John Hamon
A SMILE IN THE CITY
ARTIST PROMOTION OR ART'S GROUND ZERO
It's easy to summarize your work with the sentence: “It’s promotion that makes the artist, or the zero degree of Art” Thus, some artists like Banksy can give the impression that their image is more important than their artwork. In your opinion, can an artist only exist through their public image?
I focused my work on the name and the self-portrait, which for me are the two elements that best represent the artist, that is, make them present. But these elements also represent me as a man. I am sometimes accused of a certain megalomania, but as soon as I act as an artist, I distance myself from such accusations.
Before creating, the artist should first consider the relevance of their work to history. Indeed, we cannot pretend that there is no history of art, nor that artists came before us. It would never occur to anyone to create Cubism today, as it would be pointless. Yet, many repeat things that have already happened, questions that have already been asked, even buried.
“It’s promotion that makes the artist, or the zero degree of Art”
Before stating this as a definitive statement, it was the question I wanted to ask as an artist in relation to this history. I believe that the history of art is first and foremost the history of artists responding to one another throughout the ages, proposing their ideas, representing movements, in order to constitute an avant-garde capable of understanding the world.
Why talk about promotion? It's a concept that can be discussed on both a physical and metaphysical level, with several different interpretations. Etymologically, promotion includes the idea of promoting, that is to say... “to move forward”; We're already moving beyond the promotion of tomatoes, even if it's easy to play on this ambiguity. Promotion also implies a step up in rank: at what point does one attain the status of artist, and who is the "higher" rank capable of bestowing an honor upon us? This question is important because this is the role that exhibition curators play today when selecting artists. Finally, promotion refers, in a metaphysical way, to the very idea of existence.
Therefore, while it's clear that using one's name as a brand has an unavoidable impact, the idea behind my work is to do so consciously, unlike many artists who didn't present it that way, such as Dalí, whose persona lived far beyond the canvas. For an artist, even talent is promotional: it's the first thing they use to promote themselves.
How do you project your image on social media?
I think I was one of the first artists to use social media and its advertising tools, because I've always believed that advertising is a space of freedom. Indeed, once you pay for that space, you have the right to use it—a freedom you don't find in museums or galleries. Its cost is also more affordable than those other spaces. If artists create in the street today, it's because they can't do it anywhere else. When I illegally project my face onto the Palais de Tokyo, that's what I'm denouncing.
THE ARTIST AND THE WORLD
Is the artist's role therefore more important than that of the artwork?
A work of art inevitably speaks of an artist and their vision of the world. Perhaps we've become a bit too accustomed to looking at artworks too closely. Since we are always indirectly descended from those who came before us, I think that, following the minimalists, we've developed the habit of getting to the heart of the message, and that's why I represent myself as simply as possible. People are confused by my work because they feel I'm simply presenting the artist. Furthermore, there's sometimes a misunderstanding of who the artist is, what they do, and why. We're still sometimes mistaken for frauds because no diploma can validate what we do, yet it wouldn't occur to anyone to tell a lawyer they don't deserve to practice. Therefore, if someone defines themselves as an artist, it should be normal to take their word for it.
By putting the artist at the center, we also move away from the logic that would have the spectator create the work.
I impose something, and I take full responsibility for it. I want to move beyond this overabundance of interpretation, to give the artist back control. When Duchamp explains that it is the viewer who makes the painting, he takes away the creator's authorship, an authorship that I symbolically try to restore. By narrowing the scope of interpretation, by allowing less freedom, we almost adopt advertising methods, but this allows us to reposition the artist as a questioner.
The artist is therefore the one responsible for setting new horizons.
The Greeks had a definition of Art in which Art itself was less prominent than the idea of projecting oneself as a human being. Beyond aesthetics, the vision of humankind developed by artists has structured the West to this day. I believe that the Beast was transformed into Man thanks to artists. Yet this responsibility is denied on all sides today: most often, attempts are made to hide them behind institutional programming. But can one simply become an artist? What is Art when a curator or exhibition director sets the theme for creators to respond to? In this case, the exhibition we see will actually reflect the curator's thinking, not that of the participants.
How would you define yourself within this segmented universe?
I don't define myself as either a contemporary artist or an urban artist. There's an attempt to pigeonhole people, to develop cultural policies rather than artistic movements. In the immense Tower that assembles the history of art, can we really dedicate a floor to contemporary art beyond a single period? More elitist than the movements that preceded it, contemporary art as an ideology has left a portion of the population behind, and many have remained outside the gates of...’Urinal. This also explains the success of Street art, which responds more to popular demand and corresponds to an aesthetic that people appreciate or understand more easily.
Why do you remain anonymous to the public?
John Hamon doesn't just represent John Hamon, and that's why I don't appear. In my absence, it's easier to connect with this portrait, especially since it represents my work. If I were to appear as a person, another image would be superimposed in people's minds.
THE POSTER: MEDIUM AND MESSAGE?
With the poster, you're joining the idea of a pervasive art, which seeks to be everywhere.
