This is Me Thinking Out Loud, Again
I've wavered back and forth whether or not to post about my recent experience at a talk given by three well known curators from three various non-collecting institutions located in the East, West and Midwest. I don't want to seem insulting, nor do I want to burn bridges...not that I have any known bridges with the aforementioned individuals or institutions to burn. Still, I was so saddened after the presentations and I am looking for an outlet for it. I am looking for a remedy.
What I came away with was that the current (and surely past) power structure of the so-called art world, really could give a flying rat's ass about anything or anyone but itself and the oddities it elevates to an exclusive status. How did I come to this unfortunate conclusion? Well, it was presented to me through the content of two PowerPoint presentations and one failed interactive website presentation. I saw it all with my own eyes...nothing I could relate to, even as a person whose life is about embracing art, whose education is through the acculturated fine arts standards (BFA and MFA), whose mind and heart are openly pleading for something of substance.
I went to this talk and have purposefully been trying to understand what on earth is happening when I visit a gallery or museum or art center and all I see is a pile of trash and a flat screen TV projecting the generation of the trash itself. Or I see three TVs with timed videos examining how a white delivery truck drives from one location to another. Or perhaps I am asked to embrace or reject life size photographs (maybe digital, I can't remember) of hideously drunken frat boys or someones really pretty vacation photos with text. I never thought in regards to art I would hit the wall labeled "generation gap", but I have. I seriously feel my heart is breaking when I view this MTV generation stuff that is meaningless to me. And perhaps that is exactly what it is supposed to occur.
Mostly, I don't care because it is all so forgettable. What I do care about is that when I went home and researched these curatorial leaders, through on-line articles, I found one person (the most disappointing presenter of the evening) who was comfortable enough to state in writing that he "only appreciated art that alienated people". This is coming from someone who is the Director of Education at his institution. This person also stated at the talk I attended that he "didn't care if Joe Schmo on the street understood art." Wow. WOW. Another highly regarded professional prattled on about the difficulty of finding a pink poof chair for an installation. The resulting installation was apparently conceptually deep enough to become a traveling one. The other meticulously explained more video imagery of a guy sitting on a meditative platform in various environments. It just kept on coming. I was so sad. I am still sad.
I have also been listening to a series of pod casts, mostly about conceptual art around the country, and that has me sinking in the quicksand of whatever relevant contemporary art is supposed to be about now. Honestly, if I am someone who is trained and willing to embrace this sort of stuff AND I don't even want to view it because it has all become so idiotic and useless, what on earth does Joe or Jo Schmo think about "real" art? At this talk, there was all sorts of code language and slights about the type of work most of the artists that I know and respect do. I felt deflated. My friend Kathy (not an artist) came along for the evening because she wanted to know what I was always getting so upset about and she asked the speakers "so does a television screen have to be attached to it (meaning the art) for you to like it?" Of course, they said "no" but then issued a series of statements meaning "yes" or "there also has to be some one's trash attached to it" or "there has to be items submerged in bodily fluids, along with a video of mold growing and the artist discovering plantar warts on his/her own feet"...I'm being sarcastic of course, but surely this would all be viable "art" in the eyes of these professionals.
The institutional art world is very much a special "members only" club. I'm totally fine with new forms of art, but I'm not fine with the prejudice against what perhaps is now termed traditional art, the type most of us produce. The impact of Andy Warhol is like a disease when combined with slacker intellectualism and modern technology. My favorite dumb art question "is painting dead?" doesn't seem so funny anymore.
To be fair, I was sort of excited at the beginning of the talk because Agnes Martin's work was presented...she made really big minimalist drawings (and small ones, too). When I was in grad school, I went to the opening of a retrospective of hers here at the Milwaukee Art Museum, and as usual, got too close and had to be escorted away by docents. My date was horrified. He became an abstract videographer and installationist (that's a joke...he actually became a hairdresser...that's another story).
I don't have any delusions of being able to either infiltrate or alter the state of institutional art (they would probably faint if they knew I was labeling it so). I want a solution for myself, which is probably to just chug along the way that I have been. Or to build a completely different system...which, I must gratefully add, this fabu modern technology allows us all to do. By no means do I want to make it seem as if I am anti-video art or anti-installation art, because I'm not. I love meaningful and well-executed installations and video art. I've created two installations of my own and definitely find it to be a valid form of experiential expression. My gripe is in regards to a base line of prejudice against other forms of art as being "valid" for the contemporary art experience by those who JUDGE what fine art is supposed to be in our culture. Individuals who decide/influence what monies and energy go where in regards to art and its public presentation and historical sustenance should be able to remove their personal fetishes from the realm of their decision making.
OK. I'm sort of typed out over that, but I still have so much strife in my head and in my heart about art world stuff...surely, I will continue to ramble on about it. Toss some stuff in the mix.
What I came away with was that the current (and surely past) power structure of the so-called art world, really could give a flying rat's ass about anything or anyone but itself and the oddities it elevates to an exclusive status. How did I come to this unfortunate conclusion? Well, it was presented to me through the content of two PowerPoint presentations and one failed interactive website presentation. I saw it all with my own eyes...nothing I could relate to, even as a person whose life is about embracing art, whose education is through the acculturated fine arts standards (BFA and MFA), whose mind and heart are openly pleading for something of substance.
