Jacks and Jills of All Trades
In a post on the Stranger's blog, in which the always insightful Jen Graves wonders about the perhaps greatly exaggerated reports of the death of sculpture, she discusses the state of the "post-medium" condition, "in which artists work in any and all mediums." This is an approach to artmaking I've discussed ever-increasingly over the past 10 years, but I've never seen it described as succinctly as Jen does:
I go back and forth on this. I consider, for example, Warhol or Picasso and how they each triumphed in a variety of media, and I'd agree, that their ideas were what defined them. But then I wonder whether Philip Guston, for example, would have achieved what he did in painting had he not been as focused on that as he was. In other words, even if an artist is defined by their ideas, isn't it highly possible that their ideas are best explored in one particular medium? And if that's the case...if one's ideas are best explored in "sculpture," for example, what's wrong with saying that artist is a "sculptor?" John Coltrane would most likely not have objected to being called a "saxophonist." Aren't many visual artists being perhaps a bit too sensitive about this?
I guess, with the fickle nature of fashions in the market and the lingering misunderstandings likley with even once-charming labels like "dumb like a painter," it's better to be safe than sorry, but I do so often see work that insults the ideas behind it because it's so poorly made and wish the ideas being offered had a little more help from the handling of the materials. Often such work comes with posturing defenses of "personal aesthetic choices"...as if poor craftsmanship truly underlines one's insights into man's inhumanity to man, or whatever.
I guess I'm a purist about concept. By that I mean, I feel strongly that each choice made in the creation of an artwork should be carefully considered, as to whether it supports the central ideas or not. Not every choice can be equally important (lest the work be less about the idea than the materials, I realize), but even that determination should be considered. Excuses about budgets, time constraints, or lack of expertise may be valid in terms of exhibition deadlines, but don't expect the authors of art history to care. Especially lack of expertise. Unless a work is about carelessness, or unless an artist truly believes they regurgitate "art," I can't fathom a justification for making something less than as well as humanly possible. In other words, to my mind, there's no excuse for not becoming a master of the medium, so that the work looks exactly how the artist intends it to.
Which brings me back to this notion that artists are not defined by their materials. I think that's fine if you can paint, engrave, draw and sculpt as well as Picasso could. If not, however, perhaps a bit more focus is called for. Otherwise, we're left with a host of Jacks and Jills of all trades, possibly with very important ideas, but unable to express them due to their lack of mastery.
In this world, the term “sculptor” can be considered an insult, a way of diminishing an artist.Which will of course lead some folks to conclude that what's wrong with the state of art today is the art market (to which I'll direct them again to this), but I'm wondering about that widely subscribed-to notion that "artists are supposed to be defined by their ideas, not their materials."
Artists are supposed to be defined by their ideas, not their materials, and yet the materiality of art, in truth, is going absolutely nowhere. What else is the art market other than an exchange of art objects?
I go back and forth on this. I consider, for example, Warhol or Picasso and how they each triumphed in a variety of media, and I'd agree, that their ideas were what defined them. But then I wonder whether Philip Guston, for example, would have achieved what he did in painting had he not been as focused on that as he was. In other words, even if an artist is defined by their ideas, isn't it highly possible that their ideas are best explored in one particular medium? And if that's the case...if one's ideas are best explored in "sculpture," for example, what's wrong with saying that artist is a "sculptor?" John Coltrane would most likely not have objected to being called a "saxophonist." Aren't many visual artists being perhaps a bit too sensitive about this?
I guess, with the fickle nature of fashions in the market and the lingering misunderstandings likley with even once-charming labels like "dumb like a painter," it's better to be safe than sorry, but I do so often see work that insults the ideas behind it because it's so poorly made and wish the ideas being offered had a little more help from the handling of the materials. Often such work comes with posturing defenses of "personal aesthetic choices"...as if poor craftsmanship truly underlines one's insights into man's inhumanity to man, or whatever.
I guess I'm a purist about concept. By that I mean, I feel strongly that each choice made in the creation of an artwork should be carefully considered, as to whether it supports the central ideas or not. Not every choice can be equally important (lest the work be less about the idea than the materials, I realize), but even that determination should be considered. Excuses about budgets, time constraints, or lack of expertise may be valid in terms of exhibition deadlines, but don't expect the authors of art history to care. Especially lack of expertise. Unless a work is about carelessness, or unless an artist truly believes they regurgitate "art," I can't fathom a justification for making something less than as well as humanly possible. In other words, to my mind, there's no excuse for not becoming a master of the medium, so that the work looks exactly how the artist intends it to.
