OK, so recently I was at an opening at a sort-of-mayor contemporary art institution, and somehow, during a conversation with an assistant curator and another artist, I said something along the lines of mediocrity in the contemporary art world. Then the assistant curator looked at me somewhat incredulous, and said. "Is that so? That's the first time I've heard that..."
So let's extrapolate not just her comments, but mine. I'll start with mine.
What I meant to say was this: from the multitude of artwork that is out there, some of it is good, and most of it will be bad. That holds for both published and unpublished artists. It would certainly be naïve to believe that when people don't get exhibits it is because their art is not good. We have all heard of overlooked artists who got ignored during their lifetime, and most of us know good artists who aren't getting any shows. It is just as naïve to believe that everybody who exhibits does so because they are good. Who hasn't seen a bad show? Or heard critics and reputed artists comment unfavorably about someone’s work? So the question is one of ratios, of how much mediocre artwork is out there in comparison with the good one. My guess is something like 1:9; an overwhelming majority.
Now, going back to our friend. What she meant was something along the lines of most (if not all) artists who get press, or exhibit, are good, while most who don't, are bad. Her ratios are something like 9:1 from among those artists who are enjoying attention, and the opposite for those who aren't. It is something like Social Darwinism applied to the arts. Bad things happen to bad people, and vice-versa.
I'm fascinated by the docility of these Art World worker-bees, and by their lack of an opinion. It seems like they don't have much wisdom to look for the things that make an art work interesting, and instead, they are ever content, and self-satisfied, with recognizing art work that looks, or seems to function, in a manner similar to work they are already familiar with. It's almost like they read Artforum not to see what is going on in the art market, but to see what they should like at this moment. I am willing to bet that if you asked most people who work in the art world what the avant-garde is, they would tell you it’s them! Yes them, the pranksters, scenesters, hipsters, etc. Even though they are all cloning the same post modernist work over and over, in some sort of incestuous, schizophrenic orgy of self-complacency without questioning themselves for a moment, somehow, THEY are the underdog. They are just misunderstood, neglected, poor, middle-to-upper class, unquestioning majority holders.
Dislocated, “sense of place” video has now officially become as abused as “stained mattress” art from the 90’s. You will find a couple of these in just about every student art show these days.
Hey geniuses! In case you’re curious about what edgy video is, go watch 10. I know. He wasn’t the first, but he was the one to push it the furthest, AND he did it on a budget.
It all goes back to the problem of art students being taught to start out with style first, and concept second. The truth is that when you start out with concept, the style will weave itself in more naturally, and if it doesn’t, then it means you need to make one up that will help you express what you want to say, and that's when you start breaking new ground. But when you start out with style, you’re only imposing your style on just about every subject matter you ever tackle. It’s pornographic (in the bad sense of the word).
So let's extrapolate not just her comments, but mine. I'll start with mine.
What I meant to say was this: from the multitude of artwork that is out there, some of it is good, and most of it will be bad. That holds for both published and unpublished artists. It would certainly be naïve to believe that when people don't get exhibits it is because their art is not good. We have all heard of overlooked artists who got ignored during their lifetime, and most of us know good artists who aren't getting any shows. It is just as naïve to believe that everybody who exhibits does so because they are good. Who hasn't seen a bad show? Or heard critics and reputed artists comment unfavorably about someone’s work? So the question is one of ratios, of how much mediocre artwork is out there in comparison with the good one. My guess is something like 1:9; an overwhelming majority.
Now, going back to our friend. What she meant was something along the lines of most (if not all) artists who get press, or exhibit, are good, while most who don't, are bad. Her ratios are something like 9:1 from among those artists who are enjoying attention, and the opposite for those who aren't. It is something like Social Darwinism applied to the arts. Bad things happen to bad people, and vice-versa.
I'm fascinated by the docility of these Art World worker-bees, and by their lack of an opinion. It seems like they don't have much wisdom to look for the things that make an art work interesting, and instead, they are ever content, and self-satisfied, with recognizing art work that looks, or seems to function, in a manner similar to work they are already familiar with. It's almost like they read Artforum not to see what is going on in the art market, but to see what they should like at this moment. I am willing to bet that if you asked most people who work in the art world what the avant-garde is, they would tell you it’s them! Yes them, the pranksters, scenesters, hipsters, etc. Even though they are all cloning the same post modernist work over and over, in some sort of incestuous, schizophrenic orgy of self-complacency without questioning themselves for a moment, somehow, THEY are the underdog. They are just misunderstood, neglected, poor, middle-to-upper class, unquestioning majority holders.
Dislocated, “sense of place” video has now officially become as abused as “stained mattress” art from the 90’s. You will find a couple of these in just about every student art show these days.
Hey geniuses! In case you’re curious about what edgy video is, go watch 10. I know. He wasn’t the first, but he was the one to push it the furthest, AND he did it on a budget.
It all goes back to the problem of art students being taught to start out with style first, and concept second. The truth is that when you start out with concept, the style will weave itself in more naturally, and if it doesn’t, then it means you need to make one up that will help you express what you want to say, and that's when you start breaking new ground. But when you start out with style, you’re only imposing your style on just about every subject matter you ever tackle. It’s pornographic (in the bad sense of the word).
No comments:
Post a Comment