I went to this talk and have purposefully been trying to understand what on earth is happening when I visit a gallery or museum or art center and all I see is a pile of trash and a flat screen TV projecting the generation of the trash itself. Or I see three TVs with timed videos examining how a white delivery truck drives from one location to another. Or perhaps I am asked to embrace or reject life size photographs (maybe digital, I can't remember) of hideously drunken frat boys or someones really pretty vacation photos with text. I never thought in regards to art I would hit the wall labeled "generation gap", but I have. I seriously feel my heart is breaking when I view this MTV generation stuff that is meaningless to me. And perhaps that is exactly what it is supposed to occur.
Mostly, I don't care because it is all so forgettable. What I do care about is that when I went home and researched these curatorial leaders, through on-line articles, I found one person (the most disappointing presenter of the evening) who was comfortable enough to state in writing that he "only appreciated art that alienated people". This is coming from someone who is the Director of Education at his institution. This person also stated at the talk I attended that he "didn't care if Joe Schmo on the street understood art." Wow. WOW. Another highly regarded professional prattled on about the difficulty of finding a pink poof chair for an installation. The resulting installation was apparently conceptually deep enough to become a traveling one. The other meticulously explained more video imagery of a guy sitting on a meditative platform in various environments. It just kept on coming. I was so sad. I am still sad.
I have also been listening to a series of pod casts, mostly about conceptual art around the country, and that has me sinking in the quicksand of whatever relevant contemporary art is supposed to be about now. Honestly, if I am someone who is trained and willing to embrace this sort of stuff AND I don't even want to view it because it has all become so idiotic and useless, what on earth does Joe or Jo Schmo think about "real" art? At this talk, there was all sorts of code language and slights about the type of work most of the artists that I know and respect do. I felt deflated. My friend Kathy (not an artist) came along for the evening because she wanted to know what I was always getting so upset about and she asked the speakers "so does a television screen have to be attached to it (meaning the art) for you to like it?" Of course, they said "no" but then issued a series of statements meaning "yes" or "there also has to be some one's trash attached to it" or "there has to be items submerged in bodily fluids, along with a video of mold growing and the artist discovering plantar warts on his/her own feet"...I'm being sarcastic of course, but surely this would all be viable "art" in the eyes of these professionals.
The institutional art world is very much a special "members only" club. I'm totally fine with new forms of art, but I'm not fine with the prejudice against what perhaps is now termed traditional art, the type most of us produce. The impact of Andy Warhol is like a disease when combined with slacker intellectualism and modern technology. My favorite dumb art question "is painting dead?" doesn't seem so funny anymore.
To be fair, I was sort of excited at the beginning of the talk because Agnes Martin's work was presented...she made really big minimalist drawings (and small ones, too). When I was in grad school, I went to the opening of a retrospective of hers here at the Milwaukee Art Museum, and as usual, got too close and had to be escorted away by docents. My date was horrified. He became an abstract videographer and installationist (that's a joke...he actually became a hairdresser...that's another story).
I don't have any delusions of being able to either infiltrate or alter the state of institutional art (they would probably faint if they knew I was labeling it so). I want a solution for myself, which is probably to just chug along the way that I have been. Or to build a completely different system...which, I must gratefully add, this fabu modern technology allows us all to do. By no means do I want to make it seem as if I am anti-video art or anti-installation art, because I'm not. I love meaningful and well-executed installations and video art. I've created two installations of my own and definitely find it to be a valid form of experiential expression. My gripe is in regards to a base line of prejudice against other forms of art as being "valid" for the contemporary art experience by those who JUDGE what fine art is supposed to be in our culture. Individuals who decide/influence what monies and energy go where in regards to art and its public presentation and historical sustenance should be able to remove their personal fetishes from the realm of their decision making.
OK. I'm sort of typed out over that, but I still have so much strife in my head and in my heart about art world stuff...surely, I will continue to ramble on about it. Toss some stuff in the mix.
posted by Sonji Hunt at 6:07 PM
12 Comments:
OK, here is a little roadside bomb for you...you sound a lot like a conservative.
I find myself thinking like one, too!
I guess we have to wonder who is the audience for this new stuff and is it the only thing that will appeal to this new (young?) audience. There still have to be some normal people out there buying art so how do we find them?
Ah! I graduated with a B.A. in Art in 2002--the program I was in was completely geared towards preparing us to be professional artists (painters, sculptors, and potters mostly) and I have to say that I too am disappointed in what's happening today. It seems as though there is a big disconnect between the art world and the world everyone else inhabits, which is a huge shame because historically speaking art has been a reflection of the needs /desires of the people. I don't know what the thought process is--maybe all it needs is to be labeled art to be art? But I feel there has to be more to it than that--skill, vision, a quickening of the viewers pulse--to create the sensation of yearning...something more than we experience on a daily basis.
