Simple Question Tuesday
In a recent essay on religion and arts in America (brought to my attention by Chris Rywalt), Camille Paglia noted:
The state of the humanities in the US can be measured by present achievement: would anyone seriously argue that the fine arts or even popular culture is enjoying a period of high originality and creativity?Anyone?
Labels: simple question
posted by Edward_ at
8:08 AM
119 Comments:
There's an assumption in that question that originality is a main measure of the health of our culture's health. I think a cult of originality leads to some pretty poor art (we've all seen artworks in which the artist seems more desperate to do something wholly new, rather than something meaningful/moving). Personally, I see the bigger challenge (& measure of health) is contemporary art's ability to connect with the general public while at the same time remaining interesting & edgy.
I think a great deal of the innovation (or at least creative energy) has been directed toward meaningful networks. Sort of the myspacification of everything. In the art world you see artists collectives sprouting up everywhere, gallery associations forming, blogs, etc.
And i see that as human beings trying to find fellowship (one of if not THE main purpose of religion)
"Why" this is happening is an interesting question.
There's TONS of great stuff going on in popular culture. From the continued high quality of television to the incredible new forms of communication collectively referred to as web 2.0 (which also includes indy media: podcasts, video blogs etc).
Fine art is another story. There's some great things happening, but it isn't as vibrant or obvious as what's happening in pop culture.
I see a bit of Serra's complaint in her comment. Is it just oldster stodginess?
twhid, I'm not an oldster (well, I hope, almost 40), but I fail to detect the "continued high quality of television" you were talking about (or maybe it's extremely subtle humour on your part), and I tend to agree with Camille Paglia.
My only problem with her comment is the inclusion of "in the US" - the problem is quite universal.
you have to agree the best writing right now is for television (cable that is) At least thats what i hear, me not having cable and all:)
@ Joerg Colberg
re: good TV
In the USA, it's mostly cable (with HBO leading) that delivers quality TV. You have to pay (or use Pirate Bay) to get it. Sure, there's lots of crap. But the good stuff is very high quality.
It's disorienting, really -- so many things happening in so many places.
An interesting disparity:
Within pop music artists and performers are so similar within and between genres, and they come and go so quickly.
Outside the pop music world a splintering of creative efforts due to almost complete lack of cohesion -- each artist a separate art world.
Does this splintering trivialize creative achievement?
If you don't think there's great writing, acting, producing, etc. happening on tv right now, you haven't been watching. The consistently excellent HBO and Showtime aside, there's an amzing array on basic cable. This is (and should be by all logic!) the creative medium of our time.
TV -- I wrote for a TV criticism site for a few years -- is, I think, the best it's ever been these days. Sadly, that's not saying much, because television has been pretty horrendous for most of its existence.
However, at the risk of falling for the declensionist narrative -- a sort of fin de siécle malaise common to the present, whenever that present happens to be -- I think the humanities in America are a disaster. We've become wholly obsessed with pop culture -- I include myself in this -- and have forgotten a vast amount of actual culture.
Of course, we've had this argument before. It's very mainstream these days to say that there's no difference between high and low culture, but as a Pre-Warholite, I disagree.
I don't always agree with Paglia, but in this case, I think I do. Aside from that, though, I passed the essay along because of some interesting historical connections she makes -- between the Puritans and the music of America, between gospel music and rock. And I love that she says "The avant-garde is dead."
Vibrant and obvious for sure. Entorage seems like it was written by a couple 15 year olds. Originality in visual art seems elusive right now if we look at our art stars. Sampling and appropriation are taken for granted.
Entourage is not a good example, I agree. It's too sophmoric. But Weeds, the Sopranos, South Park, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and (I hear) Big Love represent some of the best writing ever seen on television.
The problem is that Paglia's answer to her own question is an advocacy of a wholesale turn to the teaching of comparative religion within the academic system. For her, only religion's seeming unchallenged purchase on the metaphysical can save the waning of the fine arts, which, she notes have given way to the pillars of technology and design in the US cultural landscape.
I don't know about you all, but I seriously disagree with this contention. It stems from a concern that the line drawn between a liberal intelligentsia and a conservative populism becomes sharpest when it comes to the arts, and fine art in particular.
Personally, I'm alright with this, not because I want to surround myself with people who think like me, but because I want to surround myself with innovators and contrarians, no matter what their political stripes. Would I like to see a few more contemporary artists who hold to a set of other-than-liberal views, and make those views known, whether or not doing so manifests itself in their art? Of course. (And I believe anyone who thinks differently is afraid of the arguments that could ensue.) We're already seeing a shift in theoretical commitments from figures like Walter Benn Michaels (see his two recent books: 'The Problem with Diversity' and 'The Shape of the Signifier'). Perhaps these altered commitments will find their way into fine art practice.
Ultimately what's at issue is not "high originality or creativity," as Paglia states, but "currency." Paglia is lamenting that the fine arts don't seem current enough. They're not the "hot button" issue. So what? Does that lead to better art? No. It leads to more headlines, and often very stupid takes on what art is and what role it has to play. So don't be fooled by the originality and creativity question. The former is a myth and the latter happens every day to the point of being an irrelevant criteria of judgment (and don't come back saying something like "well, I for one hope that artists don't stop being creative"--that's just knee-jerk, senseless sentimentalism).
Sorry, that took a little bit to write. Re: television. I agree. There is some excellent writing out there. 'Californication' on Showtime (after weeds) is very promising.
How did a discussion of art get diverted into a discussion of television? Television for the most part, is ENTERTAINMENT. I find the two to be extremely different. Neither being superior, but each having a distinct role. I don’t go to moma, sprawl out on a couch with a cold beer in one hand and the other on my wang and blankly stare at a painting for an hour.
Maybe I should start
You go Jonathan...righteous rant!
For her, only religion's seeming unchallenged purchase on the metaphysical can save the waning of the fine arts, which, she notes have given way to the pillars of technology and design in the US cultural landscape.
To be more exact, Paglia wrote:
a totally secularized society with contempt for religion sinks into materialism and self-absorption and gradually goes slack, without leaving an artistic legacy.
I'm not sure I've ever seen or read of a "totally secularized society," so I'm not entirely sure what she's basing that assertion on, but, having been raised as an Evangelical Protestant, I'm faily confident that "religion" and materialism are NOT as mutually exclusive as she seems to think they are. Perhaps spirituality and materialism are, but religion, per se, is quite comfortable with materialism in my experience.
Oh, and shit-less (charming tag, by the way), the original quote touched on both fine art and popular culture, so discussion of either is on topic.
(opening up a can o' worms): "originality" huh? such a funny concept. and "HIGH originality"? there's a good hi/lo joke in there somewhere.
