Rebels and Martyrs: Or, Does Great Art Require "Artistic Temperament"?
An exhibition titled "Rebels and Martyrs" at the National Gallery in London (one of my sentimental favorite museums in the world) has set as its subject the notion of the artist as a romantic, rebellious loner struggling to be understood in a contentious, antagonistic society. From artinfo.com:
In exploring the notion that all great artists were emotionally intense, this show touches on the mythology supporting that most annoying of postures: artistic temperament. Personally, I agree with Gilbert K. Chesterton, who noted that "Artistic temperament is the disease that afflicts amateurs," but, alas, the popularity of the myth persists.
Perhaps it's the way in which society allows itself to not resent the artist too much (i.e., it's not their fault...they were born that way) for living outside the standards of working and behaving more like everyone else. The irony is that most artists I know who attain some financial success behave exactly the same way any other person with money does: buying bigger property and nicer cars, taking better vacations, investing in the stock market, etc. In other words, becoming a vital part of the very society they were supposedly rebelling against. Of course, they still get to dress down and "play" in their studios, but as with everybody else, with success comes the pressure to make compromises in order to maintain it.
So perhaps artistic temperament is a luxury only poor artists can afford (like arrogance was a luxury the fox in the fable about sour grapes could afford). But to quote Chesterton again: the great tragedy of the artistic temperament is that it cannot produce any art. Tom Clancy once wrote that "writing = ass in chair." The same simple forumla applies to the visual arts as well, IMO: "art = ass in studio." All the artistic temperament in world won't compensate for that.
From Lord Byron to Sid Vicious, artists have lived fast, sparked outrage and died young.The exhibition also highlights the silliness of such notions taken to extremes, including the satirical painting seen here: Leonardo Alenza, 'Satire on Romantic Suicide', about 1839. Museo Romantico, Madrid.
A new exhibition opening tomorrow at Britain's National Gallery traces the image of the artist as rebellious loner from its Romantic roots through works by Vincent van Gogh, Edvard Munch, Edgar Degas and others.
Co-curator Alexander Sturgis says "Rebels and Martyrs" explores "the romantic myth of the genius suffering artist" that arose in the early 19th century and is still going strong 200 years later.
The unmade bed that bears the corpse of boy-poet Thomas Chatterton, a suicide at 17, in Henry Wallis' 19th-century portrait prefigures the messy-bed installation that made Brit art star Tracy Emin famous in the 1990s. The pale skin, disheveled hair and staring eyes in self-portraits by Gustave Courbet and Alexandre Abel de Pujol are echoed in elegantly wasted rock stars, from Keith Richards to Pete Doherty.
In exploring the notion that all great artists were emotionally intense, this show touches on the mythology supporting that most annoying of postures: artistic temperament. Personally, I agree with Gilbert K. Chesterton, who noted that "Artistic temperament is the disease that afflicts amateurs," but, alas, the popularity of the myth persists.
Perhaps it's the way in which society allows itself to not resent the artist too much (i.e., it's not their fault...they were born that way) for living outside the standards of working and behaving more like everyone else. The irony is that most artists I know who attain some financial success behave exactly the same way any other person with money does: buying bigger property and nicer cars, taking better vacations, investing in the stock market, etc. In other words, becoming a vital part of the very society they were supposedly rebelling against. Of course, they still get to dress down and "play" in their studios, but as with everybody else, with success comes the pressure to make compromises in order to maintain it.
So perhaps artistic temperament is a luxury only poor artists can afford (like arrogance was a luxury the fox in the fable about sour grapes could afford). But to quote Chesterton again: the great tragedy of the artistic temperament is that it cannot produce any art. Tom Clancy once wrote that "writing = ass in chair." The same simple forumla applies to the visual arts as well, IMO: "art = ass in studio." All the artistic temperament in world won't compensate for that.
posted by Edward_ at
8:08 AM
47 Comments:
This sounds like the Republican party's Ladies Auxillary Caucus for the Arts platform. Resolution No. 1:Suport the Artist/CPA initiative with grants to artists for summer homes. Resolution No. 2: Declare Chelsea a tax-free Enterprise Zone to assist all those struggling but noble entrepreneurial art dealers.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"the romantic myth of the genius suffering artist"
It seems to me it isn't so much a myth as it is a condition of an artist.
