Art on Social Media.

Part 3 - How has social media redefined the context of how we see, understand and engage with art?

‘One of the most striking features of the new visual culture is the growing tendency to visualise things that are not in themselves visual’ (Mirzoeff. 1999: 5). 

The internet offers life at the end of a command; social networks provide the epitome of human experience. Art tackles this social landscape; becoming greater and famous among the digital; adored or hated by a digital humanity. 

Social media allows us to access art, to share art and to understand contemporary visual culture; but do we truly understand what confronts us? 

Returning to Erik Kessels and the over-saturated nature of photography, we look towards ‘Destroy my Face’ (2020). The intention of the work is to comment upon the ‘mass produced image culture [that] brings the value of an image in contemporary society into question’ (BredaPhoto. ca. 2020). It discusses the consumption of imagery in social media spheres, where beauty standards have been shaped by influencers and fame; where ‘being insta-perfect has become the norm instead of the exception’ (BredaPhoto. ca. 2020).

Figure 22: BREDAPHOTO and KESSELS, Erik. 2020. ‘Destroy my Face’

‘Destroy my Face’ is a series of 60 portraits composed by an algorithm and shaped by 800 portraits of men and women selected from the internet who have undergone plastic surgery or fillers (BredaPhoto. ca. 2020). The portraits forged by an algorithm do not represent real “gendered” faces; rather display faces of digitally made individuals, a mixture of male and female faces who have cosmetic surgery alterations. Here, the work, in an interactive sense, discusses the destructive nature of beauty standards on social media and in the industry; propelled by online influencers which we see imitated in Amalia Ulman’s performance piece ‘Excellences and Perfections’ (2014) where she documents a fictional cosmetic surgery on her breasts, see Figures 23 and 24.

Figure 23: ULMAN, Amalia. 2014. ‘Excellences & Perfections’.  Figure 24: ULMAN, Amalia. 2014. ‘Excellences & Perfections’.

The project has been savagely criticised on social media, driven by the anonymous group ‘We are Not a Playground’ who quickly formed and created an open letter criticising and questioning the work (Crichton. 2020). They argue that the work encourages misoygony, and the attacking or provoking of violence against women as the images installed in PIER15 skatepark are only of “female-like” faces. (Jensen. 2020). In response to the claims of misogyny, Kessels has said that the “female-like faces'' were “democratically created” by the aforementioned algorithm involved (BredaPhoto. ca. 2020), and believes ‘that the function of art in society is to start dialogues and [Kessels] continues to believe that’ (Jensen. 2020). In response, PIER15 has now closed the exhibition due to “regrettable reactions'' to the artwork (see Figures 25 and 26).

Figure 25: PIER15, Skatepark. 2020. Image 1 out of 6.  Figure 26: PIER15, Skatepark. 2020. Image 3 out of 6.

The work in its existing state begins to question the role of art on social media, and here we return to the idea that although social media allows us to access and understand art, does it really? 

Moving away from Kessels and ‘Destroy my Face’ temporarily, we move our attention towards Thomas Struth’s series ‘Museum Photographs 1’ (1989 - 1992) that attempts to ‘retrieve masterpieces from the fate of fame [and] to recover them from their status as iconic paintings’ (Struth. ca. 2020.). The work started in the late 80s, due to his interest in Renaissance portraiture and the relationship to current culture, religion and spirituality but remains pertinent today (Public Delivery. 2017). Increased fame of specific artworks has grown considerably in the last century, accelerated and catalysed by the internet. Today we use iconic paintings as phone and laptop backgrounds; revering great works of art; but Struth questions if we really see and understand the painting anymore, or simply the fame?

Figure 27: STRUTH, Thomas. 1990. ‘Art Institute of Chicago II’.

Struth’s series focuses closely on how ‘historical works of art are displayed and viewed within a museum context’ (Tate. ca. 2020) and how this translates through photography to be reconsidered and reviewed once again. The work invites us as an audience to become conscious of our role as viewers as we watch over these spectators in gallery spaces (Tate. ca. 2020). By increasing our consciousness of our role as the viewer, he asks us to spend time with the photographs, as much as the paintings, allowing us to greet the paintings in the gallery space with a new perspective.

Figure 28: STRUTH, Thomas. 1989. ‘Louvre I’

On social media, it can be hard to take that moment to pause upon an artwork due to the constant updated flow of imagery (MacDowall and De Souza. 2017: 9). Individuals can be quick to judge artwork without considering their own ideals and perspective first; taken abruptly by the herd and ideals of the online sphere; visualised by the reactions to Kessels’ ‘Destroy my Face’. On social media we remain separated from the physical installation of ‘Destroy my Face’ and thus we are always divided from the physical nature of the work, forcing us to question whether we can digest and understand work wholly online. 