Oh Sonji, you hit a chord. I'm not acculturated like you, but I love to design, create, make, splash and scribble. I too have seen some fascinating installations and video art - but those ones have been carefully prepared and produced. I feel today that many artists are looking for a way to use the exciting technology we have now avoid doing any actual WORK, instead of using it to enhance the art they could make.
And if you ask me, these 'establishment' figures have just jumped on the latest 'bandwagon' because they are afraid to look as if they are being left behind. Many of these people, who should be leaders, follow like sheep and have no strong mind of their own.
Sonji,great post. I fear all the "pundits" are pushing this movement
of detached, meaningless work...kinda the emperor's new clothes syndrome. What I wonder is how the artist attach meaning to this work? Does it fill their soul? Even my sons who are in their 30's and classically trained in the arts don't get this stuff. The 24 year old is an art snob, not having an training and can't draw a curved line, but his favorite artist is El Greco (spelling error.
So who is the audience? Is anyone putting this in their collections.....private or institutional? I fear we are being told what to think.
Gabrielle, most certainly these types of works are in public collections. I few months ago I was listening to an NPR segment about how expensive and technically difficult it is for museums to maintain these types of "art works" because often they contain deteriorating objects (dying plants, rotting fruit or even tons of AA or D cell batteries or objects that are so poorly adhered to a surface that they fall off) and/or may contain outdated technology. I have no idea how someone would collect some of these works privately, but I'm sure it happens. Plus, part of the point of many of these works is the temporary nature of it.
I can't reiterate enough that I'm not opposed to this sort of stuff, but I do have a big problem when it is the ONLY medium that is selected as viable important art for contemporary culture. I just don't believe that premise and I don't think it's fair that the larger art world is metaphorically spitting on what may be considered more "traditional" art. It is a very narrow perspective to have for a field that is supposed to be inclusive.
I do agree that we have to always figure out WHO the audience is supposed to be. I think the target audience changes depending on the where and why of the presentation.
I may not be fully accredited in FA's but I do know good art when I see it. I stopped going to "contemporary" exhibits awhile ago. I'm not interested in looking at a collection of used tampons, stacked bedsheets, or barbed wire. I recently received a postcard invitation to a show -- A stick with something stuck to it was the image that the artist choose to entice me to attend. Nah.
Joanne, that's so funny. I almost snorted my morning tea out of my nose! Oooo...art!
Sonji, you are right on the money! I'm currently attending a museum and gallery practices class in Tucson. It has given me access to registrars, educators, curators, as well as lots of vaults. Lots of interesting presentation.
The University of Arizona Art Museum permanent collection is stellar. It includes all the easily recognizable twentieth century artists.
Currently it has four different series of Goys's etchings on display, sequentially, in a trade deal with another university.
Where I'm seeing the installations and works I either don't "Get" or find distasteful are in the student exhibition. I'm pretty liberal; however there are some pieces I find objectional.
I get a lot of weird postcards. I see a lot of disinteresting work. I don't know what the answer is. May it is to mix a few experienced people who are outside the academic realm into the general population of museum educators. thelma
Hi Sonji, this post is sticking to my brain cells and has since I read it this morning. In attempts to try and personalize your experience for myself I remembered viewing some installations at the Indianapolis Mus. of Art last year whose point I concluded was to make fools of its viewers (its called bait and switch, a hustle, etc)...if what you've described is the leaning trend then I will say keep on doing what you're doing because in time the fine art world will be looking for work that is soulful after years of emotionally bankrupt work.
and then there is the question, as is always the question, when do we create our own standards of fine art and canonize them/institutionalize what we want to look at...I recall Toni Morrison saying she wrote because she wanted to write the types of fiction she wanted to read...same goes all around, I think.
So much of the new stuff I see strikes me as stuff people do just so it won't look like something else. No art involved, just "different to be different" sort of. Art quilters frequently fall into that trap (and produce crap) when something *NEW* or *BETTER* or *DIFFERENT* comes out. Melt diapers! Layer angelina! Burn stuff! Stick it all on a piece of fabric and call it art! (Don't get me wrong, musicians do it too....let's play an album backewards and call it music!)
I even gave up on checking out all the journal quilts this year after seeing way too many with the the mandatory "three techniques from the book" that looked like the makers just chose the techniques without giving any thought to the final product. But maybe that whole project this year was about selling books and not making art. Some days I think my lack of formal art training is a shortcoming, and some days it feels like an asset.
in an attempt to be noticed, different,original and new these contemporary artists have stepped into thier own s...t. I know that some museums insist on showing this work and there are galleries that showcase some of it as well, but does anyone actually want this work in the home? I do believe that these are the fringes of what will settle into media art for lack of a better term.Call it growing pains and pushing boundries. It may be art but that does not say it is GOOD art. After the shock value wears off we will see what is left. Good art lasts through fads. I agree that this type of work seems to be showcased with an attitude that it is so much more important than traditional works. That is the ultimate in snobbery.Time will ferret out the awful stuff. In the meantime,we dont have to go see it and that will help to change some of what gets showcased.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home