Artists frequently stick their necks out to tell it like it is and rarely get rewarded for it (more like a hanging.)
Have you heard Pinter speak on Bush lately?
Also, an artist should have and often makes use of hyper fine sensitivity which places him/her in extraordinary situations.
That myths be told is all stuff after the fact.
I'm almost finished reading Balzac's Cousin Bette, wherein there are great scenes in the life of a sculptor who falls into both the trap of artistic temperament and the trap of society, thus destroying his genius. Balzac then writes a nice piece on what it means to be an artist, i.e. 'ass in studio' and isolated. However, it also explores the question of whether having a family kills genius. Your piece is timely and revs me up for the end of the book.
I agree with Ed, in that most of the artists who I know that are doing ok- don't seem to have one. It seems like the current scene is more geared to develop sharp operators than serious artists.
To be straight, I fall closer to the flake camp.
The market perverts this question in an interesting way, and takes the focus away from what highlowbetween, Art Powerlines and Speaking of Ashes would call the "social role of the artist".
On one hand, in an increasingly professionalized art market, professional skills and courtesies are valued over temperament... unless of course the artist's temperament is useful as a marketing strategy.
On the other hand, what does art do when it is not being traded for money? Does it have a larger role? If so, then does an artistic temperament help or harm the larger cause?
I am inspired by the blogs mentioned above, and wrote today about the value of individualism in art, it may be pertinent to the discussion.
On the other hand, what does art do when it is not being traded for money? Does it have a larger role? If so, then does an artistic temperament help or harm the larger cause?
Hmmm...I see where I think you're going here, but in a certain light this line of questioning seems to imply that art must somehow be spiritually or socially deficient in order for it to sell. That insults collectors, dealers, and artists, in my opinion.
There's a more altruistic aspect of the more commercial side of art that often gets left out of conversations like this. Making art a highly priced commodity ensures that it endures. The person/institution who parted with all that cash for it will take very good care of it so that generations from now it's still around.
In either case, artistic temperment cannot produce art, so the question of whether it helps anyone other than the artist seems to me moot.
See also on this: here.
Kurt,
Yes, bnonymous is a little hurt, a little bitter. I have nothing against success and I am currently courting it to the best of my (limited) abilities. But it bugs me that Edward says that once artists get some success, and start buying and investing, they become "a vital part of the very society they were supposedly rebelling against." Doesn't this sound Republican to you? Especially the "vital" part, as if being a productive part of the economic system was the best thing you could do for society--as if contributing to the culture was not the more important part of what an artist contributes. I'm sure this is not really Edward's opinion. But there's something about the language and something about the ridiculing of "artistic temperament" that is off to me. Some successful artists may seem as staid and comfortable as bankers, I'm sure. But I don't think the image of the artist as a person who is disorganized, emotional and maybe a little flighty, who is a poor financial planner who doesn't care too much about money and who are basically poor as a result is a myth. I think there are plenty of artists like this--even if their work is entirely cool and rational--and it seems a little cruel to link the unworldliness of their personalities with the kind of pompous artistic temperament Edward is picking on in the post. Being a poor businessman is one thing. But it's not a synonym for artistic temperament, either.
I just think that the current scene is self editing for a certain kind of "product" and a certain kind of artist. That artist has something closer to an MBA mentality and has to spend thier lives looking around and asking how they are doing.
bnonymous,
Let me try rephrasing that then, because you're reading much more into it than I had meant to be taken away:
_______________________
The evidence that counters this notion is how most artists I know who attain significant financial success tend to behave exactly the same way any other person with money does: buying bigger property and nicer cars, taking better vacations, investing in the stock market, etc. In other words, they behave like any other person in the society they were supposedly rebelling against, suggesting that either 1) they were not actually rebelling against the system or 2) money does indeed change everything.
________________________
You wrote:
But there's something about the language and something about the ridiculing of "artistic temperament" that is off to me.
Here's where I get myself into BIG trouble, I'm sure, but I'm gonna let rip:
I can only speak for myself, but "artistic temperament" as I define it (emotions taking precedence over practical application) is useless in artmaking. To argue otherwise ultimately suggests to me that there must exist some hypersensitive heaven-sent prodigies who simply shit and vomit great art.