Not that I necessarily agree with Paglia on her point about religion, but just to possibly clarify:
When she writes about a "totally secularized society," I think she might be writing about a theoretical endpoint. Although there are parts of America which certainly qualify, I think.
Also, when she writes about sinking into materialism, I suspect she's saying that a religious society wouldn't sink -- it might be more or less materialist, but it would vacillate back and forth rather than disappearing entirely.
and "HIGH originality"? there's a good hi/lo joke in there somewhere.
Not to mention a wide opening for a tie-in with "Weeds" ;-)
Joy, I happen to believe strongly in originality. The loss of this concept in the arts is one of the great losses of the 20th century.
As someone who sees a ton of cinema I can say that what really good narrative film is made now certainly isn't coming from my home country (the USA). World cinema is in good shape, documentaries especially and the docs from the US are getting better at least.
The problem with US film is most of it is made for commercial purposes and too much of it plays like bad television.
Brilliant idea shit-less, but it seems that Dash and Co. have the monopoly on 'beer-drinking--hand-on-wang' projects these days.
really good points Jonathan,
I think we are forgetting also how things change on a dime and how necessity is the mother of invention. I was listening to Max Roach on Terry Gross last week explain how Beep Bop was born out of a change in pay structure. The clubs couldnt afford big bands anymore so they hired 3-4 solo virtuosos to get up and jam. I was thinking how wonderful for a great artform to come out of something so mundane. He also said they really didnt know what they were doing at first. That is really important-to be in a foreign territory, just making it up as you go.
Joy, I happen to believe strongly in originality.
Uh oh.
If this were a movie, this is the part where chairs would scuffle, cowboys would scurry for cover, the barkeep would start shoving the bottles beneath the bar, and the piano player would roll down the cover over the ebonies and ivories.
There's a fine line between originality and fashion.
I think TV it's ok generally but TV commercial are great, only good ones. They are short and simple. And you get the point. Also youtube :) Tons of great stuff there.
Joy, I happen to believe strongly in originality. The loss of this concept in the arts is one of the great losses of the 20th century.
While I agree Post-Modern style appropriation & deconstruction has gotten pretty tired, the decline of originality as a touchstone is a pretty natural progression. When Modernism was breaking loose from the rules of representation, the focus on originality (and originality-for-its-own-sake) made sense.
But today discovering some new technique, material, subject-matter, etc. is great, but is actually a pretty conventional approach. I imagine artists sitting in their studios thinking, "Let's see... has anyone made sculptures with tire-tread? Shoot. Ok. Has anyone done anything with taxidermy? Shoot. Ok. Has anyone done anything with..." etc. I think there are more difficult & subtle challenges for artists to tackle (e.g., being able to communicate beyond an elite cadre of art-lovers).
Chris said: I happen to believe strongly in originality. The loss of this concept in the arts is one of the great losses of the 20th century.
This is excellent. I couldn't be happier that Chris holds to this belief. I disagree vehemently, but that's the beginning of something, is it not?
Which brings us back to good old CP: Why would Paglia need us to return to the insufferable narratives of religion, which are no better (and some certainly are much worse) than the more recent narratives of originality (or fashion, as Shit-less would have it)? These are such better questions/arguments to be having than the ones that stem from the study of supernaturalism.
We agree, Ethan, you just don't know it. Your definition of originality is shallow, but it matches a lot of people's idea of originality -- which is why being truly original is so important. When you say "more difficult & subtle challenges," you're referring to true originality.
Originality and novelty are not the same. Fashion is novelty. Pop culture is novelty. And you know what novelties are: Rubber vomit and plastic dog poop, whoopee cushions and X-ray glasses.
being able to communicate beyond an elite cadre of art-lovers
I go back and forth on this one. Although I'm a stickler for art that offers access on various levels, at least one of which better be at the most fundamental level of human experience in a way that justifies its expression via visual art vs. some other medium, I feel that some of the things very much worth expressing cannot be expressed to those not willing to make the effort/do the homework to understand them and then therefore am concerned that my first criteria would impact an artist's ability to effectively accomplish the second one. In other words, if something is best expressed via a means that has no point of entry for your average viewer, should the artist refrain from expressing it? Is he/she obligated to dumb down, so to speak, their expression? Or is the world a better place because some visionary charged ahead, perhaps way ahead of his/her time, and created a work that the average citizen won't have any way to relate to for years (i.e., after popular culture catches up to the ideas expressed therein)?
Well, Ed, I think we need both. And I think truly great developments synthesize both. E=mc2, for example: Many people may not understand it fully, but a decent number of people have a good idea about it.
But not everyone can be that great, so I think we need both communicators and more esoteric pioneers, to roughly categorize your two directions.
Relax: I can't be bothered to scuffle with a touted "strong belief" in "originality" -- the problem speaks for itself (cf: "belief").
back to La Paglia: it seems silly to me to suggest that the "fine arts" need reviving. There are other things that need, uh, some work, but I don't think creativity per se in any sector is on the wane.
Seriously, this article is too annoying. She's grandstanding and abusing people's assumptions about art (and originality!) to push some agenda. Here's a whopper: "To fully appreciate world art, one must learn how to respond to religious expression in all its forms. Art began as religion in prehistory." -- oh really? I think she's talking out of her armpit, as the Irish say. I guess Camille is getting religion -- it happens to folks (even self-professed atheists), as they get closer to the grave.
JTDN sez:
Why would Paglia need us to return to the insufferable narratives of religion, which are no better (and some certainly are much worse) than the more recent narratives of originality (or fashion, as Shit-less would have it)?
She answers your question early in the essay: "I view each world religion, including Judeo-Christianity and Islam, as a complex symbol system, a metaphysical lens through which we can see the vastness and sublimity of the universe."
I'd interpret this as follows: Religions are humanity's attempt to explain the universe; but studying these attempts can teach us a lot about humanity. Further, the reach of religion is longer than the reach of materialist science, and viewing the universe using the tools of religion can lead artists into unexplored territories of what it is to be human.
Edward, I definitely agree art shouldn't be dumbed-down... but that's where the challenge is. :) And certainly art is a pretty big tent--there's room for all sorts of approaches. I'm not really prescribing a particular agenda for other artists, more trying to predict what will end up being the main thrust for art over the next 20 or so years.
Chris wrote:
We agree, Ethan, you just don't know it. Your definition of originality is shallow...
Ah, the old we-agree-but-you're-wrong tactic ;-) What definition of originality are you working from?
