In "The Question Concerning Technology," Heidegger defines enframing as "the gathering together that belongs to that setting-upon which sets upon man and puts him in position to reveal the real, in the mode of ordering, as standing-reserve." In other words, enframing is a process by which things are collected and ordered in order to reveal something about the world. Heidegger mainly used this term when talking about science and technology. While the term may not be directly applicable to our arts experiences in New York, the reason I wanted to bring this term up and use it is because I like that enframing is an ordering process with an aim to reveal something. In this case, the art that I experienced on Friday at the Whitney Biennial show collects different elements of New York life and orders them in a way that something can be understood through that enframing solely.
For example, at the Whitney Biennial show, there were many pieces that revealed through their structure, but the two that stood out to me were Ken Okiishi's gesture/data and Bjarne Melgaard's installation. Okiishi's gesture/data consisted of five vertically hung flatscreen televisions covered in heavy-handed brushstrokes while displaying commercials and war news coverage. While I loved that the paint on the screens made me notice the television as an art-object rather than as a household item, the power of the piece came from the framing. Television is seen as nothing but an apparatus to transmit audiovisual information to us, but once brushstrokes appear on the surface and wall placement makes it resemble a painting, the television becomes a frame and the programming becomes high art. Pop and abstract expressionism are assembled together to make high art, and commercials become their own luxury, and war coverage becomes aesthetic statement as well as information.
The enframing of Melgaard's installation happened differently. Once you enter the room, you know you are framed inside an artificial world of sex, violence, media, and ethical dissociation. As I walked amongst the piles of sexed-up dolls and phallic inflatables that possessed a similar shape and presence to that of tank rifles, as I gazed at the projections on the walls of war footage and 9/11 reruns, as I stared hypnotized at the orangutans fornicating while a gay romance was read aloud through voiceover, I realized: I was inside a tumblr. While this epiphany seems comical, it felt surreal in a more horrific way. Here I am in the middle of a (cyber)space where traumas and travesties were placed aesthetically beside each other, like reblogged matter, for the cheekiness and awe of their terrifying juxtaposition. All stored in this room; all enframed in a space where the viewer is given no responsibility or accountability, where scrolling and strolling leaves one free to roam in and out. The revelation was my own need to neglect.
While questions about how structure gives meaning to art are always important, what the exhibit revealed to me in terms of enframing is that it is the borders between artwork and spectator that create an additional layer of enframing--that of participation. Though no artwork asked anything of me, the space, the work, the art-objects all formed an ambiance around me and them that forced one of us to reveal something to the other. In Okiishi's case, the work revealed both its thingness and its value over its status as apparatus. In Melgaard's case, I learned how, just like scrolling through tumblr, I am complicit in walking amongst tragedy and allowing myself to neglect horror. It is in these moments of insight that I wonder how much of Heidegger's mysticism has rubbed off on me (and how, as a congregant of Art, how much of my own ignorance keeps me from further opening the worlds that each work possesses).