Model of Influence by Tal Ben Zvi / Jack Faber
TBZ: from the various constructions of meaning that artworks can create to influence other structres of society, the recent and relevant work to the Model of Influence investigation is to my opinion ‘Watchmen’ - an ongoing 3 years project ranging from guerilla filmmaking, through gallery instalations, to an innovating international precedent court verdict in the field of art, human rights and the freedom of expression.
JF: Watchmen was originally a short guerilla film shot trough the CCTV system of the Tel Aviv museum of art - the most influencial and strongest instutition is Israels art field - without the approvel or knowledge of the museum administration. It features a masked character wandering through the empty spaces of the museum’s contemporary art galleries. Under the watchful eye of the security camera, the figure interacts with the art works on display, in ways which are far from being acceptable, in what is normally a highly regulated space: caressing the works, affectionately hugging the statues, running around in a wild amok. To be sure, no physical damage was done to any of the works. And despite the associations evoked by all too familiar look of the CCTV monitor, this video is by no means recorded evidence of an act of vandalism, neither it is the footage of a crime - but rather a visible violation of a museum’s internal rules of behavior. the museum merely acts as an experimental field for this investigation in transgression of cultural capital, and represents larger scale power institutions in contemporary culture that dominates social prespectives and behavioral patterns under the garments of conduct and manners.
The film, entitled Watchmen (following the known saying ‘Who watches the watchmen?’ that capsulates it’s core), was censured by a court order to the Museum’s request a day before it’s first public screening - Despite the fact that this work was never seen by the museum, nor by the court judge. This act lead to 3 years of legal procedure (during which the museum continually refused any sort of mediation suggested by the filmmaker), as well as to a local media storm, with newspapers headlines and television discussions following the questions raised by the forbiden film. constructions of meaning examining the role of museums and art, the human right for free speech and expression in a centralist pro-censorship society, the expansive growing usage of surveilliance and control mechnisms were among the main topics delivered to the center of the public arena, creating discussion space in places where such issues usally avoided and dismissed as irrelevant and their broader social sense is ignored, to the best parts, or missguided by political and conservative preceptions.
.
JF: The strategies used to create the film ‘Watchmen’ - infiltration, interfernce and intervining guerilla textbook tactics to a wider context of cultural struggle - proved matching precisley to implement at art institutions in the magnatitude of the Tel Aviv Museum. the narrow minded, closed attitude and the deliberated seperation from current social and cultural affairs (which is forced by it’s construction and cultivated by it’s managment), caused to the wildfire spread of the censorship story and led a widen struggle critisizing it’s destructuve actions (including a lawsuit for 30,000$ damaging compensation from the filmmaker) against an artwork which never been seen by anyone.
By showing the so-called “crime” from the perspective of its own closed circuit system, the museum becomes exposed, revealing itself as part of a system of supervision and regulation. The surveillance camera’s point of view emphasizes the fact that while in the gallery observing art, we are in fact being observed, our behavior monitored and controlled into a specific mode. We are directed to an attitude that actually affects the way we experience art. In the context of a museum, a physical distance is enforced by the security system (using guards and cameras). But this physical distance is more than an affirmation of the traditional, established understanding that art should be observed from a “distance”. It is primarily a reminder of the art object’s monetary value, its financial worth.
It seems that by symbolically shattering this distance, we in fact pose a very real threat to the museum. Watchmen, it seems, undermined the museum’s precious image as the guardian of this distance. Moreover , by using the same tools with which the museum usually enforces its authority to show a contrasting picture of disobedience, we revealed in a harsh and uncompromising way the museum’s main function – to act as a guard, as a protector of valuable objects, as a safe keeper of commodities.
While the court procedere escalated as the public interest faded, in the long duration of the trial and extended intermissions between court hearings, those strategies were soon employed and advanced in different contexts. another guerilla film, Seeing Art, was created in the museum space, featuring a fictitious group of blind art lovers who try to find meaning within the crowded gallaries during the yearly ‘Opening of the exhibition seasone’ public funded event.
Several more unorthodox art actions, such as public bonfire protest performances of in central urban locations, critique site specific instalations, free lectures in various forums and a large solo exhibition (in the non-commercial Minshar gallery, Tel Aviv) dealing with Watchmen implications and meanings, were created during the ongoing project. the outcome effect of those strategeis was the faded public discussion was arroused again. expended and intensified, this discussion now rexamined hierarchical power structures in contemporary society from new perspectives, revealing the important role of art in deeper collective meanings, it’s function as a process to understand and oppose assimilated social conditioning, and as an abillity to addres the wide public and create an open dialogue with whomever wishes to participate in it.
3.
JF: Institutional critique still exist, although mostly in the margins of the field, and therefor have rare opportunities to receive any attention or serious consideration by large crowd or the institutions themselves. adding the cynical approach toward such critique and complete lack of support it useally gets, those margins are getting thinner and further away from reaching the critical mass needed to influence on the state of affairs. but sometime it happens.
In december 31, 2007, a final verdict was given is the Tel Aviv municipal court and set an international precedent. This innovative verdict states clearly that there is no reason or cause to censorship a work of art, even if creates in transgresive or unlawfull means.
The Judge Ruth Ronen stated that she refuses to accept the claims or attitude of Museum’s director, Profsser Omer - “To stand in front of a statue and talk to him it’s humiliating, and so is to stand in front of the museum’s cameras and talk to them’ (page 9, lines 3-7 in the protocol) - and that the film is not manipulating but representing reality. the film and it’s matterials are the exlusive property of the filmmaker, and not the musem’s by accepting the fact that ‘the filmmaker never set out to target the Tel Aviv museum specifically, The film is a critique of the function of a museum as such. although the film was made while commiting law breaking acts, those are not sufficient to prevent it’s public screening. more than that - freedom of expression is a basic right given not only to the individual, but also to it’s public. when a spokesman is deprived from his right of expression - his potential audience is being deprived as well from it’s rights to listen, know, form it’s own opinion and create dialogue that discuss such issues. rights that are fundemental to the democratic regime. Exposure to works of art is also an important fundemental of the democratic regime. watching the film could lead to important and inspiring discussions - dealing with the borders of art, the legitimacy of breaking the law to creat an artwork, among other issues - and screening it will allow the mass public to be expose to such vital questions. therefor screening the film is the not only the right of the artist, it’s the right of the public.’ ( from the verdict, 31.12.07)
Since this verdict is indeed an precedent, being no similiar cases no verdicts in this field, it present with great acuteness that institutional critique is not only important but also essential in the present context. it is a necessity for the exsitence of contemporary culture and to the development of any society.
The Picture attached to this text is Framed (2007, newspaper scan of original CCTV frame from the film Watchmen) which was the only frame available from the work in the last 3 years, due to the censorship of the film and all relevent material. the frame shows the watchmen kneling in a prisoner of war gesture to the feet of Manager’, a scalpture by Kerry Stuart
