Thomas Hirschhorn and Jacques Rancière: Artists and Philosophers as Companions in the Love of the Infinitude of Thought

Thomas Hirschhorn is an expansive and passionate artist. He is an articulate participant in debates on art and politics, but he is not a theorist. His style of presentation, even though his practice is underpinned by rigorous thinking and planning, retains the form of a fan. The three documents that comprise his contribution to this special section on Rancière are drawn from the notes and images that he used in his lecture at the Van Abbe Museum on 8 October in 2011 and an email interview that he conducted with Jacques Rancière in 2010. The lecture leaned on the comments expressed in the interview and elaborated upon his prior reflections on the Bijlmer Spinoza Festival that Hirschhorn initiated in the outskirts of Amsterdam in 2009.

For the duration of the two-month long festival Hirschhorn lived in Bijlmer and with the help of his local neighbours and invited guests he made art every day. This festival, like his monuments dedicated to Deleuze in Avignon in 2000 and Bataille in Kassel in 2002, as well as the 24-hour Foucault in Paris in 2004, was a dense social montage. As is common throughout his art projects, it comprised an installation of functional sculptures made from common materials such as cardboard and duct tape, as well as the staging of discussions, lectures, poetry readings and impromptu performances. The festival in Bijlmer was held in the middle of an athletic track and it involved participants from the local communities, many of whom were immigrants from Suriname as well as philosophers such as Marcus Steinweg, who participated throughout the festival, and special guests like Antonio Negri.

Hirschhorn insists that his artistic actions proceed in a ‘headless’ manner. The primary activity of the artist is the construction of sensory forms. The form of his installations is always complex and multi-layered. He declares that each element in this form is the consequence of an energetic decision. He also notes that the ethical and political significance of each decision can only be determined after this work has been assembled. While many external forces are all embedded in the aesthetic decisions, he also notes that the analysis is conducted in a belated manner. This sequential order does not imply a hierarchy of value. In both stages of aesthetic production and conceptual analysis Hirschhorn is a robust and rigorous critic, as well as a loving and generous participant. Throughout his public interactions he appears to be in a state of thrilled engagement. Shortly after the Festival in Bijlmer Hirschhorn described the multiple roles he undertakes in the execution of his practice:

With ‘worker’ I wanted to point out the importance of the work, the importance of production and the importance to do it. Being a ‘worker’ also means to refuse the terms ‘genius’, ‘star’, ‘prince or princess’ and the term ‘child of miracles’. With ‘soldier’ I want to point out that I have to fight for my work, for my position, for my form, I want to point out that this fight is never won but also never lost. I want to point out that doing art is a perpetual battle and I want to point out that to be an artist means to have a mission. With ‘artist’ I want to point out that I have to stand up, I have to assert and I have to give form to what is important to me. I ask myself: does my work have the power to reach a public beyond the public already interested in art? Can I, through my artwork, create and establish a new term for art? And I ask myself: can my work create the condition to develop a critical corpus? A fan is somebody who loves beyond justification, beyond explication and beyond reason. Being a fan means to love. (Hirschhorn and Birrel, 2009)

In a graphic work, The Map of Friendship between Art and Philosophy, produced in collaboration with Marcus Steinweg, that appeared as a centrefold for Le Monde Diplomatique in 2007, he inscribed the words ‘universality’ and ‘headlessness’ on the opposing thumbs locked in a handshake. Hirschhorn recognizes the differences in the languages of art and philosophy, but his work is motivated by the common ground that they both share. His interest in philosophy is akin to Rancière’s engagement with art. They both note that these discourses and practices are not equivalent to each other, but they have the capacity to inspire what Rancière calls the ‘presupposition of the equality of intelligences’. Hirschhorn confesses to admiring the precision and open-ended form of philosophical thinking, but he also stresses that while his artwork may touch and parallel the interests of other philosophers, his artistic quest remains independent and autonomous. The connections between art and philosophy come from the flash of individual investigation and experimentation rather than the obligation of the image to illustrate a text.

A key principle in Hirschhorn’s practice is that as an artist he does not withdraw his presence from the scene of production. He claims that he is both present in the work all the time and producing all the time. Hence, his work is neither a mode of ephemeral art or produced as a service to a community. He declares that the work itself is always both self-sufficient and dead. It exists insofar as it attracts the help of others, and creates its form in the interaction between his proposals and the public reactions. Hirschhorn’s conception of sharing a space, co-existing with a community and producing work with the inhabitants has a deep resonance with Rancière’s ideas in his essay ‘The Emancipated Spectator’ (2007). Both are critical of the naïve assumption that an art becomes political if it merely delivers a message or alters the physical position of the spectator.

Hirschhorn expects more from art than simply activating the channels of information and participation. He has said that he enjoys Spinoza’s philosophy, and in particular his book Ethics (2005), because it contained things that remain to be understood. It presented him with an open horizon for further thinking and presented him with the challenge for more work that needed to be done. Art is similarly dependent on the invention of its future. The reason that he remains with his work and that his presence is asserted as a constitutive part of the ensuing productions is also based on the belief that art is not there to satisfy or even create its audience, but to generate something autonomous and universal for what he calls the ‘non-exclusive’ and possibly ‘uninterested’ audience.

The work of art resembles the function of a small public sphere. This is not a didactic space but an unpredictable zone in which the meaning and utility of the art is being shaped by the interplay between the artist and the public. Hirschhorn’s approach toward the public is similar to Rancière’s account of the philosopher Jacotot in his book The Ignorant Schoolmaster (1991). However, Hirschhorn takes the role of ‘ignorant artist’ one step further, as he claims to accept his responsibility for everything that follows. This may sound like a paradoxical and possibly patronizing claim but it is more like an expression of unconditional commitment to consequences of his propositions. It is through this assertion of absolute responsibility that Hirschhorn can also declare his conviction for the autonomy of art. He declares that his art is not made for any specific purpose or audience. It does not respond to a pre-determined script or conform to a prescribed expectation. The work is not made with any expectation of direct reciprocation or instrumental benefit. The gesture of making art and responding to other people are both expressed by Hirschhorn in the spirit of friendship. This is a bond that does not rely on credit and debits, or duties and obligation. It is generated by the economy of love and approximates the mystical touch of grace. Hirschhorn describes this state of generosity and openness as the base upon which the unknown is encountered and the ‘infinitude of thought’ affirmed. It may appear like a strange kind of friendship that includes a philosopher who starts with the assumption that dissensus is the constitutive principle of art and politics, and an artist who affirms and aspires to such metaphysical qualities like grace and love. And yet, this is also a very classical kind of friendship. It is not a form of mutuality that demands equivalent and uniform agreement. This would simply end in oppressive conformity. On the contrary, the friendship between this artist and the philosopher acknowledges that their companionship in the pursuit of truth and beauty will always have a different pathway, and produce a distinct vision. In this friendship unity never precludes difference.