I'm a stickler for art that offers access on various levels, at least one of which better be at the most fundamental level of human experience in a way that justifies its expression via visual art vs. some other medium, I feel that some of the things very much worth expressing cannot be expressed to those not willing to make the effort/do the homework to understand them and then therefore am concerned that my first criteria would impact an artist's ability to effectively accomplish the second one.
Why can't someone do both? Why can't someone be a communicator and an esoteric pioneer at the same time? Or be both of those and an entertainer and educator?
I only ask because these seem to be concerns with what an artist should be rather than what they could do. I think building an audience for one's work is important. The "esoteric pioneer" will have little interest in building an audience; the "communicator" may have only this interest. But in either case, not only the size but also the kind of audience will be of utmost importance.
Joy sez:
the problem speaks for itself (cf: "belief").
Well, I use the word loosely. I don't really believe anything. I'm just discussing my current working hypothesis.
right on ed, and to jump back to Ethan's first comment:
"I see the bigger challenge... contemporary art's ability to connect with the general public while at the same time remaining interesting & edgy."
Interesting and edgy, isn’t that originality or novelty (chris)?
Art is a context (i think), with history and “rules”. It's hard to watch a game of baseball if you have no understanding of the structure. The large majority of people have little understanding of FINE ART.
One difference between what shit-less refers to as "entertainment" and what gets cordoned off as "fine (high) art" is their different market structures: "art" production tends to resist mass production and distribution, (even the new media artworld cow-tows to the collector) -- the art market still depends on the old-fangled relationship between "intrinsic value" and scarcity, and the patronage and power of a small wealthy elite. the art market is a strange holdover, corporatization notwithstanding.
Rather than gettin' some o' that ol' religion, I think it more fruitful to talk about art and its conflicts in terms of the massive technological innovation and the revolution in communication and networks which we experience and contribute to on a daily basis. Truly these processes form the basis of our present cultural paradigm shift, and there is plenty of room for talk of spirituality here as well. We need to address these processes in terms of what we do as artists, as well as in terms of the art market, an anachronistic system that is forcibly changing too, and which we are all a part of.
Why can't someone do both? Why can't someone be a communicator and an esoteric pioneer at the same time?
I think some artists, sometimes, are, and others, at other times, cannot be without leaving some things they see unsaid.
Let me be clear, I'm over-the-moon delighted when someone manages to do both consistently (they're the ones I call genuises), but there are things to be said that even the geniuses can't see at times, and those things are no less important to me because the communication requires some additional experience/understanding/information on the part of the viewer.
Why would Paglia need us to return to the insufferable narratives of religion, which are no better (and some certainly are much worse) than the more recent narratives of originality (or fashion, as Shit-less would have it)? These are such better questions/arguments to be having than the ones that stem from the study of supernaturalism.
Jonathan, the reduction of religion to mere 'insufferable narrative' and the elevation of 'narratives of originality (or fashion)' is precisely the contempt and self-absorption Paglia is talking about. (Or perhaps I'm projecting.)
Religion is only 'insufferable narrative' at its most literal level; in its healthy maturity, it naturally leads to a grounding in something outside the human ego, and thus speaks to the universal. What I see in the modern art world, and what I think Paglia sees, is a fetishization of the ego; of staking out an arcane 'niche' for one's work, no matter how trivial, simply for the sake of being distinguishable from others, and not for any purposes of transcendence, or even communication.
When people lack the common grounding of religion and spirituality, they naturally look for some Meaning elsewhere--thus we have the spectacle of artists attempting to ground in politics, environmentalism, etc. with religious fervor. There's nothing wrong with this, except that it is splintering rather than unifying, and people attach transcendent meaning to things which, by their nature, can't deliver it.
And PrettyLady slams it right back!
this is already perhaps my favorite thread ever on this blog ;-)))
Religions are humanity's attempt to explain the universe; but studying these attempts can teach us a lot about humanity. Further, the reach of religion is longer than the reach of materialist science, and viewing the universe using the tools of religion can lead artists into unexplored territories of what it is to be human.
I'd disagree. Religions are humanity's earliest attempts to explain AWAY the universe. Yes. Studying those religions can teach us much about the infancy of humanity. And I would never disagree with the essential need of such study. But no, religion's reach (supernaturalism's reach really) pales in comparison to what I see as the incredible creativity of science, which offers a far better view onto the "vastness of the sublimity of the universe" (I can't take Paglia serious with this statement.)
Artists, I would argue, would do much better in a turn to science, philosophy and literature than in any turn to religion. As for the latter's status as a "complex symbol system," I offer one word: Shakespeare. Why not study his symbol system? Not old enough? That's my problem with the fetishization of religion as some storehouse of human complexity and depth: it's our earliest attempt! Not a bad try, but what's the use today when we have more recent, richer, more complex and more compelling systems to look at, think about and work from.
Learn the mathematics of quantum mechanics. It's mind blowing, and incredibly deep, and metaphysically incredible. Religion is nothing more than an infant's busy-box when compared to this tiny sliver of the vast archive of human scientific knowledge and endeavor.
Excellent return Jonathan (yes, you can expect the tennis metaphors to continue throughout the US Open), but I'm not so sure about this:
As for the latter's status as a "complex symbol system," I offer one word: Shakespeare. Why not study his symbol system? Not old enough?
Not universal enough, perhaps. Whether you accept that religion is passed down from God or not, its assertion to that origin makes it a more widely acceptable system as a receptacle for one's hopes and fears, no?
Religion is only 'insufferable narrative' at its most literal level; in its healthy maturity, it naturally leads to a grounding in something outside the human ego, and thus speaks to the universal.
No. No. No. What I think you're speaking about is some sort of spiritualism, which is religion-lite when the question of "what does it all mean" comes about. You are never going to get to the transcendent this way. It's even more grounded in the individual ego than the materialism that Paglia derides. I firmly do not believe that religion is the only unifying system out there. If anything, it's the MOST divisive.
If I sound contemptuous that is, probably, because I am. But how can contempt for religion equal self-absorption? It just doesn't follow.
prettylady:
"naturally leads to a grounding in something outside the human ego"
I would argue the major religions have greatly contributed to propping up the human ego, leading to the "fetishization of the ego." They worship singular/isloated figures of grandeur. I do agree that fetishization of the ego is a very big problem.
Not universal enough, perhaps. Whether you accept that religion is passed down from God or not, its assertion to that origin makes it a more widely acceptable system as a receptacle for one's hopes and fears, no?
Disagree. One could make the argument, indeed Harold Bloom has made the argument (and he's no stranger to the study of religious narrative), that Shakespeare's work "invents" the very idea of the "human". What could be more universal than this? What could be more unifying?
