By MARCO BUTI*

The artistic world highly values ​​the notion of “art”, although the words “research”, “inquiry” and “investigation”, which seem to be more prestigious and contemporary, are increasingly used.

1.

“Nowhere does the fact of taking into account the receiver of a work of art or an artistic form prove fruitful for its knowledge. Not only does the fact of establishing a relationship with a certain public or its representatives constitute a deviation; the very concept of an “ideal” receiver is harmful to any inquiries of an aesthetic nature, since they must presuppose only the existence and nature of man in general. In the same way, art also presupposes his attention. For no poem is addressed to the reader, no painting to the spectator, no symphony to the listeners.” (Walter Benjamin).^[1]

“It is the unknown of oneself, of one’s head, of one’s body. Writing is not even a reflection, it is a type of aptitude that we have alongside our personality, parallel to it, another person who appears and advances, invisible, endowed with thought, with anger, and who, sometimes, puts himself at risk of death. If we knew anything about what we are going to write before doing it, before writing, we would never write. It would not be worth it. Writing is trying to know what we would write if we were to write – we only find out later – before, it is the most dangerous question we can ask ourselves. But it is also the most common. Writing arrives like the wind, it is naked, it is made of ink, it is writing, and it passes like nothing else in life, nothing else, except it, life.” (Marguerite Duras).^[2]

14 Years
I was 14 years old
When my father called me
He asked me if I wanted
Study Philosophy
Medicine or Engineering
I had to be a doctor

But my aspiration
It was to have a guitar
To become a samba dancer
He then advised me
Samba dancer has no value
In this land of doctors
And your doctor
My father was right

I see a samba being sold
And the forgotten samba dancer
And its true author
I am in need
But my samba is embarrassed
I don't sell it, sir.

(Paulinho da Viola)

2.

First, a warning: I am referring to art as an attempt at self-realization; I am not talking here about theory, criticism or art history. Positions regarding art vary as much as human beings. Mine – strictly personal – is to attempt direct artistic realization, with the resources available and incorporated into thought as language, avoiding resorting to any kind of patronage (and its inevitable counterparts), without dedicating time to tedious activities, which the choice of art sought to exclude from life. I do not separate project and realization, and I am the only person involved. I avoid financing my dubious pursuits with public resources, which may be insignificant to others. But I insist on the right to think about art according to my convictions.

It is increasingly difficult to understand why it is difficult to persist in doing something that almost certainly results in a quantifiable loss, even though it may generate other gains – less logical and less measurable. Art can be conceived and practiced in countless ways – divergent, conflicting, parallel, simultaneous. Much more often in obscurity, as opposed to the fame associated with the current image of an artist. When it is inevitable, art is usually accompanied by attitudes that are difficult to justify at a basic level.

In this case, one of the fundamental artistic positions is (was? was? would be?) the ethical obligation to refuse to encourage meaningless work, to interfere with it by diverting, delaying, hastening, diminishing, or compromising the meaning of the work in which one believes. Freedom and persistence in failure are part of the construction of knowledge, but no illusory mastery guarantees success in the next attempt. The joy generated by work moves more than the result.

Accepting neoliberal precepts will probably tend to make the attitudes of artists, both inside and outside the university, more flexible when seeking funding of any magnitude. And giving due weight to rejection, failure and the joy of the artistic act would compromise all metric fictions based on performance indicators, including those that are supposedly qualitative.

Only by trying to achieve what is truly desired are the mental processes that are precious to artists as human beings, which the realization of the work accentuates, called upon. Criticism of the work done is everyone's right, but it does not extend to the early denial of the attempt, applying standardized criteria.

In a report responding to an academic funding proposal, it is not only frustrating to have the final verdict “denied” but also “approved”. It is the arguments used, the mentality, the attitudes, the situation created, the art treated as “production”, everything that supports the control system. Without the essential direct contact with the work carried out, but intending to judge based only on the project, report, curriculum.

It is not new in the field of exact sciences to have opinions that do not consider the humanities as science. What can we say about art? What is the point of approaching knowledge that cannot even be defined precisely using scientific/bureaucratic criteria, where poetry often has poorly defined boundaries and a total lack of meaning?