Which brings me back to this notion that artists are not defined by their materials. I think that's fine if you can paint, engrave, draw and sculpt as well as Picasso could. If not, however, perhaps a bit more focus is called for. Otherwise, we're left with a host of Jacks and Jills of all trades, possibly with very important ideas, but unable to express them due to their lack of mastery.
37 Comments:
Whoo! First.
Personally I feel that everything in today's society is now geared towards "specialization."
As an example, the modern "primary care" physician versus a "specialist" can actually be eye-opening; Generality versus specificity.
The specialist always wins out in the end in terms of sheer knowledge.
I don't think there's anything wrong in someone identifying themselves as "painter," "sculptor," "writer," etc..
I think the general "artist" terminology and the time of Renaissance Men (or women, for that matter) could be a thing of the past-- given our current short-term attention span, etc..
Very few who dabble in multiple areas actually excel at each.
Just taking the actor/photographer/painter/spoken word artist Viggo Mortensen into consideration-- acting he's "good, not great"; painting "derivative"; spoken word "brilliant"; photography-- "true excellence."
I wouldn't want to see Inka Essenhigh make a video art piece, nor Pippilotti Rist sculpt.
It's just playing to one's strengths.
Yay for each chosen field.
It seems odd to use "sculptor" as the restrictive label to which an artist would object. Sculpture is the least restrictive of all mediums... in fact, it isn't a medium at all, it's a dimensionality.
The objections I've heard haven't been artists saying that "sculptor" is to limiting a term, but sculptors saying that "sculpture" is too broadly used. A case in point is that I consider myself a sculptor and thus my internet-based art to be sculpture.
I actually think that "sculptor" has more positive connotations than "artist." An artist can be a poseur who simply likes the label, but a sculptor is someone who is actually making work.
Would you be a better or worse artist without ideas? Would you get closer to the truth with or without ideas?
I'm not sure it is possible to separate "idea" from "material" - I feel like they are inextricably connected. Artistic ideas are usually come about within technical terms. The whole notion of an artwork illustrating some idea wholly outside of itself is really weird. Artists start with motivations, but the way in which these impulses collide with materials/improvisation is the artistic idea!
Interesting trend though about materials no longer defining an artist. However, I think this has also yielded much artwork whose lack of material accomplishment ruins any potential for power. Imagine a musician with lots of ideas and conviction, but no skill at their instrument - useless.
Would you be a better or worse artist without ideas? Would you get closer to the truth with or without ideas?
Ideas don't make an artist. Ideas make an artist interesting. The ability to communicate those interesting ideas make an artist.
I enjoy my label of "printmaker", as it implies a certain level of mastery of craft, though it also is often seen as a lower form of artistic life for that very same reason. The thinking tends to be that taking the time to acquire a certain bunch of antiquated skills causes the artist to become essentially brain-dead.
But really, there are lots of ways to become brain-dead, some of them quite contemporary. And there are printmakers who manage to keep their work humming and popping along in interesting ways.
I guess it's those artists for whom the medium replaces the artwork - someone who is really great at etching an aquatint and has made that the center of their work is only of (marginal) interest to folks who also etch plates. That's why, I guess, I've heard a printmaking conference that I enjoy attending referred to as a "Star Trek Convention".
But, it's also kind of nice to embrace the geeky side and be a lowly printmaker who can sort of pursue any antiquated notion about artmaking and not worry overmuch about relevancy, at least not all the time.
Don't ideas obscure truth in art, if indeed art is even about truth?
As you might guess, I'm not a big fan of ideas or concepts in art, although I do confess that they do have a certain entertainment value.
sometimes I have no ideas, i just start working and the ideas come from the working, not the other way around, i always mistrust art that comes right out of ideas, it becomes an illustration of the idea, and sometimes dead. an artist still needs to be able to use their medium well, no matter what the ideas are. but as i said, often i have no ideas, i just use my medium, which happens to be paint, and i am happy. the ideas come anyway.
I can't fathom a justification for making something less than as well as humanly possible. In other words, to my mind, there's no excuse for not becoming a master of the medium...
EW, there's only one problem with that. Becoming a master at anything takes time. And if someone takes the time to become a master of their medium, by the time they do so they'll be too old to be taken seriously as an artist. So you know, if one of the requirements of being an artist is to be under thirty, you get what you get.
