Globatron Laws #3 – Art reaches for the Sublime which has a moral character.
9 January 2009
75 CommentsI think this one will be a difficult one, and will be hotly debated. But Socrates believed that beauty was merely a reflection of virtue, and I agree. This puts artists under pressure to be leaders, thinkers and philosophers, although each fall under the first, they are necessary nonetheless. In other words art is an expression of an artist’s ideal, and ideals are aspirations toward the good. The origin of modern art was to free art from reality, that was good, but along the way it became a gross investigation of ugliness.
Artists are leaders, thinkers and philosophers?
Can one be a leader, thinker and philosopher without an audience?
no.
This sort of negates the first law doesn’t it. If art is not aesthetics which is beauty (correct?) then how can it be involved in the pursuit of virtue? Although I agree with you I think Law 1 and Law 3 are negating themselves and maybe that would lead us to re-investigate Law 1.
And I’m interested in your definition of gross investigation of ugliness and what that means to you.
in this law we are talking about the sublime, which is different from beauty, although beauty is a component of it, but that beauty must be understood on a deeper level than aesthetics, if that makes sense, in other words, I am attempting here to define a beauty that is about your last law, the beauty of meaning, and therefore, when beauty and meaning are well conceived then you have the sublime.
the first law negates seeing craft and bright colors as artistic virtues.
the second law demands that artists make things that are more meaningful than the objects that they are.
this one, then clarifies that the meaning exists in a social reality, of which we are called to utilize our skills to engage with, in a transformative way.
when art was turned into a place for commerce and celebrity, in some ways we lost our roles as dissenters, as social critics, we sold out to the man. here i am trying to suggest that perhaps artists should re-evaluate their marriage with the spotlight, because that has taken us and divided us against one another. this search for a clear understanding of what it is that we do, is a search for a language we can use to overturn the power dynamic that makes us slaves to the curatorial class.
ok, i’ll get off my soapbox
akbar
Thanks for clarifying. I like how you explained it in the last comment. it makes much more sense to me than in the law.
Does anyone else have any input on law 3?
I see artists as truthseekers. Truth to me is the sublime.
I don’t think I ever sold out to the man though, as I’ve barely sold any of my work. And I honestly have tried to keep these three “Laws” active in my projects.
The interesting thing about the curatorial class is that they are only there because they have the passion to put the work in. Putting the work in makes you an expert field. I don’t hate on any curatorial class as most of them have worked for free way before they made any money doing it, and when they are making money it’s usually not much.
It’s all smoke and mirrors.
quite Kantian of you sir.
You know what’s interesting to me about this “Lawmaking” exercise is how much input we got from it. There does seem to be some underlying issues in the arts where there is no structure and some folks would like there to be something to grasp and cling to as a doctrine. Or manifesto of sorts. I know I would.
Others would prefer to just make art, and more art, and have fun and play.
What worries me is that the world is basically going down the shitter and there is a fine line being drawn in the arts between the ones who would prefer to play and be escapist with their work and others who’d like to throw up a red flag and begin to illustrate a new direction humanity needs to head in order to survive the coming epic changes that we all know are heading our way. If you didn’t know it before you know it now with the current economic downfall, and the “new” war in the Middle-East. Along with an ongoing list that seems to be nothing but reminders that our time on this planet is in our hands. The ones that live right now, us, our children even, have the responsibility to change the direction our culture and society at large are headed.
If we don’t our grandchildren will know us as the generation that FUCKED up the world and didn’t make the changes we could have made as we played our Playstations, and made playful drawings.
So this lawmaking has been an interesting experiment to me, in who is willing to discuss the possible change we need to attempt to make as artists to realign our obligations to this world we live in and who is more interested in some good honest escapism.
You all know where I stand. Where do you stand? It would be interesting to me to make one of the goals of this blog to discuss our ongoing role as artists and the obligations and responsibilities we should hold. The one’s who don’t believe you have any responsibilities…you can tell that to their grandchildren as they take their last breath of air. Tell them how level nine of any video game was more interesting to you than being engaged in helping save planet Earth from our own actions.
Viva la Revolution.
Your view and dismissal of the other side as ‘escapism’ strikes me as unfair and reactionary. There is an impatient, panicked tone in your writing that seems more personal than referencing larger society.
For me, the conversation about the laws has been useful in the varying of opinions given, it has given me a lot to think about (thanks) , but the importance of laws seems contrary to the freedom the modern art world has given us. I’d be the first to admit, laws can be comforting when anarchy is the alternative (I don’t mean political anarchy, but true chaos)… but there is a weird tension happening when so much reliance is placed on both freedom in art AND developing a new set of art ‘morals’, which is what the proposed laws are becoming.
I question if the obligations to the world you mention can be met through art and the art gallery, as we know it.
Frank, i think he is saying exactly that,
that the obligations to the world can be met by artists, by the longings the world has for artists, as opposed to what they have been getting. artists stuck in their own world, not integrated with the totality of human experience.
i think byron’s passion is a good thing but it threatens a kind of artistic malaise. absolute freedom is a kind of dissipated state.
rules and guidelines are not always hindrances, to a mystic liberation is found in devotion. for instance, what would any sport be without its arbitrary set of rules, and good gamesmenship follows from a kind of respect and honor of the rules. and who better to make a set of guidelines for the 21st century culture, a world that is struggling for meaning, than artists.
point being frank, yes, a panicked tone is not always a bad thing, especially when utter catastrophe is a very real possibility. and artists, if we fail to buck up to this calling, are going to be submissive to laws imposed on us, so I agree with him, that it is all the better to be proactive, moving forward as the world is accelerating in its rate of change.
akbar
Yes I’m panicked. Definitely. I just finished watching Armageddon Week on the History channel.
http://www.history.com/content/armageddon/armageddon-on-tv
So if I sound panicked it’s because every possible way the world could end or will end was outlined and illustrated this week. 2012. 2012.
I don’t think artists give themselves enough credit. We are creators of culture are we not? Thanks Ken for clarifying my comment.
Akbar, I get what you’re saying in reference to rules and guidelines not always being a hindrance and agree with you on that. I’ve recently made a similar point in an argument for organized religion. And true, a sport is sport because of the rule. But those ideas DO fly in the face of what art is often claimed to be in this century. There is a tension there.
Byron, although we would probably greatly disagree about how to fix the world’s problems, there is no doubt there are great problems.
I take issue is the line your drawing (regarding escapism on one side and red flag holders on the other). The impression I’m getting is the escapist need to re-evaluate the ethical responsibilities of their work and move to your side of the line.
Looks, lets put is out there, not so long ago there were a lot of hard feelings and insults flying around in response to your and other’s views, a lot more than were posted on the internet. Artists tend to be a little on the sensitive side, you know. Things have calmed down a bit since then and people made up… but there are still far more people skeptically reading this blog than participating, probably because there is a lack of trust and they don’t want to get burned.
Most of the local artists I know are creating work that is true to who they are and reflects what is in their heads. It may not appear important or earth shaking, but it is where they are at the time. Terming these things as escapism reads like an insult to the personal process that such people are going through. If your wanting this blog to be a forum locals will be attracted to you have to see this, if not, it will just be a sounding board for the same five of you.
I like your passion. It’s far better than being without, but passion unchecked can create a black and white view of how things need to be. If it’s not in them to wave the red flag, it simply isn’t. Rushing people along is a job for propaganda, not art. Panic/panicked tones has never solved anything and usually creates more problems than were there at first.
