LA FORCE DE L'ART. Propaganda y autocrítica

The type of institutional initiative proposed by La Force de l'Art is more intelligent than the display at the Palais de Tokyo or the Fundación Pinault to the extent that it does not attempt to smooth contradictions or assert art as a macro-economic foundation, although its purposes are no less based advertising than in the other cases. Said model is based on the principle of giving carte blanche to a heterogeneous group of independent critics and curators, who independently and freely award identity to an assigned surface. The result is fifteen spaces, as well as an art library, a documentation centre and a pedagogical device ("L'École de Stéphanie"), conceived and managed equally by artists or art critics. The strength of the proposal lies in its character, which is not just national, but contextual, daring to underline the presence and importance of foreign artists and curators (Hou Hanru and Lóránd Hegyi among the curators, and Roman Opalka, Sarkis, Allora & Calzadilla, Francisco Ruiz de Infante or Antonio Gallego, among many other artists). This open-minded principle does not prevent narcissistic attempts of exquisite falseness, like the space Glissades ("slides") with which curator N. Ergino attempts to show a "certain French tradition" based on the "combination of language and objects, of humour and subversion;" or the also exquisite and aseptic Rose poussière curated by Olivier Zahm, where the (inevitable) influence of fashion on art is used as an excuse for fashion houses to pay tribute to themselves (since each room is by one brand) and to the sub-world of fashion shows as a fantasy of reconciliation and oblivion.

Yet apart from the typical deceptions, it is interesting the wonder about the short circuit that takes place especially in the most brilliant interventions, notably in those by Hou Hanru and Éric Troncy. The former stems from the (now standardised) values of the disoriented and nomadic conscience (the proposal is entitled Laboratory for an uncertain future ) and presents a display of small stands where the artist positions him or herself en scene . There where the freedom of the works becomes most explicit is where the frame of institutional conciliation they are born in seems most ostensible. Despite the effort made to choose the works and the artists, the extent to which the works in general are currently aware of their own future and destiny is quite evident. Not only are they manufactured largely by their addressees, but they are also presented in a pre-digested manner. This is the same reason why Troncy's proposal is especially lucid, complex and has a significant implication, as occurs with an installation of installations, a "meta-installation," whose content is the artworld and its network of interdependencies: production, reception, display , market and cultural context. Taking the experiments performed in the 1980s with artificial ecosystems (which our society resembles increasingly) as a reference, and with a title taken from a cosmetic product, Superdéfense gives the impression of a grand vanitas in which art contemplates itself. Troncy's exhibitions insist on closing said sphere of immanence where works of art play at producing their own interpretation or unmasking. In this case, the ugliness of Bernard Buffet's paintings -guarded by Xavier Veilhan's giant skeletons- takes on a premonitory character. The stultification of the new patrons -reality show idols- gives way to a static dance of death in the middle of a frozen landscape, where works of art suffer and celebrate their own coldness at the same time. Since the light of the works is also their emptiness, their word is also their thunderous silence.