Now does it matter that Shakespeare didn't make this assertion himself? How can it? Claims to know the word of god, to know what is universal and transcendent, are, to my mind, scary claims and demonstrate and general lack of equanimity.
JTDN sez:
Learn the mathematics of quantum mechanics.
But it's really, really, really hard. And I say this as someone who probably knows more about math than almost anyone in this discussion. I once looked up all the math I'd have to learn to understand string theory, and I made it about a third of the way through the curriculum before it involved concepts I'd never even heard of. And I was one course short of a math minor at an engineering school.
...supernaturalism's reach...pales in comparison to what I see as the incredible creativity of science...
I agree and disagree. Science can do some incredible things and show us great wonders. But there are always limits to science, and supernaturalism, as you call it, explores -- metaphorically, usually -- those areas.
I'd prefer not to call it, necessarily, religion or supernaturalism, both of which assume something beyond the "real" world. I'd rather say that the "real" world is bigger and more complex than we can imagine, a lot is going on that we don't understand, and that illuminating those farthest reaches is important.
Joy sez:
One difference between what shit-less refers to as "entertainment" and what gets cordoned off as "fine (high) art" is their different market structures...
I always find it interesting how hard it is to avoid capitalist thinking. From a capitalist perspective, yes, this is a difference between "low" culture and "high." I'd say it's probably the least important difference, though.
I think it more fruitful to talk about art and its conflicts in terms of the massive technological innovation and the revolution in communication and networks which we experience and contribute to on a daily basis.
I have to admit I'm very tired of people talking about things like "massive technological innovation" and "the revolution in communication." After hearing all of this for the last 14 years (the entire lifetime of the World Wide Web up to this point) I've exhausted all my amazement and breathless optimism.
The Internet is not a revolution. It's at best an evolution. It's yesterday's Business As Usual on steroids. It has nothing to add to art.
It changes the art market, yes. It changes the climate for art. It changes the way artists congregate and communicate. But it adds nothing to art itself.
A bold and bald assertion, true. I may even try to back it up in an argument.
The Internet is not a revolution. It's at best an evolution. It's yesterday's Business As Usual on steroids. It has nothing to add to art.
That seems an odd statement... do conté crayons have anything to add to art? How about oil paints?
The Internet is a medium, of course it can be used to add something to art. The excitement it generates is because it is new and we're discovering its artistic language. Sure, a lot of crap is done on the internet in the name of "art", but show me the medium that is free of that.
Also, Chris, I'm still curious about what's your definition of originality...
JTDN sez:
Claims to know the word of god, to know what is universal and transcendent, are, to my mind, scary claims and demonstrate and general lack of equanimity.
Now I'm speaking here as an avowed secular humanist with no opinion on the existence of any god. I want you to know that.
But to my mind you miss a huge component to religion. The fact is, every human being who has ever lived has much the same physical and mental structure. We all have brains, and nervous systems, and sense the world around us in some way. We've all evolved under the same conditions, you might say.
And that is the basis of the universal and transcendent. Religions are symbol systems mapping the human animal. They're concerned with the basic structure of humans: What works, what doesn't, what's been tried. Religions are the collected diaries of millions of human explorers on the continent of mankind.
E.O. Wilson writes about religion being a survival strategy -- something that evolved because it helped humans compete successfully. Wilson says there's no reason to believe in religion, but humans do seem to need to do so.
I think it's wrong to wholly dismiss that as mere "supernaturalism."
The Internet is a medium, of course it can be used to add something to art.
Wholeheartedly agree. It's merely a medium. What it's capable of communicating/expressing in terms of "art" is limited only by the imaginations of the artists using it.
Ethan sez:
That seems an odd statement... do conté crayons have anything to add to art? How about oil paints?
You make my point exactly: No, they don't. Conté adds nothing to art. Oil paints add nothing to art. The Internet adds nothing to art.
Also, I don't think the Internet is a medium at all, except in a loose sense, the way TV signals are a medium. The Internet is just a transmission medium. What it transmits is the same crap we were getting before, on TV or on paper or on celluloid. To say that the Internet is going to change art is like saying that the printing press changed art -- which I don't think it did.
I'm still curious about what's your definition of originality...
I'm still thinking. I'm not sure I can define it as clearly as I'd like. I'd say -- preliminarily -- that originality is information. Information is the part of a signal you can't predict. This is as opposed to noise, which is just random fluctuation -- it can't be predicted from moment to moment, but it can be predicted on average.
Fashion, novelty -- they're noise. Originality is information.
shit-less: How did a discussion of art get diverted into a discussion of television? Television for the most part, is ENTERTAINMENT. I find the two to be extremely different.
Jonathan T. D. Neil: I offer one word: Shakespeare.
Distinctions between art and entertainment can disappear over time.
David:
Distinctions between art and entertainment can disappear over time.
I'd rather say: Art can be entertaining.
I'd rather say: Art can be entertaining.
I agree, it can. My point though is that Shakespeare's work was largely considered entertainment when it was first written and performed (I'm talking about the plays, of course, not the sonnets).
I take your point. But the fact that Shakespeare's work was considered entertaining when it was written doesn't mean it wasn't also art when it was written.
It's not that the distinction disappears over time; it's the time that makes the distinction clear. Entertainments evaporate; art lasts.
Conté adds nothing to art. Oil paints add nothing to art. The Internet adds nothing to art.
Art, at least the subset of art that I take seriously, is a confluence of materials and feelings. Conte in itself is just brute matter, but as soon as someone makes good art with it, it becomes an important component of art's functioning. Feeling dictates the use of conte at some point, and then conte starts to elicit a particular kind of feeling. The same is true for oils. The same could hold true for HTML one day.
In fact, introductions of materials are just about the only non-trivial developments in art history.
[Hmm... hopefully I'm not double-posting. My comment is taking a long time to appear, so I'm guessing it didn't go though. Here it is (more-or-less) again:]
You make my point exactly: No, they don't. Conté adds nothing to art. Oil paints add nothing to art. The Internet adds nothing to art.
Well, then let's get rid of oils as a medium--I'm sure no one will miss them ;-)
I think you're really trying to say (tell me if I'm wrong) is really less about art as a form of communication & more something along the lines that the Internet doesn't bring anything new to human consciousness (which seems to me a pretty high bar to evaluate the value/interest of things).
The Internet certainly brings something new to Art in much the same way that photography and film did. The Internet revolutionizes art in terms of the ability to communicate, data-mine, interact, & participate. Does this mean the revolution extends to changing the way someone paints an oil painting? Maybe not, but you never know. Did photography change the way artists approached representation?
...the fact that Shakespeare's work was considered entertaining when it was written doesn't mean it wasn't also art when it was written.