By photographing gallery spaces and reconfiguring iconic paintings through photography, Struth’s draws our attention to such spaces. He presents the paintings in the physical setting with ‘spectators contemplating and therefore actively engaging with images in the gallery space’ (Tate. ca. 2020). In Struth’s ‘Museum Photographs 1’ he enables us to interrogate an artwork again for the first time; through new methods of display, essentially by rephotographing visual culture. 

Figure 29: STRUTH, Thomas. 1989. ‘Kunsthistorisches Museum 3’.

This too can be seen across Kessels practice, where he almost re-homes photographs into physical spaces, allowing us to reconsider imagery set before us; specifically seen in ‘24hrs in Photos’, where we are confronted with literal mountains of private imagery from social networks.

Coming back to Kessel’s ‘Destroy my Face’ (2020), we can see imagery, generally found in online spaces, being reconfigured into a physical space. It is interesting to debate the critique of this work on social media (see Figures 30 and 31); emphasised and catalysed by the anonymous group ‘We are Not a Playground Collective’. I consider that the critique and expulsion of the work is an extension of the installation, in meaning and physicality. It is clear that by giving these faces gender extends the meaning of the work as it propels into discussion the beauty standards of the female face.

Figure 30: KESSELS, Erik. 2020. ‘Destroy my Face’  Figure 31: KESSELS, Erik. 2020. ‘Destroy my Face’

So, to attribute these genderless and digitally forged faces to the female gender directly discusses Kessels’ intent. The saturation of imagery online creates ‘insta-perfect’ beauty standards; we are told how women should look by digital culture (BredaPhoto. ca. 2020). So, by indicating that these are female faces generated by an algorithm bias and spread across a skatepark to destroy is in fact an act of misogyny in itself. It is the attribution of female gender onto these faces and concealment of the artwork that I feel is misogynistic.

However this does not mean that the critique and existence of this artwork online is irrelevant, in fact, it is more relevant than ever. It directly questions art on social media, again, can we really understand contemporary art in the digital sphere? 

The work drives a specific dialect and language seen on social platforms (see Figures 32, 33 and 34 or Appendix 2) that we have experienced in Amalia Ulman’s ‘Excellences and Perfections’ also (see Appendix 1). Once something exists on the internet; it can never be removed. Language and data will continue: somewhere it will be found, recontextualized and unknown. 

Figure 32: KESSELS, Erik. 2020. ‘Destroy my Face’ [Instagram Comments] 

Figure 33: KESSELS, Erik. 2020. ‘Destroy my Face’ [Instagram Comments] 

Figure 34: KESSELS, Erik. 2020. ‘Destroy my Face’ [Instagram Comments]

This is primarily an issue of authorship, and how social media accelerates ‘The Death of an Author’, explored in Roland Barthes ‘Image, Music, Text’ (1977). Barthes considers the idea that while we always return to the author to disseminate a work, when a work is viewed by a spectator, the author’s reach terminates as the audience’s experience takes over the artwork (1977: 143). With Struth’s ‘Museum Photographs 1’ he brings us back to the role of the spectator; encouraging audiences to re-evaluate the paintings. Relating to Barthes, it seems clear that they both highlight how the artwork is ‘the voice of a single person, the author ‘confiding’ in us’ (Barthes. 1977: 143).

Figure 35: STRUTH, Thomas. 1989. ‘National Gallery 1’.

Social Networks often accelerate the ‘death of an author’ and with that, the loss of meaning in a work, clearly displayed in the reception of Erik Kessels’ ‘Destroy my Face’. Although we attribute a work to an author on social media; due to the constantly changing visual flow of social platforms (MacDowall and De Souza. 2017: 9), artwork is constantly being judged, reconfigured and recontextualised. While artists should be responsible for the meaning of their artwork, this can be uncontrollable on social media. 

So indeed, ‘what are we to believe if seeing is no longer believing?’ (Mirzoeff. 1999: 3).

---

Conclusion 

To return to Nicholas Mirzoeff, and the former part of my essay, ‘modern life takes place onscreen’ (1999: 1), and indeed it does. We are consumed by a swell of digital cultures and interfaces; drawing our minds away from physical spaces, experience and religion. 

To determine what art means online is complex; because it remains true that social networks have no traditional or historical context to attribute to a work, merely a void of the digital. 

Just because life takes place onscreen, does not necessarily mean that we understand the life we engage with online, or understand the visual flow we are seeing (Mirzoeff. 1999: 1-2). When it comes to art, this constant and updated visual flow we experience online (MacDowall and De Souza. 2017: 9), makes it difficult to understand what we are presented with due to its digital context. 

Thus far, it seems that it is extraordinarily difficult to see, engage and understand an artwork on social networks. The microcosms of culture prevalent on social media make it difficult to experience artwork without digital interference; we believe that we can experience art online, but can we wholly?

