Renzo martens is interested in the relationship between art and capital, and more specifically how surplus value is extracted from the labour of people like the workers on unilever's congo plantations and is used to build or support high-status art museums like the tate or the met, or to finance artists in centres of global capital. Here he wonders if it can be rerouted.
He first tries to set up some art workshops (feat some white people dancing, trauma specialists etc) and some conversations like "we need soap, salt, (basic necessities of life)" (renzo:) "would art and sculpture help?". He organises a conference and invites community members. They drink cola while a canadian economist speaks in english (which i don't think they understand, given the context). Renzo then pulls out of this project due to unilever intimidation, crying, leaving the community members disappointed but not surprised.
He then sets up another project in which a "circle" of members of a different community make sculpture, which he then sells on their behalf at the tate. They also feature in a new york gallery, where they are beautiful but absurdly decontextualised. The community makes money and is happy. They build a very postmodern looking cube in which to make more art.
The first half of the film i found quite white savourist - white volunteers teaching congolese kids how to dance, helping them finger paint etc, when (as they say) their bellies are hungry and they are struggling to reclaim their land. They then pull out when it becomes inconvenient. The second project is more successful but naive. Yes, the circle of artists make money for a bit but how sustainable an intervention is it? Renzo the middleman is not always going to be there advocating on their behalf so their sculptures end up in some white liberal's living room. According to martens, it is his experiment in how art can turn upside down pathways of capital so that it's not congolese workers --> unilever --> funds for tate britain, but instead capital that returns to the communities of the global south. Except that there's a caveat: they can't do it alone. So we learn what? That a white man with art-world connections can help exploited congolese people make money for a short while? We knew that...
i did like renzo and some scenes were interesting and lovely, i just found many of the things said tone-deaf, naive and the concept a bit flawed.
He first tries to set up some art workshops (feat some white people dancing, trauma specialists etc) and some conversations like "we need soap, salt, (basic necessities of life)" (renzo:) "would art and sculpture help?". He organises a conference and invites community members. They drink cola while a canadian economist speaks in english (which i don't think they understand, given the context). Renzo then pulls out of this project due to unilever intimidation, crying, leaving the community members disappointed but not surprised.
He then sets up another project in which a "circle" of members of a different community make sculpture, which he then sells on their behalf at the tate. They also feature in a new york gallery, where they are beautiful but absurdly decontextualised. The community makes money and is happy. They build a very postmodern looking cube in which to make more art.
The first half of the film i found quite white savourist - white volunteers teaching congolese kids how to dance, helping them finger paint etc, when (as they say) their bellies are hungry and they are struggling to reclaim their land. They then pull out when it becomes inconvenient. The second project is more successful but naive. Yes, the circle of artists make money for a bit but how sustainable an intervention is it? Renzo the middleman is not always going to be there advocating on their behalf so their sculptures end up in some white liberal's living room. According to martens, it is his experiment in how art can turn upside down pathways of capital so that it's not congolese workers --> unilever --> funds for tate britain, but instead capital that returns to the communities of the global south. Except that there's a caveat: they can't do it alone. So we learn what? That a white man with art-world connections can help exploited congolese people make money for a short while? We knew that...
i did like renzo and some scenes were interesting and lovely, i just found many of the things said tone-deaf, naive and the concept a bit flawed.
