De-legitimation of oneself
Aldo Ternavasio

It is one of Trama’s explicit aims –and I adhere to it completely-- to “legitimize the artistic thought within the social and poli-tical sphere”. However, it is not a question of making speeches, either theoretical or artistic, in order to legitimize an existing production. Quite the contrary, Trama’s initiative aims at generating instances in which legitimation may arise from confrontation and exchange between artists and intellectuals, and among those who somehow participate in the management pro-cesses associated with art.
Anyway, I think that in order to understand the origin and significance of this debate, it is necessary to situate Trama’s initiative against the background of art in Argentina in the 1990’s. If something can be said to be typical of this period, it is precisely the monolithic presence of only one legitimizing notion. Like any other notion of this kind, it did not appear as such, but as the final version of an art emancipated from any ideological legitimation.
In opposition to this, there arose a progressive renewal of artistic experiences together with a national process of re-organisation which was undoubtedly market-oriented. The growing concentration of capital- a characteristic of the 90s- was contemporary to an equally disquieting concentration of artistic legitimation means. Anyway, this comparison between parallel processes, though certainly realistic, does nothing but contribute to obscure the problem even more.
Explaining the dominant artistic forms of discourse in Menem’s times through the implemen-tation of neo-liberal policies may be dangerous, as we might then be avoiding discussion of decisive aspects. In my opinion, the main issue here is to analyse which conditions favoured both the neo-liberal consensus of the 90’s and the forms of discourse which legitimized contemporary artistic production.