3.

Opening quotes:

“The teacher indicates in her resume Lattes, the preparation of three articles since 2018, one of which was very short (three pages). It can be seen that the professor did not seek external/exogenous journals of high impact to publish articles.”

“Your production is more concentrated in the last 10 years than in the last 5”. “Regarding research projects, there are two open on your CV Lattes, one of them since 2013 and the other since 2015, without involvement with Research Funding Agencies. The report for the last two years, although the professor demonstrates extensive artistic production, does not include a summary, page numbering or even a clear correlation with the research project that gave rise to it.”

“There is practically almost the same information contained in the curriculum Lattes (main activities carried out in the last two years) in addition to images of exhibitions held, but without a clear critical reflection on the production of knowledge in the last two years and the results achieved.”

“The 2020-2022 research plan is difficult to understand. There is no summary, page number, detailed schedule or methodological procedures. Some results to be achieved can be highlighted, but these are mixed with concepts and theories. The results to be achieved should, therefore, be more clearly expressed at the end of the plan.”

“(…) the aim is to define the relative position of each request on a scale of priorities, according to its degree of excellence in the items Project, Candidate and Supervisor. For this definition, the following are considered in particular: the degree of originality, definition of objectives, theoretical basis and methodological adequacy of the project; the degree of competence of the supervisor in the specific area of ​​the project, measured by his/her recent productivity in that area; and the research potential of the candidate, measured by his/her curriculum.”

“The proposal has merits, the project is quite interesting and has the potential to contribute to the field. The candidate does not have a regular production as a researcher and the supervisor, despite a solid artistic trajectory, has few recent publications.”

“The candidate meets the prerequisites for candidacy, but presents a CV that demonstrates little productivity, not showing regular production as a researcher.”

“Scientific or technological production that does not attest to significant performance of research activity.”

“Proposal not recommended. This is a request for reconsideration, with reformulation of the original project. The advisory board considers that the new version of the project has merits. However, it makes important reservations regarding the irregular production of the proposer. Regarding the supervisor, it is worth noting that he is an artist with a recognized and solid artistic trajectory, but who has few recent publications. In a highly competitive round, it was not possible to give priority to the proposal.”

“The research project has deficiencies in relation to its objectives, methodology and bibliography. The candidate has a very good academic and academic record, presenting excellent quality artistic work. The advisor has ample capacity to conduct this work. What is missing, in the reviewer’s opinion, is a connection between the candidate’s artistic ability and the restrictions necessary for establishing an academic and scientific project.”

4.

It doesn't matter if, in the last two years, the time required for art was consumed by increasing bureaucratic tasks at the University, if artistic work does not follow the well-received hegemonic models, if academic obligations such as classes, student support, and guidance were fulfilled with the expected dedication, if people were born or died, or if the time spent on survival and calculating measurable indicators. Regulation is required, as if life did not exist, in order to be able to operate accounting based on performance indicators.

Instead of the free judgment expected of the University, two conformisms are added: an archaic notion of contemporaneity and academic/technocratic conventionalism. There is no point in protocol, goals to be achieved or empirical proof for a work of art – they become irrational. By accepting criteria based on “objective data”, the evaluation of artistic projects tends to become yet another form of exclusion.

 “Projects” can be ruined or surpassed by attempts at realization, as any alert artist discovers through experience – and its risks. Reviewers, when denying a proposal for artistic work, with arguments forged for conventional submission, ensuring misplaced scientific rigor, only expose their conception of flat art.

 (But art is only a secondary target. There is no doubt about the importance of financial support for studies, through scholarships, investing in future knowledge, temporarily compensating for the unequal society. But how long should this unstable situation last? There are scholarships for all levels of study, and stages of the academic career, stimulating competition, but with a greater probability of success for the project that respects the standards. It is possible to be a perpetual scholarship holder (and a permanent temporary professor).

Scholarship holders, at various levels, who are not yet full-time teachers, instead of focusing on their research, which underpins present and future knowledge, can increasingly be used to “support disciplines” or teach classes. They are part of a network created to prevent hiring more teachers, limiting public spending with criteria from private companies. Entrance exams are becoming rare: those who choose an academic career survive from scholarship to scholarship.