Frank I have valued your commentary dearly in the past couple of months but this last comment even though well thought out is a bit offensive to me. This blog is for open communication…period. No matter where you live. It has also been mainly the work of a few and that’s unfortunate. And it’s main mission is no longer to be a forum for locals to rant about what’s going on in Jax. The reason Akbar, started this exercise was to talk about art. Not on a local level but on a global level. That’s why I enjoy this exercise.
You have a lot to offer this blog in your commentary and I appreciate that but to basically try and offend me with this paragraph.
Correct me if I’m wrong if that’s not a bit much. To claim that folks are talking about me behind my back, etc. This blog was created to have real, honest dialogue about contemporary art. Your artwork should invite criticism. If you aren’t open to that then maybe you should question why. I have not criticized your artwork personally but asked why in this day and age escapist artwork should even be an option. It’s mind boggling to me personally. Maybe you could shed some light on that?
Passion unchecked? What are you talking about Frank. This is a blog. Do you feel it’s something more than that? Is it getting city funding? Do I hold some sort of public position? I’m just responding to a wonderful thought provoking exercise that Akbar began to help expand the role of the artist in this century. I’m sorry you don’t feel that way also because I used the word escapist, in which you define your own artwork. I could tell you thought it was a personal attack and I’m sorry for that. I was talking generally.
If you don’t want to take offense to the word escapism, then don’t define your work as escapist or maybe be open to why you do so?
I like your blog, and, from what I’ve seen, I like you. But I do disagree with certain ideas you put out there, as I do with everyone else here. BUT, my last post was mostly also about how your attitude toward that fine line is percieved by other artist. I think as artist, we need to know how our message is being perceived, otherwise, it is all hopelessly one sided.
People talk. Two yahoos get together and they will talk about someone or something. It can’t be helped or stopped. This blog is good about creating conversation, as it should be… and because you put your views out there, you will get talked about, that’s how you know your getting your message out. I’m not saying people should sit around beating on a Byron effigy, but rather just intellegently talk. I’d say it is a good thing when internet conversation can bleed into moments between live people. I’ve re-read the paragraph you took a offensive to a couple of times and I don’t see where it is offensive. I’m relating how your ideas are being taken and the insult that can be read into them. It is what it is. Granted, it is a touchy subject, but I think you need to know. You got a good thing going here, but ever since the Making Marks post, the conversations have been limited in particpants, and I think this is why.
If I offended you, I suspect the reason is because it’s all very personal to you. I credit that to you wholeheartedly, it again shows you have conviction… but there are many local artist out there with as much passion for their work as you have for your view. I know its a touchy subject, but I think it needed to be looked at – It demands to be looked at.
Anyhoo, I still think your wrong in drawing the line. I say this to add to the texture to the opinions posted here, not to demean you for your view. Thats why I say this to you on your blog in plain English – out of respect.
what say?
Frank, it is merely an exercise.
If anything I’ve learned from all of the art banter and discourse through this blog in the past two years is this:
We should all agree to disagree. At some point if you disagree then fine, state it, then let it go. Move on.
It seems some folks which you have mentioned have still not let it go. It’s all about having a conversation about the work isn’t it? That’s why I make art to talk about it. If you aren’t open to that input then it’s best you don’t show it because someone might say something you don’t want them to say.
And back to escapism which is why I think you commented earlier as stated. How can you rationalize that as a human/artist in this day and age when our world is going off a cliff?
Do you find escapism to be helping or hurting the situation humanity is in. Isn’t escapism one of the reasons we are in this situation in the first place? And I actually believe the commentary on this site is alive and well. It’s always been and ebb and flow.
Well, we do not have the same opinion on how close the world is to that cliff…
No, I don’t believe escapism is one of the reasons we are in our currently situation. To further explain how I see things, I would have to go into religion and politics, but this ain’t the Getting To Know Frank blog. I would also end up making value judgements against the beliefs of others, with would be unnecessarily insulting. Maybe another day..:)
And that gets to what I’m talking about – when you refer to the other half as investing in escapism it becomes a value judgement on the art and artist. Escapism implies a kind of cowardice. I’m saying that it’s often not escapism, which becomes a catch all term, but is often making work true to who they are and reflects what is in their heads. It is a honest approach and people take offenense when the core idea there is de-valued. I don’t think it’s a matter of being overly sensitive on the part of the offended. People are who they are. If something is important to a person, it is going to be a touchy issue, as illustrated.
In short, I don’t think is the possibility of critism that people shy away from, but that the critism is coming from an unfair view of what other artists should be doing, and therefore, a waste of time
I personally don’t see such work as escapist, but rather a sorting out of what a person believes and wants to be. When it comes time to make that stand and wave a flag, a person will, otherwise to rush it makes it dishonest.
There is nothing wrong with escapism, with spending some afternoons painting, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. in fact, it is wonderful and inspiring to see people all around the world being liberated by civilization to take part in ‘the arts.’
but being an artist is a profound, deep and ‘earth-shattering’ thing for those of us who choose confrontation over escape.
many, confront issues of existence with their jobs, and paint or sculpt or perform on the side. and then there are some who must work, but choose to use their spare time to work more, to confront the world and its problems, and to do so in a way that is artistic and seeks to open people up to ideas in ways that are more complex than mere words. this takes sacrifice and is worth noting, it takes a spirit of love for one’s fellow human beings.
byron has been confrontational, and I for one find it interesting, and I don’t think his purpose has ever been personal, but rather a desire to get at the heart of these issues. this, i think, is threatening for some. but for artists like myself, it is necessary and as important as the air I breathe. we all need heroes.
from Socrates to Martin Luther King Jr. it has been important for a citizen to challenge the very group he/she belongs to. Byron’s ability to challenge the museum, challenge the community to deeper introspection is a good thing. In joining him in this effort it makes me more vigilant in my own work, more conscious, more devoted. This is what a person like byron does, he says ‘walk the walk.’ and the amount of work byron has put into making a forum that is completely open is worthy of mention. if his opinions are difficult, well, i would challenge those who are having difficulties to look at why.
there are those of us who believe that the label of artist has become one that anybody can give themselves, and so it gets watered down, when people like byron and i have given our whole lives over to it. you can’t tell people you are a plumber or a quarter-back when you only do it on weekends. for people like byron and i, and many i know, the life of the artist is a calling.
and in regards to ‘the cliff’ you talked about us not being close to, not only are a lot of us close to ‘that cliff’ but many have already fallen off, including many of the animals and life that live on this planet. if we can’t be united in this, a dedication to progress and peace, then the word artist really is endangered too.
akbar lightning
An interesting excercise would be to name 10 artist who have changed the world. And ten more that are changing it in our lifetimes.
I would enjoy that also Kurt. If you would like to start that list off I’d be happy to help it along if I can.
I have been trying to think of visual artists who changed the world.
I think that many did socially and aesthetically which certainly would
have an effect on politics, but I can’t think of many that inspired
change on a larger scale. Courbet was probably one who was the most
active, (Vendome column event, jailed for protest, etc.) So many of the
“famous” artists from history were the darlings of the government, church, etc. and their quirky protests were very subtle (Michelangelo’s
last judgememt, Goya’s portraits.) So many historic visual artists had
to maintain a relationship with the court in order to survive.
The first group of anti-establishment artists were the French Impressionists, isn’t that ironic. Recently I think of a few works
by Picasso, Kienholtz(sp?), Maybe Johns, Warhol to an extent,
some illustrators from mid-20th century. Don’t know. Anybody have
any information?