To be totally blunt, what often passes for "artistic temperament" is actually immaturity or simply bad manners.
The idea that one has to be somehow infantile to be creative is one I wholeheartedly reject. There's the notion that seeing like a child has great value, and artists deserve/need the freedom to experiment (i.e., play) but that's not the same thing. Maturity counts. Artistic temperament is the opposite of maturity in my opinion.
Great work begins more felt than thought...but ends more thought than felt. Artistic temperament interferes with that. It should be stomped out.
I don't think "art must somehow be spiritually or socially deficient," but I do think artists have little choice but to be personally unique. Art is about expression and communication, so artists must be expressive and communicative in one way or another. Art is about having a unique vision, so artists must be unique in one way or another. Add these two qualities together and whether you like it or not, you have the formula for a uniquely expressive person. There are many forms of expressive uniqueness, an overdramatic personality being just one example. Art is also about buying the work of such people, so buyers may in fact expect artists to express themselves uniquely in their everyday lives.
Edward,
Yes. I completely agree. Art without thought is just lame. And I had the odd sensation writing my post that I somehow knew what you meant, but could only respond to the words on my screen.
bnon
Great work begins more felt than thought...but ends more thought than felt. Artistic temperament interferes with that. It should be stomped out.
Does it really? What you say about great work and what you say about artistic temperament? This is such a sweeping generalization I have a hard time taking it seriously. Remember, when we talk about this romantic temperament we are talking about about a cliche. I also think you might be mixing up "romantic temperament", which I think as more of an historical cliche (and a view of artists more common in the broader culture), with some kind of bad ass attitude that is common to art world operators.
Edward wrote:
but in a certain light this line of questioning seems to imply that art must somehow be spiritually or socially deficient in order for it to sell. That insults collectors, dealers, and artists, in my opinion.
I disagree--the line of questioning is value-neutral. The rigor of a lively market can create rigorous discourse--supply and demand and all. Or it can create the Old Navy-ization of art... with gallerists getting in line for what they already know (and know will sell) without pushing the envelope.
I do think that the social role of art puts a certain pressure on artists and gallerists alike, and a hot market only raises the stakes. Artists have a responsibility to think ahead of the curve, and this can mean putting your foot right into the sh*t or offending folks or being "temperamental" sometimes... it also means being of this world and caring about what goes on around you. Gallerists have a responsibility to understand that they are wielding a serious legitimizing force (a market), and should have a very clear sense of their role in creating rigorous discourse. I don't buy Zach Feuer's line that he is merely a small businessman. I mean, he can think that small if he wants, but I don't think this is good for the whole enterprise. He's evading his responsibility as a cultural force.
The whole issue hinges on whether the art uses the market or the market uses the art. Frankly, I see a lot of market using the art in Chelsea right now, but not always. Every time I go to Chelsea I find a gem or two that manages to push past the echo chamber into new fertile ground. Artists and gallerists who hunt for this should make carloads of money and have enormous cultural clout.
I don't think that legitimizing artistic output with money is spiritually or morally bankrupt at all... it's just tricky. The problem is that once a lot of money gets involved, people get all tense and tend to play it safe. The safe, mannerist art gets legitimized at the expense of pushing boundaries.
What you say about great work and what you say about artistic temperament? This is such a sweeping generalization I have a hard time taking it seriously.
OK, that's it. Will someone suggesting that artistic temperament has any role at all in creating great art PLEASE define "artistic temperament" for me? Because from where I stand it currently seems merely to be a desire for a license for borish behavior.
And about this temperament thing:
Yes, as defined above (bad manners, putting emotion before practical application), temperament is a bummer and a distraction. But there is a difference between this kind of sillybusiness and the legitimate hard work of dealing with the unknown. Or to put another way:
Artist A moons you on the subway and calls you a poo-head.
Artist B's art makes you see something terrifying that you have never seen before, something that you really don't want to see, but really should.
Artist A is being "temperamental". Artist B can also be called "temperamental". I will, unfortunately, fight to the death to preserve artist A's right to hang *himself* with his temperament if it does anything to preserve a little space for artist B, her viewers, and her gallerist.
PLEASE define "artistic temperament" for me
Artistic Temperament is how you know the main character in the Movie Of The Week is an artist. They drink lots of wine, throw tantrums, and at some point in the story destroy their great masterpiece.