---

Illustrations:

Figure 22: BREDAPHOTO and KESSELS, Erik. 2020. ‘Destroy my Face’. From Instagram: @breda_photo [online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/CE2JH5AlHn8/?igshid=ogasjlo12pmu 

Figure 23: ULMAN, Amalia. 2014. ‘Excellences & Perfections’. From Instagram: @amaliaulman [online]. Available at: https://instagram.com/amaliaulman?igshid=txj4d7sby8jr

Figure 24: ULMAN, Amalia. 2014. ‘Excellences & Perfections’. From Instagram: @amaliaulman [online]. Available at: https://instagram.com/amaliaulman?igshid=txj4d7sby8jr

Figure 25: PIER15, Skatepark. 2020. Image 1 out of 6. From Instagram: @pier15skatepark [online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/CFIczS0hM1B/?igshid=3cw8aynbwxnv

Figure 26: PIER15, Skatepark. 2020. Image 3 out of 6. From Instagram: @pier15skatepark [online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/CFIczS0hM1B/?igshid=3cw8aynbwxnv

Figure 27: STRUTH, Thomas. 1990. ‘Art Institute of Chicago II’. From Thomas Struth [online]. Available at: https://www.thomasstruth32.com/smallsize/photographs/museum_photographs_1/index.html#

Figure 28: STRUTH, Thomas. 1989. ‘Louvre I’. From Thomas Struth [online]. Available at: https://www.thomasstruth32.com/smallsize/photographs/museum_photographs_1/index.html#

Figure 29: STRUTH, Thomas. 1989. ‘Kunsthistorisches Museum 3’. From Thomas Struth [online]. Available at: https://www.thomasstruth32.com/smallsize/photographs/museum_photographs_1/index.html#

Figure 30: KESSELS, Erik. 2020. ‘Destroy my Face’. From Instagram: @erik.kessels [online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/CE82oKdB57N/?igshid=1dgn2pgzsgre4

Figure 31: KESSELS, Erik. 2020. ‘Destroy my Face’. From Instagram: @erik.kessels [online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/CE82oKdB57N/?igshid=1dgn2pgzsgre4

Figure 32: KESSELS, Erik. 2020. ‘Destroy my Face’ [Instagram Comments]. From Instagram: @erik.kessels [online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/CE82oKdB57N/?igshid=1dgn2pgzsgre4 

---

References:

BARTHES, Roland. 1977. Image, Music, Text’. London: Fontana Press. 

BREDAPHOTO. ca. 2020. ‘’Destroy my Face’ - Erik Kessels - CLOSED’. BredPhoto [online]. Available at: https://www.bredaphoto.nl/destroy-my-face-erik-kessels/?lang=en [accessed 02 November 2020]. 

BREDAPHOTO. ca. 2020. ‘Skatepark removes artwork from BredaPhoto 2020’. BredaPhoto [online]. Available at: 

https://www.bredaphoto.nl/skatepark-verwijdert-kunstwerk-van-bredaphoto-2020/ [accessed 02 November 2020]. 

CRICHTON, Jennifer. 2020. ‘Don’t worry folks, it’s not misogyny, it’s art’. Flock Magazine 16 September [online]. Available at: https://flockmag.com/dont-worry-folks-its-not-misogyny-its-art/ [accessed 02 November 2020] 

JENSEN, Charlotte. 2020. ‘A male artist’s invitation to destroy women’s faces is unapologetic misogyny’. Elephant 14 September [online]. Available at: 

https://elephant.art/male-artist-invites-public-to-destroy-womens-faces-14092020/ [accessed 04 November 2020] 

KESSELS, Erik. 2020 [07.09.20]. ‘Destroy my Face’ [Instagram Comments]. From Instagram: @erik.kessels [online]. Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/CE82oKdB57N/ KESSELS, Erik. 2020 [10.09.20]. ‘Destroy my Face’ [Instagram Comments]. From Instagram: @erik.kessels [online]. Available at: 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CE82oKdB57N/?igshid=1dgn2pgzsgre4 

MACDOWALL, Lachlan John and Poppy DE SOUZA. 2017. “I’d Double Tap That!!”: Street Art, Graffiti, and Instagram Research’. Media, culture & society 40 (1), 3-22. 

MIRZOEFF, Nicholas. 1999. An Introduction to Visual Culture. London: Routledge. PUBLIC DELIVERY. 2017, 2020. ‘Thomas Struth & a new visual language in photography’. Public Delivery [online]. Available at: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/publicdelivery.org/thomas-struth-museum-photographs/amp/ [accessed 02 November 2020]

STRUTH, Thomas. ca. 2020. ‘Museum Photographs 1’. Thomas Struth [online]. Available at: https://www.thomasstruth32.com/smallsize/photographs/museum_photographs_1/index.html# [accessed 02 November 2020]. 

TATE. ca. 2020. ‘National Gallery I, London 1989’. Tate [online]. Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/struth-national-gallery-i-london-1989-p77661 [accessed 02 November 2020]. 

TUCKER, Emma. 2020. ‘Erik Kessels protests plastic surgery with a skatepark papered in pouts’. Creative Review 14 September [online]. Available at: 

https://www.creativereview.co.uk/erik-kessels-plastic-surgery-skatepark/ [accessed 02 November 2020]

---