Exactly. The distinctions are artificial and often misguided. Might the same thing be going on now?
I don't think materials add anything to art; I think artists create art with materials. It's the artists who do the adding.
But, more importantly, as I wrote earlier, I don't think the Internet is a medium in the sense that Conté is a medium. It's an unfortunate fact of English that "medium" has multiple meanings which are hard to disentangle. There's medium: "a substance regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect"; and medium: "a mode of artistic expression or communication".
And HTML is totally not either.
David sez:
Exactly. The distinctions are artificial and often misguided. Might the same thing be going on now?
If no one recognized his work as art at the time, if no one hailed Shakespeare as a genius at the time, then maybe you'd be on to something. In other words, if a work of art were to be considered mere entertainment, only later to emerge as art, you'd have a point.
I don't think that's going on now. The only things for which that's been happening recently are so new they've been enveloped by our culture's erasure of the line between high and low art -- like movies and comic books -- so we can't really compare.
Ethan asserts:
The Internet certainly brings something new to Art in much the same way that photography and film did.
I don't think so. Photography and film were entirely new processes. The Internet is just a repackaging of old processes. About the only thing truly new on the Internet -- the only thing not based on old media -- is multiple-player video games. Everything else -- e-mail, blogs, Web galleries, whatever -- could be done (and was done) before computers were invented. All the Internet has done is speed everything up and make it easier.
Now, video games have some potential. They might become art. Maybe.
if no one hailed Shakespeare as a genius at the time, then maybe you'd be on to something.
I think that may have been the case... the it was told to me, no one really bothered saving the plays' scripts and they were put together by a bunch of the actors sitting around the bar and say, "Hey... that Hamlet wasn't half-bad. Maybe we should try to remember it and write it down."
ethan said:
The Internet certainly brings something new to Art in much the same way that photography and film did. The Internet revolutionizes art in terms of the ability to communicate, data-mine, interact, & participate.
instead of the one-way signal;
Does this mean the revolution extends to changing the way someone paints an oil painting? Maybe not, but you never know. Did photography change the way artists approached representation?
bingo!
I don't think so. Photography and film were entirely new processes.
I'm left with a bit of a "so what" reaction. Ok, so the Internet is built upon a variety of technical advances--why does that mean it isn't revolutionary? There was nothing new in automobiles--everything in them (gears, steering, gas engines, etc.) were appropriated from earlier technological advances. Does that mean automobiles haven't revolutionized the way we live?
There's a really good thread on the Sopranos blog about the role of religion, science, entertainment, and Conte in contemporary society.
Ethan sez:
I think that may have been the case... the it was told to me, no one really bothered saving the plays' scripts...
I've read that some scholars think Shakespeare never wrote his plays down, and in fact spoke the lines to each actor until they had it memorized.
But then some scholars think Shakespeare was really more than one person.
But now we're wandering into the land of hazy supposition. Fact is, it's a crazy world.
The Internet revolutionizes art in terms of the ability to communicate, data-mine, interact, & participate.
I agree with Ethan and Joy. The internet is changing many aspects of the world we live in, and we're only at the beginning of this. Dsimissing its impact on art seems at best premature.
SL declaims:
Ok, so the Internet is built upon a variety of technical advances--why does that mean it isn't revolutionary?
Oh, it is technologically quite revolutionary. In the sense of how it was built, and how it actually all works, it's pretty amazing. It's not, you know, string theory or anything, but it's still cool.
What it isn't is anything revolutionary in terms of media. It's just a carrier for the same stuff we've already been swamped in for a hundred years. Ads, movies, photos, text -- the same old crap, now coming faster and faster, with less and less editing; but still the same old crap.
The automobile didn't change the way we live; it just made it bigger. We're reaping the whirlwind on that now, with pollution and unmanageable suburban sprawl. Cars are a problem precisely because they didn't change the way we live. We still spew shit everywhere we go, only now we can spew more of it farther. We still rape the Earth, only now we can leave the actual destruction to the Chinese while we enjoy the Happy Meal toys -- at least until the destruction catches up to us.
Photography came about during the progression and development of Art as a cultural/historical progression, which is pretty much over. The internet and any other technology will certainly have an impact on art, but can't be compared with the role of photography.
David sez:
The internet is changing many aspects of the world we live in, and we're only at the beginning of this.
I agree -- although I disagree, probably, in degree. (I don't think the Internet has, or will, change the world as much as people like to think; and I don't think it's changed it that much so far.)
In the sense that the Internet will change the culture -- all cultures, I suppose -- then those changes will ripple out to include changes in art. Of course. Because art grows in the fertile soil of culture.
But I don't think the Internet will have any direct effect on art, the way, for example, photography did. (Although, not being well-versed in art history, I'm not clear on how much the development of photography had to do with the rejection of representational art; it may be that the two things emerged from the same cultural and technological developments but were not strongly related causally to each other.)
The automobile didn't change the way we live; it just made it bigger.
Chris, I think you have an uninterestingly high bar for what constitutes change. Does something need to cause humans to sprout a second head in order to qualify? ;-)
At a certain point, you're being so "big picture" that there's nothing to look at.
david: I think resistance to the notion that a medium or a technological innovation can result in profound cultural changes reveals a certain outlook: the Internet or Photography or whatever is still being regarded here as something exterior to ourselves.... when in fact, it is our own activities through the new medium that are actually doing the innovating. It's all about an immeasurable potential, not about a new "thing" and its finite impact.
There's an amazing amazing book I'm still getting through -- it's by the "open source guru" of the moment:
The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, by Yochai Benkler
I'm still learning from it -- much of this is new to me -- but I'd like eventually to apply many of the questions he raises to the role of (fine) art in our culture...
Ethan sez:
At a certain point, you're being so "big picture" that there's nothing to look at.
I'm just trying to balance out the tendency of others to declare that everything is a "revolution." Most things aren't really.
The development of plastic was a revolution. In fact the development of man-made materials starting in the mid-19th century was a revolution.
Joy sez:
It's all about an immeasurable potential, not about a new "thing" and its finite impact.
See, I'd say this is about the bedrock of being human. We build these extensions to ourselves, but ultimately, we're still human. And that's what art's about.
Until we come up with something that changes what it is to be human -- that modifies those eternal verities that enable us to look at 40,000-year-old cave paintings and understand them -- until then, we won't have changed art.
I'm just trying to balance out the tendency of others to declare that everything is a "revolution."
Sure, I suspected as much... but getting bogged down in your personal (and in the case of "originality," inexpressible) definitions gets in the way of communication rather than enables it.
I'm sure there are legitimate definitions of revolution that excludes the impact automobiles. There are also legitimate definitions that include them. Who really cares? The interesting part is how have automobiles (or the Internet) can profoundly effect the way we live.