It's also the myth that encourages non-artists to romanticize the artistic life, which as an artist I find really annoying. It makes the general public think that artists are supposed to struggle, that they aren't supposed to have any money, and that they'll have their greatest success after their death. How romantic!
Of course some artists play into this pose as well. With short attention spans, they don't make it through your whole formula, "art = ass in studio." It gets shortened to "art = ass", and they make it harder for the rest of us to be taken seriously.
I will, unfortunately, fight to the death to preserve artist A's right to hang *himself* with his temperament if it does anything to preserve a little space for artist B
Ahhh...I see. So it's a matter of imagining that someone is trying to take something away from artists...that only by defending bad manners can good artists ward off oppression...
That had never occurred to me.
It doesn't change my opinion that artistic temperament (for which I'm still waiting for a working definition) cannot produce art.
David...you rule!
So, as a child of artists and as an artist myself (and my own grown children now artists too), I have always wondered-- what is it that has made this stereotype endure for over a century? Whom exactly does it serve? What does it represent on a deeper level to us as members of the cultural matrix and what exactly does this stereotype reinforce and perpetuate that our culture values it so highly?
I am not intending to be contentious. I find this lack of a definition for "temperament" confusing too. "Artistic temperament" could really mean anything. If we talk about the cliche of "romantic temperament" then I find myself on firmer ground. "Romantic temperament" makes me think of emotion over reason, the irrational, the impractical. Your definition at the beginning of your post seems to fit the bill: "romantic, rebellious loner struggling to be understood in a contentious, antagonistic society". David's definition works too. But this really does seem to be a larger cultural cliche, hollywoodish in it's scope. When I try to apply it to people I know in the art world it doesn't seem like that many people are trying to fulfill this cliche. Although many other cliches do abound.
I do agree that "artistic temperament is useless" in art making (however one defines it). I don't think it guarantees any positive results but I also don't think it necessarily leads to negative results either. One thing I have been struck by with artist personalities is how they often have no relation whatsoever to the quality or substance of the work that the artist makes. Immature personalities can certainly be annoying, but sometimes even they can make great art. It's difficult when you find out that an artist whose work you really admire is an jerk. Your perception of the work can really shift and this is quite a conundrum. I don't think there is any recipe for making great art. An interesting post subject could focus on how we define quality or "great" art...
Literally, "artistic temperament" means the temperament of an artist. I don't think there's any question that artists are a little different from other people. I think maybe Edward is talking about the cliche of the temperamental artist. But we're just talking about stereotypes. The artists I know seem to me to have an artistic temperament, in other words, they are sensitive to ideas, they tend to see the aesthics of any situation first, and they quite naturally when cofronted with a question come up with an oblique, unusual, or off-the map answer. Dawning on me: This is a frustrating topic!
Ed said: either 1) they were not actually rebelling against the system or 2) money does indeed change everything.
Were you by any chance inspired by the show opening at your neighboring space, "money changes everything"?
Ahhh...I see. So it's a matter of imagining that someone is trying to take something away from artists...that only by defending bad manners can good artists ward off oppression...
Not at all. Please take me at my word and not at what you think my word means--this is the second defensive overassesment I have gotten, Edward. Bad behavior sucks, and what I said was that "Temperamental Artist A" will hang himself with his bad behavior.
Just to clarify my position on bad behavior by artists: I have rarely seen bad behavior by artists as indicative of anything more substantial than immaturity and lack of good ideas.
But I also know a lot of artists who are:
*socially uncomfortable
*say the wrong thing sometimes
*are addicted to telling the truth even when it isn't savvy
*are prone to anxiety or depression or just plain old moodiness
And have found that a fertile creative atmosphere allows people to:
*take risks and fail
*be different
*not take themselves seriously
*and generally let their freak flag fly
My concern is that bad behavior, which is unproductive, is often conflated with weird behavior, unpopular behavior or art that makes people feel things they don't want to feel.
Maybe I need to be more clear about what I am asking:
Why bother issuing a dictum that bad behavior is bad, when such a dictum could collapse the range of possibilities? What's wrong with letting buttheads who think they can get away with lame behavior burn all their own bridges and not worrying about them? Yes, their behavior is irritating, especially when in the short term it looks like they are getting somewhere, but why not just take bad behavior on a case-by-case basis and move on?