Michelangelo
Da Vinci
Van Gogh
Picasso
Dali
Rembrandt
Caravagio
Pollock
De Kooning
Warhol
these artists changed the world, changed the way we look at culture. the changes don’t have to be political, but they should be a significant reflection of the cutting edge thinking of the time, about the way human life is structured. all of these artists made works that tested the values of their time.
the methods of critical thinking are valuable, it doesn’t have anything to do with style. There are many people now making assemblages the way Rauschenberg did, but they are derivative and often just an exercise in composition. Rauschenberg’s were not, that is what made them art.
just some opinions.
akbar
The artists making any deep impact are in other realms, like actors, directors, singers, and talk show hosts. Brad Pitt is helping to build homes in the 9th ward. Oprah is building schools in Africa. Bono is raising money to fight aids. The list goes on and on.
Are there any visual artists in the 21st century that are changing the world? Not that I know of (certainly not Shepard Fairy).
I wrote earlier about an artist needing an audience to lead, and I don’t think we have many people listening to us, so how can we pull people back from the edge of the cliff. Or are you saying that if we did more political work that we would be able to find the audience?
I would like to add the idea of the art fair and biennials. Because of the biennials and the popularity of the curator in the last few years, more and more artists from around the world are able to find an audience. Some of these artists are from developing countries, so maybe by them being exposed to the world, a light can be shed on their countries problems. These artists aren’t necessarily making political or social work though.
I think the law should just read – Art reaches for the sublime.
For the list, maybe some illustrators / satirists like Hogarth.
movies have narrative, and that acts as a spine, 99 percent of them utilize that and that gives viewers their starting point.
this is what the art community is missing, a point of departure for the culture.
as far as political action, that is a matter of wealth.
great art is a political end in itself. know what i’m saying.
akbar
At this point, I don’t think artist create culture as much as respond to it. The artist Akbar mentioned can be seen as primarily responding to the ideas, political movements and inventions of their respective times, rather than creating the cultural. They are making the changes known instead of creating them.
Michelangelo – Catholic Church/Humanism
Van Gogh – responding to Japanese work and the change in what an artist is.
Picasso – photography, theory of Relativity, World Wars.
Dali – modern psychology.
Rembrandt – Protestantism.
Caravaggio – Catholic Church and the chemical advances in paint.
By the time you get to Pollock, De Kooning, and Warhol, to me, the art responds to art, as the system of galleries, critics, and publication art are self sufficient.
Da Vinci can be argued to make the biggest effect, because of the science invovled in his art, but was he an artist who was a scientist or a scientist who was an artist. In a copy of his resume he describes himself first as a military engineer.
When artists ruled the visual world, more effect could be obtained, but with movies, TV, internet, cheap printing, we don’t have the same command. I’m all for dissent, but isn’t it like preaching to the choir in most galleries?
For true undeniable society altering change, unfortunately we have that failed Austrian artist Hitler as the most effectual example.
man, it seems so bitter…sorry, it just does.
just because the overly scientific age of enlightenment had some dire consequences doesn’t mean that humanity is doomed to remain out of touch with its divinity and power to gather together and celebrate some sense of unity.
i am not suggesting that art be judged by its political results…
is it too much to ask that artists make things that are about something? is that too much, really. i mean really, seriously, really. too much, too combative, to ask artists to put together their aesthetic visions with some idea or expression in mind, that’s too much, right? that makes me into a propagandist, someone looking for political art?
art about something, how about that.
when I started this discussion, after seeing that woman who paints pictures of aerial photos, i just thought ‘what is this about?’, i mean each painting. ok, you like aerial photographs, so do i, but liking something and having an idea about it are two different things, one is artful, the other is imitative.
when i see art that is not about anything, it depresses me. when i look at byron’s work, or some others i like, i feel like the artist is being vulnerable, expressing something about the life that we all share, it offers me an answer, maybe a wrong answer, i don’t know, but it is an attempt, somebody who believes in the power of an artist to break through the apathy.
come on, too much, really, just to make art about something, or call yourself a craftsperson, that’s all i’m saying.
anybody who thinks Michelangelo did not change the world either has not seen the sistine chapel, or is incapable of seeing it.
akbar.
I think it’d be a good idea for Frank and Ken to possibly show an example of their own artwork to get a better idea where each one is coming from.
Can each of you possibly post a url to a recent art project that illustrates best where you both best stand as artists?
I think if we could get a back to back comparison of your work we’d know the differences in your work and mindset immediately. It might be a good exercise to understand where each of you are coming from.
A picture is worth a thousand words they say. Although we are very close to a thousand words already.
Giotto changed everything. He was so far ahead of his time. Really the first western human to be so. He was the Pixar (or maybe CGI) of his day. And if you consider the development away from byzantine iconography and primitivism toward a greater realism coincides with a greater social humanism… not to say those artistic advances are the cause but certainly contributed to a greater scientific enlightenment.
He pointed the way toward individual expression and scientific inquiry.
I’ve re-read all the post up to this point in order to reassess this conversation, which has taken many turns.
I’m trying to determine if we are not understanding each other or if we simply don’t agree, so bare with me…
—————————————————-
As far as I understand Akbar’s starting post, I’m in almost total agreement with everything he posted, especially the part about the freedom modern art gives and the resulting “gross investigation of ugliness.” Quite insightful. I’ve never thought about it like that.
A few posts down, Byron refers to the line between artists as escapist and artist as flag waver illustrating new directions for humanity. A passionately written post.
Shortly after, I jump in and point out what I see as an unfair categorization on the part of Byron. Also, I bring up the hard feeling many people have over that issue. Perhaps that was a bad idea, but it’s out there. My feelings are fine.
Byron and Akbar passionately respond, making strong points.
Then the conversation turns to world view and the artists place in it. The questions being do artist create cultural? Can they lead the world to a better place? We have very different opinions there… I think those opinions are directly connected to how we see the world. My view has direct correlation to the hard street level I see the world from. The prime movers in the lives I see daily have little to nothing to do with art. I don’t feel bitter, but I can see how it may come across that way. I’m sure your view, Akbar, comes from your place in life. I admire your optimism.
Thx for bearing with me. If I’m wrong in my review, tell me.
—————————————————–
Anyways, I think it all comes down to this – the core differences between the two macro views of art’s purpose which are grinding against each other are as follows: one side sees art ethically responsible to have a substantive message useful to the world, to help create a larger consciousness. The other side sees art as a sorting out of who they are as individuals first, putting out their personal desires on canvas as an issue of self discovery. The first bares intentional messages and is world specific; the second bares unintentional messages and is personal in orientation. If the first way is viewed negatively, it can be called pompous and preachy; the second way viewed negatively can be called escapism and viewed as play.
Does that nutshell work for you? Is it fair?
My issue was not to place one above another, as the world needs both, but my problem lies in stating that the first one was superior. In the end, both have much to offer for study.
I’m down with looking at mutual work, but not in this context. This conversation is getting muddled enough and I for one would be tempted by my ego in comparisons at this point. Such comparison would be done best in person. Part of the problem with this series of post is the limitations of the computer. Most of communication is body language. I haven’t spoken with Ali and Shannon for a wile, but the critique session idea they put out there might be a better way, if it doesn’t turn into an adversarial mess.
How about this, I’m going to try and take my meal break during the Emerging Artist event at the Fogle Gallery on 01-15 (look at website for further). If you want to meet up there to chat that would be cool.
