Art History as Subject Matter

In yesterday's Artist of the Week thread, reader Tim offered what I consider a debatable, but brilliantly considered, opinion about using art history as subject matter in one's work:

I have alot of trouble with this work [Eve Sussman's]. It is undeniably beautiful (from the stills anyway) but she is borrowing credibility from art history. It is a strategy we are all taught these days but it seems small minded and fearful at its base, Some sort of abdication of artistic responsibility to be self determined and fearless. The artist's responsibility is to put him or herself at risk. To seek a bullet proof path is to fail to grapple with this basic thing and leaves the viewer (this viewer, I should say) feeling cheated.

Disclaimer: Like Eve's gallery, my gallery exhibits work by several artists who use art history as their subject matter in one way or another. It's not only a passion of ours, but we consider it a zeitgeist that would be, for us anyway, pointless to ignore. My comments below are informed by that position. Also, I'm not meaning to pick on Tim. I really do think his comment was brilliant...but it provides for great debate, and that's what blogs are for IMO.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The part of Tim's comment that stings (because it's true to a large degree) is the notion that artists using art history as their subject are "borrowing credibility." More than "credibililty" though, they're borrowing interest. Why that would disappoint or even annoy some art viewers is clear if one considers why it's become annoying that every third Hollywood movie these days (Dukes of Hazzard, Spiderman, Batman, Bewitched, etc. etc.) cashes in on some existing franchise's popularity. You have a built-in audience, and, to that degree, I can understand why Tim sees such work as fearful...on that primary level it's safe.

But here's the thing, the age of pluralism has afforded artists more than simply a lack of a dominant, oppressive movement that overshadows everything else. It has provided a break of sorts, a reprise (for how long, who knows?) from the accerlerating succession of 20th Century movements (or earlier) that promoted themselves via what I call the "slay the father" method, which in turn has provided an opportunity to reconsider whether those movements had died of exhaustion or were actually murdered by an ambitious heir apparent. In other words, artists are currently free to pick up the narratives of the giants of previous movements, to continue their explorations, often finding that they had been buried prematurely, that there were indeed very valuable discoveries yet to be realized had the art world been patient enough. We're seeing a corrections of sorts. Not a deconstruction of the canon (been there, done that), but rather a reconstruction, a picking up of the pieces deconstruction had left strewn across the landscape by a new generation of "Artists": people who want to, no scratch that, need to make, build, create.

Like I said, I feel it's a zeitgeist I can't ignore. Where it leads...? Who knows.... But it's a very relevant part of who we are right here, right now. Using art history as subject matter is a direct, honest way of exploring this stage of reconstruction. YMMV.