I don't think the Internet has, or will, change the world as much as people like to think; and I don't think it's changed it that much so far.
Chris, you're on the east coast, probably at your day job. I'm here in L.A. working on a zombie vampire movie. Other members of this community of ours are scattered across the globe. This discussion wouldn't have even been possible ten years ago.
I don't think the main impact of the internet is simply distribution of media, though that is significant. It seems to me that the possiblities for conversation and collaboration are extraordinary, and I don't think we should underestimate the impact of that.
I don't think materials add anything to art; I think artists create art with materials. It's the artists who do the adding.
Art is an activity in which people interact with materials. Changing the materials changes the interaction. People bring a certain kind of intention to the activity, and the materials have their own nature - stone is hard, clay is soft, paint is colorful and viscous. I'm not arguing for pantheism here, but the materials add something crucial, and that addition can be more beautiful and more interesting than the artist's intentions. Good artists recognize this and adjust what they're doing accordingly.
Chris Rywalt said...
The Internet is just a repackaging of old processes.
[...]
All the Internet has done is speed everything up and make it easier.
That darn printing press just let's us make books faster! Big deal Gutenberg, get a life!
I'm just trying to balance out the tendency of others to declare that everything is a "revolution." Most things aren't really.
But the Internet certainly is.
I'm flabbergasted. Perhaps the 'net won't have much impact on fine art (the art world seems to have been fairly immune to it's revolutionary impact thus far) the jury is still out on that.
But to claim it hasn't had revolutionary impact on almost every other aspect of contemporary existence in the industrialized world leaves me almost speechless.
chris: you're just so 1983.
Franklin, you certainly have a point I won't debate. I still think the Internet isn't a medium in that sense, though.
David, I am on the East Coast at my day job. I didn't have one just two weeks ago, but now I do. It sucks.
Actually, though, this discussion would've been possible ten years ago. Usenet has been hosting discussions like this -- and some even more useless! -- for over 20 years.
The big question is, will all this time spent noodling about revolutions actually change anything? My answer would be not really.
Ethan, I think affecting the way way live superficially is different from affecting the way we live profoundly. I think cars changed the way we live superficially: The supermarket is farther away now, and it carries bananas. I think plastic changed the way we live profoundly: Humans have walked on the moon. (Also, without plastic, we wouldn't have cars.)
chris: you're just so 1963.
Joy, thanks for the book recommendation! It looks great. I added it to my Amazon wishlist (I know it's available free as a pdf, but I really like reading books). A book that I love, on a related subject, is Kevin Kelly's Out Of Control. It came out in 1995, but it's still relevant and fascinating.
Chris, I'm less interested in revolutions than in evolutions.
Twhid sez:
But to claim it hasn't had revolutionary impact on almost every other aspect of contemporary existence in the industrialized world leaves me almost speechless.
Maybe it's just because I've hearing the promises of the "Internet revolution" for two decades now and I just don't see it.
Wow, I can look up directions from my house to the White House. I can throw away my giant paper dictionary. I can waste time typing pointlessly to people working on zombie movies in California. I can read about the Rape of Nanking in my spare time without having to go to the library. I can find out the ingredients in Slim-Fast shakes.
Where's the revolutionary impact? Show it to me. Just because everyone walks around with Star Trek headsets glued to their ears doesn't mean we've changed as a culture. We're still blowing up foreigners, detaining undesirables, polluting the world, eating and drinking too much, declaring some chemicals immoral, and praying to one god or another while claiming everyone else is going to suffer for eternity.
Anyway, I think the point is: Religion sucks. But it's here to stay. Might as well deal with it.
No. No. No. What I think you're speaking about is some sort of spiritualism, which is religion-lite when the question of "what does it all mean" comes about. You are never going to get to the transcendent this way.
No. No. No. You assume far too much. I am speaking of what Ken Wilber terms 'the perennial philosophy,' which can also be called mysticism, and which is the natural evolutionary direction of the world's great religious traditions, including Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism, and even Islam. It is the direct, unmediated experience of the unified Divine through disciplined spiritual practice, and is a peer-verified tradition stretching over millennia. It is the exact opposite of 'religion-lite.'
What you are talking about, and what you are openly contemptuous of, is a reduction and/or erroneously narcissistic extension of exoteric religious thought, which is an arrogant and common misconception in modern secular or "New Age" society. I just wrote on that last week.
Actually, though, this discussion would've been possible ten years ago. Usenet has been hosting discussions like this -- and some even more useless! -- for over 20 years.
Chris, I didn't mean that the technology for it didn't exist. But how many of us here were using it like this? Show of hands...
So, what's in a Slim-Fast shake?
David asks:
But how many of us here were using it like this?
Wastin' time since 1988.
I would argue the major religions have greatly contributed to propping up the human ego, leading to the "fetishization of the ego." They worship singular/isloated figures of grandeur.
The institutions of religion have done so, by a materialistic twisting of the essential truths they espouse; it does not follow that their teachings do not contain truth. That such institutions can manipulate people so powerfully is testament to the fact that they connect to elements deeply rooted in the human psyche.
Additionally, you will find that the most violent and destructive fundamentalist movements have their roots, not in ancient religious tradition, but in a relatively recent backlash to the social upheavals triggered by modern technological revolutions. Reference 'The Battle for God' by Karen Armstrong.
So, what's in a Slim-Fast shake?
Mostly milk, sugar, and junk.
David, thanks for the book suggestion -- looks great, and I haven't read Kevin Kelly... I bought the Benkler book in hardback (it's heavy like a brick)-- i like books too.
chris wrote:
Where's the revolutionary impact? Show it to me.
okay: you can lead a horse to water...
anyway, re: "revolutions" and whether anything ever really changes -- this is an existential problem, eh? I just read a piece in artforum this morning about art and revolution; it's a review of:
ART AND REVOLUTION: TRANSVERSAL ACTIVISM IN THE LONG TWENTIETH CENTURY, BY GERALD RAUNIG.
the review was interesting and dense; gave me a real headache. I almost reblogged it but am feeling way too lazy these last days of august (and plus I been busy here on ed's blog all morning!) --
It starts:
REVOLUTIONS ARE SHORT-LIVED, ephemeral events that shatter the continuity of history yet persist in acts of remembrance—official or alternative, pro or contra, systemic or incidental.
...and here's another quote:
How does one conceptualize revolution in a society that seems to take its cues from Giuseppe di Lampedusa's Tancredi, who realizes that "things have to change so that they can stay the same"—and not just once, as in The Leopard, but again and again, all the time, in a perpetual pseudorevolution?