I think that these issues have somehow shaped the cultural environment in which Trama was created. I also think, though, that we have not been able to see clearly the scope and challen-ges that such issues pose. Moreover, I think that this lack of precision is somehow related to the impossibility of establishing a difference between artistic interventions and the discourse that legitimizes them. The moment when a whole set of ideological delusions seem to be falling apart is also the moment when a new hegemony starts replacing it. It might not prove useless to attempt an in-depth analysis of the factors that enabled such a building to rise only to topple down in our days. There is always the hidden danger of not perceiving that the structure replacing it stands on the same foundations.
I would like to mention some of the conclusions reached after the experience at Trama’s workshop held in Tucumán, because I think it can offer some valuable elements to discuss the issues mentioned above. I feel compelled to state, though, that these conclusions are entirely personal and that I doubt whether they will be shared by all the participants at the workshop. They have, in fact, not been agreed upon.
The workshop was held under the name “Artistic production and creation contexts”. The name was extensively discussed both before and after the selection. The idea was to bias the invitation to the workshop as little as possible and, at the same time, to make it ambiguous enough to allow for diverse interpretations. And this is exactly what happened. Creation contexts could be an aunt’s hairdressing shop or belated capitalism. We were interested in establishing a relationship between the works and something different whose implications might be explored.
From the very beginning, I openly suggested central axes to the discussion: the issue of legitimation of the works and the influence exerted on them by both imaginary and real contexts in which the works were produced and from which there emerged a framework that endowed them with meaning. One of the aims was to overcome both formal and conceptual problems posed by the projects that each artist had proposed for discussion and open up a debate on the different standpoints from which both dimensions were valued. My personal aim was to show how the works always confront and disturb the transparency of such discourse once the rather typified forms which are suppo-sed to explain them have been suspended. Then, for example, what was assumed to be a discourse on the intimate or the female element quickly became a discourse on the contradictions to be found in either case.
In my opinion, this was important because, when the gap separating the works from the ordinary place where we think of them becomes appa-rent, there rises the possibility of perceiving aspects of the artistic practice that cannot be reduced to the legitimizing conditions in which that practice circulates or is carried out.
On the face of these issues, the different artists’ stances were organized round three extreme cases, which I find highly revealing. They cons-titute something like a Bermuda Triangle inside which, inevitably, there will be no possibility of questioning aspects of artistic creation without confusing it with the concept of legitimation.
The first extreme standpoint is, of course, a cynical one. Roughly speaking, it consists of the following: the only value of the work arises from the institutions that legitimize them and any attempt to start an honest discussion related to art in any organisation is a farce. This Real Politik or, artistic Darwinism, if you will, ends up by stating: “The more Trama grows, the more my CV grows, and that is the only thing that really matters for the legitimation of my work”.
The second standpoint is the pragmatic one. In this case, it is admitted that the natural context of works is the workshop or the clinic and that the production is aimed at them. The work process and its exhibition starts replacing and obscuring the piece of work. This standpoint is paradoxical, though, since this situation of permanent exhibition of the work process may reach truly interesting moments. All this can be explained from the critical conditions under which artists produce. Workshops end up being substitute spaces of visibility rather than spaces for discussion, and the piece of work becomes a means to occupy those spaces. In this case, legitimation is not merely formal, it also contri-butes content. But once again, it depends more on the institutional context than on the work.
The third extreme position is the interventionist one. Here it is suggested that the artist must intervene upon the context in which he/she works in a number of ways. The piece of work is just one possible way of expression. Legitimation is built by means of these interventions and it does not depend on the kind of institutional relationship. This is, undoubtedly, the standpoint to which I feel closer. There is a problem, though. If we do not give the piece of work -as long a it is an artistic intervention- a decisive centrality, what is the point of going on using the word “artistic”? The bottom-line here is that the piece of work is a form of discourse like any other and, consequently, it should not impose special considerations on us.
I think that these three standpoints, each in its own way, are trying to find an answer to the same problem. It is ideologically impossible to consider the legitimacy of a piece of work and of art that derives from some immanent aspect.
The cynic thinks of his work in terms of “quality standards” and of “professionalism” but he does not fully understand why achieving them is worthless in an environment such as that where he produces his work.
The pragmatic artist thinks of his work in terms of conceptual processes but he finds out that these processes disappear, stop being “the work” when there is no context to support them.
The interventionist artist produces work but avoids meddling in the effects produced by the works, effects which exceed the scope of his intervention and which refuse to be reduced to it. He regards his work as part of a series of equivalent interventions.
This predicament inexorably leads to the hellish circle of legitimation. Either the work is permeated by a series of rather hegemonic ideo-logemes and stylemes or it faints inside its empty selfness. It is my opinion that this was the strongest conflict underlying debates and confrontations at the workshop.
Regarding this conflict, at least two conclusions can be drawn: The first one is that the origin of the conflict is undoubtedly ideological and, as is usually the case with ideological contradictions, they are not always clearly stated.
The second conclusion is that contemporary art demands that, unlike ideas that were relevant in the 90s, artists have an active participation in the task of conceptualising not only the specific contents of their work but also the relationship that these works have with the discourse that legitimizes them.
Therefore, stating the following may not seem an important step: broadly speaking we, contemporary artists, acknowledge we are artists as long as we accept some “certainties” as ours. One such certainty affirms that there is no instance where we can separate the work from the discourse (ultimately, from the ideas) that originates its production and legitimizes it; another “certainty” is that what we call “work” is another form of discourse with no material difference regarding all the other possible forms of discourse. However, I think that diagnosing this situation enables us to re-direct some of the ideological axes of the debate on legitimation that is currently taking place in Argentina.
Are we going to oppose the legitimising -and greatly unfortunate- regime that prevailed over a decade by resorting to one whose contents seem more acceptable? Or are we ready to produce the means to defy the logic inherent to legitimation?
Naturally, I place my stakes on the latter alternative. And having reached this point, I can do nothing but offer just some personal wishful thinking: I firmly believe that an organisation such as Trama can create the conditions under which a path leading to the exodus of legitimation may start as long as there are artists ready to tread that path.
The workshop in Tucumán generated some of those exodus moments. And that was not a minor matter. Sigurdur Gudmunsson produced some truly good meetings. Sigurdur’s strategy consisted of confronting artists with the absurd centre of their works while encouraging them to acknowledge their own presence in it. And he used this strategy because it is precisely there, in the absurd centre, where works show their singularity regardless of what might be said about them.
Any exodus implies resigning something.
I don’t know. Perhaps, resigning the imaginary conviction that our works are legitimate might be the best way to start, together with the works, a critique of legitimacy to which all of us will be truly committed.

Aldo Ternavasio born in 1970 in Tucumán (Argentina), where he currently lives and works.
He holds a Licentiate in Art degree granted by Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. His works focus on videoart, electronic arts, and installations; he is also involved in theoretical developments regarding problems posed by contemporary art. He has held numerous individual and collective exhibitions.