ART IN THE
EXPERIENCE ECONOMY
CONTEMPORARY ART ISSUES / SEMESTER ONE
JESS VANDERSANDE
N9168214
The evolution of the experience economy has been unfolding for decades, presenting a shift in service production and reception in all aspects of economy and culture. Presenting a desirable experience is no longer an optional aspect of product or service; instead, it is a necessity to create desire amongst an audience to drive them to purchase and explore said commodity. As a continuous reflection of the political, ideological and economical pillars that inform the world, art is a part of this social reality, and is therefor subjected to the necessity to create a saleable experience in order to thrive amongst those that are no longer satisfied with less than that. However, this push towards a creative structure that is designed for interaction and public manipulation cannot be seen as a deficit to the art world; art has forever been classed as a product (Fredericks, 2016), and an economical focus on experience is no different to the previous waves of societal changes that have informed the art world as a past and present whole.
Consumption of creative experiences has become a valuable component of economic life, a trend that was identified by Pine and Gilmore (1998) as the shift to ‘experience economy’. They defined this as a consumer progression from desire towards products, followed by services and then experience (Scott, 2016). It can be argued that art, to its audience, has always provided an experience, more so now than ever with the approachability of art museums and the populous of works that are presented to the world for interpretation, understanding and enjoyment. However, if the production of art is reduced to its generalised core, these works of varying mediums are essentially products created for consumption, whether that be of intellectual, emotional or financial standing. The expansion on this core is what the experience economy desires of the art world, requiring a new level of engagement in the form of works that are seemingly designed for the enjoyment of the collective individual (Scott, 2016). The ability to produce a creative environment that is both encompassing and memorable to those who are present can be seen as forced [further] commodification of art for survival, but many artists have perceived this globalised shift as an opportunity to present a their social, political and emotional commentary alongside the need to entertain an audience, creating an interwoven duality of purpose and presentation.
By modern definitions, art that is designed as audience-centric or that is brought to completion by viewer participation or input can be clearly defined as ‘experience art’. The creation of immersion art provides experience on multiple levels; the basis, of which the installation or exhibition can be enjoyed at as a fleeting, mindless production that is intriguing even without care or understanding of original concept, and the extension to the true themes and intent of the work. It is perhaps the dual presence of these layers that allow engagement across a much wider audience, as it is limited not to those who are interested in a work at face value. The ability for art to function as both a saleable tourist-attrition-type production and retain its meaning and authenticity is a strength that many artists have accepted and incorporated, accepting not the commodification of art, but the ability for their message to reach a broader audience.
There are many post avant-garde artists whose work reflects the overarching influence that the reality of the experience economy has created. On the most notable scale of grandeur, the creation of an entire theme park by street artist Banksy in 2015 was the literal elucidation of ‘experience’. Dismaland can be interpreted at first glance as a parody of escapism theme parks that have overtaken the world on a global scale, found in all areas with a high tourism populous. The England-based work stands as a temporary but fully-functional ‘theme park’, created with the help of 58 other artists. This work is both a mockery emulation and a product of a consumerist society, quoted as ‘a place where you can escape from mindless escapism’ (Banksy, 2015). It is an experience-based work that is self-aware, recognising the extents that the mindless need for escapism through manufactured and fleeting experiences. The collection of engaging and often twisted artworks within Dismaland often encourages audience participation, and akin to a regular theme park, visitors can obtain bemusement park souvenirs to carry with them once they leave.
The theme park itself is presented under the normalised rules of such attractions; there is a ticket price to enter (although minute in comparison to standard parks, and just to cover the artists’ costs) as well as the presence of many common tourist attraction-based elements found within the theme parks that it parodies, such as rides, curated events and a gift shop. The creation is still one rooted firmly in the art world, but has enveloped the requirements of engagement and memorability that would classify it as a truly successful piece of art when measured against modern artistic interpretations (Burger, 1984), despite being a critique of the culture of entertainment. The message of the ‘bemusement park’ is presented in overwhelming frequency via the careful curation of each of its internal elements, but the baseline of audience entertainment is not lessened by such a morose message.
However, experience-centric artwork does not always have to maintain the grand scale that Banksy’s Dismaland achieved. Contemporary artist Rirtkrit Tiravanija continuously manufactures an environment in which the audience is invited to participate and essentially, create the artworks via those interactions. His complete rejection of art objects and focus on interaction-based installations (and success in doing so) further reiterates the potential for art to be classified as an ideal product in the experience economy. His interpretation of participatory art is most well-known via his 1992 installation Untitled (Free) at the Paula Allen Gallery in New York, as well as further reiterations of that work. Tiravanija converted an area of the gallery into a kitchen where he served Thai curry and rice to visitors for free, producing a platform with which interpersonal interaction and conversations between strangers was the ongoing artwork. Appearance-wise, it is a simple conceptual piece, but the invitation to interact with the art blurs the line between viewer and artist (Stokes, 2012) in a way that is both memorable and entertaining whilst still holding strong artistic standing.
