GAM Gallery - An/aesthetic Exhibition Critique
Nov. 18, 2011
GAM Gallery - An/aesthetic Exhibition
The Aesthetic Exhibition begins the discussion on the subject of "aesthetic/anaesthetic" by looking at the original meaning of aesthetic, which refers to pure sensory experience rather than the philosophical meaning of the term, which idealizes Truth and Beauty.
On the other hand, the An/aesthetic Exhibition begins by portraying the idea of numbness as a result of the overwhelming effect of aesthetics, specifically the aesthetic pleasure of viewing our own destruction. However, the discourse actually circles back, and the exhibition becomes aesthetically beautiful (in the philosophical sense) as a result of its anaesthetic qualities. This is evident in a few points regarding the show as a whole:
First, the poster reads:
WE APOLOGIZE.
THE WORK FOR THIS SHOW
DIDN'T GET DONE DUE TO THE
PARALYZING EFFECT
OF WITNESSING THE SPECTACLE
OF OUR OWN
DESTRUCTION.
S O R R Y
FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE
YOU MAY EXPERIENCE AS A RESULT.
However, upon entering the gallery, it becomes evident at second glance that this did not actually happen. "Art" did get done, albeit with an "anti-art" theme. Evidently, the artists were not paralyzed as a result of witnessing the spectacle of their own destruction. Instead, the opposite happened, and they created an aesthetically pleasing show. The content of the show itself was somewhat nihilistic and on the surface, aesthetically "numbing." Thus, instead of being paralyzed by the spectacle of their own destruction, the artists actually actively produced work that made the spectacle of our own destruction aesthetically pleasing.
Further supporting this point is the fact that it is specifically the anaesthetic qualities of the show that make it aesthetically pleasing. In contrast with the Aesthetic exhibition, the An/aesthetic exhibition is actually more aesthetically pleasing due to its coherence and its subdued appeal to the senses. However, both exhibitions explore a different side of the word aesthetic. The first exhibition was successful in the sense that it grabbed the attention of the senses, and provided a powerful sensory experience. It was aesthetically pleasing in the instinctual, corporeal sense. The second exhibition was aesthetically pleasing in the philosophical sense of perfection. Whereas the first exhibition was more overwhelming and confrontational, the second exhibition made the viewer feel more at ease and secure. This is precisely because of the show's uniformity and anaesthesia on the senses. We are relieved that stress is not placed on our senses.
Lastly, the discourse itself is evidence of this paradoxical relationship between sensory experience, anaesthesia, and aesthetic beauty. This is because, as we talked about before, it is the philosophical discussion of aesthetics which has changed its meaning from the sensory, and twisted and deformed it into a new meaning. This distortion of the meaning of aesthetics is an anaesthetic effect of persistent discussion and argument on the subject. The trauma of discourse has numbed our senses, reduced them, and directed them to specific "new aesthetic qualities" of perfection and idealized beauty.