Frank, Akbar lives in New York. Nice invite but I don’t think he can make the Fogle event tonight unfortunately.
Maybe a comparison between your work would be better for another post, illustrating your two different viewpoints. Leaving all ego behind if possible?
I think maybe when we disagree with something so passionately we should possibly be able to show an example of our own work that stands behind that viewpoint. It would seem to extend on your viewpoint even more. I mean we could disagree and go back and forth 100 comments trying to clarify ones point or we could post two images and instantly understand more of where each artist is coming from and the polariy that might exist in their work.
Maybe it boils down to intents and purposes. When I think back over
years of long conversations with artists from various places in
different periods and styles. I can’t think of many conversations
that I have had with working artists about being expressly political
or intending to change the world with their images. There have
been some. Yes those people on that list, Michaelangelo, et.al.
did, in effect, change the world, but reading his writings and the
history of the time, the history of his work (Michaelangelo and the
Pope’s Ceiling) he was more involved with trying to get work and stay
solvent. His biggest competition was with the band of cut-throat artists and architects of the day. Van Gogh was feeding the demons
in his own head. deKooning was primarily interested in drinking and picking up chicks (not to diminish his work, but in conversations
with him he did not consider his work socially or politically revolutionary, aesthetically revolutionary, maybe.) I don’t know if
being critical of others work based upon their intent is valid.
I think that it can be looked at as to whether or not it is successful
withing the constraints of their intent or its purpose. I like
controversial or challenging work that has a strong political statement or a strong social statement. I also respond to escapism.
Some times it is fun to drink beer and sing old Dylan songs.
I think that lately art has become a lot more serious than it ever has
been. I have been thinking though. Kathe Kolwitz (sp?) and probably
Daumier had a commentary edge.
Frank,
that was a very good breakdown. and I agree with every way in which you clarifies all the points made.
however, as you said, there is personal art, and social art. social art does not mean that it is meant to convey a political message, rather it is made with one’s society in mind.
i’ve written in some of my own work, that there is a personal God, the spiritual relationship that every person has with existence, entirely personal and rather variant, and there is the communal God, the highest good from which all ethics and society are constructed. they are quite different spheres that sometimes overlap but have very different rules and needs, and constraints. much of this lack of clarity is to blame for all the political tensions that we are now experiencing. and i feel a similar situation has happened to art.
there is nothing wrong with personal art, with people who are using the artistic process in order to nurture their self-realization, but, when we come here, to a blog that is attempting to discuss art as a process within the community, art that is meant to be shared, i have no issue with making clear divisions. i actually think this will benefit those who are making personal work, it will allow them to focus more clearly on trying to purify their self-realization, instead of feeling pressure to do both all the time. in fact, that is my point, that the lack of clarity on this puts undue pressure on people to engage in social commentary when they are not, in fact, ready.
in response to jim, many of those artists he mentions might talk a lot about financial concerns, their mental state, women, etc. but that is because as artists they have a very clear sense of who they were, the personal process was somewhat complete and they were on an artistic journey which had to do with serving their work that they thought of consciously as having a relationship with society.
I have spent some time myself on the street, just to mention this quickly. i grew up in inner-city south florida. and as byron will tell you, we did not exactly live on 5th avenue when we lived in nyc, my experiences with poverty and poor people and crime and drugs, well, that inpsires me even more. when i have occasionally had people at my shows that came from the ‘ghetto’, sometimes graffiti kids, they got my work totally, not strictly on an aesthetic sense, they got what i was sayin yo, know what i mean. it’s like how obama chose not to underestimate the intelligence of american people. i think it’s time we become more challenging of one another, and our audience, and maybe ourselves. one of the reasons i enjoy byron’s friendship is because he pulls no punches with me, if he doesn’t like something i’ve done, if he sees through it, he tells me. it’s the opposite of ‘personal’, it’s professional.
some things are personal, i respect that, but when an artist puts themselves out there, they are beginning a conversation. i remain fixed in my believe that art that is shared with one’s society, this is a sacred thing that should not be taken lightly.
anyways, i appreciate the work you have done to clarify the issues, there does seem to remain a tension between the personal and social.
akbar
Good thoughts. Maybe what we could think about is qualifying
art that people make as being more or less internal or external.
All in levels of gray. I like thinking through this.
One thing especially I like to think about is the idea that
once we mount an exhibit (show our work) we open a new can
of worms. I hope that we get to the point that once we do that
we better be able to take criticism and defend ourselves.
That is only fair. As long as it is a critique of the work
based on the visual exhibition of it and all information given.
In other words, nothing personal. The work should stand on its
own.
like the way you think and chew your way through an idea akbar.
jim
thanks jim,
yes, the invitation of criticism is the whole reason for having the show, putting our work on clean walls so that we can see it clearly and listen and learn from the perspective of others.
a really great criticism of my work is what i am looking for, my weaknesses that might be unknown to me.
the great thing about reaching for ideals, while simultaneously knowing it can never be reached, is exactly that one does not need to be defensive, one can know that everything he/she has created is imperfect, but in one’s reaching the criticism becomes a gift, not an attack.
from where does insecurity about one’s work come?
illusions and desires. are we enablers when we avoid applying critical analysis to the work we see? it does not mean we should always look for weaknesses, but that we should have a set of values, a set of hypotheses that we are working with, and that we subject those values to tests, applying them to other artists, and either the art will modify our values, or we will modify the values of the other. in this way, involvement within an art community will become productive and rewarding, rather than a place where everybody is afraid to speak their mind.
akbar
Law 2 actually attempted to outline these internal and external influences a bit.
I definitely want this to be a place folks can speak their mind without being afraid of the outcome. Frank spoke of how I’m spoken about in the local Jax art community behind my back and that’s namely because I have spoken my mind and don’t apologize for it often. I think I did so tactfully but my tactics do not seem to have much strategy behind them. Thanks for the reminder Frank.
I wonder why there hasn’t been more involvement in this discussion by our two contributors who are art professors? Was there a reason you guys decided to stay out of this one other than time constraints? I’m sure you both still have something great to add to the discussion if it’s not over.
I find what’s great about having some guidelines to define your value system when looking at art work is that we can all use that as a rulebook to have an open discussion and critique about the work.
It’d be great if we had ten laws we could all loosely use as a way to score works that are spoken about on the site. I’m personally tired of living in the lawless world of contemporary art where the pursuit of individualism has circumvented the pursuit of truth.
And Akbar thanks for all the positivity. Back at ya mate. For many years I’ve looked at you as a sage or oracle trapped in a young man’s body.
That body isn’t as young as it used to be is it?
Byron, the invite for Fogle applied to you as well. When I have my next show, please feel free to bring your camera and mask (sorry, couldn’t resist).
Akbar, thanks for responding to my review. I think this has worked itself out well. If you ever come down here, I’d be happy to buy you a cup of coffee.
Jim, I think we share some very common ground in our views. Neat.
As far as a way to score work, I think the diversity of the views takes care of that. The more people that join in the conversation, the more varity. A shotgun effect.
Thanks for the invite Frank.
To be honest I’ve learned through many comments that I don’t have much in common with you. I have enjoyed your input though and the passion you have put into them. And I wondered why we don’t have much in common and it continues to come back to politics. Your political parties views are completely opposite to mine. And if that is the case it would make sense that we disagree on just about everything in the arts too.
