Resistance Is Futile

I've been around long enough to watch a curious phenomenon in the art world, namely that, genuine atrocities/inequalities aside, the culture of one's childhood is often idealized (or at least seen as normal) by each new generation, even when that culture seems ripe for criticism to those one generation older. There's an acceptance of one's culture, as is, without judgement, in the eyes of a child, and for the budding artist, that world becomes, warts and all, relatively neutral grist for the mill.

We're seeing this now in the way pop culture references whose use automatically signified irony a generation ago are increasingly being used sincerely (specifically the assimilation of what had been seen as low culture or failed philosophy...I'll explain this more fully below). It serves to generation gap us older folks, but again and again in studio visits, I'm hearing younger artists say they're really (and neutrally) invested in what during my youth was considered obviously wrong or totally disposable. In some instances I think the artists are actually making a Warholian statment via that, and sometimes I don't think so at all. In the end, though, I'm starting to realize that what threatened me in my youth, because it was new or crass and seemingly superficial, has in many instances actually absorbed significance, taken on a life of its own, for the generation after me.

It's tempting to dismiss this when I see it as shallowness (these poor kids, don't they have anything richer than that to mine?), but it's dawning on me (I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier) that each new generation is a clean slate, or, actually, a clean sponge, and they absorb the signifiers around them, and those signifiers do in turn absorb (or become imbued with) significance.

What prompted me to share this now was the juxtaposition of two studio visits I've made recently. One, with an artist slightly older than me and one with an artist much younger. I suspect both of them will recognize themselves in the following description, but I hope they appreciate that this isn't a commentary on their work as much as it is a simple observation. Both are very good artists, and the fact that their work seems to undercut each other's only suggests there are no simple answers here.

The artist slightly older than me is exploring the lost promise of Modernist utopian ideals. More or less the work demonstrates how those ideals are doomed to failed, human individuality finding a way to express itself through any system. (I'm struggling to get to the gist of the idea here without describing the work, so bear with me.) Among other things, we discussed reports of fussy architects who voiced annoyance that the workers in their buildings had personalized their works spaces, destroying the architect's desired sight lines and overall intended tone, assumedly expecting them to never settle in or smudge up the place. This artist concludes, reasonably, that people will always personalize their environments...personal expression will find a way, undercutting the ideal. And because of this, essentially the Modernists one-size-fits-all solutions are bankrupt.

The artist much younger than me, however, starts with the failed Modernist utopian ideas, and rather than judging them--but simply absorbing them as is--explores their significance neutrally. There they are, warts and all, nonthreatening. There's none of the sense of loss or outrage or irony seen in the older artist's work. It's a foregone conclusion the ideals are bankrupt: "And so...?"

Now I know this might be interpreted as suggesting the older artist should be put out to pasture...that "they've served their purpose, but now it's time for their students to take the lead and push futher," but the truth of the matter is, although the younger artist shows incredible promise, the older artist's work is more nuanced and confident. Neither one should stop what they're doing. More than that, there's still the possibility that both of them are wrong or only seeing a small portion of the total picture.

But back to my central point. There's a prevailing assumption, call it classicism, that there are certain standards, ideals, even proportions and approaches with regard to art-making, that transcend the ages and disposable fashions of our day. My namesake, Johann Joachim Winckelmann, was a relentless advocate of such notions and, being somewhat obsessed with him for a while, I had thought he had something there (no one with that name could be wrong, eh?). Now however I'm realizing that indeed resistance is futile. Assimilation of contemporary culture is responsible for all significance (even the ancient Greeks had to start somewhere). Which doesn't mean you can't/shouldn't react against something new. Just that your reactions will have more lasting value if you assume a generation from now this newfangled thing will be far less threatening and actually, through osmosis with humans, will have absorbed much more worth exploring.

I realize I'm rambling now...consider this a rough draft for an ongoing discussion.