The use of art and food as a vehicle to instigate social interactions is a strong embodiment of relational aethetics, observing human relations in a social context, as opposed to in a private space. Adam Welch (2016), in consideration of Tiravanija works, comments that “One gets the sense of an Utopian ideal that transcends the rationalism of art institutions and is realised through the individual experience of the communal”. This is an accurate summary of Tiravanija’s work in both the art and experience economy contexts, with the production of such works that provide such a standard, everyday experience that the classification of the installation as an artwork could almost be missed by those present but not introspective.
In comparison to the grand statement that was Banksy’s Dismaland, comparatively message-subtle installations such as Untitled (Free) provide very different engagements of audience experience. Dismal and presents a quite structured narrative, with blunt intent to parody the commodified experiences that have gain such importance amongst modern culture. In comparison, Untitled (Free) and subsequent works in that series provide a much wider spectrum of potential engagement, shaped by both the individual and the collective. Both pieces provide immersive art-driven environments that are approachable by all audiences, which is arguably important in a world that is now so inter-connected.
On a scale more akin to Tiravanija, Felix Gonzalez-Torres creates installations that are of a subtler embodiment of experience, set in environments that are of more mental immersion than physical. Untitled (Public Opinion) its re-imaginings is a sculpture of potential participation, comprised of hundreds of individually wrapped candies, often strewn across the floor or stacked in a corner (Spector, 1991). Viewers are encouraged to take candies from the pile at their own discretion, and the pile is re-stocked at the end of each day. There is no direction as to what must be done with the candies after they are taken, and the individual nature and tendencies of each person was reflected in what they chose to do with it; whether it be to eat the candies, to go back for more, or to keep them as a small memorabilia from either the installation itself or the visit to the art gallery.
The experiences gained from the artwork, even when provided with no other context than that it was allowed to remove pieces from the work (which is interaction generally forbidden in galleries) are small but engaging, pertaining more to each singular experience eventually shifting the physical form of the artwork. The minimalist-inspired piece is constantly shifting in form, influenced by the decisions made by those who come across it. The sculpture was re-imagined several times even after the artist’s passing, each time with a different type of candy, transforming the everyday into thought-provoking accumulations of change, love and loss (Spector, 1991).
This production of experience varies vastly from the previous two artistic productions, but is not lesser in its value and place in society. Via its presence in art museums, it has a stronger link to the ‘traditional’ art world from outsider perspective, whilst also demonstrating the ability to balance interaction and physical art presence without compromising on intended message in order to be a successful art experience.
Conceivably the most ingenious adaption of art purposed for experience is Cai Guo Qiang’s Myster Circle, first created in 2012. Qiang orchestrated some 40, 000 rockets on the northern wall of the Geffen Contemporary, set to be released in an immersive display of sound, heat and light (Kehe, 2012). It is a fleeting display of fireworks, creating an atmosphere of beauty and wonder amongst viewers. It is the declaration that this display would be of artistic nature, curated by an artist who is renowned for his work around the world, that created the desire for the audience to be present. Qiang turned what is quite a commonplace happening a special event that was accessible to everyone, out in the public sphere. The experience was attainable and all-inclusive, which only added to richness of the experience. Mystery Circle is an exploration of creation through destruction (Brewinska, 2005); a public exploration of the artist’s own childhood experiences and memories, interpreted in a medium visually accessible to all.
In a culture that so strongly values fleeting entertainment, many contemporary artists have managed to harness this within their works, creating monumental but temporary installations such as Dismaland, combining frequent activities (Untitled (Free) and Mystery Circle) and turning otherwise commonplace objects (Untitled (Public Opinion)) into vehicles of meaning to create an environment that both engages and inspires discussion, action and reaction amongst its internal and external audience. Perhaps it is the genuine nature (Scott, 2016) of such artworks that presents such a desire amongst those who seek immersion of the artistic experience, with deeper themes and intents than many of the commercialised experiences designed purely as saleable content. Art, in its many forms, has always maintained a deeper connection between artist and audience, and art shaped as a result of the modern experience economy is but another wave of response to the current state of the world.
If nothing else, experience art provides a temporary escape from what is generally the chaotic continual timeline of life. Art’s place in the experience economy (as well as responses to this place) is undeniable, as the growing of production in participatory art that combines aesthetics and real experiences with conceptual embodiment is undeniable in both its strength and effectiveness. The prevalence of these artworks – and by extension, modern art museums with their presence as, not without contest, artworks themselves – is a reflection and adaptation of the globalisation of experience economy that is interwoven with the desires modern society. Although these experience-driven, audience-centric artworks can be argued to be a further representation of the complete commodification of art, they can also be interpreted as a further extension of the nature of art itself; an un-ending reflection and interpretation of the time that it was produced (Dewey, 1934). It is the acceptance of artists and the potential that their works have for creating a rich experience (and not just a saleable object or novelty production) that have allowed such works to flourish in a time where experience and engagement is a saleable and desired product.