This goes back to an earlier post or comments over a year ago that all art is political. If the artist knows it or not he/she is making a stance against or supporting the status quo with their artwork. By believing that we aren’t as close to that cliff that I mentioned you are making a personal choice to not take action.
And you can be fine without having laws to score work. Be happy that it’s all art and everyone is being true to their individual vision. That’s fine. But I’d rather not. I’d rather have folks toe the line and be responsible for something, anything. The obligation of the artist to be a truth seeker is a large one and one I believe we should be proud of and not dismiss easily.
But with all this said, I have enjoyed your comments thoroughly and they have made me think, so please continue.
I think art’s (or whatever we want to call it’s)job or purpose is to transgress. Now, I don’t necessarily mean the “burn-our-bras” type of transgression or even the “marry-twenty-people-and-drink-pee” type of transgression. I have said before that I feel the 50 year old man or woman taking a drawing 1 class for the first time in their lives after sitting behind a desk for 30 years is certainly adding a transgressive element to their daily routine. So while a very few artists, including the ones we mentioned, have done macro-transgressive things, art provides a space within each individual’s life to do something micro-transgressive.
And I think it simply boils down to satisfying the human brain’s need to see new things, have new experiences, and explore new ideas. Artists work within a context of “freedom” which is defined thru a negotiation between themselves and the societies in which they live. That negotiation creates a thick membrane that buffers the artist’s activities from society. But every now and then, and artist finds an entry point and injects (or infects) society with a small morsel of transgressive juice. Actually, every artist achieves this if “society” can be defined as simply a family (like when that 50 year old wife tells her hubby he has to cook for himself the two nights she is in drawing class, or when many parents have to accept their kid is a weirdo artist instead of a pre-med student).
I would say this blog provides an entry point within the context of our local society.
So i think change occurs because these individual transgressive acts accumulate rather than because of one huge individual action (unless you are an idiot president who invades countries without provocation). Of course, not all of these accumulative transgressions are necessarily good (like when a lender or investment banker ignores decades of sound fiscal practices). Sometimes our brains’ need to think-anew can really bite us in the ass.
I was going to throw Duchamp into the list of artists but was afraid of the response since he is such a firebrand. But he certainly was transgressive and way ahead of his time (like Giotto). Its up to you to decide if that was a beneficial transgression or not.
Byron, are your sure you want my wordy ass to participate?:)
Definitely Mark. Thank you.
I wanted to say:
Mathew Barney,
Damien Hirst,
Jeff Koons,
Jean Michel Basquiat,
Kiki Smith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiki_Smith
Goya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Goya
I agree on Kathe Kollwitz Jim, She’s one of my favs for sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4the_Kollwitz
This war photographer is one of the most transformative figures in his field for the past couple of decades. James Nachtwey
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
beautiful Mark, love it.
i agree with Duchamp, as I do with all the originators.
the problem is that transgression becomes conformity, the way Kerouac and Pollock become icons for every college student going to college and drinking themselves into oblivion, thinking they are ‘on the road.’
i completely agree, that transgression is a key aspect, another word I might throw in is transcendence. to transcend the expectations of one’s society in order to find one’s truest self, which often leads to transgression, sometimes it leads us back to a mystical form of devotion.
words are good, dialogue is good. our art world has become so afraid of discussion, and depends entirely upon personality and fashion.
no shame in the game…keep it real Mark.
i believe Barney has a true world vision, i don’t like it, but i respect anybody who has brought himself so far out of his own mind.
I think Hirst is the worst kind of tyrant, showing his power with no shame, his irony is not irony, it is twisted excess.
Koons has his moments, but much of his work is Pop, and I don’t know about you guys, but i hated the 80’s, music, movies, and art. and i think pop has become an old language, out of date.
Basquiat had a shot at being one of the world’s greatest artists, but he died too early, like Schiele.
Kiki Smith, i got no qualms, but just not my taste, but I don’t deny she is engaged in a sincere way.
there’s my take.
akbar
He doesn’t seem like such a tyrant in this interview.
i don’t buy it.
it’s killing for pleasure, it goes against my moral instincts.
i see nothing redeeming about it.
as much as I want to see artists push themselves to break out of craft and aesthetics, i would like to see artists moderate their desire for shock and abuses of power.
the great middle way.
anywhoo, maybe he’s the kind of artist i’d want to have a beer with, if i drank beer, but his work is another story, it’s angry and destructive.
if he was a teenager, cutting up animals and putting them on display he’d be put in a mental hospital.
akbar
I agree with you Akbar. He would be in a mental hospital. A psych ward isn’t as bad a place as people think though.
Does seem like a reasonable fellow, but he seems to be playing art history irony a bit too much and doesn’t seem to have an vision for truth, etc.
I could see how someone would think he is abusing his power.
Seems reasonable enough a fellow to have a beer with though, you are correct. Seems more like a blue collar worker than an art superstar. Strange really. I enjoy that actually.
Byron, the way your stating the “either your for or against the status quo” approach, truth seeking, obligation and need for laws strikes me as turning art into a (organized) religion. There is a certain logic your points seem to share with the old French Academy’s codified levels of value in an artist’s chosen subject (Ex: historical paintings being intrinsically better than landscapes because historical paintings illustrate virtues). I think you misunderstand me when you attach an “all is art” attitude to me. I think I’ve explained myself past that.
I don’t recall saying what political party I belong to… you might be surprised.
Mark, I like the way you used explore, experience and see new things in your boiling down of it all. “The Real Thing” is in there somewhere. In reference to those spare moments of injecting or infecting society with transgression, I have a question. We had lists of artist who change the world. I assume the list reflects artist who positively affected the world. Is it possible to list artists who negatively effected (infected) the world? Has every idea been worthy? Would we even be able to determine?
Akbar, I agree with you on Hirst, but not on Jean Michel Basquiat.
Your point of transcendence has a necessary spiritual quality to it. I have to think about that more. It would be hard to step outside your point of view to find another without having a very structured belief system – like a monk or nun – to reacted against… maybe in that light, Byron’s ideas of laws make more sense to me (“It’d be great if we had ten laws we could all loosely use as a way to score works that are spoken about on the site. I’m personally tired of living in the lawless world of contemporary art where the pursuit of individualism has circumvented the pursuit of truth.” – Byron).
Or would those laws be too inspired by “society’s expectations” to be capable of helping transcendence. Maybe that’s where the mystical comes in…
Does this make any sense? I’m sorting this out as I go without editing…
I think a prescriptive attitude toward art is completely antithetical to art’s function. And what is this “truth” business? The only thing we can hope to be as creators is lucid, aware, and relevant (or true) to our own time. I am not even certain what “truth” means or how a singular truth could be achieved on a planet populated by fleshy bipeds supporting very different brains on their tops.
Perhaps artists could provide new perspectives, put things and ideas in new contexts, inject memes, and offer novel visions that may wake some people up a bit from a stupor. But that would be one perspective among many.
Now my little meme can join other similar memes creating a mega-meme machine that does affect change in a larger context. But that must occur organically, there is no way an individual or even a group could do that without military force.
I would say if we need to toe some lines or write art laws we need to join the Stuckists.
Mark, the very first sentence of your last post contains an obvious contradiction. in the same moment you warn against a prescription, you do so with regard to art’s ‘function.’ there are many ways one could go to interpret this. enough to say that it seems you have a very relativistic view of things, which is cool, but to argue for my own ‘meme’, i think relativism is somewhat symptomatic of an age of over-populated, and over-loaded society, that is hungering for some unifying vision, and that artists are in a perfect position to offer that.
