Unpacking Tino Sehgal's 'This'

Stepping into the top floor of London's Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) to witness Tino Sehgal's "This objective of that object, 2004" is to enter a realm where the very definition of art is questioned. The scene is set with five individuals, their backs turned, murmuring a singular, resonant phrase: "The objective of this work is to be the object of a discussion." This initial encounter, as described by the critic, is both intriguing and disorienting. The performers, or "interpreters" as Sehgal prefers, react to direct engagement by sidestepping physical contact, a deliberate avoidance of the confrontational. Should silence prevail, they visibly 'wilt,' collapsing onto the floor, a potent visual metaphor for the lifeblood of the piece being dependent on interaction. The critic's attempt to glean answers leads to a performative response, where the question itself becomes the subject of discussion, highlighting Sehgal's core tenet: the artwork is not a static object but a dynamic, living experience that unfolds through dialogue.

The Art of 'Situations'

Sehgal, a British-born artist now based in Berlin, is renowned for his unique brand of "situations" or "sculptures," eschewing traditional artistic terminology like "performance" due to its connotations of fixed achievement. His work is characterised by its profound immateriality. Instead of creating tangible objects, Sehgal crafts instructions and scenarios that are enacted by live interpreters. This approach challenges conventional notions of art ownership, documentation, and preservation. The very essence of his pieces lies in their ephemeral nature, existing only in the moment of their execution and the memories of those who experience them.

From Oracles to Aggression: Evolving Interpretations

The critic's second visit to the ICA reveals a stark contrast in the mood and delivery of the interpreters. What was initially an 'oracular' and engaging experience has morphed into something more 'mouthy' and aggressive, with interpreters eager to impose their pronouncements. This shift underscores a key aspect of Sehgal's practice: the interpretation and execution of his works are not fixed. The 'interpreters' are given instructions, but the nuances of their delivery can vary significantly, leading to vastly different viewer experiences. The critic's disappointment highlights the potential pitfalls of this approach, where the intended dialogue can devolve into exclusion and intimidation, leaving the viewer feeling alienated rather than engaged. This variability also raises questions about how to critically assess such works, as there is no definitive "ideal performance" to measure against.

Art Historical Echoes and Conceptual Foundations

Sehgal's oeuvre is deeply embedded in art historical discourse. His early work, "Instead of allowing some thing to rise up to your face dancing bruce and dan and other things, 2000," directly references artists like Dan Graham and Bruce Nauman, incorporating movements from their seminal video works. This intertextuality is a recurring feature, often requiring a degree of art-historical literacy from the viewer. Sehgal's practice can be seen as an extension of the conceptual art movement's exploration of dematerialization, pushing it further into the realm of certification and circulation. However, unlike earlier conceptual artists who sought to subvert the market, Sehgal actively participates in both the museum and market spheres, creating distinct works for each.

The 'This' of Sehgal's Practice

The repeated use of "This" in the titles of Sehgal's works is not arbitrary. As the critic notes, the spoken "this" can refer to multiple layers of meaning: the interpreter's own performance, Sehgal's artwork as a whole, surrounding artworks, and even the entire exhibition context. This deictic marker allows the work to reflexively engage with contemporary art and its systems. For instance, in "This is propaganda, 2003," its impact at the Venice Biennale was amplified by its placement within the context of "Utopia Station," an exhibition known for its overbearing curatorial presence. Sehgal's use of "This is..." creates an open-ended dialogue, inviting viewers to consider the work's relationship to its environment and to art in general.

A Regime of Total Immateriality

Sehgal's commitment to immateriality is rigorously enforced. He actively discourages any form of documentation – no photographs, catalogues, or press releases are permitted. Even the sale of his pieces is conducted through oral contracts, often in the presence of the artist. This meticulous construction of a closed system aims to protect the work from commodification and to preserve its conceptual integrity. The critic, by committing the work to paper, becomes an anomaly within this system, yet also an integral part of its dissemination. The very act of writing about Sehgal's undocumented work paradoxically generates the 'buzz' he seems to cultivate.

The Museum as a Site of Discourse

For Sehgal, the museum is not merely a repository for objects but a crucial site for influencing future discourse. His pieces, particularly those for public institutions, are designed to disrupt conventional systems of acquisition and conservation. The reliance on oral transmission for the preservation of his works poses a unique challenge. As the body of work expands and curatorial staff circulates, the risk of meaning degradation, akin to the children's game of "Chinese whispers," becomes a pertinent concern. Sehgal's aspiration for a "simultaneity of production and deproduction" challenges the very notion of artistic growth and material transformation, favouring instead the ongoing transformation of acts and the continuous engagement of the present with the past.

Juxtaposing Sehgal and Koons

Sehgal's admiration for Jeff Koons, as expressed in his commentary on Koons's "Hippo, 1999," offers a fascinating insight into his own artistic motivations. Sehgal praises Koons for not alienating the viewer and for entering the realm of seduction. However, the critic argues that Sehgal misunderstands Koons, whose work derives its appreciation from an awareness of its layers of irony and complicity. Sehgal's affinity might lie with the way both artists navigate the art world, playing with established conventions and gaining favour through a seemingly naive or provocative stance. Sehgal's focus, however, is on provoking the curator, a newer player in the art market landscape, much like Maurizio Cattelan, another artist who skillfully balances pandering and aggression.

The Power of Gesture and Oral Tradition

Sehgal's work is deeply rooted in the transformation of acts and the continuous involvement of the present with the past. This emphasis on ongoing experience, or "further presents," explains his preference for the term "sculptures." Unlike traditional exhibitions, Sehgal's pieces are present throughout the day, offering a consistent, albeit variable, encounter. They are also resolutely theatrical, providing intensely subjective experiences that generate orally disseminated narratives. The critic posits that the act of writing about Sehgal's work, far from being a weakness, might be immanent to the practice itself, a production that encapsulates the objective of his art. Sehgal's pieces are most potent in the ecosystem of the art world – art fairs and group shows – where they act as mischievous insertions into the ideological circuits of the market and cultural institutions.

Frequently Asked Questions

In conclusion, Tino Sehgal's "This" is not merely a word or a title, but a complex signifier within a practice that radically redefines artistic production, reception, and preservation. His commitment to immateriality, his engagement with art historical dialogue, and his innovative use of live interpretation create a compelling and often challenging experience for the viewer, prompting profound questions about the nature of art in the contemporary world.