Projects was selected as the only Belgian participate to the First Call curated category of Art Brussels 2014. He has consulted for the United Nations, The European Commission, and the City of Brussels as well as a number of corporate clients including Levi’s, MTV, and private collections in Europe and the United States.
Creating Shared Value: contemporary art, corporate culture and the future of Corporate Social Responsibility
Courtesy of Progressive Art Collection
Michael Porter, the head of Harvard Business School’s Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, recently discussed an updated version of CSR (corporate social responsibility) based on a ‘shared value’ - an approach to business strategy in the post-capitalism framework.
It’s an idea that tries to realign productivity and financial aims with civil contributions by creating common positions that will nourish the intersection between social value and fiscal performance. ‘Shared value’ is essential to any corporate mission statement, yet embedding it into change management strategies or highlighting its role in defining corporate culture, are not necessarily easy things to do in a convincing way. If done well however, illustrating and communicating your values both internally and externally may shift the perception of your endeavors from those of an enterprise to those of an institution while contributing to the development of your company culture. This is a transition that provides several competitive advantages. Not the least of which is that as company and industry landscapes change, the visualization of these shared values draws a line that provides legacy; stable ground for future growth and positive recognition. How can this be done?
For an increasing number of companies, the visualization of this transformation of ‘shared value’ and institutional identity is created through the collection and presentation of contemporary art. Art patronage, education and inclusion (in business strategy and branding) are the next phase of innovative CSR.
Courtesy of Bank of America collection
The inclusion of art in the workplace is not a decorative gesture. It is not the same as buying some new plants. On the contrary, it can have several positive impacts and play an important role in your business. According to studies by BOSTI Associates (NY) and ICM (London), 73% of employees stated that art in the work place both motivated and inspired them. These studies also showed that art expresses success, combats stress, encourages creativity and diversity appreciation, while directly impacting not only the attitudes of employees, but also of visiting clients.
Art in the work place can encourage employees to think creatively. It can create conversations amongst them while actively constructing an image of corporate culture, values and ambitions. It can also create revenue and diversify the company portfolio. Though art acquisition can also provide great financial return, this is risky for market newcomers, and acquisition in this context should be seen as a cultural, as opposed to a financial, investment. It is no coincidence however, that banks like ING, UBS, The Bank of America, Deutsche Bank and others boast some of the largest and most prominent collections in the world. As Liz Christensen, curator for Deutsche Bank put it: “We’re not buying for investment, but we’re not buying for not investment.” In other words, they don’t think about resale value when acquiring a work, but do the diligence before spending money. Kristin Rogers of the Progressive Collection (one of the most interesting corporate art stories in the US) approaches her position from a slightly different angle, sayings that art is an investment in the people who work for the company: a catalyst for conversation and creative exchange.
courtesy of Microsoft art collection
While Deutsche Bank and Progressive are amongst those who have built museum quality collections, smaller firms and NGO’s should not be afraid to begin with a smaller investment. Visualizing values and collecting outstanding works of contemporary art does not demand hundreds of thousands of euro in investment. It is important to find a strategy and define goals that achieve the aims, while respecting the means of your organization. When Brussels based lobby association Digital Europe sought to transform their offices, they were not thinking long term about a collection, but rather looking for a first range of works, which deal with individual empowerment – a core issue at the heart of the company’s mission and day-to-day activities.
To put it bluntly, involving a company in the contemporary art market adds sex appeal, and reflects broader social changes that see increasing museum attendance and interest in contemporary art over the last decade. It is a social obligation that provides more benefits than appear on the surface, in the same way a great work of art provides more information than you can receive the first time you encounter it.
by Denis Maksimov and Harlan Levey (originally published in The Brussels Times Magazine)
Harlan Levey and Denis Maksimov are working together as a curatorial team to help companies, political institutions and expert organisations work out their strategy of activities via contemporary art, including visualisation of values, collecting and management of the collection. Harlan Levey Projects was selected as the only Belgian participate to the First Call curated category of Art Brussels 2014. He has consulted for the United Nations, The European Commission, and the City of Brussels as well as a number of corporate clients including Levi’s, MTV, and private collections in Europe and the United States.
Images: courtesy of Forbes, Bank of America, Microsoft, Progressive Art Collection and UBS