When does a full academic life begin, in a more dedicated and continuous manner, with all its social and political implications? In the situation of constraint created by the continuation of the scholarship, always subject to opinions for renewal, or in a temporary contract, the capacity for political action of these professors at the University is reduced to a minimum. The teaching experience tends to be short and truncated. But the classes are taught, and the statistics prosper.

It is suggested that caution be exercised in considering successful presence in the artistic world as part of the evaluation criteria, taking into account success in another environment, where recognition does not follow academic criteria. Art in a public university does not necessarily mean transcending current hierarchies. Considering the presentation of work only in the official art circuit as the main indicator of quality today is shockingly lacking in contemporaneity. Can attitudes of rejection be evaluated in this way? After all, students/artists/professors/researchers are expected to have a keen critical sense. Refusing the frequency of exhibitions, contemporary models, also using the possibilities of exhibition suggested by technology, working outside or on the margins of the circuit, and prioritizing teaching, all challenge the metrics. Art cannot be evaluated through easy enumeration. And, to issue an opinion, it is not even necessary to see originals: a project and then a report giving an account of the work may suffice.

The continued attitude of submission, of projects and proposals, always based on limited objectives, such as the next research, master's degree, doctorate, post-doctorate, haunts artistic projects, threatening their very conception. Clear, modest, targeted, justifiable and acceptable. What will be the mental influence, on the attitudes of artists, of the bureaucratic procedures necessary for granting small advantages?

5.

The artistic world highly values ​​the notion of “art,” although the words “research,” “inquiry,” and “investigation,” which seem to be more prestigious and contemporary, are increasingly used. In the academic world, “art” is “artistic research,” and it is under this guise that support is sought. But “artistic research” can be presented as “art” – unequivocally endorsed within the white cube.

However, for most “artistic research,” the exhibition takes place in symposiums, forums, congresses and seminars, mainly through speeches and screenings, for a closed academic audience. In such events, it is not difficult to notice when the “art research” was conceived only for this world, as an object of discussion. For the pronouncement of expert reviewers, who immediately approve or deny it, requesting changes to the project, until the modest grant is granted. Then, if possible and there is still interest, it is presented to the general public as “art.”

Although anonymous, external, impartial, and hidden, reviewers tend to be more predictable than the common, unknown viewer. There is a strong possibility that they will only accept art as production, research, and practice separated from reflection, inevitably preceded by theory, in accordance with the dominant trends of contemporary academic art, when analyzing the request received. Which, after all, concerns a future artistic work, not yet existing or in its initial stage.

There is no such thing as an absolute audience. It is because individual spectators are unpredictable that artists should not target them when designing their work – not out of contempt for the general public, which is not well-prepared, or because there are audiences considered more important. In large events, which need numbers for sponsorships and seek to attract the largest possible number of non-buyer visitors – unlike galleries – much of the work on display may be incomprehensible to a larger audience, generally unfamiliar with art that is rarely circulated, but disappointing to those who have built up a more generous and disinterested knowledge.

Extraordinary means are not essential for making art. What is essential is the time and dedication – which scholarships should make possible. While scientific research usually requires large amounts of funding, what can make the Visual Arts astonishingly expensive is the unrestricted adherence to established models, the desire to make imagined spectacles real in the physical world, leveraging fame and success, and proximity to major interests. Funding threatens to become the central concern.

Outside of universities, the scale of patronage and funding is gigantic – they could be pacts with Mephisto. Note the acceptance by great artists of spectacular commissions meeting the marketing of dictatorships and companies, it is not surprising.

There may be many conceptions of art and artists, but few opportunities to build dreams and nightmares.

*Marco Buti He is a professor at the Department of Plastic Arts at the School of Communications and Arts at USP.

Notes

[1] Walter Benjamin. The translator’s task-renunciation . In: The Translator's Task, by Walter Benjamin: four translations into Portuguese. Translated by Susana Kampff Lages. Belo Horizonte, UFMG, p.64.

[2] Marguerite Duras. Write. Translation: Luciene Guimarães de Oliveira. Belo Horizonte, Reliquary, 2021.

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE