Interpretation, Vandalization, Pollution:
Dirty Corner and the Paradigm of Reception
TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRODUCTION 3
CHAPTER ONE: A PARADIGM OF RECEPTION:VANDALIZATION 8
Introduction: the Constitution of Art through Spectatorship 8
1. Creation and Reception: which Afterlife for Dirty Corner? 10
2. An Historical Account on Vandalism: on the Systematic Condemnation and Exclusion of the Wrongdoers. 16
3. Overcoming the Institutional Bias: Reassessing the Notion of Vandalization. 20
CHAPTER TWO: DIRTY CORNER AND THE SITES OF POLLUTION. A MATERIAL CONSTRUCTION OF DIFFERENCES 25
Introduction: Was Dirty Corner in the "Wrong Place"? 25
1. Anish Kapoor in the "Right Place". 27
2. Dirty Corner in Versailles: a Clash of Aesthetics 31
3. Vandalization: an Act of Impairment 35
CHAPTER THREE: THE CONSTRUCTION OF NARRATIVES. PLACE, TAGS AND SOCIAL OBJECT. 39
Introduction: From Materiality to Discourse. 39
1. Versailles: the Construction of the Historical Place. 41
2. Nationalism? From Facts to Narrative. 45
3. Covering-Up: The Mediation of Violence 49
CONCLUSION 54
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 58
INTRODUCTION
June 15, 2015: a news item reported that Dirty Corner, Anish Kapoor’s monumental installation exhibited in Versailles, was vandalized for the first time. This moment marked out the beginning of a series of events which would punctuate the show held by the artist on the historical site. It would also further influence the reception both of the exhibition as a whole and of the work of art which had become a bone of contention.
My interest for Dirty Corner, for its reception and the eventful moments that marked out the five months exhibition that took place in Versailles was at first embedded in my own will to work on a topical object. For in fact, since the onset of the opening of the show, and until its very end, the controversy and the repeated acts of defacement participated in the mediatized emulation of this particular exhibition: many were the news items which addressed the controversy connected to the "queen’s vagina", describing either the various acts of defilement, the reaction of the artist, or the institutional discourses which bridged the attack against Dirty Corner with deeper societal issues. Thus it felt very much alive and rooted in our current time, and this despite the physical distance that was entailed by the location of the show, and my own. All these elements naturally drove my curiosity for the object, for the case it was about to become, and even prior I have had a chance to visit the exhibition myself. Hence I wondered which were the elements that contributed
simultaneously to the stardom of Dirty Corner and to the ‘unpopularity’ of the exhibition? For in fact, the monumental installation became preeminent out of the contestation that was expressed against it, which directed me to focus on the transformative power of vandalization, in the particular, and outstanding exhibition of Anish Kapoor in Versailles.
Since 2008, the successive presidents of the palace of Versailles have participated in the 1
revitalization of the historical site. From then on, a contemporary artist has been invited, once a year, to display some of his or her works inside la Gallerie des Glaces, in the garden or more lately, in la Salle du Jeu de Paume (the Royal Tennis Court). Thus far, this project has been honored by the participation of artists with international renown. Jeff Koons was the first of them all (2008), and was followed, chronologically, by Xavier Veilhan (2009), Takashi Murakami (2010), Bernar Venet (2011), Joana Vasconcelos (2012), Giuseppe Penone (2013) and Lee Ufan (2014). Last year, the Indian-born British artist Anish Kapoor (age 62), was the one chosen to "occupy" Versailles in the course of an exhibition which ran from June 9 until November 1, 2015. Under the direction of Catherine Pégard and curated by Alfred Pacquement, this show has stood out from the previous editions, for the monumental installation Dirty Corner has become the object of an animated debate and suffered from repeated acts of defilement. If the participations of both the American artist Jeff Koons and his Japanese counterpart Takashi Murakami had been shaken by contestations expressed by a part of the French audience, and made public by petitioners who asked for the removal of the artworks of both artists from the historical site, never before was a work of art vandalized in the specific context of Versailles. In fact, Anish Kapoor, and since the onset of his exhibition, was blamed, by some dissenters of contemporary art, for having represented, in the place of the Dirty
Corner, the figuration of the "queen’s vagina". This interpretation called into question the
legitimacy of works of contemporary art to be settled, even temporarily, on a site which embodies a certain idea of the French prestige. Similar complaints were formulated against the works that were exhibited in the course of the preceding editions, yet the attacks remained verbal, and never
physical. Therefore, one question to be asked, is whether Kapoor went too far in the process of challenging the symbolism and value attached to the site of Versailles?
Jean-Jacques Aillagon, since 2007, replaced in 2011 by the actual president, Catherine Pégard.
The association of the work of Kapoor with the garden of Versailles and the Royal Tennis Court, initially entailed that a dialogue between a monument of the French history and the
international artistic scene be implemented, as a means to consolidate an idea of patrimony which goes beyond temporality and boundaries. Yet, the artist, by "inviting chaos" into Versailles may have exposed, in a too explicit manner, his intention of unsettling the fixed history which is
associated to the historical place. If it also permitted that the artistic creation of Kapoor be renewed through its encounter with a specific site-let’s point out that all the works of the artist had already been displayed before the exhibition that took place in Versailles-it happened mostly through its contrastive opposition to the site. It is true, as the philosopher Boris Groys has formulated it, that "the originality of a work in our time is not established by its own form, but through its inclusion in a certain context, in a certain installation, through its topological inscription"(74). And what could be more appropriate as a place than Versailles to renew the meaning of a work of art, facing the proclaimed, and the concealed history that the historical place hides behind its scenery? Actually the
Dirty Corner that stood in the green alleyway of Versailles, the one which opened its "rapacious
mouth" (Kristeva 11) towards the visitors as they were coming down from the upper terrace toward the monumental, rusted-like giant horn, this Dirty Corner was nothing like the others that were exhibited at different times, in different locations. This one responded to Versailles in a silent, visual dialogue, which entailed that both site and object were mutually transforming each other. A
challenge for Versailles, but for the British artist and his creation too. Hence, more than the artwork per se, what comes to matter is the event which is produced by the encounter of the object to the space in which it was set, and all the events that sparked out of this confrontation. After all, there is only a slight "difference between the [Greek] word for which the place in which an event occurs (tropos) and the manner in which they occur (topos)", has highlighted Nikos Papastergiadis (373). Hence the site of exhibition-namely the garden of Versailles and the Royal Tennis Court-, cannot
and should not be dissociated from the succession of events which reshaped the monumental installation in the course of the entire duration of its exhibition.
Therefore the object I am hereby going to study consists in Dirty Corner, not as an isolated element but rather as constantly updated by the events that participated in the reception of the work of art. A foil, unique of its kind, which illustrates the ascendency of vandalization in reshaping not solely the paradigm of reception but also the work of art, and the process of making art as such. Hence the questions that I will raise, and try to address, are as follow: what is the place that
vandalization plays in the reception of Dirty Corner? How did it participate in the constitution of the idea that the work of contemporary art did not belong in Versailles, and how the artist did mediate and appropriate the events so as to transform his artistic creation into a social object?
To apprehend this set of interrogations I will resort to the concept of pollution. I borrow this notion from Mary Douglas’ anthropological account Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of
Pollution and Taboo (1980). Although I am aware of the potential mismatch that may be perceived
out of the association between the universalism of such concept as pollution with the specificity of the case I am hereby trying to elucidate, I will yet use the concept throughout the chapters of my thesis as a tool to reflect on discourses of vandalization and otherness.
I will at first look back at the history of vandalization. I want to analyze this notion, its constitution, and the role it currently plays in the art world in order to better understand the way acts of defilement are generally apprehended, and cast away from the paradigm of reception. I will raise the points that follow: what do the act of defilement entails for the reception and aftermath of Dirty
Corner? To which extent does the meaning attached to vandalization remain embedded in the
historical context in which it has emerged, and how (and why) the distortion which results in the etymological apprehension of the term should be overcome? These points addressed, I will focus on the clash of aesthetics that may have provoked a backlash of the work of Anish Kapoor installed within Versailles. I want to demonstrate that there exist such thing as wrong places and right places
for the exhibition of contemporary art, and that the (mis)appropriateness of the situation relies either on the visual coherence between object of art and site of exhibition, or on underlying narratives that bridge the connection between the exhibition and the place that hosts it. In order to do so, I will close-read the dialogue that has been implemented between the work of Kapoor and various site of exhibition. This material approach to site-specificity will be enriched with the close analyze of the effects of vandalization, that I will address in term of acts of impairment. Finally, in the last chapter I will aim attention at the narratives that have surrounded the successive acts of defilement. For of course, the material tensions that may have been perceived between on the one hand, the historical site of Versailles, and on the other, the work of Anish Kapoor, has been straightened by a set of discursive practices. I want to look at the shift that operates from visual oppositions to the one constructed by means of discourse. At first, I want to work on the historicity and sacrality of Versailles, resorted to by the opponents of Anish Kapoor as a means to legitimize the actions they have taken against Dirty Corner. Then the question of nationalism should be raised: I want to assess the extent to which the content of tags was indeed sharing similarities with nationalist discourses, and the degree to which the nationalist aspect was in fact the product of the media and of the artist himself.
CHAPTER ONE: A PARADIGM OF RECEPTION:VANDALIZATION
Introduction: the Constitution of Art through Spectatorship
Marcel Duchamp declared that "the beholders make the paintings", thereby positing the 2
encounter with an audience as a necessary step in the process of allowing that a work of art be perceived to exist as such. Following this dynamic, I would suggest that the vandals have made Anish Kapoor’s Dirty Corner, or more literally, that they have recreated the monumental installation: the defilers participated in the process of transforming the sculpture by altering its surface by means of yellow paints and tags, as much they have provided the work of art with a new kind of renown. The eventful reception of the sculpture indeed contributed to the extensive media coverage of the exhibition held in Versailles, offering to a global audience the descriptions of the various acts of defacement and of the whys and wherefores of the controversy which surrounded the work of art in this specific context of display. The work of Anish Kapoor was promoted via the multiple accounts of these events, yet, a question which arises from this observation, is whether the artist benefitted at all from this agitation.
Once the work of art has entered the public space, the artist’s intention is being relegated to a position of secondary importance: the spectators are invested with the power of changing the work of art, through its appropriation or its rejection. Whether the work of art meets approval or disapproval, a meaning is attached to the newly formed object in the course of its reception. In this case, the artist himself had little authority on the (media) discourse in which he was
portrayed as the main protagonist. This observation will be the starting point of the first part in which I will evaluate the role of the beholders and their power of action in regard to the artwork.
My translation. The exact quotation being ‘Ce sont les regardeurs qui font les tableaux’. (qtd. in
2
I am interested in assessing the extent to which the spectators have publicly reshaped Dirty
Corner. Later, I will look at the place occupied by the acts of vandalism in the field of
spectatorship.
In fact, many of the accounts on vandalism categorize the wrongdoers outside of the field of spectatorship. In his essay on the topic, David Freedberg provides the example of a curator who defines the action of the defilers as the result of the "motivations of someone who is mentally disturbed"(12). After this observation, I will look at the historical constitution of this group which resists incorporation in a broader definition of the audience defined by an implicit set of behaviors after which its members are expected to react. In order to assimilate the category of the vandals in the discourse of the reception of contemporary art, I will propose that we resort to the anthropological concept of pollution in order to undo the monological approach which underlies the use of vandalization when resorted to by art institutions. After all, vandalization constitutes one of the paradigms of reception and participates in the elaboration of the meaning attached to an artwork: as Tobin puts it, "The act of vandalism changes the referential function of the artwork, creating a new of its own right" (unpaged, I). Hence I propose to study the acts of the defilers through the theories of reception and spectatorship and in regard to the case I hereby seek to elucidate. Since Dirty Corner has become the product of the successive acts of
defacement and of the controversy initiated by its dissenters, vandalization has become constitutive of the artwork.
1. Creation and Reception: which Afterlife for Dirty Corner?
‘Il n’y a d’art que pour et par autrui.’ Jean-Paul Sartre3
The reception of a work of art is a practice that has little to do with the creative process to which the artist dedicates himself. Once the artwork is available to its public, it escapes-to a certain extent-the control of its maker and of the institutions. Hence we have seen that the numerous media accounts on the show that was held in Versailles participated in the
transformation and perpetuation of the reading of Dirty Corner as "the queen’s vagina". The meaning of the work of art was reduced to a single, and excessive interpretation of the object posited as a a sexual representation, and therefore deemed inappropriate to occupy the place in which it was on display. For this reason the presumed intentionality of both the artist and of the 4
institution which hosted the exhibition will be confronted to the distortion that has been created through the reception of the artwork, be it on the physical site of display or through the relaying on the media. I will emphasize the ambiguous nature of spectatorship and of reception in order to better understand the place that was occupied by the vandals in this paradigm. In order to do so, I will bring light on the creative potency that has been attributed to the spectator since the 20th century and the artistic practices of the Avant-Garde movements.
The divide between the role of the artist and the practice of the reception is explained in Paul Valéry’s essay "Première leçon du cours de poétique". The French author wrote that
Translates as "There exists art only for and through others" (my translation; Sartre 55 ).
3
This article of the Daily Life, published on June 9, 2016, relates some of the tweets that have been
4
published after the opening of the exhibition of Kapoor and that testifies of discontent regarding the show. Consulted on June 6, 2016.
"producer and consumer are two systems which are essentially apart"(301). In other words, the 5
maker conceives the artwork as the materialization of a creative development, while for the audience the same artwork triggers a different kind of experience. By elaborating an
interpretation on the work of art the onlookers recreate the artwork through its public and social aftermath. On either side of the art object, artist and recipient are expected to productively relate to the object. Instead of concealing the artwork to a single meaning which may have been
formulated by its creator, it is the task of the interpreters to open-up new horizons through the fabrication of some other possible readings that would re-actualize the same object.
In the current conjecture, the role played by the spectator, in the formation of the afterlife of the art object, has considerably increased due to its double bind to the physical site of display and to the relaying of images and opinion on the web. The role played by the media in the diffusion of the public’s voice is of an over-increasing importance. In fact, the distinction between the experts and amateurs of art is considerably reduced thanks to the social media, 6
which have become a place for the circulation of diverse opinions and ideas on various topics,
My translation. The full quotation, in original language, is the following: "Producteur et
5
consommateur sont deux systèmes essentiellement séparés. L’œuvre est pour l’un le terme; pour l’autre, l’origine de développements qui peuvent être aussi étrangers que l’on voudra, l’un à l’autre."
In Benjamin’s essay "The Work of art at the age of the Mechanical Reproducibility", the German
6
thinker establishes a connection between the technological advancement that enables the increase of the circulation of works (either textual or visual), and the reduction of the distance between the author and his or her readership, since everyone benefits of the possibility to publish a column in newspaper or magazine. At the age of internet and the social networks, this is all the more true. Experts and non-experts both have the possibility to make their opinion public and to circulate their ideas on different platforms.
regardless of the expertise of the speechmakers. The controversy that surrounded the exhibition of
Dirty Corner indeed started on the web. The
skepticism which was at first expressed by art connoisseurs or amateurs was relayed on the social networks afterwards. For instance, the Mayor of Versailles, François de Mazière, expressed his mixed feelings regarding the exhibition held in his city in a tweet that was published on June 2, 2015 and which reads "#Versailles, Anish Kapoor dérape sur le tapis vert ". Some users of the social platform reacted 7
to the publication, either requesting of the mayor
that he should take action against the direction of the domain of Versailles which allowed such ‘infamies’ to happen or on the contrary, bringing forward the fact that the field of contemporary 8
art was not, presumably, within the reach of Mr de Mazière.
Hence the role of the web is attested in regard to the reception of Dirty Corner, since it participated in the diffusion and pursuance of the controversy which had to do with one of the
"#Versailles, Anish Kapoor slips on the green carpet." (My translation, fig. 1).
7
Ibid. Fig.1 also shows some of the reactions to François de Mazières’s tweet which reads as
8
follow: "@FdeMaieres @BenoitSev Qu’avez-vous SVP entrepris auprès de @catherinepegard pour faire cesser ces infamies au nom de Versailles?" / "@FdeMaieres @BenoitSev What have you initiated with @catherinepegard (head of the Public Establishment of the Palace, Museum and National Estate of Versailles) in order to make these infamies cease in the name of Versailles?" (my translation).
1. François de Mazières’ reaction on Twitter the exhibition of the work of Anish Kapoor in Versailles and some reactions to his tweet. Posted on the June 2, 2015, before the opening of the exhibition. Accessed online, consulted on Feb. 3, 2016.
possible reading assigned to Anish Kapoor’s monumental installation. The transformation of the title of the sculpture into the "queen’s vagina" or the "vagina of the lawn" has testified of the breadth with which the general audience can interfere in the reshaping of a work of art through its reception. The power of the words used in the renaming of the sculpture undermined the voice of the artist and of the institution: the association between Dirty Corner and an image representing the sexual orifice of the monarch’s consort became the dominant interpretation of the object. 9
This element of controversy partly concealed the rest of the exhibition: none of other works was so much commented on as Dirty Corner and of course this resulted from the infatuation over the challenge of determining whether or not should the work of art be deemed adequate to occupy
Versailles’ green carpet. Therefore I can
envision a connection between the controversy that emerged on the internet even prior the opening of the exhibition, and the acts of defilement, which first occurred in June, and later in the course of September. In fact, the content of the latest tags which referred to the piece of contemporary art as a "rape of the nation", strangely echoes the "soiling" 10
dimension that has been evoked quiet a few times on the social media (as just seen above). The largely broadcast idea that the presence of
The articles relating this aspect are numerous. See for instance Noyes, Jenny. "Anish Kapoor’s
9
giant vagina sculpture causes an uproar at Versailles". Daily Life. n.p. June 9, 2015. Web. June 8, 2016.
Fig. 2.
10
2. A picture from the Instragram account of the artist, taken after the vandalization that occurred in the course of September and which reads: "The second rape of French Nation by the deviant Jewish activism".
Dirty Corner was disrespectful in regard to the historical and sacred place of Versailles would
exceed the immaterial sphere of the media to become manifest at a physical level. Hence the reception of Dirty Corner was entangled in a pluralistic system which consisted simultaneously in a verbal and in a physical approaches which can be equated with a tolerable and transgressive forms of interactions with the object of contemporary art. This said, I can therefore locate the category of the vandals within this paradigm.
If the category of the vandals is traditionally cast away from the paradigm of spectatorship which implies a divide between good and bad modes of apprehension of the artwork, I would like to reintroduce the defilers into the group of recipients by privileging an approach which takes into account the degree of commitment to the artwork instead of its consideration for (lack of) decency. The different levels at which the reception of Dirty Corner was made manifest (verbal accusation and physical damage), can be equated with what is made permissible and what is not, but most of all it attests of the different degrees to which the opponents of contemporary art did engage in order to make their opinion heard. What is interesting is not whether the spectator did or did not follow the prescribed rules of reception, but rather the extent to which he or she did react in order to express his or her discontent. Hence, if vandalism seems to resist integration into the "laws" of spectatorship, it forms a part of it, for it conditions the rules that maintain the separation between the artist and the institutions, both opposed to the beholders. Both the artist and the institution intervene on and manipulate the works of art and the space resorted to so as to host the exhibition, while the members of the audience are, at best, offered the right to merely on reflect and criticize the set-up. The fact that the spectators are often qualified in term of
"onlookers" strengthen the idea that their power of action remains constrained by their presumed incapacity to physically engage with the work of art. Hence whoever does not belong to the artistic institution, yet transforms or defiles a work of art is presented as malevolent or deviant, and is excluded from spectatorship. Therefore it explains why thus far, the so-called category of "vandals" have systematically been designated as wrongdoers and destroyers, detrimental to the
world of art. The defilers of Dirty Corner, who covered the surface of the artwork by means of yellow paint and who tagged sentences at the surface of the steel horn met the criteria of a category which should morally not be included in the practice of spectatorship. Despite the fact that the dissenters of Dirty Corner remained anonymous and that their motivations were not made explicitly manifest, they were described in term of individuals who lacked of artistic sensibility. This aspect provides justification for keeping them away from the paradigm of reception. It is visible in the fact that the members of institutions rarely give credit to their actions, despite the agitation and the publicity that is usually created by their actions. Thus I insist on the fact that vandalism should be approached as one of the most active manifestations of spectatorship. Therefore, it should be given full voice and consideration. In order to undo the negative vision that is associated to the vandals who yet participate in the elaboration of meaning on the work that they seek to alter, I shall look at the historical constitution of this notion to better understand the reason why the vandals are traditionally discredited and excluded by whoever relate their (wrong)doings. This is a necessary step in the process of reassessing their actual position in the light of the case formed by the reception of Dirty Corner in the course of the Versailles exhibition.11
I insist on the fact that I am not attempting to justify the acts of the defilers, but I nonetheless
11
think that their actions should seriously be considered in order to better understand the different opinions that revolve around the artistic practices of our time.
2. An Historical Account on Vandalism: on the Systematic Condemnation and Exclusion of the Wrongdoers. 12
In nowadays vocabulary, vandalism is defined as an "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property". Yet, vandalization is the product of a 13
long historical development, and its conceptualization can be traced back to the peculiar context of the years that followed the French Revolution of 1789. In order to outline the weaknesses that the concept retains in its use regarding the discourse that surrounds the reception of Dirty Corner, I will lay out the main features that the term has retained from its conceptualization and which implicitly produced a biased narrative on the event it qualifies.
On his 1959 Histoire du Vandalisme: Les Monuments Détruits de l’Art Français, the French art historian Louis Réau mapped the history of the defilement and destruction of various forms of art, since the antiquity and up until the nineteenth century. In fact, the author qualified vandalization as an "evergreen" subject (Réau 9), actual in all times. This first extensive account on the topic would served as a reference for further studies on various occurrences of vandalism. It was the turn of art historian Dario Gamboni to address the subject in a 1997 publication. He presented vandalism as actions of verbal or artistic nature and directed against institutional art; an act which called into question the aesthetic dimension of the art objects which undergo damages (16). Just like did Réau before him, Gamboni would appoint l’Abbé Henri
The topics on which the parts 2 and 3 of this chapter focus have been the object of another paper I
12
have written. Yet, the first part of this chapter which mainly focus on the position of the artist and audience toward an artwork allows me to tackle the coming arguments under a slightly different light. I hope to provide a new account on the implication of vandalization in relation to the paradigm of spectatorship on which the art institutions rely.
Definition of the Oxford Dictionaries :"Vandalism." Oxford Dictionaries Language Matter. n.p.,
13
Grégoire(1750-1831) as the inventor of the term: for both of them,vandalization has been coined at the end of the eighteenth century, at a turning point when the French Monarchy was about to be overthrown by a revolutionary outburst. The abbot remains well known for his commitment to the question of patrimony, and his actions have become central to the study of the formation of the notion of heritage. In a recent publication, Josiane Boulad-Ayoub has worked on the topic and has emphasized the simultaneity of the development of both notions of preservation and of
vandalism. If the two terms were constitutive of one another, the idea of conservation would yet soon outweigh acts of vandalization to be portrayed as the ‘immoral’ enemy of the nation: on August 14, 1792, a first decree authorizing the destruction of the symbols of the French
monarchy was published. This rule unleashed both acts of theft and of vandalization, to later be repressed by a second decree, issued on September 16, 1792, and which stipulated that the preservation of monuments and pieces of art should become a prime concern (Boulad-Ayoub 8). At the same time it encouraged the people to contain its attitude by drawing limits between what was regarded as tolerable and what was not. Yet, this conjectural requirement for a newly
specified way to engage with patrimony could not be easily implemented. As a result, the members of the Convention commissioned to abbot Grégoire the publication of three reports on the topic. The Rapports sur les Destructions Opérées par le Vandalisme et les Moyens de les
Réprimer which would be written between August and November 1794 popularized the term of
vandalization. These reports are crawling with political and moral arguments, instead of aesthetics ones (Ibid.10),testifying of the writer’s will to reconcile divergent opinions on the notion of culture and heritage. To the revolutionary impetus of starting from anew and of breaking from the traces of the past was opposed a linear idea of progress which presented the preservation of monuments and artistic creations of the prior epoch as the necessary condition to understand the bases of the notion of nation, and hence securing the superiority of the French
people on its enemy. Grégoire posited himself on the side of the "defenders" of the national patrimony, and his point of view would give shape to the definition of vandalism.
From this historical account I notice that the very term used to qualify the deeds of the defilers and destroyers is far from being neutral. The word of vandals indeed refers to a Germanic people which marked the European and North-African history between the first and the fourth century of our era, by means of repeated invasions which are often described as deadly and violent. The Vandals not only overrun cities, they also devastated the monuments and sacred sites which were symbolical embodiments and the cultural ground of the populations they sought to conquer. The sacking of Rome which occurred in 455, is sadly famous for the breadth of the damages it had caused. The analogy implied by the choice of this particular reference to a "barbarian" people indicates that the abbot had clear views on which position did the vandals occupied in regard to the French nation: that of foreign enemy whose cruelty threatened the history and the stability of a population. This depiction of the vandals was enough to assert the need for their systematic exclusion and condemnation. In his Mémoires, posthumously published, and talking on the vandalization, Grégoire wrote what follows: “Je créai le mot pour tuer la chose” ( “I created the word to kill the thing”). It is a simple, yet straightforward sentence which reveals the mission to which Grégoire committed himself: to do away with vandals and
vandalism that he wished to kill, not literally, but via the careful choice of the appellation of the troublemakers. Indeed, the denomination of the vandals and their deeds as a "thing" shows his will to delegitimize their actions and moral being which was produced by their implicit removal from the social and national body. The vandals were presented as barbarians who acted according to rules that resisted understanding, at least this is the idea that the definition of vandalization sought to convey.