Because maybe I am reading too much into what you say, but it sounds like you are asking for a professional standard for artist's behavior that could preclude good-to-normal artist weirdness, like discomfort or not taking onself too seriously. And this does have real impact on the kinds of art that are made, and that make it into the gallery.
Literally, "artistic temperament" means the temperament of an artist. I don't think there's any question that artists are a little different from other people.
I agree. It's the stereotypes that I have an issue with.
There's no question that I see the world very differently than, say, my sister who's a lawyer. But when I talk with people from outside the artworld I'm amazed at how widespread those cliched perceptions of artists are. Among the many artists I know, there's quite a range of "temperaments". But its not so much artistic temperament as Artistic Temperament that I have an issue with. You know, the Rebels and Martyrs nonsense. It's very entertaining for the non-art folks, but the cliches don't really serve us very well.
I wish I didn't have an "artistic temperament" but I can't help it. I'm prone to depression, can't stomach the corporate world and am probably destined to be poor. I wish it weren't so. Is this related to why I'm an artist? Not sure.
But I don't exhibit the sort of bad behavior or martyrdom that has been spoken of. I don't "act out" and I treat other people decently.
bnonymous,
thanks for that excellent definition. It's much better than anything I imagined anyone could come up with. Seriously.
they are sensitive to ideas, they tend to see the aesthics of any situation first, and they quite naturally when cofronted with a question come up with an oblique, unusual, or off-the map answer
I would endorse that definition and defend it to boot. I don't think that's what the exhibition in London is exploring, however. Nor is it why there even exists a stereotype about irresponsible, tantrum throwing, borish artists.
But you've given me food for thought here...and I appreciate it.
Were you by any chance inspired by the show opening at your neighboring space, "money changes everything"?
It had seemed an opportune moment to interject the idea, yes.
fisher6000,
it sounds like you are asking for a professional standard for artist's behavior that could preclude good-to-normal artist weirdness
Well, no (although that would be another good example of what you're suggesting I've done here in your first paragraph.... ;-)
I'm asking people to understand that art is hard work. Work. With a capital W. It's not something that springs fully formed from one's head just because one is hypersensitive.
In fact, in my experience, the number one source of truly sucky art is the delusion that "emotion/sincerity = art." Nothing could be further from the truth (pun intended).
But then perhaps this is a problem of translation. The stereotype supports this mythology of the struggling artist. Like many stereotypes, there's some connection to reality in there, even if it's a misunderstood sense of things.
What I'd suggest great art often requires is a struggle. Not between the artist and society though, but rather between what the artist is capable of doing and what they want to do. The search for that yet unchartered form of expression is difficult work and in that way often painful.
I suspect that this studio struggle is often mistranslated as a sociological struggle, and hence the perpetuation of the myth.
But I also know a lot of artists who are:
*socially uncomfortable
*say the wrong thing sometimes
*are addicted to telling the truth even when it isn't savvy
*are prone to anxiety or depression or just plain old moodiness
And have found that a fertile creative atmosphere allows people to:
*take risks and fail
*be different
*not take themselves seriously
*and generally let their freak flag fly
My concern is that bad behavior, which is unproductive, is often conflated with weird behavior, unpopular behavior or art that makes people feel things they don't want to feel.
Wow! fischer6000, I am so glad Edward pushed you. What you've written here sharply describes many of the artists I know and admire.
I even see an amount myself in this description. I get frustrated at my labile tendencies. How can I go from being so social and articulate one week to an introverted mush mouthed fool the next? Why am I able to get forty things done one week while the next is frought with procrastination and distraction? Bipolar? ADD? Mild autism? Maybe. But not to a clinical degree. Best answer: it's just my temperament and I gotta live with it.
I understand what Edward is getting at regarding conducting oneself in a businesslike manner. On some weeks I can occupy that reponsible persona with utmost sincerity. But many weeks, it feels like a labored facade at best. Maybe everyone goes through this, including programers, accountants and bus drivers. But I can't see that far beyond the horizon this afternoon. So I won't speak for anyone but myself today.
