DOI Artikel:
Rattray, Michael: Conversations: The Sharjah Biennale and International Art Relations in the United Arab Emirates
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.51713#0321
the “the greatest work of art of all timé™ had some
unmentionable truth to it. The relationship between
art and “terrorism”^ is located, according to Buckley,
in arťs ability to form an “ aesthetico-ethical mergefv‘
between the act and the art. The only problém with
the argument she proposes is all of her cited exam-
ples, savé for Islam’s piece, are not works depicting
a real event where people die on screen.
This line of inquiry can be furthered through
examining Staehle’s piece as a site of space and
distance. There is something about distance and the
removal of the human body that lessens the impact,
or reality, of an event such as the attack depicted in
Staehle’s piece. For example, would the piece hâve
been shown if the caméra was fixed in front of the
World Trade Center and the bouncing and explod-
ing bodies of those that had to jump, as opposed to
being burned, were represented on screen?
Distance in space accords an othering of the de-
picted event that allows an ability to aestheticize the
event. Merleau-Ponty has argued through his exami-
nation of space and the body that an object in space
only taking up a small part of our “visitaifield”” does
not allow for the absorption of “clear vision”,38 Given
that the Phenomenology of Perception is based on
placing the body back into a subjective space,39 or
as Ed Casey has noted “the body with place and place
with body”,40 it is possible to posit that because there
are no bodies in the shot, the space becomes a site.
To return to Casey: “Somewhere where no possible human
hodily presence could be found [.. .J is not a place to begin
with. Only a site can exist without such presence (indeed, a
sitethriveson theabsenceof thebody)”n If Staehle’s work
is regarded as an instance where the spectator can-
not identify with the body because of a lack of clear
vision in space, then the space becomes a site, devoid
of the emotive responses that would be equated to
the previously mentioned what-if scénario of the
changed placement of the caméra.
The above offers an explanation as to why a work
like Staehle’s would not be the subject of censorship,
but it has been argued through western philosophical
ideas. The réception of the work could be different
for someone not of the western philosophical mind-
set, so this reading may not apply. There could be
other motives for the work being exhibited beyond
caring, as I do, about showing a piece that depicts
the death of thousands of people while censoring
a human buttock, or two-people kissing for that
matter.
To return to Enwezor, if his text is mirrored to
the showing of Staehle’s work for its content then the
reading of the work shifts dramatically. Enwezor
quotes Fanon’s notion of absolute violence as a
means to counter the western hegemony of industri-
al capitalism.42 Absolute violence against a symbol of
western industrial capitalism is exemplified through
the act depicted in Staehle’s piece. It can be further
argued that through the Biennale moving into the
international frame, combined with the exhibition of
the attack on the World Trade Center, an example of
two kinds of Islamic battles with western hegemony,
both fundamentalist/radical and enlightened alike,
occur through the housing and exhibition of art.
Enwezor’s binary can be made manifest through the
Sharjah biennale.
Criticism and Conclusions
To conclude, I would like to now step away from
the West/Islam binary. It is a reductive argument that
attempts to simplify problems of cultural transla-
33 BUCKLEY, B.: Terrible Beauties. In: Artin theAge of Terrorism.
Eds. G. COULTER-SMITH - M. OWEN. London 2005, pp.
10-34, 26.
34 Ibidem.
35 Ibidem.
36 Ibidem.
37 MERLEAU-PONTY, M.: The Phenomenology of Perception. New
York 1945, p. 304.
38 Ibidem.
39 This is an idea expressed by Edward S. CASEY in his reading of
MERLEAU-PONTY’s ThePhenomenology of Perception (New York
1945) in The Täte of Place (Berkeley 1997), Chap. 10: By Way of
Body: Kant, Whitehead, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty; pp. 202-242.
40 CASEY, E. S.: TheFate of Place. Berkeley 1997, p. 238.
41 Ibidem, p. 235.
42 ENWEZOR 2002 (see in note 9), p. 48.
313
unmentionable truth to it. The relationship between
art and “terrorism”^ is located, according to Buckley,
in arťs ability to form an “ aesthetico-ethical mergefv‘
between the act and the art. The only problém with
the argument she proposes is all of her cited exam-
ples, savé for Islam’s piece, are not works depicting
a real event where people die on screen.
This line of inquiry can be furthered through
examining Staehle’s piece as a site of space and
distance. There is something about distance and the
removal of the human body that lessens the impact,
or reality, of an event such as the attack depicted in
Staehle’s piece. For example, would the piece hâve
been shown if the caméra was fixed in front of the
World Trade Center and the bouncing and explod-
ing bodies of those that had to jump, as opposed to
being burned, were represented on screen?
Distance in space accords an othering of the de-
picted event that allows an ability to aestheticize the
event. Merleau-Ponty has argued through his exami-
nation of space and the body that an object in space
only taking up a small part of our “visitaifield”” does
not allow for the absorption of “clear vision”,38 Given
that the Phenomenology of Perception is based on
placing the body back into a subjective space,39 or
as Ed Casey has noted “the body with place and place
with body”,40 it is possible to posit that because there
are no bodies in the shot, the space becomes a site.
To return to Casey: “Somewhere where no possible human
hodily presence could be found [.. .J is not a place to begin
with. Only a site can exist without such presence (indeed, a
sitethriveson theabsenceof thebody)”n If Staehle’s work
is regarded as an instance where the spectator can-
not identify with the body because of a lack of clear
vision in space, then the space becomes a site, devoid
of the emotive responses that would be equated to
the previously mentioned what-if scénario of the
changed placement of the caméra.
The above offers an explanation as to why a work
like Staehle’s would not be the subject of censorship,
but it has been argued through western philosophical
ideas. The réception of the work could be different
for someone not of the western philosophical mind-
set, so this reading may not apply. There could be
other motives for the work being exhibited beyond
caring, as I do, about showing a piece that depicts
the death of thousands of people while censoring
a human buttock, or two-people kissing for that
matter.
To return to Enwezor, if his text is mirrored to
the showing of Staehle’s work for its content then the
reading of the work shifts dramatically. Enwezor
quotes Fanon’s notion of absolute violence as a
means to counter the western hegemony of industri-
al capitalism.42 Absolute violence against a symbol of
western industrial capitalism is exemplified through
the act depicted in Staehle’s piece. It can be further
argued that through the Biennale moving into the
international frame, combined with the exhibition of
the attack on the World Trade Center, an example of
two kinds of Islamic battles with western hegemony,
both fundamentalist/radical and enlightened alike,
occur through the housing and exhibition of art.
Enwezor’s binary can be made manifest through the
Sharjah biennale.
Criticism and Conclusions
To conclude, I would like to now step away from
the West/Islam binary. It is a reductive argument that
attempts to simplify problems of cultural transla-
33 BUCKLEY, B.: Terrible Beauties. In: Artin theAge of Terrorism.
Eds. G. COULTER-SMITH - M. OWEN. London 2005, pp.
10-34, 26.
34 Ibidem.
35 Ibidem.
36 Ibidem.
37 MERLEAU-PONTY, M.: The Phenomenology of Perception. New
York 1945, p. 304.
38 Ibidem.
39 This is an idea expressed by Edward S. CASEY in his reading of
MERLEAU-PONTY’s ThePhenomenology of Perception (New York
1945) in The Täte of Place (Berkeley 1997), Chap. 10: By Way of
Body: Kant, Whitehead, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty; pp. 202-242.
40 CASEY, E. S.: TheFate of Place. Berkeley 1997, p. 238.
41 Ibidem, p. 235.
42 ENWEZOR 2002 (see in note 9), p. 48.
313