In a definition provided by Génin, in an article which addresses the boisterous 14
"reception" of the publication of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebbdo after the attacks of Paris in January 2015, the barbarians are defined as those who are not able to be confronted with ideas that diverge from their own. They are the ones who refuse dialogue, and that voluntarily resort to violence. They are uncivilized, and obsessed with the idea of converting the others to their own way of thinking. To me, this association of the vandal to the barbarian is problematic for its seems to prevent understanding of their deeds. The same logic applied to the defilers of Dirty
Corner which were systematically condemned by the institution that hosted the work of Anish
Kapoor. It is incontestable that they prove of violence by forcing the surface of the object by means of undesired paints and tags. Yet what the vandals also attempted; was to initiate a
dialogue in which they proposed the confrontation of their own views to the one embodied by the contemporary piece of art centrally displayed in the garden of Versailles. The desire of making their view public has been materialized by the fact that the monumental installation-their object of resentment-was preserved in order to serve as a physical prop to their own perspective. Hence, one question which should be asked at this moment of my argument, is what follows: by
"Par "barbare" nous entendons celui qui au sens figuré, ne parle pas le même langage que nous,
14
celui avec lequel nous ne pouvons pas prendre langue ni nous entendre parce qu’il nie toute possibilité de contradiction et substitue le rapport de force à la discussion. Alors que le civilisé admet le principe de discussion, donc l’idée d’un échange mutuel d’avis opposés, le barbare ne reconnait même pas la possibilité d’une altérité, mais pose impérieusement une identité pure, injustement aliénée par quelque autre que ce soit. Il use et abuse de violence pour contraindre l’autre à lui obéir et à lui ressembler. Il dénie toute valeur à la polémique pluraliste et met en action la violence aléatoire comme méthode de soumission des corps et des esprits, niant la dignité de tout un chacun. Le barbare n’est pas l’étranger, mais le puriste intégriste, sectaire et factieux" (Genin 14).
concealing the point of view of the so-called vandals to an element of secondary, even of no importance, who is the "barbarian" who prevents the altercation of conflicting idea, by means of non-admitted and implicit censorship? The historical examples in which the point of views of the vandals has been dismissed are numerous. For instance, in his essay on the "Iconoclast and their motives", Freedberg refers to the words of the the Director of Public relation at the Rijksmuseum, who commented on the attack of the Nightwatch, lead on September 14, 1975, and here is what he said: "The assailant and his motives are wholly uninteresting to us, for one cannot apply normal criteria to the motivations of someone who is mentally disturbed"(12). This sentence attests of the aspect upon which I sought to bring emphasis. The subsequent question which arises is wether the actor of the deed was really "disturbed", or does this statement simply reinforces the systematic lack of commitment in the process of understanding the motivations of the vandals?
In order to undo the prejudice implied in the concept of vandalization, and to avoid the perpetuation of a misleading divide which creates a rupture between both the good artist (and spectators) and the criminal vandal, I would like to take a step away from the term of
vandalization. I have demonstrated that the word bears the weight of its historical formation and that it perpetuates the separation that keeps the good and the bad spectator apart. Thus, I will introduce the anthropological concept of pollution in order to rethink the concept of vandalization without preconceived ideas entailed by the judging dimension which is attached to the word, and to question its categorization outside of the field of spectatorship.
3. Overcoming the Institutional Bias: Reassessing the Notion of Vandalization.
The institutional reaction to the disfigurement of Dirty Corner during its exhibition in Versailles did not miss to stigmatize the defilers, expectedly qualified as wrongdoers: after the monumental sculpture has been defaced the first time by means of yellow paint, the former French
minister of Culture Fleur Pellerin deplored on Twitter, the "pathetic deterioration" of the work of art that she considered as "an attack against the freedom of artistic creation". 15
Although the work of art was an element of controversy, the
ambiguous nature of the installation did not justify in her view, that the work should be defaced. If it is admitted that the contemporary artistic creations can bear the potency to trigger vivid reactions, these ones can yet only be exposed under the limitations imposed by the set of implicit rules that are inherent to the space of exhibition. Thus it is interesting to note that in an interview which predated the opening of the exhibition, Anish Kapoor himself refers to the exhibition held in Versailles as a means to "disrupt" the order of the garden that was designed by André Le Nôtre, and to "invite chaos" within. Yet, at no moment 16
was the artist qualified as a vandal in the discourse that was produced by the institution, but, as we have seen previously, some manifestation of the public opinions relayed on the social media proved of discontent against the appraisal of the artist. In order to undo the single narrative provided by the art institution, the one that seeks to protect the artistic creation no matter what, and which
systematically excludes the acts of defilers from the paradigm of reception, I will take a stand away from the traditional qualification of vandalization, and propose that this term be substituted by the
My translation, e.g. see fig. 3. Screenshot of the tweet published to illustrate a journalistic account
15
of the defacement of Dirty Corner: Rédaction de France Info. "Oeuvre Vandalisée à Versailles: "Une certaine Intolérance" (Anish Kapoor)". France Info, n.p. June 18, 2015. Web. Feb; 22, 2016.
Belpêche, Stéphanie. "Anish Kapoor invite le chaos à Versailles. Interview with the artist." Le
16
JDD. Lagardère digital France. May 31, 2015. Web. Jan. 29, 2016.
3. A tweet from former minster of French Culture and Communication Fleur Pellerin who "deplored" the "pathetic deteriorations that she considered as an attack against the freedom of creation."
concept of pollution. I borrow this notion from Mary Douglas’s anthropological account Purity and
Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo; in which the writer has sought to
challenge the western understanding of the two concepts. I am hereby looking for a way which allows a pluralistic approach to the accounts on the repeated defilement of Dirty Corner. I am particularly interested in the notion of pollution as defined by Douglas in her work, for she
interlinks the concept with the idea of desecration. According to her, where there is pollution there is disorder. This can also be explained in term of the displacement of an object which finds itself in a context to which it does not belong. In other words, "a matter out of place"(36). This apprehension of the soiling element entails that the object of pollution is formed through its encounter with a beholder at a specific moment and in a specific place. Therefore it is context-dependent and relies on such subjective connotations as belief and culture. Thus the combination of these elements is 17
necessary to initiate the process of recognizing pollution: it thereby highlights the relativity of dirt, which is a core dimension in Douglas’s account on the topic. What is dirty is perceived as such in a specific context which is defined both by the history and society that underlies it. Also the
individuals have a role to play in the conceptualization of pollution for they might consider the notion differently according to the degree with which they engage with the belief and tradition which characterize the community of which they partake. By drawing the attention of the readers to this aspect the anthropologist highlights the fact that the soiling characteristic of an object is not essential but that it has been discursively constituted. This dimension also applies to either the contested reception of Dirty Corner, and to the the acts of the defilers. Nor the tags or the
monumental installation are inherently polluting elements but each idea has been brought into being in reaction to the events. Here the question of the relativity plays an important role, for it would admit the coexistence of mixed feelings on the exhibition that was held in Versailles and the validity
By culture I hereby refer to the complex set of customs and habits which might be found in either
17
or both the lifestyle and religious practices of a population situated in a particular historical and social context.
on either view regarding the reception of Dirty Corner. To provide a concrete example of what she means when she discusses the relativity of dirt, Mary Douglas explains the fact that shoes can be called dirty, where, for instance, they are found on a table (36). The association of the adjective "dirty" to the object "shoes" occurs only at a moment when the object is set in a place which does not fit with its usual function (and once more, the "usual function" of the object might alter
according to the context in which it appears). This again is a matter of individual consideration for some may or may not pay attention to the juxtaposition of elements which can either be perceived as transgressive or as banal.