Regardless of moodswings, I see some deep discrepancies in a productive studio work ethic and the typical "business ethic." I thrive on an attention to detail and thoroughness that I actively have to shut off (and shut off again and again throughout the day!) when I do freelance media work for pay. This sort of obsessiveness tends to be too inefficient versus return in a commercial production environment. Those whom I see excelling in corporate environs are very comfortable with giving "just enough" to any task asked of them, with little ambition to offer their very best. Though great for cranking out Happy Meals, I don't see this "just enough" work ethic leading to a high percentage of longlived artworks even if it does get you a promotion and a raise!
I don't/wont touch the artistic temperament thing since you have already pronounced a death sentence on it without, apparently, having a working definition. (that is an ungenerous reading of the above but that seems to be what we are doing today)
Artists have no corner on being creative, creativity is a neccessary part of a lot of vocations. Being creative makes you an outsider in this society. That is my daily experience. The average Joe or Josephine cant afford to rock the boat so learns to do what they are told to do and nothing more. Don't think and dont be creative or you will face the ridicule of your co-workers and bosses and will not advance or even be happy in your position. If you make the choice to think for yourself be prepared to make your own way through the world or fight for a position in a place where creativity is recognized, rewarded, valued. This is not common even where it should be, hence Hollywood produces dreck over and over, pop music churns out the same schtick based on a few weirdos work, even in the art world you'd better stay pretty close to the accepted concerns of the moment or fight hard to make a place for yourself and take the chance that you wont break through ever. Additionally, it doesn't seem to be a choice, the creative people I know are just like that, they hone it, yes, but they never decided to be creative, but something in the distant path set them on the path and now they have no choice but to keep doing it.
So, if you are ridiculed for what is really a gift from who knows where and you realize that your life is a thousand times richer than the Harvey that is taunting you, you might make the choice to show it off, dress weird, make it a badge of honor. Your damn straight I'm strange and if it wasn't for people like me you'd still be living in a cave and trying to stay warm for a living, so get out of my f*ing way.
The problem comes when this attitude becomes a posture instead of flowing from experience. Oh gawd, I live in the Arts District of Los Angeles which is haunted by generatons of wannabes whose greatest accomplishment is being drunk at their own opening or filling the local coffee house with their trite 'emotion' in the form of smeary canvases. I can't tell you how many of these jerks we have had to explain that they just don't 'fit our program.'
Life is complicated that way.
The problem comes when this attitude becomes a posture instead of flowing from experience.
Yes, exactly. And it's especially bad when that posturing is romanticized by the media and, worse yet, by the art world itself. As far as creativity and original thinking, they are both a blessing and a curse. Despite the hardships they sometimes endure for these gifts, no real artist would ever trade them for a conventional way of life.
I think the basic research on job stress and mental health is interesting.
Take any job in which a "worker" feels a lack of contol, lack of clarity in work relationship; High level of job insecurity. and you might have a nutty worker. All I can say is get that teaching gig.
I generally agree with David's definitions and clarifications.
But its not so much artistic temperament as Artistic Temperament that I have an issue with. You know, the Rebels and Martyrs nonsense.
Whether you're talking about visual artists, musicians, writers, or whatever, there are things that make us different from others, which is a fine thing. In many contemporary societies, we almost even fit in, insecurities, odd habits and all.
I guess I've just always been annoyed by the argument that someone's crazy, acting-out behavior (alcoholism, abusiveness and the like) is understandable or even acceptable because that person is an "artist." "Of course he drank him to death, he was a tormented artist." "Oh, well she was abusive to her spouse, but she's an artist with that unpredictable temperment." The "artist" label is sometimes used as an excuse, which I think is wrong.
hm, it's quiet here. I guess everyone has taken their ass to the studio.
Thanks for the reminder, Ed_
some of us have our asses at the day job.
I agree with David and with the follow-up from Jec. These artist stereotypes persist to amuse the non-art crowd: The Old Master, The Young Genius, The Court Jester. Artists may be unafraid to be unconventional, but at the end of the day, they have to get in the studio and make the work, and that takes concentration and persistence, not flakiness.
Tim said...
hm, it's quiet here. I guess everyone has taken their ass to the studio.
Anonymous said...
some of us have our asses at the day job.
I have half my ass here at the day job. The other half will join it later at the studio.
