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:

In this world, the term “sculptor” can be considered an insult, a way of diminishing an artist.

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?

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."

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.