By applying the notion of pollution to the reception of Dirty Corner, I propose that we consider the defilers as ones of those who create disorder and who soil the environment in which they have undertaken their actions, but not solely. In fact, resorting to such notion also allows for the permutation of the position of the artist with the one of the trespassers. If Anish Kapoor did invite chaos in the garden of Versailles, as stipulated in the interview, then, he too disorganized the space that he had invested with his artistic creations: the display of Dirty Corner disfigured the historical site in a way which is comparable to the transformation imposed by the defilers. Since the concept of pollution implies relativity it therefore allows for the constitution of different fictions on the same event. Where the term of vandalization leads to a single, monological approach on the successive acts of defilement that have been exerted on Dirty Corner, the notion of pollution on the other hand enables a dialogical, polysemous reading of the same case. Instead of a dogmatic
categorization of the vandals as wrongdoers, we may found a different interpretation regarding the presence of the works of Kapoor inside the historical site of Versailles and which entails that the artistic creation of the British artist could be interpreted as a polluting element. I am not saying that I support the actions of the defilers who repeatedly defaced Dirty Corner but I think that it is important to acknowledge the multiplicity of "undesired elements", each differently and subjectively constituted in the eyes of beholders. It is a necessary step in the process of
discontent and acts of defilement attest of a shared (polluting) reading of the artwork, I would suggest that their deeds were grounded on convictions that stemmed out of the specific context of exhibition which enabled, enforced the encounter between the historical site and the contemporary creation. Therefore, in the part that follows I will resort to the concept of pollution not solely as a means to address vandalization, but as a tool to understand how, via the dialogue initiated with the historical site of Versailles, Anish Kapoor did create an environment in which his artistic installation could be perceived as elements of defiance and transgression.
CHAPTER TWO: DIRTY CORNER AND THE SITES OF POLLUTION. A MATERIAL
CONSTRUCTION OF DIFFERENCES
Introduction: Was Dirty Corner in the "Wrong Place"?
The vivid reactions that Dirty Corner has triggered during its exhibition in Versailles attests of the incongruity of the experience that can spawn from the association between a work of
contemporary art and a historical site. Admittedly, the current state of the art world is characterized by its cosmopolitanism (Kwon 46), which entails the mobility of both the artists and their
production (or put it differently, a "logic of nomadism" (Kwon 33)), which altogether participates in the renewal of the interpretation of the works of art over the successive encounters with context-specific sites of exhibition. Anish Kapoor is one of these "itinerant artists"(Ibid.) which define the global "museum without walls". Being a British citizen born in India, Kapoor travels frequently between America, Europe and Asia where he exhibits his artistic creations inside institutions or within public spaces bringing about dialogue with urban, institutional or historical places. As an example, let’s mention his installation Shooting Into the Corner which has been exhibited and reenacted since 2009 in different cities such as Vienna, London, Bilbao, Mumbai, Kiev, Tilburg, Aahrus, Berlin, and more recently in the historical Salle du Jeu de Paume (or Royal Tennis Court) 18
as a part of the exhibition held in Versailles.
Yet, the juxtaposition (or confrontation) of "new" objects to "old" institutional places and the strategies of displacement and relocalization of works of art, is nothing really new. The constitution of public collections of art has mostly been permitted by the removal of artworks from the context in which they originated. Further, as Kwon has pointed out, site-oriented projects-which often involve the convergence of the old and the new-have become common since the 1980s. Daniel
http://anishkapoor.com/583/shooting-into-the-corners Consulted on April 2, 2016.
Buren’s Les Deux Plateaux (1985-1986), installed in the inner courtyard of the Palais Royal, Paris or the Pyramid of the Louvre (Ieoh Ming Pei; 1985-1989) corroborate this artistic trend. We remember that both of these projects, which have turned into integrant part of the Parisian touristic landmarks, were initially much controverted. The similarity between the reception of these
monuments and the one of Kapoor’s artwork set in Versailles has led me to question whether there exists such thing as a right or a wrong place (of exhibition) to put with the artistic creation of our current time.
Hence in this coming part I want to reflect on the diverse elements which have contributed to the elaboration of the idea that Dirty Corner was set in "the wrong place". I borrow the term from the art historian Miwon Kwon, which, after Claire Doherty, could be explained in term of a
situation where a work of art destabilizes the "literal reading of the specificities of a place [which was thus far] fixed and stable" (Doherty 13). It is a "mis/displacement for art, localities and identities" altogether (Kwon 33).
In order to assess whether there are adequate or inadequate places for having an exhibition and making the experience of contemporary art, I will look at the relation between art objects and their temporary habitat. I will see that from the encounter between object and site two main and divergent outcomes are to be expected: either it triggers a relationship of harmony-which can be created by a narrative of belonging (which will be epitomized through the example of the exhibition of Kapoor held in La Tourette)-or a relationship of disharmony implemented by a visual
disconnection between the works of art and their temporary environment, just as it has been the case with the display of Dirty Corner within Versailles. Thus at first I will analyze the exhibition held by Kapoor in La Tourette, focusing both on the specificities of the site and on the reactions it has prompted. The twentieth century convent and its inhabitants seem to have perfectly accommodated the work of the artist. I therefore propose that it be considered as a "right place". Then, by means of comparison of the reception of the two artistic projects held quasi-simultaneously in France by
Anish Kapoor, I want to demonstrate the importance played by the context determined by the site that hosts the exhibition. Resorting, once again, to the concept of pollution, I will try and shed lights on the many material and visual aspects which may have implicitly constructed the idea that
Versailles was a "wrong place" for Dirty Corner, a location to which the work of art did not belong. Finally, I will propose that the material act of defacement of Dirty Corner be perceived as a means to physically mark the undesired object as other-an act of impairment resorted to so as to reinstate the order that has been threatened over the intrusion of a dispensable and disruptive element.
1. Anish Kapoor in the "Right Place".
In order to emphasize the influence exerted by the context on the object, I wish to look at the reception of the work of Kapoor exhibited in Le Couvent de la Tourette. This process will allow me, on the one hand, to prove that the practice of relocating artworks is characteristic of Anish Kapoor, and, on the other hand, to evaluate the role played by the hosting place in the process of defining the relation between object and context, as collaborative or destructive. The fact that the show was held quasi-simultaneously as the one in Versailles, and in the same country, proved to be a good foil in demonstrating the influence of the context by means of comparison to the reception of Dirty Corner.