"Rebels and Martyrs" ... has set as its subject the notion of the artist as a romantic, rebellious loner struggling to be understood in a contentious, antagonistic society.
To me, the danger of this myth (that the exhibition is not exploring but heartily propagating by its very existence) is the suggestion that "great art" made by "great artists" (as determined by a consensus of museum boards, art historians, critics, etc.) is inherently rebellious or antagonistic towards social norms. While this myth persists, the reality is that, regardless of temperment, the majority of what is considered "great art" is politically reactionary -- it may shock aesthetic taste (or, provide "enriching" culture) but does very little to disrupt systemic social structures -- in fact it affirms them.
This leads to artists who think they're somehow "bucking the system" just because they're being creative or expressive -- when nothing could be further from the truth.
E_'s comment is perfect: most artists I know who attain significant financial success ... were not actually rebelling against the system [to begin with]. This doesn't just apply to artists who attain success, but also for those who don't -- and acting moody or copping a rebellious pose isn't going to change that.
Well I've got some temper and
Im disagreeing with a lot of stuff said today.
Edward:
>>>art must somehow be spiritually >>>or socially deficient in order >>>for it to sell. That insults >>>collectors, dealers, and >>>artists, in my opinion.
Artists like Joseph Beuys or Christo understood that problematic really well and that is why they used the market for preparatory studies or leftover products but not for the main projects.
YES consumer art is socially and spiritually deficient, because they are only certain limits to where you can go with it. They are many topis and approaches in art that confront ethics once it reach the market, so while the art presented in galleries as commodities is not entirely bereft of social and spiritual value (more like, input), it is deficient because of these limits.
That is why we are able to critic the sad ecological value of a Goldsworthy photograph or protest at the opening of a Santiego Sierra exhibit. They are limits to what you pretend your art can do in certain contexts and what I find the most missing in anything related with art these days is a sense of ethic.
>>>>Making art a highly priced >>>>>commodity ensures that it >>>>endures.
Very untrue. This is true in 2006 because we believe that only things that can be sustained economically are worth spending time with. But this frame of thinking is also responsible for producing loads of artificial crap
inflicted with artificial value that this world really didn't need
and that no one really cares about except some erratic curator and the fool collector who paid a stupid price for it.
What about the monks? Did their art less endure because they were making icons for the glorification of God? What about Easter Island?
What installation artist in 2006 can top Easter Island as both
an aesthetic, logistic, social, and spiritual phenomenon?
What exactly LIMITS people these days from creating such achievments? How many years of crap will we need before a new Easter Island?
In response to this topic:
>>>"artistic temperament" as I >>>>define it (emotions taking >>>>precedence over practical >>>application) is useless in >>>artmaking.
I think the best reply was this:
Kurt:
>>you can't create well unless you >>>can step outside your passion >>>and see its product in the cold >>>light of day...
BUT...BUT... I think being cold and all Sol Lewittist about your art will only bring cold and formal perspective about your art. So it can be great if you are cerebral but NOT ALL ARTS ARE CEREBRAL. Can we get away from the 60's a little?? Many types of art need the passsion to exist. Ask musicians and composers. Francis Bacon surely had a lot of passion temperament and I sort of expect Matthew Barney get very lyrical about himself wen he does art.
You can't produce art if you're a lazy ass (the problem I most have to deal with) and yes you need the distance to be able to decipher your crap from your best art, but a little Baudelairian passion can't hurt.
Edward:
>>>Artistic temperament is the >>>>opposite of maturity in my opinion.
I agree but then punk was immature. Doesn;t mean nothing brilliant came out of it.
Henry:
>>>Art is about having a unique >>>>vision, so artists must be >>>unique in one way or another.
This is true in 2006 but..what about the minimalists, the abstracts, the cubists?
Artists can have common goals and share themes and aesthetics. That is what artists are so afraid to admit these days. If I do a sound walk like Janet Cardiff I am copying her. What I just want to use the form and see where I can go with it?
Bnonynous
>>>>Art without thought is just >>>lame.
Absolutely not. Abstraction is eternal.
Fisher:
>>>>Gallerists have a >>>responsibility to...
I can think of so many great art that commercial gallerists wouldn't exhibit. Thank God they are art centres to do other stuff than pedestal sculpture and painting.