Ed: Thanks for the props! When I interviewed Mark Handforth, he said other things that might be of interest. First of all, he made the distinction that he begins with the object, not the idea. I don't think that necessarily can be completely true, especially since he said his Vespa with candles was intended to be a piece that would change -- surely he began with the concept of change, not the Vespa and the candles -- but to him, this approach goes against what he describes as theory-laden art. He talks about the objects that remained after Stuart Brisley's performances at the Slade School, which interested Handforth more than the action: "After the performances, these things that were left over, these relics that were there, I don’t even know that you’re supposed to see them as relics, were kind of amazing. There was this piece, a wire mesh kind of cabinet, an old burned glove in it at the end, and I remember looking at these and thinking they were really, like, great sculptures." He also made this point: "When I was in school, I don’t think you were really supposed to begin with the object, I think you were supposed to begin with the idea and then work out. I think the assumption needs to be that the artist has plenty of ideas and is plenty well-informed and we can just begin." Again, what's interesting is less whether this is true for his practice or even possible, but more that he has the sense of what he's "supposed" to do, and dislikes that pressure, and reacts against it.
As I try, try and try again to tell my 2D design students, formal issues and principles ENHANCE the communication of ideas and concepts. Art IS about ideas, and material manipulation and form work in service to those ideas. I also concur with anon above that meaning arrises out of the manipulation of materials. Materials have inherent meaning and the artist works with or against those meanings, rejuxtapositioning to create new meaning and whatnot.
I am sorry Ed but I think your ideas on this topic are very old fashioned (which you may not mind). The "jack-o-all-trades" sort of mentality comes out of a realization that there are multiple ways to express an idea. A direct and clear communication may be more possible in one medium than in another. Does this result in "less skilled" works? Sure. But what about the artist developing their own criteria of craftsmanship. I agree time and consideration is key, but its important not to confuse those things with "craft" in the conventional sense (and i am not saying you are necessarily). What if an artist embraces the abject, or failure, or improvisation? Wouldnt those goals require very personal criteria?
Mastery of a medium is a different issue now than it has been in the past. You don't have to spend years learning how to mix paints. Maybe the easy availibility of materials has made it possible for artists to explore more readily. I think that art has to move beyond the illustrative in order to have more than fifteen minutes of relevance.
I watched an interview with Robert Irwin the other night (on Google video, by the way, a pretty good resource) and he totally surprised me when he said, in response to the question 'what is the job of the artist,' "who else will stand up for quality?" He went on to explain that this is the ultimate meaning of aesthetics, the realization that the quality of things matters.
It went right to the bone for me.
We could get into a debate about the meaning of 'quality,' but it was clear from his explanation that he meant it in the sense of 'well done.'
I acknowledge that it is possible to address the issue by using shoddy materials and technique. Being in the presence of such a thing can be thrilling, and, as I have said before, virtuosity can take many forms. It can even hide. Making you work to understand or find it. I saw an amazing piece by Oscar Santos once. A beer bottle with a black plastic bag stuck in the hole and sticking out like a plume of smoke. My first thought was, "wow, that's about 9/11, how tragic." My second thought was, "No, that is a beer bottle with a bag sticking out of the top. It could be trash left over from the opening" It still makes me laugh and shudder. (the rest of his work confirmed the interest in ambiguity) I consider it a moment of insight into myself and art.
I'm not sure all this adds to an argument, but there it is.
Becoming a master at anything takes time. And if someone takes the time to become a master of their medium, by the time they do so they'll be too old to be taken seriously as an artist. So you know, if one of the requirements of being an artist is to be under thirty, you get what you get.
Cone now, David. There's a big difference between aspiring to mastery (i.e., working toward it) and assuming it's not gonna pay off while you're still young, so why bother. Furthermore, I'd take anything Picasso painted before he was 30, thank you very much.
Edward, I'm definitely not saying "why bother". What I am saying is that what you're seeing out there
I do so often see work that insults the ideas behind it because it's so poorly made...
might be a reflection of what sort of work is making it through the filter of the current market. I agree about Picasso. Different market.
PS - Tim, did you know that Robert Irwin is speaking at LACMA on Thursday, March 8? Tickets are free, but you have to reserve them in advance. I already picked mine up at the box office.
David, thanks for the clarifications.
[1] But what about the artist developing their own criteria of craftsmanship. ...[2] What if an artist embraces the abject, or failure, or improvisation? Wouldnt those goals require very personal criteria?
On the first point, I'd note that far too many artists develop their own criteria out of economic need or lack of patience or lack of focus. That strikes me as dishonest with the viewer.