Gandhi is a wonderful example of a man who changed an entire nation with simple non-violent actions, which if looked at in a certain light had a quality of performance art to it.
I think in an age of information, that visual artists, as our world and landscape becomes more virtual, artists are in a unique position to offer new visions. but, i find many artists have no interest in such things, or worse, have lost the belief that such a thing is possible. it is this tension that represents my ‘meme’ to use your perspective.
inside your argument is passion that comes from belief, a belief in your own truth. but relativism allows that truth to never be tested, and therefore never refined in the process of experiment. i actually believe that relativism is a way of protecting our worldviews, our biases, whereas a search for truth is an admission of not having it, it unifies us, rather than keeping us all in our workshops alone working on specialized projects that nobody can understand.
when i looked at your work, i saw work about play, which is a wonderful irony, and represented to me an idea that is common to my thinking, that we are overworked, that our lives have become almost slavish to the market, and financial pressures. Play becomes a high commodity, and yet, it has become your work. i would say, this might be a reason for you to resist such laws, but i’m not sure how conscious it is. it would be interesting in that light, as a real explicit philosophy of play. maybe i’m reading your work wrong, but the primary colors and some of the materials brought that to mind, as well as some of the imagery in your mashups.
any rules i use, however, unconscious they are, indicate that your work is sincere and searching and somewhat serious, even though it is playful. i’m not sure what danger there would be in understanding the motivations behind human evaluation procedures. it poses no danger to your freedom, especially since Globatron cannot enforce such laws. in other words, the laws would have to be self-evident.
what is lacking are artists willing to find out what is at the heart of the matter, and i’m one of them too, i include myself, but i guess i’m tugging just a bit in that direction, saying why don’t we keep digging, keep asking ourselves if there is a truth, if there is something about what we are and who we are that is special, now that we’ve been liberated by the 20th century, what is left?
i think underneath all of this is a little bit of fear that we are obsolete. the same fear that drove the early impressionists, as they watched the rise of the camera, and on and on, artists have wondered about their value, such an insecure lot we are. but i do question the idea that humans are a bunch of meme makers, part of a machine. perhaps some are…
akbar
Akey-baby! That is good talkin’ sir!
Nah, Im not so much into the relativist thing. Forcing a girl to cut off her clitoris or killing her because she was raped is pretty damn wrong in my book, I don’t care what one’s culture or religion says. Pluralism may be a word I would use.
Every individual perceives the world through a filter of standards, many of them learned or adopted and, yes, unconscious. It would be impossible not to. But those criteria are fluid to different degrees, the standards I used to make and interpret last year were somewhat different than the ones i use today, which differ from the ones I use next year. So I am not resistant to having standards, or even to defining them. I just feel it would be ridiculous to codify them into a system that is supposedly going to guide a) many different people with different insights and experiences, and b) any one of those individuals for the rest of his or her life (or thereabouts).
And you are correct that some of mine are unconscious. And this conversation is making me reconsider whether or not that is a good thing. I do think that this exercise of locating and defining criteria is beneficial (i should since I teach that process all the time in class!) But the purpose of the exercise is not put these (now conscious) methods in my mental toolkit to use ad infinitum. The real benefit to me would be to put those standards in my toolkit to use when necessary and to examine all the other criteria out there in criteria-land. Constant openness! And its not a willy-nilly type of openness, I still want to use my experience and limited intelligence in discovering the new methods. This all goes back to Mikel’s idea of avoiding the shtick, which i am not so sure I do successfully.
But i still think having some of them hidden from my understanding is very useful.
So my standards are there, they exist, I just want to keep them as loose and unfettered as my materials. Not as easy as it sounds.
Anyway, I recently listened to a podcast of To the best of our knowledge about a guy who filmed a documentary about a monastery. He lived with the monks for a long period. Talk about a difficult life. They basically give up any sort of individual existence and truly live an entire life adhering to codified standards (all them vows and stuff). The host of the show mentioned that the faces of the older monks seemed very peaceful while the young monks’ faces seemed pained. The filmmaker explained that is because it takes 20 years or so to get to the point of not suffering from that ascetic lifestyle. The rewards of which supposedly being a greater spiritual “truth”.
If It takes twenty years for a person who can only speak a few minutes one day a week, live in a small room with just a bed and a wash basin, dress the same way, eat the same food, see the same things, say the same prayers, and..uh.. not have.. ahem..you know to find whatever truth he is going to find, how in the world are we to discover this “truth”?
The main standard i use is good use of the imagination (kinda vague i know). That is really mostly because I see such an incredible lack of imagination in my classes it really frightens me. I certainly also see that lack out in galleries and such and I certainly see it in my own work. But nothing kills the imagination like a set of codified rules gentlemen.
To all,
I have enjoyed reading and chewing on all of this. The unifying
bond is that we all want to think and want to be better at
carving some sort of reality out of this devil in our head who insists that we
craft the graven image.
Scary thought:
Probably one artist who has had the biggest effect on changing our
American culture- Thomas Kinkaid. “Look-it baby, when you dim dem
lites it glows, miracle, just a miracle! I look in that little old
house and I thinks to myself, you know there is a little fire in a little fire place and a little old man that is just like I’ll be
and he is patting his little dog on it’s cute little haid. Ain
it speshul, makes me feel so warm and good. I love me some art.”
AH! Thanks Jim for mentioning Kinkaid because that made me consider trying to offer some bit more precise reasoning here.
I think we can all agree that our common purpose (as Jim says) is to consider and create things in the world that hold meaning. There is no question that our individual worldview influences both the interpretation and creation (not sure what the diff is there) of meaning. Those principles can be employed in many different ways ranging from using very defined and rigid holes within which we insert the “right” pegs (thus confirming our worldview) to a very basic and loose structure with which we insert INTO the things and concepts around us (thus allowing those things around us to inform and shape our worldview).
Kinkaid fits in here because even though we could apply our staunchly held principles in examining his works and conclude that there is no worthwhile meaning to them, and even though for the most part we would be correct (especially given how they exist in the world), we would be missing an opportunity if we did not consider all the varied, intricate, and unintentional ways his works lends insight into who we are and how we operate.
My point isn’t to open up a discussion of Kinkaid as much as offer a possible example of how having a broad and malleable interpretive viewpoint can provide a new way of understanding that affects us individually.
Whatever dogmatic thing I would have to say to the world is nothing it hasn’t heard and accepted or rejected already. But if I remain completely open to what the world offers me and I distill that within the capacities and limitations of my intellect and experience, i certainly can gain insight that influences how I live and what I believe.
So perhaps this is the INTERNAL reality of “truth” seeking, and it all goes back to what Byron mentioned as the difference between an internal and external interaction?
having a serious discussion of Kinkaid, however interesting that might be to some people, is not a discussion of art, as much as it is a discussion of artifacts of a culture. that is an exercise in cultural analysis. and frankly, i think it’s kind of silly.
the inability to believe that one can change the world in a positive way, this is pandemic and represents a kind of defeatism.
because the world changes, as a result of technology, culture and history, there is always the ability to form new ideas, and things that the ‘world has not heard already.’
the search for laws, is a search for absolutes, ideals that guide our instinctive responses to art. this is different than the construction of rules.
i think that artists should have philosophies, worldviews, ideas out of which their artistic visions take shape. otherwise they are just making ‘things’, and does our world need more things?
in the same way that I question multi-million dollar bonuses to corrupt CEOs, i question artists making things that they cannot elucidate the value of.
in a world that is struggling with sustainability, true survival issues, whether we like it or not, we are one day going to have to declare our value, the value of our labor. i just think if we truly love the arts and the artistic life, we ought to be a little proactive on this front, cause it seems to me, it’s coming. i don’t know any way our world is not going to go through drastic changes in the next 10 years. it seems that so many artists want to stick their heads in the ground and keep working from a 20th century mindset.
i do think, we will be the first to go…always have been.
akbar
I’m impressed by the eloquence of this blog. I must admit I’ve read a few of these comments more than once. I got lost in the words. Tricked by the articulation, but now I’ve found the truth. (Thanks for introducing me to meme).
