The Opposite of Love Isn't "Hate"; It's Indifference

I'm having trouble thinking of what else to write about today (might be the way the heat has fused certain cortexes within my skull into one gelatinous blob), so I figured I'd pull apart this pro-"Work of Art" piece published on Salon...you know, kind of the way on a hot summer day as a kid you'd find a dead bug in the backyard and pull apart its legs and body. Just to see what that felt like.

Indeed, it's not so much that I disagree with its author enough to really care, to be honest, as much as (whether it was his or the Salon editors' decision) that framing the piece so that the "art world" comes off as one gelantinous, like-minded blob annoys me enough to make me want to point out a few of the piece's failings. Besides, the heat makes me grumpy. So here goes.

Via Artnet.com I found Glen Helfand's article "Why the art world hates 'Work of Art.'" He cites four sources as evidence of this hate: one facebook posting by an artist friend of his; great snarky comments by critic Jenn Graves; a fairly even-handed comment by critic Regina Hackett; and a comment by judge Jerry Saltz that Helfand himself felt compelled to categorize as "ambivalence."

This totals "hate"? Only two of those examples were strong enough to qualify as "dislike."

More importantly, this qualifies as the overall opinion of "the art world?" Ignoring the number of parties held weekly in which art world insiders gather to watch and respond to the show, let alone the Twitter-fest and live Facebook responses (that might have balanced out the piece a bit too much, eh?), Helfand leaps from these comments into a totally backward conclusion, in my opinion:

Contemporary art has never quite jibed with mainstream media.

Not for lack of trying (says the art dealer who was thrilled to no end when an artist he worked with was featured on CBS Sunday Morning once).

IMHO, it is the mainstream media (like, er, Salon) that seems only interested in talking about contemporary art when they can either point out the gob-smacking prices some piece yielded at auction or mold the facts to suggest the art world is united in its disdain for the rest of the world.

Helfand does attempt to justify this assertion that contemporary art doesn't like the mainstream media:

Part of the reason art so rarely flourishes on TV is that most artists are reluctant to be represented in the mainstream media.

I don't think you can use the reluctance of many contemporary artists to appear on a reality TV show that makes a mockery of the creation process, something very important to them, to support the notion that "most artists are reluctant to be represented in the mainstream media." Indeed, despite his criticism, Helfand explains quite well why this wouldn't be an attractive vehicle for artists:

"Work of Art" attempts to offer an intimate view of the place where artistic creation happens, but it doesn't quite pull that off, in part because it sticks faithfully to the reality TV structure. Like other shows in the genre, the producers make contestants jump through hoops, in accelerated time frames, to make stuff — a format that has very little to do with real-world creative activities. Artists are as likely to make a portrait in nine hours as a chef combining Cheetos and balsamic is likely to make a great meal. In episode 3, the contestants created book covers, a challenge that ignores the distinctions between fine and commercial art. It's no wonder the results weren't very good.

Still, Salon had its editorial angle, and despite the obvious contradictions, Helfand veers right back into it:

That said, the show does seem to be getting better, and it's unclear what, exactly, the show's harshest critics are so worried about. That "Work of Art" will create the unfounded expectation that artists can produce at the snap of a finger? Or that they might actually appreciate winning that grand prize and getting some air time? Or are they just worried that the "mysteries" of the art world will be exposed to middle America?

The "mysteries"? Let me solve those for you right here. The mysteries of the art world boil down to three things: being talented, working your fucking ass off, and being in the right place at the right time. Just like any other creative field. The rest might be good fodder for a half-hour of TV that distracts you from your real-world problems, but it ain't gonna spark no life-altering epiphany for you.

But here's my ultimate problem with Helfand's piece. He spends the vast majority of the article speculating on the motivations of a wide range of professionals and enthusiasts he lumps together as if of one mind (can I use "gelatinous blob" again here? I love that phrase), but never comes around to explaining why that opinion is wrong. The closest he comes is to note "the show does seem to be getting better."

First, to "get better," the show obviously had to leave something to be desired, thereby at least potentially justifying the criticisms of those who didn't rave about it. Second, Helfand never fully explains what about it is good or now, supposedly, better.

He does seem to hint at its potential to bring about change as being worthy:

To cross over into pop culture, we need art icons who can flourish in public, the way Marina Abramovic — an artist whose power and charisma courts and can withstand the glare of the media lights — did with her MOMA retrospective. [And he hails the show's potential to] to put working artists, semi-realistically, on the cultural radar.

Surely Helfand, "a Senior Adjunct Professor at the California College of the Arts, a curator and a critic," knows that while the performance-based practices of artists like Abramovic or contestant Nao Bustamante (who was booted off) might benefit from the "glare of the media lights," that actual daylight is preferred by most painters and sculptors, and that much more controlled lighting is needed by artists working in video or photography, no? In other words, you can't lump artists together like that any more than you can the opinions of art world insiders watching the show.