Visual Analysis assignment: Shibboleth by Doris Salcedo Jamie Evans
Doris Salcedo is a Colombian artist who was born 1958. Before executing a visual analysis on her piece, Shibboleth, (2007), I think it is important to acknowledge the implications of her origin, especially in reference to her exhibiting in one of the biggest and most prestigious art venues in the Western world. Columbia is a country well known to have a high rate of drug and gang violence. Bogota, the third largest city in Latin America was once known to be one of the most violent cities in the world(1) , this is where Doris Salcedo studied at the university of Bogota for her Bachelors in Fine Arts. Considering how an artist from an area such as Colombia would feel in the entirely different environment such as London, is important.
The artist herself states that her piece "represents borders, the experience of immigrants, the experience of segregation, the experience of racial hatred. It is the experience of a Third World person coming into the heart of Europe"(2). I interpret this would be from a politically conscious individual, who wishes to try and disperse these views through her art. A noble value of an artist, a one which I admire greatly. However, I cannot unfortunately agree with the notion that this piece in particular brings these things into question. I expect that there was some naiveness on behalf of Salcedo, as to the nature of the overall zeitgeist that Tate Modern pushes. Tate Modern states very clearly, "We will continue to bring the Tate brand and vision to life through books, products and services, encouraging customers to enjoy spending more money in new and different ways.Customers will see us as exciting, innovative, collaborative and responsive."(3) I think the key here, is in the term 'customers will see us as..'. The implication that visitors to this gallery are not in fact visitors to a gallery, people coming to look at, enjoy and value art; they are customers. This is indicative of Tate Moderns true nature, it is simply a business out to make as much money as it possibly can. It has no allegiance to art, other than having a lot of money to purchase it. Just like the corporations and sponsors it gets on so well with, one of the most insidious being BP. When I visited Tate Modern late 2012, as I walked around I saw advertisements and the logo for BP, in multiple different locations. An oil company who is responsible for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and also responsible for the exploitation of our planets resources for profit has no place in an art gallery, except if you're Tate Modern. It is also an interesting side note, that the person who officially opened Tate Modern was the Queen of England.
Bearing all this in mind, one finds it hard to understand how Salcedo thought she would be allowed to exhibit any artwork which truly, "represents borders, the experience of immigrants, the experience of segregation, the experience of racial hatred." (2)
How is one able to highlight such issues from the confines of a house of someone who is complicit in contributing and establishing such things? I would argue that such an act is impossible - unless it is done in a manner in which the host has absolutely no prior knowledge of what is going to be shown, no input artistically and no influence in the actual artwork. Something which cannot be said for Shibboleth, as even creating a simple crack in the floor of Tate Modern came with a hefty £300,000 price tag.(4) Salcedo has even chosen to keep the creative process of the artwork a secret, saying that "What is important is the meaning of the piece. The making of it is not important"(2) Why is it not important?
This seems to be a ridiculous waste of money, for if one wanted to create a crack in the floor of Tate Modern, one would simply need a sledgehammer and a big chisel, something which could be purchased for a miniscule fraction of what the actual cost was. But, I expect that this would have been entirely out of the question. A uniform, minimal crack, which undoubtedly looks like a crack, is the only satisfactory option that Tate Modern could allow. Considering the artwork which was exhibited in the Turbine Hall at Tate Modern just previous to Salcedo's work, was Matthew Pillsburys 'slides in the turbine hall'. This specific exhibition site had been cast to the general public as a 'fun fun' space, hardly somewhere where an artwork with such political content would be understood. People were interacting with the crack that Salcedo created the same way they would with slides, instead of standing back and looking at it as a hazard. Children would lose their shoes down it. Spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on an artwork alone is one thing, especially with Salcedo coming from a country in which a staggering one billion people live in extreme poverty, but to spend hundreds of thousands on creating something which is meant to be created in an act of uncontrolled violence, an act of nature, like an earthquake splitting the solidity of the stone of the floor, it seems very artificial. This solidifies my observation that Doris Salcedo was naive in thinking that the true meaning of the artwork would be allowed to be conveyed. It also forces me to question her authenticity as an artist.
This fits perfectly with the trend that has been present throughout capitalist history. The tendency that capitalism, or large parts of the capitalist system has of picking up any critics of the consequences of the capitalist system and then getting behind whomever it may be, in a highly deceptive manner and helping propel them into 'fame'. Then, once this is achieved, it has the effect of swallowing up whatever it had once claimed to stand next to. The swallowing up of any critical dialogue of the fundamentals of how society is structured and spitting it out in a completely non-violent form is effectively what has been done. I see it as an unavoidable consequence of legitimizing the enemy.
This is something which 'Sir' Nicholas Serota touches upon in the interview for the BBC's Culture Show with art critic Matt Collings, he states "Once art enters an institution of this kind, it's very, very difficult for us to preserve it's cutting edge. It becomes absorbed so quickly. We do our best. But, erm.. there is an institutional.. erm.. way of somehow absorbing the most..erm.. troublesome artist or work of art, and our responsibility is to try not to let that happen too quickly, or too easily." (6) There it is stated plainly. Tate Moderns responsibility is to not let this absorption happen too quickly, or too easily, but to absorb nonetheless.
The word 'Shibboleth' means "a custom, principle, or belief distinguishing a particular class or group of people, especially a long-standing one regarded as outmoded or no longer important"(7). In relation to this artwork, I struggle to find a clear cut implication of this title, other than the implication that art institutions such as Tate Modern are outmoded, or no longer important. If this is what was being asserted, through Doris Salcedo's Shibboleth,(2007) then the very act of co-operating and engaging with these institutions gives them the validity to exist - an act which is conflicted with her stated intentions, so much that it has the effect of sterilizing her artworks intended message entirely.
References
1. http://www.comunidadesegura.org/?q=en/node/32000
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7033619.stm
3. http://www.tate.org.uk/about/who-we-are/tate-structure-and-staff/tate-enterprises
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Salcedo
5. http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2131
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwoOitqxZZk&list=UUm5XUwjso6i5Rsf3IDKflAw&index=9 , 3:40
7. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/shibboleth