To make a long statement short – this whole argument is dumb. It seems based on some dystopian belief as old as the Old Testament: Art televangelists.
I don’t need to be pulled back from the edge of a cliff and my head isn’t stuck firmly in the ground. I think.
Byron’s line, -The obligation of the artist to be a truth seeker – isn’t fair, because it implies that truth is absolute. Frank’s beliefs are his truths and so are mine and everyone else’s. So if I make art that states everything is great and I believe that to be true, then I am making art that is true or seeks the truth. But if one believes that everything is bad, then my art is dishonest therefore making it not art at all, according to what I think has been stated. I do think the world will change in the next twenty years, but I do not have the same doomsday outlook as Akbar. I do not feel the same need to find solutions or even comment on these issues in my work. That doesn’t mean my art is not good or relevant, it means that these issues aren’t as important to me. Truth is overrated.
In my humble opinion these laws will only work if law #10 reads: Disregard laws 1-9.
Art laws are fun, but fruitless. Come on guys- It’s just art.
.
As long as the farmers keep growing corn everything is going to fine.
well kurt, not if we keep feeding the corn to our SUV’s while people starve.
fun….um, well, yeah, there is fun in life, there’s nothing wrong with that. i have a lot of fun playing my XBOX 360, by the way, anybody want to play some Halo, but i don’t consider that an artistic endeavor.
your defense against truth itself derives from a truth that you are protecting… it is a position.
a search for truth or meaning is far different than an insistence that everybody has authority over a ‘personal truth’. that is contradictory and really makes no sense. by looking for ideals that humans could share as a way of not only evaluating art, but also that they could use to work collaboratively, i don’t see this as a threat, rather i think it would be liberating.
if you believe that your work is ‘true for you’, what makes it so? what makes it truthful? because it’s fun?
isn’t it possible that some of the truthfulness you find in your endeavor shares some universal aspects with all other artists, and if that were the case, wouldn’t it be worth investigating? or would that be a bit like turning the lights on during love-making? i don’t know, i’m more of a kinky art maker i think, i like to have all hands on deck, if you don’t mind me being a sloppy metaphor maker.
anyways, admitting that the world is in danger is not about being negative or dystopian, it is cautious and compassionate, and has everything to do with being a part of a community. i think that artists who get paid to engage in frivolities are symptoms of the last stages of empire.
akbar
I just want to say that I have enjoyed this conversation simply as an intellectual exercise. I find every viewpoint expressed here completely valid and in no way should my flawed take mean that I do not consider those points and wholeheartedly support those who make them in their attempt to persuade me or others or to put these ideas into action.
SO what if we go ahead and explore what an art that tackles the big issues, tries to shed light on and offer solutions to problems, and unifies the moral character of community looks like and how it could work.
To me, to be effective it would have to not be too preachy (which a lot of art that attempts the above seems to be) AND it would have to be not too ambiguous or obtuse (which a lot of “fun” or escapist work may seem to be). I would like to offer a couple of links for review one is of a show from 2004 at MASS MoCA called the interventionists:
here
and the other is a “social practice ” artist Harrell Fletcher:
here
Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma has really opened my eyes to corn as a commodity.
I read words like drastic and survival and the edge of a cliff and a dystopian image pops in my mind.
Are you concerned that artists can’t explain their work thoroughly or are you concerned that artists aren’t doing the type of work that you think befits the concerns of the day?
Sometimes I leave the lights on, sometimes I turn them off. Sometimes it’s daytime so I don’t have a choice. Sometimes I draw pictures of naked women licking each other. Sometimes I paint pictures of my sons. Sometimes I read Howard Zinn and sometimes I read Dan Brown. They both write books. They are both writers.
My work is true to me, because I know it is my journey. I know that I have learned and I will learn more. It’s my art. I am not making it to make money or friends or whatever. And if I was and I knew I was and I didn’t try to hide it, then I would be fine with making art to make money or gain favors. I don’t really even feel comfortable using words like truth to describe my work. I only used that word because it seemed important in this blog.
Akbar you said,”your defense against truth itself derives from a truth that you are protecting… it is a position”.
I don’t even understand what you are trying to say or how it rebuts what I have said.
The laws are Globatron’s not mine. I do not feel threatened by them and I will probably agree with most of them.
Art Is Sublime.
Kurt, assuming all these statements are meant to run together, I’ll clarify a little…
“Frank’s beliefs are his truths and so are mine and everyone else’s. So if I make art that states everything is great and I believe that to be true, then I am making art that is true or seeks the truth. But if one believes that everything is bad, then my art is dishonest therefore making it not art at all, according to what I think has been stated.”
I have my beliefs and you have yours. By definition, our beliefs ARE our beliefs because we believe them to be true. I know I’m stating the obvious, but stay with me. Those beliefs either come from observation, which is somewhat prejudiced by your place in life, or they come from an outside source we choose to follow, like religion or political affiliations. As artist, we have two things going for us, craft and experience. Craft allows us to make stuff and experience gives us inspiration.
My outside source is Ecclesiastes.
Where my previous issues were not about making art reflecting how great things are or bad things are, but making art that expresses our individual experiences. The dishonesty comes into play when one artist tells another he is ethically responsible to be inspired by experiences other than his own. If the alarmist artist wishes to make alarmist art because his experiences tell him so, then that is honest. If a more optimistic artist makes alarmist art even though his experiences tell him otherwise, then he is being dishonest and probably doing so for shock value.
My dad has a saying “He may be a heathen, but at least he’s an honest heathen.”
——————-
I do not believe art is meant to find truth, but rather express our experiences. Furthermore, I can’t create truth, It’s already out there. I have to look for it, but that’s not just about art, it’s about purpose of life. The artist doesn’t not have any monopoly on finding truth, and to think so leads to self righteousness.
I do think Akbar has a point in society happily stumbling towards the end of the empire, but I think things like pop music (B. Spears singing a song like Womanizer while selling her image on her video) are much greater signs of such than we landscape painters celebrating the nature world.
Alsor, I share some of his aggravation with many other contempory artists… my problem with them is they are making art about art like it’s a game of who can be more clever. Cleverness has replaced craft. Neither ALONE makes for a complete work.
With all that in mind, I am fond of war artists, pien air painters, Kollowitz, Van Gogh, Rouault, Monet, documentary photographers, Kent Rockwell, Seshu, etc.
——————
Andrew Wyeth died today.
I have heard this bias against cleverness before and i never understand it. How is being clever a game of one-upmanship? Or how is it any less so than showing off virtuosic skills?
When is see cleverness I say THANK YOU! Thank you for being clever or intelligent or imaginative- all of which tend to be synonymous to me. Thank you for not being boring! Thank you for making me think differently about something. Thank you for this gift!