From October 2015 until January 2016, Anish Kapoor was invited by Frère Chaveau to invest Le Corbusier-designed monastic building: the event would participate simultaneously in the celebration of the eighth centennial of the founding of the Order of Preachers by Saint Dominic and of the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Le Corbusier (1965) (Chaveau 8). Located in Eveux, a small village situated in the North-West of the city of Lyon, France, the exhibition was part of the programming of the 13th Lyon Biennale of Contemporary Art. Taking place between September 10, 2015 and January 3, 2016, the artistic event was organized in various institutional spaces in the city of Lyon and surrounding places. Yet, and unlike the other exhibition spaces which participated in
the proceedings of this cultural and artistic event, the Dominican convent happens to be a
monument of its own. Therefore the intervention of Kapoor within this space is not to be perceived as a curated exhibition, but rather as the deployment of a dialogue between the creations of the artist and the emblematic building of modernist architecture. In this regard, this project shares a
significant kinship with the show that was hosted in Versailles, for in this later place too, Kapoor had to take into account the patrimonial dimension of the site in which he displayed his artworks. Yet we shall see that despite the apparent similarities of the politics of display on either situation, the legitimacy of each undertaking was assimilated differently.
As I went to visit La Tourette during the Biennale, I saw a selection of sixteen works from Anish Kapoor distributed all across this archetypical piece of avant-garde architecture: from the refectory to the chapel, the "organic sculptures" and "non-objects" modeled by the artist invested 19 20
the spaces used in the daily practices of the dominican friars, therefore creating an unexpected yet well-articulated encounter, we will see, between the production of a contemporary artist and a religious site. Frère Marc Chaveau, who was the instigator of the project, gave a tour to the visitors. Therefore it is from this specific narrative that I will analyze the dialogue that has been
implemented between the work of Kapoor and the sacred space.
As we (me, my friend, and the people attending the tour) entered the church, Non-Object
(Spire)-a steel, conic object which reflected the light that pierced the wall through small, indirect
opening-was set in the middle of the choir stalls. Its circular basis which grew slimming toward the ceiling, ending in a bright point approximately one meter above the ground level. Anish Kapoor’s
"Organic sculptures" is a term which is used to refer to the part of the creation of Kapoor which is
19
made of either silicon or wax and coated with red paint. The rendering of the final product alludes to the internal part of the bodies.
On the other hand, the "non-objects" qualify the artworks which tend to disappear within the
20
space they occupy by means of reflecting their surrounding. The polished aspect of their surface allows for the (visual) dematerialization of the objects.
series of "non-objects", to which belongs the artwork I have just described, falls within the project of investigating dematerialization. The material these "non-objects", made of a polished piece of steel in most of the cases, allows for their disappearance by means of reflection in the space that surrounds them. The smooth surface of this type of works calls for silent and meditative reflection. More than that, the shape of Non-Object (Spire) encouraged the visitors to raise their eyes to look not at the architecture but at the light well that cleaved the ceiling: a symbol of the divine presence. This installation, Frère Chaveau explained, supported the daily quest for spiritual elevation to which the Dominican friars had committed when they entered the religious order.
Yet, it is a completely kind of work that came to our sights as we walked in La Salle du
Chapitre. Temporarily transformed during winter time into a chapel, the walls were adorned with
two hanging sculptures. Disrobe and Untitled were facing each other. The two objects were respectively made of wax and silicon, both coated with red pigments. The texture of these two works, which contrasted with the lightness of the non-objects, rapidly took aback some visitors; intrigued by the visceral nature of the sculpture. Marc Chaveau explained that indeed, the work of Kapoor was initially met with some resistance. Yet, despite the initial suspicion that were
manifested at the beginning of the exhibition by some of the inhabitants of the convent-and particularly against these organic sculptures-everyone in the community came to accept and understand the presence of the works of the artist. In the preface to the catalogue, Marc Chaveau highlights the coherence of the project of having asked Kapoor to invest the place designed by Le Corbusier: he described these "carnal" representations as a means to reach, once again, a form of "spiritual elevation"(9) and further explained that "these very sensitive works of art reflect[ed] Christian faith in a God incarnate, made in human form, made flesh, of which we ourselves would often wish to be liberated"(Ibid.). What it indicates is that there is some kind of harmony-according to the friar-between the work of the artist and the place he has invested.
Furthermore, we can notice a form of pursuance of the tradition that has been initiated in the 1950’s when the Dominican order commissioned the Swiss architect to design the plan of the
convent. This project was inscribed in a long-lasting tradition of connecting a religious discourse to the artistic production of its time. The alliance between architecture, the religious and the everyday life and art has been enforced since 2009, year which marked the beginning of a program which 21
since then invites, once a year, a contemporary artist to expose his or her creations in the convent. Artists were chosen not after their religious orientation but rather on the inclination of the work to participate in the renewal of a spiritual experience. If this project can formerly be compared to the one held in Versailles almost at the same time, yet the articulation of the dialogue implemented between object and context was felt differently. The friars of La Tourette payed a particular
attention in highlighting the unity between the type of works which are displayed. The narrative told by Frère Chaveau, which connected the intervention of Kapoor to the spiritual purpose of the
Dominican community, allowed that the exhibition be understood by its visitors, hence legitimized. A similar connection misses from the exhibition held in Versailles. Since the intervention of Jeff Koons on the historical site, the dialogue between Versailles and the artistic creations of our time have been repeatedly perceived as a forced confrontation, a clash of aesthetics which appealed the audience via the controversies that had been triggered. I will develop this aspect in the part that follows, emphasizing on the elements which may have participated in the idea that Dirty Corner presented a threat to the harmony of Versailles, an undesired object soiling the site on which it was set.
I would like to note that this project was initiated only one year after the first exhibition of
21
2. Dirty Corner in Versailles: a Clash of Aesthetics
In an interview granted by Anish Kapoor to the French magazine Le JDD, the artist
explicitly shared his intention regarding the undertaking of the garden of Versailles: to invite chaos in the historical space. One question which therefore arises is how did Kapoor manage to do so, 22
and most importantly, how did Dirty Corner become the emblem of this proclaimed aesthetics of chaos? Let’s recall that among the six works that were on display in the course of the exhibition, the monumental installation is the only one which suffered, repeatedly, both with criticism and acts of defacement. In order to try and reply to this question, I will put into words what I have witnessed when I visited, in June, the already-controverted exhibition of the British artist and I will try and reflect on the clash of aesthetics produced by the display of Dirty Corner within the garden adjoining the historical palace.