I'll agree on the second point, but note that improvisation is only possible after one masters a medium (or is a prodigy)...before that it's not improvisation...it's grasping at straws. Sometimes you might get lucky, but it's highly unlikely that will last.
Hi Ed, It seems like artists' approach making meaning in all different ways. I find my ideas in the making. When my work supports an idea it is far less interesting to me. Most of the time I start things that fall inside my general interests then work on them (or leave them alone)until the meaning and solution comes to me. It's boring to me to have a solution before the object is made. object making provides limitations that define the artwork. I love the fact that when I make a well crafted object it is viewed as contrarian. That cracks me up.
On the first point, I'd note that far too many artists develop their own criteria out of economic need or lack of patience or lack of focus. That strikes me as dishonest with the viewer.
I meant it in terms of an artist's choice. Working within conventional ideas of craft can have great significance, but not for its own sake. I think it dishonest to say that those external factors you mention DO NOT have a valuable role. I am a teacher so I have seen my fair share of lazy, lacking work. I ve made my fair share too. But what if something meaningful happens in spite of those factors (gotta work, gotta sleep, gotta get it done by such and such a time,dang gravity!)?
I understand your zero tolerance on this. I guess all I am saying is quality can arise out of not being sure what you are doing, reacting to these factors with deftness and determination. Inspiration via despiration. The only thing human beings can truly master is adaptation.
An example is needed to illustrate my point : Nina Simone.
Which may seem to be a contradiction because , to me, she is the quinessential MASTER, she IS perfection. But its all on her terms. There is no convention here. And if you have ever seen her live she is IN the moment, reacting to the audience , the song, the instrument, her body. The product is not merely a presentation it is force of will. Perhaps this also exemplifies your second point about improvisation which tells me we are really on the same page, no?
This is my absolute favorite topic of all time.
I call myself a sculptor and not an artist because what I am doing grows out of sculptural thinking and processes. I am completely proud of and dependent upon that heritage and could care less about the dumb class warfare aspect of using a word that makes me sound provincial. I think that Rosalind Krauss essay is of-a-time, and that the "postmedium condition" only works when it is grounded in a strong discipline. Eleanor Antin transcends theater and painting. Kaprow needed to transcend the static, bounded quality of the art object. How do you tap into that desire to powerfully overthrow your discipline when you aren't given any?
While it is absolutely possible for quality to arise out of "not being sure of what one's doing" (IME that's the *only* time it arises), having a strong foundation in a practice like sculpture or painting gives artists the integrity and stong foundation they need if they are going to go hack through the wild brush of the unknown. Without this foundation, it's really easy to collapse into cleverness, to flounder around in the backyard like some bigshot and never really go exploring!
Like Creegan, I have done my share of teaching, and in my experience technique grounds a student and gives them a concrete reason to stay in front of the work for as long as it takes to freaking learn something. Pushing concept to undergrads, IMO, is a recipe for a steamy roomful of BS come crittin'-time.
I'd note that far too many artists develop their own criteria out of economic need or lack of patience or lack of focus.
Seems like a perfect match for the new breed of collector we've heard so much about since this year's Miami Basel :)
At lunch I was thinking about what I said earlier, and want to add something. What you're seeing in terms of quality is a result of what's being valued in the market now, or you might say "filtered for." If you filter for quality (however you may want to define it), you're going to get a lot of work by good artists, some of whom might happen to be young. If you filter for youth, you're going to get a lot of work by young artists, some of whom might happen to be good.
I am sorry Ed but I think your ideas on this topic are very old fashioned
Hmph. I suppose you think that manners are old-fashioned, too, not to mention spelling, punctuation and grammar.
I am reminded of one occasion when a 'new genres' graduate student, whom up till then I had regarded as a friend, introduced me to a colleague of hers as an 'undergraduate painter,' with a certain snide emphasis of tone which was the rough equivalent of calling me a 'retarded cockroach.'
I rapidly revised my notions of 'friendship,' but not those of 'quality,' as a transcendent force which requires a seamless integration of concept with material--the sort of 'mastery' that Ed and Fisher so eloquently describe above.
It's a little paradoxical this idea that art is only art when it's being materialized, yet the artist must have an artistic will, a thought, before he achieves anything. Heck I can even decide to see watersprout as art wherever I want. That was the idea behind Beuys' "everyone is an artist", that I don't need Duchamp(s) to bring me an urinal anymore. That I can admire a watersprout as art, turn it into art inside my head, make it become "my" piece of art without all the signature bs of other egos. Just my experiencing with time, some internal initiation.
