Having Our Cake and Eating It Too?

The man behind the awesome art blog Gallery Hopper, Todd Walker, made such a compelling comment on the "The MSM's Disrespect for Art" thread, I want to give it its own post:

It's fascinating how pieces such as this expose the twisted psychology of the art world - both collectively and individually. Our self-contradictory desire to be widely understood and accepted simultaneously clashes against a desire to be differentiated individuals with tastes and understanding superior to the hoi polloi in the flyover states.

This is in no way a defense of the Stossel piece. The media engage this same strategy when encountering subcultures that are ill understood by the general public. I recently saw a similar take on the Internet by Dateline which played up the link between spam, spyware and porn in a very sensational way.

In this particular case, it seems what Stossel has unwittingly done is highlighted just how essential context has become to understanding of a piece of art as a stand-alone object - if such a thing really exists. Everyone here, and the artists interviewed, would require a good bit of background on the artist in question, the method of creation, etc. in order to make an informed judgment of a work's value. Rightly so, I think. So to separate the "test" works from any outside connections is to set the viewer up for failure right from the start, whether they are a novice or a professional.

What this does highlight, however, is how Americans, at least, are trained to evaluate art. We look, we gauge our emotional or intellectual reaction ("what does that mean?" "Do I like it?" "could I do that?") and we make the grade good/bad or art/not art. Museum presentation where pieces are presented with almost no explanation as to the works' history, process, historical context, etc., are probably mostly to blame for this.

Further, it's the art world itself which is mostly to blame for this. For much of the 20th C., art has turned inward on itself, failing to comment on the larger world and carrying on a mostly self-infatuated conversation. Is it no wonder that the "Wal-Mart crowd" finds art to be of little consequence and judges value primarily on craftsmanship (which the art world long ago abandoned, much to its detriment)?

So, the Stossel "story", for all its faults, should generate a bit of self-examination. Edward, glad to read that you (and some other bloggers) think a broader public education on art is critical, but others are nearly gleeful about this thing as it plays up their own intellectual superiority.

Thanks for the prompt Todd.... Here's some self-examination in the form of rambling thoughts on this:

Although I have a few minor quibbles with pieces of this*, overall I think it's a very astute description of the art world's central paradox. How do you push beyond the obvious and yet get recognized and (more difficultly) accepted for it? The art world wants acceptance, but clearly on its own terms. Cater to the folks you want recognition from and you're a "sell out." It's a rather sado-masochistic relationship when all is said and done.

But I don't think the playing field is at all even here. I think this paradox is hightened in the US where much less pride is taken in our nation's art than in other places. (It may be our relative youth and more meager treasury. It may be the coincidence of our coming of age as a nation during one of art's most radical/polarizing evolutions. It may be simply that art appreciation requires the sort of reflection that requires one to slow down a bit, and like all youngsters, the US is too full of energy and too busy running around to focus like that. A bit of Ritalin might help, but I suspect the reason more mature nations value their cultural legacies more than we do is that ours has never been ravaged or threatened with extinction the way many of theirs have through wars and conquests.) Artists in the US have to overcome a cultural ambivalence, if not outright hostility, to their industry in general. In other words, unlike, say, Europe where the general public will give an artist lots of leeway because 1) they're more patient, 2) they're actually rooting for their artists to achieve something important, and 3) they value their fine arts more, American audiences are not as open to believe it's worth the wait.

I've used this anecdote before, but it works well here too. A collector who took home a Barnett Newman on faith (trusting his dealer) reportedly looked at it each morning while eating breakfast for years before, more than a decade later, it finally struck him what Newman was doing. Few Americans are anywhere close to that patient about art. If it doesn't clobber them over the head, they reject it.

And hence the problem. Artists are supposed to be on the bleeding edge, way out ahead of the general public. But if the public will only support work they get right away, that leaves most artists with the choice between doing the work they know will give them recognition now or making work that might not be understood until they're long gone. The collector who bought the Newman is the key here. Faith in the artist is crucial.

I could go on, but...I'm more interested in your opinions here...

*Todd wrote: Our self-contradictory desire to be widely understood and accepted simultaneously clashes against a desire to be differentiated individuals with tastes and understanding superior to the hoi polloi in the flyover states.

I think there are two distinct groups being dicussed as if one here. It's the players---the creative types (artists, curators, etc.)---who wish to be widely understood, and the true-blue fans---the die-hard spectators (gallerists, collectors, critics, art historians, etc.)---who desire to be "differentiated individuals with tastes and understanding."