A giant-rusted horn in the middle of Versailles. Piles of sand and rocks scattered all around. Some red paint arbitrarily applied on the blocks of concrete that frame the installation on either of its sides. That is what the visitors came to see as they walked toward le grand bassin: a monumental installation which clashed with its surroundings both by its building material and its dimensions. Located in the middle of la grande perspective, Dirty Corner literally occupied a central position within the exterior space adjoining the palace of Versailles, as we can observe on the map of the display of the works of Kapoor (e.g. see fig. 4). On their way to the staircases that lead to the lower part of the garden, the spectators had already come across the two gigantic mirrors that were settled on the terrace: C-Curve and Sky Mirror gave a new vision respectively of the facade of the royal residence and of the wild blue yonder that overhung the monarchial edifice. Yet, the ability of these "non-objects" to disappear within the environment did not unsettle the beholders as much as the
Belpêche, Stéphanie. "Anish Kapoor invite le chaos à Versailles. Interview with the artist." Le JDD. Lagardère digital France. May 31, 2015. Web. Jan. 29, 2016.
installation which became the object of controversy (I have already explained in the part that preceded that these "non-objects" are characterized by the polished surface of their material which allows for their seeming disintegration within their surroundings by means of reflection). And in fact: unlike the absolute finitude of the two mirrors that enabled their
dematerialization and merging in the surrounding environment,
Dirty Corner appeared unmissable by the roughness of its
materiality, accentuated by its important dimension. The imbrication of the work of art within the garden of Versailles therefore created a clash between two different, and
distinguishable types of aesthetics: the exterior space epitomizes the idea of nature, tamed by the tradition of symmetry and order that had initially been implemented by the landscape architect André Le Nôtre (1613-1700). La grande perspective, upon which rested Dirty Corner, divides the exterior space into two analogous parts: on either side, the same number of groves are ordinated after a similar structure. Further on, le grand canal lengthens the "green carpet" and equally forms a symmetrical line which splits
the site into two mirroring alleyways bordered with trees. Contrasting with this aesthetics of controlled nature, Dirty Corner embodied an idea of disarranged materiality: the assemblage of various materials, which yet remained visually distinguishable, participated in this dynamic. I would also like to point out that in either case, the ‘footprint’ of man on the environment appeared differently: as far as the exterior space is concerned, the rearrangement and the composition of natural elements (for instance of plants and water) attests of the ascendancy of the landscapes
4. Map of Versailles that displays the location of each of the installations of Kapoor presented during the exhibition. Accessed on the website of Versailles: http://www.chateauversailles.fr/ resources/pdf/images/
Implantation_Kapoor.png. Consulted on June 6, 2016.
architects over the environment. On the other hand, the steel sculpture which was the core element of Dirty Corner authenticated the trace of the artist: this part of the installation had been
undoubtedly designed and fashioned by its maker. Yet, the presence of rocks and sand, scattered around the horn, permitted that the paramountcy of the human-creator over the material he used and over Nature be called into question: could Man be able to dominate the environment he seeks to intrude, simply by means of his artistic creations and or by means of organization of the space (as conveyed by the structure and the aesthetics of the garden of Versailles)? Or on the contrary, should the work of the artist or of the architect inevitably be subdued to the dominance of the environment he has wished to enter? Put differently, not only the work of art and the garden were opposed by their respective physical aspects, but also in regard to the role their respective makers assigned to the craftsperson. The sand and the rocks that surrounded the installation may have given the impression that Dirty Corner was either being constructed, or that the work of art was about to be dismantled. In either case the production of the artist could not be envisioned as permanent or indestructible. This state of incompleteness was a core element in the confrontation that opposed the two aforementioned aesthetics, and will become, in its particular juxtaposition to the apparent natural order of the garden, a point of criticism against Dirty Corner.
Dirty Corner was repeatedly referred to as "a pile of rubbish" on the social media. Laurent
Provost, author of the article entitled "Anish Kapoor à Versailles: Ce qu’en disent les plus critiques et ce qu’en dit l’artiste" has listed some of the expressions that appeared on Tweeter. Among them figures the following: "Un tas de gravats", a formulation resorted to by the dissenters of the work of
art. The choice of words is interesting 23
for it posits Dirty Corner as a
conglomerate of debris, a label which openly questioned the status of the
artwork. By being associated to the notion of waste; Dirty Corner was presented as inadequate and illegitimate to occupy the garden ofVersailles: "a matter out of
place", to repeat the words of Mary Douglas (36). This specific expression -"tas de gravats" attests that a part of the audience has perceived the monumental installation as disordering, for what is connected with wasted matter is often sought to be separated from the sacred and concealed from the sight of the public. In the first chapter I have explained the relativity of dirt. I am resorting to this notion once again in this peculiar context in order to better understand the constitution of Dirty
Corner as a polluting element. This idea indeed does not derive so much from the essence of the
artwork than from its encounter with Versailles: for they-the jewel of the jardin à la française and
Dirty Corner-mutually brought the emphasis on the visual dissimilarities and disjunctions that
seemed to aesthetically maintain the site and the artwork apart from each other. Unlike in La
The title of the article translates as "Anish Kapoor in Versailles: What the critique says and what
23
the artist says about it". The first tweet reads "In the language of Anish Kapoor "I’m making fun of you by throwing a rubbish on the lawn" can be said "The vagina of the Queen that takes power"." The second tweet reads "Oops…! Someone has forgotten a pile of rubbish in the garden of
Versailles." (my translations, e.g. see fig. 5).
5. From Provost, Laurent. Anish Kapoor à Versailles. Ce qu’en disent les critiques et ce qu’en dit l’artiste. The
Huffington Post. n.p. June 5, 2015. Web. June 9, 2016.
Collection of screenshots which shows that the expression "un tas de gravats" recurs on the tweets that comment the work of art Dirty Corner.
Tourette, where the connection between the work of Kapoor and the aspiration of the Dominican had been clearly formulated by means of a narrative told by the friar which conducted the tour of the convent, Dirty Corner did not seem to be part of a project which could have supported the ambitions of the institutionalized site of Versailles. The accentuation of these fractions, without ever suggesting a possible reconciliation between the two aesthetics, implies that the steel installation has occupied the "wrong place". The disruption that ensued the encroachment of Dirty Corner within Versailles implied that the art object was not solely an object of pollution, but also an object of desacralization.
In the part that follows, I will address the material response to the threat perceived within
Dirty Corner: how was the object of pollution physically apprehended by its dissenters and how can
we qualify the acts of the defilers in regard to a system which involves both desacralization and the restitution of order?
3. Vandalization: an Act of Impairment
For the first time since 2008, a work of art, which was exhibited as a part of the annual project which proposes that Versailles be revivified by means of a dialogue with the creation of our time, was vandalized. Many were the artists whose presence within the historical site was contested, for instance by means of petitions, the signatories of which asked that first the works of Koons, and later the ones of Murakami be removed from the historical site. The work of Kapoor became the object of similar hostility, as we have seen in the chapter that preceded, yet Anish Kapoor was the first among the artists who exhibited in Versailles who had to cope with the repeated vandalization of one of his installation. From this observation, I want to ask why did the work of the British artist was defiled, and also reflect on the implication of the physical impairment of the work of art. For in fact, the content of the tags, imbued with anti-semitic and nationalistic comments, only slightly
