The Wykehamist
sculpture. Duchamp said Fountain is an“ everyday object( s) raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist’ s act of choice”. By placing Helena in the Trapholt, Evaristti elevates it to a work of art.
For works of conceptual art, like Helena, physicality is secondary to the ideas it elicits in the viewer. There is no technical skill required when placing goldfish in blenders. We are not expected to marvel at the pleasing hourglass shape of the Moulinex Optiblend 2000 or the satisfying curve of its hemispherical handle. Helena is not an aesthetically pleasing work of art, and as a consequence we are likely to view it as‘ bad’ art.
But art can be ugly, Avant Garde, uncomfortable and still incredibly powerful. In 1974 Marina Abramovic performed Rhythm 0. Over the course of six hours she invited the viewers to do whatever they wished to her, using the 72 objects she placed on a table. These included a rose, a feather, and a glass of water, but also a scalpel, a razor, and a gun loaded with one bullet. By the end of the time, her clothes had been cut, one person had aimed the gun at her head and another person had wrestled it away. She began to walk towards the audience, who quickly disbanded in fear, appalled by what they had done when confronted with her humanity. In the same way, Evaristti confronts his audience with their potential to cause harm. Their responses are the works of art. Abramovic said“ The performer and the audience create the work together, they depend on each other. Without the audience, there would be no work of art.”
Evaristti relies on his audience to create Helena. It’ s a deliberately provocative work, designed to subject the viewer to a sort of internal torment – to blend or not to blend? – and the temptation to see what happens if they do. But, having taken the bait, it is the viewer who ultimately grants the artwork meaning. Fish swimming in dormant blenders is absurd. Someone blending goldfish in the comfort of their home is sick and twisted. The human reaction to seeing fish in blenders in a gallery, though – that, perhaps, is art. Evaristti describes the three groups of people that would reveal themselves when met with Helena: the sadist, the voyeur and the moralist. The sadist would push the button and create“ fishsoup” just because they could. The voyeur would eagerly watch whether the fish would live or die – and the moralist, well, the moralist is upset that there’ s the option to blend fish in the first place.
Who is the artist then? The person who put the fish in the blenders? Or the people who responded? Evaristti made it clear in an interview,“ For the record – I have never liquefied a fish. I gave the possibility to do it.” By engaging with Helena, the viewer is made complicit in the art. Their reaction, whether they choose to blend or not, is a performance that grants the artwork meaning. The human viewer, the goldfish and the blender, become united as art materials.
Helena is a collaborative project between artist and audience. We do not often think deeply about the power we hold over others, but when faced with it in the setting of an art gallery, it is unavoidable.“ It asks the question,” Evaristti said,“‘ Do you want to kill?’ in order to show that we are masters at all times to decide between life and death,”
Art is powerful because it can change your mind. We kill roughly four billion fish every day, half of our human population. To them, we are masters to decide between their life or their death. Yet most of us make this decision passively; in a supermarket, a restaurant, or as part of a nice day out by the river. But in an art gallery the decision becomes active.
According to Evaristti“ Helena is inspired by the Trojan War – the goldfish symbolising the beautiful Helena and the mixer being the killer machine of war.” Helena reflects back at us what Rhythm 0 does: what we do not want to recognise in ourselves – our ability to destroy. The innocent goldfish, symbol of the natural world is torn apart by man’ s invention of the machine. Why? For no reason at all. We exert power simply because we can.
Does transforming a goldfish really transform the viewer? I have not chosen to talk to you about this work of art to persuade you that it is good or bad. I have chosen it because it shows us that the power of art lies in its interaction with the viewer. None of the artworks that have been presented today hold any more innate value than what you will remember them for tomorrow or for the rest of your life.
Imogen Millar( F, 2023-)
33