Materially, the poster is a fairly simple medium, but in reality, I don't necessarily seek to be everywhere, and I often position myself in less visible spaces, even though the advertising aspect often encourages targeting strategic locations with greater impact. It's presence that interests me, not necessarily invasion. I try not to let this quest for locations become an obsession because the most important thing remains the transmission of the message. This is where we come to the idea of zero degree. I use this principle from Barthes to get to the essence of things, from the most pathos-free perspective possible. I believe in ideas, and I hope that those I develop in my work will outlive me.
Would you then say that the poster is both medium and message, as in Marshall McLuhan's work?
The poster itself is not the message. It is the act of displaying the message that constitutes the promotion; the poster is merely a promotional tool. This brings us back to the idea of promotion, essential in an era where we are led to believe that Art no longer needs to question itself to exist. Yet, artists have always set the bar very high, forcing the next generation to surpass themselves. What must the artists who came after the Renaissance and faced the Sistine Chapel have thought? The only solution was to look at the work of their predecessors and fill the existing gaps.
How do you feel about this projection of your teenage self that remains constantly before your eyes?
The first time I saw this image, I wondered if it was me. I knew I was there when the photo was taken, but I didn't really remember looking like that. I was wearing a friend's glasses. It wasn't a photo taken for work, yet I felt it represented me better than any other. At the time, I wanted to write my name on the poster, along with the artist credit, but for technical reasons, it wasn't possible. That credit was the first step toward the idea of promotion and the phrase that was implemented a year later.
Your photograph, like Steve McCurry's, seems to be perfectly timeless and unchanging.
This portrait has evolved slightly. I started with a black and white photocopy, before returning to the color image, because the photocopy bothered me once it began to reflect an aesthetic form. Nevertheless, like any photograph, this one bears the marks of the era in which it was taken, and it is likely that, dating from 1999, it will appear even more outdated in 2050. But as far as possible, I will not alter it, less than a logo that transforms over time.
It also refers to social phenomena that we are all familiar with, such as the selfie.
Facebook is literally the story of the face; Instagram shows us, through the photos we post, that we seek to appear in specific contexts. Selfies are nothing more than acts of self-promotion, expressing the fact of having a good life, or of having been to a particular place. By positioning itself at the extreme of self-promotion, my portrait questions the relationship each of us has with our own image. By photographing us in front of the Eiffel Tower, by placing our face... on, it is in fact the place of Man in the city that we are questioning.
How do you perceive the ephemeral aspect of collage?
Today, the posters I put up myself last a little longer than before, but they're still not very UV resistant. I think one day I'll find a way to write "John Hamon" more permanently. The most solid thing in my work is the idea, which allows people to understand who I am, not the poster itself. When people went down into caves to paint, they were also trying, whether intentionally or not, to protect their work from erosion.
STREET ART AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS
How does street art interact with cultural policies?
I'm willing to acknowledge the history of graffiti, but when it comes to street art, I think we should stop calling it art, or simply place it within the broader category of contemporary art. Street art sometimes allows people with a bit of political power to impose their personal taste on us. Choosing who will paint a building's gable end is imposing an aesthetic. Beyond artistic merit, the people who used to paint building gables were called decorators. So let's stop kidding ourselves: someone who adheres to a set of specifications, allowing an entire condominium association to discuss their project, isn't an artist. It's like imagining Matisse asking the mayor for permission to paint. When you see the 13th arrondissement...e Whether in the arrondissement of Paris or the office of the President of the Republic, it is impossible to deny that Street art, by its popular dimension, has become a true object of cultural policy.
But many street artists have also used political ideologies due to a lack of artistic content. The issue of migrants is currently one of the most visible subjects in the streets, even in the work of Banksy. These blatant tactics, sometimes ethically questionable, are just another way to promote oneself by exploiting the suffering of others. We must also be aware that this ideological dimension, used as a promotional tool, does not enhance the artistic value of the work.
Institutions are therefore an obstacle to the proper development of art.
I try to tell myself that history will sort out what deserves to remain and what disappears. The Palais de Tokyo symbolizes this desire to impose an artistic ideology and to establish a cultural machine linked to the fine arts schools. Institutions are forced to evolve in the face of art history, but they always do so too late. A great deal of time passes before, realizing their delay, they position themselves in relation to a past event, all the while pretending to present us with the future. The artists who emerge in this context need these institutions to exist. Some rise very high before falling because their only strength came from them, without them then having the resources to continue existing on their own. In this respect, the artists who passed through the Palais de Tokyo in the last fifteen years have practically all disappeared. By opposing different perceptions of art, institutions are simply replaying the battle between the classics and the moderns.
Why is the street an important space for artists?
Artists have taken up space in the street that wasn't theirs, because they need space, they need to engage with the world and with others. Ever since the Impressionists left their studios, we've needed a gaze and an exchange, and the idea isn't to go off and create on a mountaintop. Especially since we don't know in advance how people will react: so, when I pasted up my portrait and my name, I had no idea what the result would be.
Creating in the street also means imposing something, whether it's aesthetic or the message it conveys. I like to test the limits of people's acceptance, to understand how they react to these works. I think that if someone gets permission from a building's residents to work on a wall, everyone should be able to. If we accept art, then we must accept all its forms of expression, not just a small part of it.
This archive project is independent — Offer a coffee