Of course before people used to say that art only existed when a groupuscule of people agreed that something was "it". But because of art history and the evolution of philosophy, we don't need this anymore. We've evolved enough to accept any individual's right to a conception of art. To his or her inherent attributes at perceiving art. And while the art market presents itself as an ultimate guide, the artworld as we know it actually only embraces a fraction of true creativity.
Edward:
>>>>>>Ideas don't make an artist. Ideas make an artist interesting. The ability to communicate those interesting ideas >>>>>>>make an artist.
Ability of communication. That is an interesting subject. They are many pieces of art that I admire but that I have not much idea what they are trying to communicate. I wouldn't call Matthew Barney as "able" to communicate. I sometimes have no clue at all what he's on about, and the interviews are rarely helpful.
But to acquire the tools and develop an artistic ability you must foremost have a "will", a "wanton", a crave for knowledge, that ultimately I think is part of the "idea", the thought of doing something that later can be called art by materialists, but that you can also term "art" in your head any way you wish, like Pasolini did when he said his best films were in his head.
I am not saying one is right and the other is wrong, but I clearly stand that this debate is philosophical, to decide if art is the process of thinking, or the materialization of that process. I can understand how this subject can be understood very differently between the point of views of a gallerist or an artist. But I think it's important to beware not making "official" assumptions when we are walking over such moody waters.
On a different topic, I agree that masterism is the tendancy in art towards which we are moving. But very interestingly, we are also looking back and "adding ideas", putting into art contexts, wonderful objects of design which at their origin never meant to communicate anything artistic. Which goes to show more about the difference between an art idea and the ability to materialize aesthetics.
Personally I don't like the term "ability to communicate", as there is no way we will ever be able to measure how much an artist was able or not to communicate how he perceived his art in his head, and also I don't think art must necessarely be about clarity and concision (I think a good portion of art is about mystics, and artists are merely mystifying themselves). But I agree that there is an "ability to materialize aesthetics", and frankly, apart from painting, I think most domains in art are late on these abilities, or working under the influence of improvments from other fields of aesthetics (design, entertainment, etc..). Yet we all embrace it !! We go to Basel and marvel at all those perused or borrowed aesthetics. Why? Because of ideas. Because in art we are able to subordinate everything to ideas. We can scrutinize the most elegant piece of lace and find it utterly boring if it doesn't come with ideas. Or is your idea the exploration of the materiality of Lace ?? Well, go for it. Explore. Spread it everywhere in the gallery. But it will still be about the idea, the intention of exploring the possibilities of the material, that will make it art. Otherwise, we'll throw some old english napkin in and talk about how it was explorative itself. Infer it with ideas.
Because of fine lace embroidery, the ability to materialize aesthetics and the ability of thinking art are two very different things. They can go hand in hand and that is marvellous when they do, but one can live without the other. And great art made of stupid one-minute arrangements will always be found.
About the "ability to communicate". Hey, I'm 35 and I already feel like I've learned a big lesson. I used to think that I could only value art when I was able to detect the "intention" of an artist (or whatever was pronunced about it in the press release or statement) and decide if the end product matched well with that. But now I feel I was in total obscurity. Recently I started realizing that I forget really fast the art that is too self-evident, unless it's really really good. I tend to remember better the art that proposed itself as enigmatic, or that left a loose propention for free interpretation. And then I realize that a great portion of art fell in that category.
So I think some art remains to be evaluated in regards to how well or not they communicate intention, but that many arts turn this issue improductive. A good portion of art weaves in between explorations of ideas and materials in a quest for meaning, meanings that are never fully defined. And so that comes back to Magritte who reportedly just painted anything that crossed his mind and they discussed with his friends for a meaning or title of the work. So many art is like. They don't communicate, they explore materials and meanings...It's very different.
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com
This has a lot to do with talent, not just quantity, but kind. Some people are natural generalists, while some prefer focus. Mastery will mean different things to everyone. But firstly, ceaseless work is involved. Secondly, the work has to intersect with some kind of talent. Thirdly, the artist has to identify the real problem of his work and attempt to solve it. This last one is a bitch. It requires bathing in self-criticism. Thoreau said that no man ever followed his genius until it mislead him. I wonder, just about constantly, whether I'm succeeding at doing so.
Hmph. I suppose you think that manners are old-fashioned, too, not to mention spelling, punctuation and grammar.