>>>PLEASE define "artistic >>>temperament" for me?
Sturm Und Drang, honey. And I refuse to discern romantic escapism
with artistic temperament. How many times have I heard someone saying that Beethoven was the punk of his days? Artistic Temperament is being lyrical and dramatic about
your artmaking and life and YES it is totally ridicule but the person caught into that transe momentum (because it really resorbs to being a trancey lifestyle, at worst cases much influenced by drugs) often need it to surpass they poor self-esteem and turn self-hate into products of creative bliss.
Smooth Operator:
>>>It's difficult when you find >>>out that an artist whose work >>>>you really admire is an jerk.
Most great artists are jerks.
Well ok, maybe half of them.
Fisher:
>>>the number one source of truly >>>sucky art is the delusion >>>>that "emotion/sincerity = art."
I thought the trend was to begin consider irony as sucky.
It didn't work?
I think emotional arts are more likely to have greater number of detractors and most passion for the people who like it. I think it's cool. It's daring and risky.
And I like that people are assuming that someone exploring their emotions are stupid. Why as it always been like this? One topic really pertinent to this issue is the fear of alienation.
Art Soldier
>>>it may shock aesthetic taste >>>(or, provide "enriching" culture) >>>but does very little to disrupt >>>systemic social structures --
There is an exhibit right now at Tony Shafrazi called "The Other Side" which arguments that many arts since the 60's were about subversions and rejections and succeeded because of that. To me that is as if the romantic impersonalization of art had been replaced by a cold distanceful approach but not any ledd bereft of "attitude".
Is temperament the same as "attitude" and does attitude contrive creativity? Not selon Shafrazi.
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com
I always write my replies too fast and make tons of confused remarks:
I wrote:
>>>And I refuse to discern >>>romantic escapism
>>>with artistic temperament.
I meant that I don't think artistic temperament is something that was invented by the romantic era or specific to it, though they probably acknowledged it for the firt time by then.
Temperament was there when the greek philosophers were quarelling and it is still there at Anonymous Art Female. If the exhibit above is about nostalgia of the romantic than I do not agree with that discernment.
>>>And I like that people are >>>assuming that someone exploring >>>their emotions are stupid. Why >>>as it always been like this?
This should read "Why? As it always been like this?" or I goofed on my thoughts.
Obviously when relating with the romantic era we deal with art that wasn't supressing of emotions.
Cedric Caspesyan
Wow, everyone has gone nuts. It's great.
I can't believe what is being postulated here. Has no one ever felt deep passion to the extent that they become irrational?
Art knows no bounds whether that is in the intellectual realm, physical world or in a social gathering. Great artists usually find social graces a snap unless the room is filled with an "overwhelming odor of mendacity."
Immaturity is not equivalent to artistic temperment, although it is often confused by insecure individuals (authors on these posts excluded, of course.)
I went back and reread--seems Cedric understands.
Darlin only the good die young
Art Soldier said...
>> "does very little to disrupt systemic social structures -- in fact it affirms them." ... "a rebellious pose"
-- very much to the point. Releasing discontent by simulated rebellion is one of the major functions of the artist in the capitalist society. Therefore, the true rebel is the artist who works to affirm positive values.
---"the true rebel is the artist who works to affirm positive values."
that's a curious statement.
I have noticed that the most singular art is often made by rather nondescript looking/acting people. People who apparently invest their 'artistic temperament' wholly into their work and so have no need for other outlets. hmmm, sort of like Superman, mild mannered on the outside, but a super hero in the studio.
The converse is often true as well. Those outlandish, tattoed, paint splattered artists often make the most conventional work.
James Brown - not a pro?
Smoking PCP and then shooting a pistol out the window during a high-speed interstate police chase (at what - 65 years old?) makes him a good candidate for artistic temperament. Somebody shoulda told him that's only for mediocre struggling amateurs.
Kay Redfield Jamison's "Touched with Fire" is an interesting take on the artistic temperment. She says that historically a high proportion of artists, poets and writers have mood disorders, depression and bipolar and that imagination is directly related to temperament. Virginia Wolf, William Blake, Shelley, Keats, Philip Guston, Kirchner, Edvard Munch, George Innes, Joseph Conrad, t.s. Elliot are just a few.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home