It is not surprising that under these conditions, revolutions increasingly are conceptualized as past events rather than future ones.
more here:
http://artforum.com/inprint/id=15640
Learn the mathematics of quantum mechanics. It's mind blowing, and incredibly deep, and metaphysically incredible. Religion is nothing more than an infant's busy-box
Esoteric spiritual disciplines converge with modern quantum mechanics, and if you had bothered to examine any religious tradition with a modicum of depth or respect, this would be obvious to you.
Sorry to be acerbic about this, but it is as if people's brains shut off when the word 'religion' or 'spirituality' comes up, and I'm more than a little tired of it.
OK...everyone please take a deep breath. There's plenty of ambiguity in most of these question areas such that it's very plausible that everyone is right and everyone is wrong.
I know better than to discuss religion with more than 1 other person. I actually had intended to discuss whether or not "originality" is the measure Paglia says it is.
Furthermore, great religious texts are structured so that they can be used and interpreted on many different levels, depending upon the level of experience, intelligence and spiritual maturity of the reader. 'Science' as a substitute is an elite club--only really useful to people of fairly high intelligence--and is subject to alteration and modification as an intrinsic part of its nature.
Also, science provides no grounding in ethics whatsoever. Just about any atrocity can be justified on 'scientific' grounds.
Breathing...;-)
Wow, reading this was better than watching a tennis match.
Edward, thanks for the divine intervention :)
Ed sez:
I actually had intended to discuss whether or not "originality" is the measure Paglia says it is.
I think we may have mentioned that in passing. (I think it's funny that you tagged your post as "simple question.")
I think originality -- not novelty or fashion -- is an important measure. But you knew I'd say that.
If we take originality out of her formulation, though, what are we left with? Try it this way: "Our culture is enjoying a period of high _______."
What should fill the blank besides originality and creativity? I could fill it with "volume" or "output." But that's quantity, not quality. Not what we're after. (It's no wonder Hermann Hesse, in The Glass Bead Game, referred to our time as the Age of Wastepaper.)
What else can we measure by?
"Our culture is enjoying a period of high anxiety."
Yes, David, our art rises below vulgarity.
Pretty Lady said, "
What I see in the modern art world, and what I think Paglia sees, is a fetishization of the ego; of staking out an arcane 'niche' for one's work, no matter how trivial, simply for the sake of being distinguishable from others, and not for any purposes of transcendence, or even communication."
I remember thinking that it was time to quit when one of my art students (who went on to win a $15,000 regional grant, be collected as a "hot young emerging artist" in Miami, then promptly quit because he could make more money selling yachts) shrugged his shoulders and said (about artmaking), "you just have to find a good trick".
Chris Rywalt said...
We're still blowing up foreigners, detaining undesirables, polluting the world, eating and drinking too much, declaring some chemicals immoral, and praying to one god or another while claiming everyone else is going to suffer for eternity.
If overcoming all of that is your low bar for a revolution, I guess the globe is still waiting for its first...
cheers :)
Hope springs eternal. I think some entertainer said that.
People, you are scary.
No wonder most of the art sucks.
Not mine. Mine blows.
Keep your heads down people. And burn the paper trail.
As the head of Nazi Germany's Air Force Institute for Aviation Medicine, Strughold participated in a 1942 conference that discussed "experiments" on human beings carried out by the institute. The experiments included subjecting Dachau inmates to torture and death by being immersed in water, placed in air pressure chambers, forced to drink sea water and exposed to freezing temperatures. Strughold had denied approving the experiments and said he learned of them only after World War II.
Strughold was brought to the United States at the end of World War II as part of Operation Paperclip and subsequently played an important role in developing the pressure suit worn by early American astronauts.
No wonder most of the art sucks.
*shrugs*
Most of everything sucks. If something is so easy to do that anyone can do it well, it isn't really all that, is it?
What else can we measure by?
Turtles.
Especially the ones that go all the way down.
Prettylady. I'm glad you're up for the argument--even though I know you can't take seriously some of the things you stated. There's nothing I like more than spirited debate.
A while ago, Chris said: 'The Internet revolutionizes art in terms of the ability to communicate, data-mine, interact, & participate. Does this mean the revolution extends to changing the way someone paints an oil painting? Maybe not, but you never know.'
I live in NZ. In the late 80s, my friend did a statistics project on the timelag between a single being released in the UK and it being released here. It was six months. And that's if it was released here. Same for books and films etc.
As for art!? One of the defining features of NZ art history is that we know other art pretty much mostly through reproductions, and before the age of cheap colour printing they were fairly few and far between. Remember NZ's population has only recently reached 4 million. If you were into stuff the majority wasn't, you were pretty screwed.
All that is different now. Chris, your criteria are very focused on yourself. The Internet has radically changed my everyday life. It hasn't just sped things up. It's enabled a whole lot of things that simply weren't possible before.
One of these things is the way I make paintings. Every painter I know has integrated the ability to search for and manipulate images on their computer into their practice in one way or another. It may not be obvious to a casual viewer of the resulting painting, but it's there nonetheless.
This is an extremely exciting time to be painting. All of human culture is at our fingertips. We have no Salons or fanatics like Greenberg telling us what we have to do.
I reckon Paglia is dead wrong. The avant-garde is alive and well. It just looks a little different nowadays.
David Cauchi sez:
It's enabled a whole lot of things that simply weren't possible before.
Not impossible: Difficult and slow. Now you can get a view of a reproduction of any given Picasso in seconds instead of having to order a book. But you still can't see the original without getting up and going to the museum in Europe.
You're seeing more of the same stuff, and sooner, then you used to see. That's all. By "same stuff" I don't mean the exact same content. You say "If you were into stuff the majority wasn't, you were pretty screwed." Again, that's more pop culture -- being "into stuff." So maybe Bad Brains fans had a hard time in NZ and now they don't, but they're still getting pop music either way -- just faster and easier now.
All of human culture is at our fingertips, you say. Sort of. The easily reproduced bits, anyway. There's still no substitute for actual experience: A recorded symphony is not a symphony; a JPEG isn't a painting. Pop culture survives the translation to the Internet pretty well because it's so flat to begin with; in fact only through media can pop culture even appear equivalent to true culture.
It's this flattening that I object to. Fighting against that -- the forces of mediocrity -- is what Modernism is all about, what the avant garde was doing way out there ahead of everyone else. I think Paglia is right: Andy Warhol killed the avant garde. The avant garde, the Modernists, were fighting against truly powerful cultural forces, as Paglia notes, at great personal risk.
