Nato Thompson :: Interview
by JohnJ McGurk
Nato Thompson is Assistant Curator at MASS MoCA. He is a member of the ongoing and diffused Department of Land and Space Reclamation (DSLR). He has written articles on art and politics for numerous publications, including Parkett, Tema Celeste, Art Journal, the New Examiner, and the Journal of Aesthetics and Protest. He is currently putting the finishing touches on the exhibition, The Interventionists: Art in the Social Sphere, which surveys political interventionist art from the 90’s to today, featuring 29 artists and collectives.
Where did your interest in critical art come from? Was there a specific moment or group of events that made you take a more critical approach to your work and life?
Sure. I grew up broke with arty parents. For a bit, while
my dad was a grad student at CalArts in the early 80s, I lived in the dorms
with him. So that always gave me a good sense of weird, freaked out undergrad
culture. During undergraduate at Berkeley, I was quite dedicated to radical
politics. Initially, I gravitated toward frothing leftist types, then more
sensible post-modern types, and then raving mad anarchist types. Eventually,
me and some pals started warehouse in Oakland, CA that did radical politics
and art (predominately experimental music). The arty part of it all began
to attract me more. In particular, because it felt like politics became more
accessible and enjoyable when presented with an emotional dynamism. I hate
it when the revolution is a total bore.
A friend of mine was asked by a professor, “Are you a sculptor
or an activist?” It is apparent that the activist/artist dichotomy is
stronger than ever, trickling down through the art school’s that are
seemingly dedicated to teaching the student to think independently. How is
a radical approach to art and art education developed in an atmosphere that
is so quick to categorize and box things?
Fuck professionalism (this coming from a curator). And fuck
these easy, dorky categories. Is it art? Is it activism? Those questions are
dangerous and misleading. How about questions like: Who is this for? What
does it do? In what manner does it operate in a social structure? I mean if
we contextualize the manner and receiving culture of a given practice, the
questions become simpler and more fun to ask.
As for reacting to a professor and the institutions of art.... just be selective
in whose questions you take seriously. I think that questions of utility are
important. Some great visual practice is simply not utilitarian and that is
ok. And sometimes things I enjoy terribly are simply not going to help out
the revolution. And that’s cool. But it ain’t cool if that is
all I am up to.
Is seems that the Department of Space and Land Reclamation is dedicated to a shift in the artist/ activist debate. What direction does DSLR want to push this debate? What have been some of the more successful forms of bridging the divide between the activist and artistic communities?
An important insight we have got in the DSLR activities, is that this art/activist symbiosis is generally more attractive to those disaffected by both communities (if not more communities than that.) They tended to be arty types that were sick of artists and activist types that were sick of activists and white kids that were sick of white kids and black kids that were sick of hanging out with black kids, etc, etc. People that were bored with their categories and were looking for more dynamic, and personally relevant ways to express themselves.
With many groups today it seems that a good dose of humor and deception can be very successful in getting headlines. For instance, the “casting call” flyers handed out to people who found themselves instead at a protest against the Real World in Chicago, or The Yes Men, who use elaborate exaggerations and golden phalluses to mock the WTO and expose the mentality of its supporters. How important do you think these strategies are in engaging a broader public beyond the white box crowd?
Humor is a strategy. The serious face of politics is important in that things are deadly serious. But that doesn’t necessarily translate into people taking this shit seriously. Reception in a culture of overbearing visuality is difficult. Humor allows one to outsmart the opposition. I mean listen, if part of humor is the ‘fool’ who clumsily reveals the face of power, well, it appears that we will be in the position of the fool for a long time. Also, humor allows us to preserve ourselves. Half the reason a lot of arty types got out of direct action politics is because the lack of joy in it. We have to remember that we are living this life while we are resisting the dominating powers of capital and control.
The Luther Blissett project was popular in Europe in the late nineties. A mysterious collective entity that created myths, hoaxes, and public interventions, Luther seemed to roam the cities of Europe looking for ways to cause trouble. Do you know much about the history of this project? Does DSLR have some of the same elements? Can anyone found a DSLR chapter?
I do know about the Luther Blisset thing and it reminds me a lot about how Earthfirst began (although obviously the end results are different). In terms of DSLR, it’s a bit different. I mean, for many of those who constitute the ever-evolving form of DSLR, we were just interested in presenting new models for social action. A group of folks presented a DSLR in San Francisco after the Chicago project and I believe a cool posse is up to something in Los Angeles. The basic model is utilizing a space as a campaign center with activists and artists operating in a brief space of experimental social action. It should be very inclusive and very radical. It should think of its audience those in a city who are interested in radically reclaiming space, land, and culture. It’s simple really. OH, and provide free food and places to hang out for over a day or so. That is key.
(continued here)
