Published essays & interviews
Revolution: It's a Lovely
Word
Raimundas Malasauskas interviewed
Carey Young by email. Produced for the gallery programme of
Trafo Gallery, Budapest, on the occasion of Carey Young's solo
show in March - April 2005.
RM: In your video ‘I am a revolutionary’ you
try to learn how to sell the revolution. Do you know your
potential clients?
CY: The work was inspired by the
popularity of the rhetoric of ‘revolution’ within business in the years around
2000, and its consequent effect on society at large through
the resulting business decisions and deals which of course
today have an unprecedented influence on everyday life. As
a consumer of art theory, historical and political texts one
comes to this word with a special sensitivity. And so the work,
which features a rehearsal of the line “I am a revolutionary” uses
this word as something cherished in different ways by different
audiences, and yet also emptied of meaning, since the line
appears to be yet another message which can be rehearsed by
anyone until they sound convincing.
I disagree with your assessment that
the work shows an attempt to ‘sell the revolution’. With this piece I am
more interested in exploring questions of appearance and interpretation,
such as ‘how would one recognize a real revolutionary
today?’, or ‘what kind of marketing techniques
might future revolutionaries use’ or even ‘who,
today, can convincingly claim to be a revolutionary?’ It
is an exploration of our desire for, and belief in political
and social change, but my aim was also to give a sense of vulnerability
and pathos through the performance of the characters you see
on screen, who are both deadly serious in their effort and
intent, but also impossible to take seriously.
RM: The corporate setting in which you are unmaking
the rhetoric of revolution leads one to think that actually
the most radical innovations nowadays take place not in the
domain of the working class, but in the corporate headquarters
of creative business.
CY: At some point in the future, with
the benefit of hindsight we may perhaps be able to call recent ‘revolutions’ such
as the public overthrow of the corporate-owned water system
in Bolivia in 2000, or the 2004 ‘orange revolution’ in
the Ukraine elections ‘radical innovations’ for
their impact on emergent forms of corporate or state power,
although their model – street protest – is of course
an ancient one. But through their relentless focus on the new
for the sake of market dominance, corporations can be seen
as offering today’s avant-garde – with all the
military and cultural interpretations of that term. As an artist
I’m interested in the hugely problematic implications
of that for society, and also for artists and cultural production.
My work is not a question of accepting the status quo, or of
creating a polemical or didactic work, or even offering some
kind of a solution, but of creating pieces which immerse the
audience in the problem – albeit presented in a roundabout
way - for the sake of engendering a discussion.
RM: What do you think of
Adrian Piper’s sentence
that “Implicitly political art reinforces unregulated
free-market capitalism. Explicitly political art subverts
the power relations that undergird it” (Frieze, Issue
87)?
CY: To
me the question is also how we measure the subversion of
power relations and over what period of time. Also, the status
of any artwork, whatever claims are made for its political
activity, is necessarily altered by whether it is or could
be sold, and to whom. These elements are part of the context
of a work of art and should affect its reading.
© Copyright Raimudas Malasauskas
and Carey Young, 2005
< top >
<
back to texts menu >