I know one of the drawbacks with this medium is that it is difficult to convey mood. I was not trying to be disrespectful. I would hope Ed and everyone who participates on this and any other blog knows that I respect their opinions. And I feel one of the best things about this particular blog is that differing opinions are encouraged. If by saying his opinion on this particular subject was "old fashioned" (he certainly isnt old fasioned), any insult or rudeness was read, i apologize.
As far as my spelling et al.- I couldnt agree more.
Since when is "old fashioned" an insult??
And Edward actually enjoys non-pc films where they say things way worst than "old fashioned".
Gosh I was embarassed looking at the Golden Globes.
Cedric Casp
cent...ah whatever
Heavens, I was not intending to insult you, Mark, nor to imply that you insulted Edward. I merely wished to point out that when the very qualities which promote ease, goodwill and clarity of communication among people are called into question, 'fashion' is no longer the issue. 'Decline and fall of civilization' is.
Graduate students are dumb retarded cockroaches.
How can you still be a student when you've graduated?
See? If you actually thought like that you would have never let yourself hurted by that comment from your friend.
It's all about attitude and perspectives.
We may have poor grammar, but hey, this is an art blog, not your local Costco. There's way worst tragedies out there than a little lost of education and language barrier in an art blog.
Cheers,
Cedric
There's way worst tragedies
There are way worse tragedies.
Just givin' you a hard time, man.
having a strong foundation in a practice like sculpture or painting gives artists the integrity and stong foundation they need if they are going to go hack through the wild brush of the unknown. Without this foundation, it's really easy to collapse into cleverness, to flounder...
I think this is true and I am interested in how this idea functions. Lets say a performance artist who has been practicing for many years decides to let the props she uses stand alone as sculptures. Or a painter decides to film the process of the paint or painterly aspects of cultural stuff. So this sort of transition from one medium to another seems natural (at least to the artist).
But since they are still a baby to the new medium , the "adult" half (the performance artist, the experienced painter) provides the needed guidance and support?
Also, Deborah, what happened to "crapture"? :)
Ed -- Great post, but today the market rewards artists who don't bother with technical mastery at all. How many big-name send their sketches to a "fabricator" who makes the actual piece? Is Jeff Koons a sculptor? Is Damien Hirst a glassmaker? Do half the artists making large-scale photographs even know how to use a camera themselves, or print in a darkroom?
I suspect that some artists dislike the term sculptor (or photographer, glassblower, etc.) because it smacks of being the hired hand.
Actually, what Lisa points out is proof that mastery is separated from idea.
There is nothing wrong with artists associating themselves with masters in doing art. The wrong is how the master is being irradicated from the museum card title.
The best is to create a group name that would comprehend the name of the designer and the forger.
That's just ethics but we're not quite there yet with ethics in the artworld.
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
Didn't Robert Longo try to do something like what Cedric suggests with his Men in the City work? I seem to remember that he hired several folks to help him with the drawing, and he wanted to exhibit the work with credits that were more along the lines of movie credits, with himself as the producer/director, and his hired hands as important partners in the process, under his direction. A nifty idea, but I don't think the people showing his work appreciated it. At least that's my foggy recollection.
I know the Jones, though yet to meet the meta-Smiths.
A bit like how architects work, the name carries and the quality of craftsmanship is just expected. This has a long history, and it may work out similarly that the artesian, or those who are hired helper break away to form their own factories, the quality and content necessary to carry the new work, new hired helpers realize them. I think it's quite reasonable.
It's also reasonable to take a step in a different direction to produce work that carries itself with a minimal knowhow, exposing a poverty of craftsmanship, the idea poking through the lack of craft.
The later is the harder to pull off, enables more risk, and something I trust more, when it is pulled off.
Such forays expose a new generation at work:
they learn along the way, and are happy without the tools-of-the-trade labels, though are enigmatic and strangely responsible.
ABS
-ABS
The later is the harder to pull off, enables more risk, and something I trust more, when it is pulled off.
Such forays expose a new generation at work:
they learn along the way, and are happy without the tools-of-the-trade labels, though are enigmatic and strangely responsible.
i agree.
i think a medium specific definition of mastery is no longer sufficient, but believe the notion of mastery remains at the forefront of artists' practices. rather, today's 'post-medium' artist, working within a practice that embraces a variety of production methods, seeks to master this activity--this nimble, tactical, and adaptive approach to materiality, ideas and production/presentation.
ruslan
Ruslan
this nimble, tactical, and adaptive approach to materiality, ideas and production/presentation
All good words, hard to delete any of them:)
ABS
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home