Partly through their efforts, Pop Art came into being; and Pop Art blew the culture to pieces. There is no establishment to fight any more -- as you say, no Salons, no Greenbergs (one of the last of the Modernist critics). Pop Art and capitalism have shown themselves amazingly capable of co-opting any revolt, any dissent, any resistance, subsuming it, and selling it back to us.
Modernism opened the way, but if they'd seen what was coming, they might not have fought so hard.
I'm not sure there can be a new avant garde; I'm equally uneasy with a return to the past, with letting nostalgia overwhelm us. There's some other way, I'm sure of it, and I'm looking for it here, trying to define it for myself, which is why I probably sound incoherent half the time.
'You're seeing more of the same stuff, and sooner, then you used to see. That's all.'
Not so. I can watch Hans Richter's abstract films from the 20s on Youtube now. In the 80s, all I could do was read descriptions of them in books. It's not just ordering pop culture products. It's being able to discover things you wouldn't know about otherwise, things that can then feed into your own work. Honestly, don't underestimate the difference modern communications technology has made to living in a small, isolated country in the South Pacific.
As for Warhol killing the avant-garde, ha! Punk rock was a genuine post-Warhol avant-garde art movement. Admittedly it did eventually get recuperated by capitalism, but that's okay. It did its job. (As you may gather from this example, I don't accept your simplistic distinction between 'true' and 'pop' culture - the Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich in 1916 mixed folk songs and abstract paintings, just one of many examples.)
We may not have the Salon, but we do have a new Academy to react against (I take it the US is spitting out indistinguishable MFAs at the same kind of rate we are). The defining aspect of the avant-garde is that it rejects adorning the dominant society of the present in favour of being the vanguard of the revolutionary utopia of the future.
With modernism, for the first time ever, the Golden Age moved from the past into the future. Rather than being dispensed by gods, we would use technology to transform ourselves into gods. Avant-garde art seeks to bring that society about (just think the Bauhaus). This, now more than ever, is what we need, not comparative religion or a sense of the numinous.
The internet is a delivery system, the computer is the revolution.
As for religion, I think Karl got it about right, although TV is giving it a run for its money.
Nah man, it's the Internet-connected computer that's the revolution.
Say I'm doing a working drawing for a painting, I can scan in some drawings, take digital photos, do image searches on Google (not to mention the photographs in and of major museum collections), shove them all into Photoshop and play around from there.
If I were really keen I could then project the result on to a canvas. I don't, but I do sometimes use my computer screen as a lightbox.
The crucial bit is not just doing the image searches but being able to directly manipulate the result. That's an unbeatable combination.
Not impossible: Difficult and slow. Now you can get a view of a reproduction of any given Picasso in seconds instead of having to order a book. But you still can't see the original without getting up and going to the museum in Europe.
Not true. Difficult, slow AND EXPENSIVE. Before the Internet it would indeed have been financially impossible to order enough books to view even a tiny fraction of the number of images available for only nominal costs online.
I understand why someone would want to say the Internet is just the culmination of a long effort, but the Pareto Principle (aka "the 80/20 rule") suggests that the vast majority of time before 1990 was spent laying groundwork, and the spark ten or twenty years ago finally did the real work.
You can argue that the tinder has been accumulating for as many years as you want, but that spark is going to be the big hero in history books.
Also, youtube was mentioned a couple of times above, but don't forget photo sharing. There's no way before the Internet that someone half a world away could have known so quickly and immediately about something like Gerhard Richter's upcoming cathedral window, much less been able to "order a book" to see it. Out of the question. Richter's window is going to be splashed across flickr fast and hard any day now.
I think I lost this one. Which is okay. What might not be obvious is that I type as a I think, which means I'm often contradictory and confused. I trust other people to help point out when I'm being dumb.
David Cauchi sez:
The crucial bit is not just doing the image searches but being able to directly manipulate the result. That's an unbeatable combination.
I'm not sure I approve of this practice. (Not that my disapproval counts for anything.) Although I like the work of some artists who do it -- Nancy Baker, Jacques de Beaufort -- I'm still not sure it's a good idea.
But that's probably a whole nother conversation.
I know, I'm way too late to respond, but just a comment re: television. Television (assuming there is "quality" tv to be found someplace) is *entertainment* and not *art*. And if you pretend that it is art then you're in trouble.
Needless to say, this sounds "elitist" - but art per se is is something elitist. Most artists create something to differentiate themselves from the crowd, that's the name of the game.
But complaining about someone who denies tv the status of art doesn't tackle the actual problem.
Art is as art does I guess, you get into it what you put out of it. Thats what my mom always said.
joerge,
i just dont buy that and its not about being anti elitist or anti intellectual (anyone who knows me would laugh at that) But I dig Felix Gonzalez Torres's notion of making art for the guy sitting in a recliner watching "Golden Girls". I guess it has more to do with understanding all of humanity and its motives (ultimately impossible) Really i just dont see the necessity of getting hung up over the designation "art". Does it move you or engage you or not? Thats all there is to me.
I'm a bit late, too. (hopefully better late than never.)
In response to be a pioneering artist or relate to the masses: This can be said of technology, fashion, architecture.... There's always going to hostility to change, it's one of our faults. Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point outlines types of people ranging from innovators to people who are the last to change. I've been dealing with "not-fitting into the market" it all summer, and why I'm a big believer in being in the right environment and fortitude.
As for Paglia's argument, I encourage everyone, including her, to read Buddha Mind in Contemporary Art, 2004 edited by Mary Jane Jacob and Jacquelynn Baas.
I agree with Shitless's remarks that the majority of people are not versed in the language of art and art history. It surprises me every time. My father is a photorealist landscape painter and can't sell a painting because people then think "why not blow up one of my photos" - as seen in Pottery Barn for Kids. Commissioned portraiture was already having a tough time. Yet, I consider the viewer is not aware of its art historical significance. They are thinking on an economical level.
Anyway, I think artists have been completing with current events for a very long time. Not that long ago, Chris Burden had himself shot in a gallery. - to compete with the 6 o'clock news coverage of the Vietnam War in action (1971).
Ok, getting back to my point, I think people are primarily concerned with survival - hence why 17th and 18th C colonial furniture are collected and exhibited in museums as sculpture. And why there are so many monuments from that time period.
I would like to say the responsibility of educating people, specifically youth, is not through education, but in the home. (Remember the Lila Wallace-Reader Digest audience survey from the mid-1990s, which resulted in enlarging museums' educational depts and curatorial depts responsibilities. Every museum I go to provides take home literature, books, websites and kiosks to explain the art in more detail.)Parents and guardians need to be receptive and open. My experiences with children and art is that they are willing to learn whatever because they want to spend time with you.
Hey, I may concoct a public art piece about this.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home