Leban Kleindienst On Line

What does it mean to remove the artefact? Could this be seen as an attempt to repeat the actions of Conceptualism of the 50s, 60s and 70s, where the visual value of the artwork was rejected in order to give priority to language and concept? The value of the idea is often put aside so that the historical object can become a subject of appropriation and is often mistyfied into a supernatural artefact. ’’The theory of reification describes the way in which, under capitalism, the older traditional forms of human activity are instrumentally reorganised and ‘’taylorised,’’ analytically fragmented and reconstructed according to various rational models of efficiency, and essentially restructured along the lines of a differentiation between means and ends.’’1 In the end the common belief that the artefact was conceived because of the aesthetic value dominates the thesis that the form can only exist as a consequence of the concept because the constant change of our society’s language makes the true content of historical artefact incomprehensible to the contemporary viewer. So, instead of meaning, the system of valorization exaggeratingly praises the genius of the artist’s craft. The project ’’Good old in/out’’ is not only about the visualization of the concept, but more importantly, it exposes two different aspects: Firstly, it emphasizes that it is worthless to deal with the aesthetic value of the artefact, which is an independent entity that establishes itself in the artwork. Secondly, it arises the obvious question of which masterpiece had been removed. As a matter of fact, this is a direct intervention into the evaluation/canonization of the history of art.

1 Frederic Jameson, Signatures of the visible,(1992), pg.10.

LEBAN-KLEINDIENST 2008