I suppose I would need some examples from you Frank to really get a precise idea of where you are coming from. But generally for me “cleverness” is a-okay!
Example being Hirst and the Minimalist, at times.
Making sure we’re on the same page: I said above “Cleverness has replaced craft. Neither ALONE makes for a complete work.”
(I feel so pompous when quoting myself, but…)
I see this in art that is about art and find it flat and lacking in heart.
The emphasis in cleverness alone being distastful to me. Cleverness alone leaves me cold much like Kincade’s work being all craft and no cleverness feels so empty.
If craft can’t be the primary objective in art, how can cleverness?
So says I! How’s that to start?
like blue angels, jet planes flying in and out, weaving and near misses.
whereas once Frank and I seemed on different pages, I could not now agree with him more. The contrast between Brittney Spears and landscape painters is a very profound argument, a good one.
and Andrew Wyeth dying today, he is what Kinkaid would be if he were an artist. that is probably the absolute clearest argument I have made thus far. and in regard to this analogy, and how many would agree to it, that agreement comes from an unconscious set of values that are shared. Wyeth was a genuine master, i hope there is a heaven today, and he is there.
in response to cleverness, as mark was asking, there is a marked difference between cleverness and wisdom. Kinkaid and Warhol were clever, and Wyeth was wise. Wisdom comes with a price, and often cleverness comes with a price tag.
to respond to Kurt who keeps saying this discussion is pointless, who nonetheless keeps engaging in it, and after arguing passionately against arguing passionately, finishes his entry with “Art is sublime”, stated as true. all i’m saying Kurt, and I really don’t understand why you did not understand it, i’m saying that you have opinions, just as Frank said, that you believe them to be true, because you have deep beliefs. A discussion of beliefs, which is what we are having places our beliefs out there, as a testing ground.
people have different relationships with belief, some don’t feel like engaging them in dialogue with others, and therefore, a discussion like this is pointless. Just as in all of history, there are those who wanted to engage in intellectual pursuits and those who would rather not talk while they are doing it. personally, i don’t really get into dirty talk in the bedroom, but you know when it comes to art and writing and culture, i’m a talker, i like to debate about it, i like to subject my beliefs to critical analysis, and i find it rewarding. for instance, byron and i have been doing such discussions since college, and we have both changed as a result. it doesn’t mean anybody thinks that they know the truth. in fact, and this is what i’m trying to get to, the lack of and resistance to discussion is the real mystery…
in response to this question:
Are you concerned that artists can’t explain their work thoroughly or are you concerned that artists aren’t doing the type of work that you think befits the concerns of the day?
yes, on both counts. i think the word ‘concern’, that should be central to an artistic lifestyle.
and I will go ahead and make explicit what is being tossed around. i do think an artist ought to charge him/herself with having a belief system about the world/existence/universe, etc. and that it ought to be a motivating factor in the art-making process. in fact, I think this is a law, it just is, it is the way artists work. often times, the belief system might be unconscious, but i am arguing that there is value in exploring our unconscious motives. anybody engaged in this very long discussion is passionate about art. and i’m just saying why not know why, have some philosophical grounding to that passion.
there is the concern that art can become political and boring, like propaganda, i totally agree. this is why i look for art that has a depth and wisdom to it, that covers the ages and yet holds onto a humanistic passion and longing for progress. I see such universality in the work of Anselm Kiefer, if anyone is wondering.
I also, like Frank, get a great deal of my thinking from Ecclesiastes. It is almost from that way of thinking that I think it is a time for change in how artists relate to one another.
who knows, i know i love that song Womanizer, can’t stop watching that video.
akbar
I don’t know about you Kurt but I am starting to feel like I am being scolded. I certainly feel like I am from a different planet.
So I am not sure anyone looked at the links I put up on the Interventionists show that dealt with socially and politically engaged art from artists like The Yes Men, William Pope L., Krzysztof Wodiczko, and Reverend Billy, or the link to the Harrell Fletcher site.I will now add Michael Rakowitz”s paraSITE’s and Fritz Haeg’s Edible Estates to that list.
I thought this is what you meant by “concerned” artists engaged in social change, using alternative means to solve problems, using lampoon humor and social interruption to get a critical point across.
But NOW i get you are just some painters fighting for the relevance of your medium. That you want us to understand paint as the prime carrier of “universality” and “The Sublime”. Hey I was there once long ago. This is the only conclusion I can make if you are invoking the names of Anselm Kiefer (who I once worshiped, still do to some degree) and Andrew Wyeth? (how is painting your girlfriend for years capturing a universal truth?)
Hey, I LOVE painting, and Wyeth was a true master of the medium no doubt. I once revered painting as the only true carrier of meaning. I have since come to understand that meaning is NOT universal, it is contingent and fluid. And media or material is only part of the process of meaning creation. Context, subject matter, form, effect, and material all interact in forming the content of work.
I feel like I am talking to a christian evangelist who is making judgments about the “moral character” of artists based on thier (what?) medium? style? how apparent their belief system is in their work?
How is distinguishing between cleverness and wisdom any different from separating the Sunday christian from the “truly pious”?
eh, disregard that last post. Lets not stir the pot or rock the boat round here. You can scold me all you want!:)
scolded?! mark, come on, are you 10 years old.
in many of your posts you talk about art ’should not be preachy’ art should not be this, not be that. and then you argue against a search for laws. all i’m saying is this is contradictory.
i am ok with the idea that i have a specific set of values in relationship to art.
this has nothing to do with the primacy of painting. i just happened to mention painters. Kiefer is also a very impressive sculptor. Duchamp was an artist who operated from a very intentional, philosophical viewpoint. artists that we now revere as revolutionaries were actively searching for art that reflected the highest truth, as they could find it. where is that spirit? that’s all i’m asking.
i don’t know many of the people on this site personally. i think Mark, that you are an art professor, is that right? i find it surprising that you would not have a clear teaching philosophy that represented something you believed was the highest truth that you could find.
it really is amazing that you would argue for us to take Kinkaid seriously and then criticize Andrew Wyeth on the day of his death for his Helga Series, which is a small segment of his work, and yes, those are artful because they capture the depth of human emotion in a way that is timeless.
in your own way you scolded this discussion with your Art Rules #4, a total non sequitur, a weird video about God the painter, and then you tell us that you feel you are being preached at.
I proposed a set of tentative laws, not because i believed i had arrived at truths but they seemed like good starting points. they received intense resistance, and I have merely responded to that resistance. the length of this discussion evidences to me that although many of you hate the idea of being repressed by rules or dogma, you nonetheless have passionate beliefs about art and its purpose. i remain strong in my belief that many of the foundations of those beliefs are shared, and that artists have become estranged from one another as a result of the market pressures, and that we have lost our ability to search for universals together.
this dedication to isolation and non-specific work processes, that defy explanation of any sort, is a sort of dysfunction. it is in stark contrast to many of the artists of our great tradition like Duchamp or Pollock or Picasso, who were very highly conscious of the revolutions they were waging.
i suppose if you are one of those artists i identify that make ‘things’ with no intent to add value to your society, that yes, i scold you. we don’t need that, we need people in our world to be conscious, to be intentional with their imagination. why? because we always have. humanity has never benefited from people who can escape the call of existence, by remaining in unconscious play. play is valuable, but it is of no interest to anybody but the player.
and finally, there is no difference between distinguishing cleverness from wisdom and the sunday christian/ truly pious example. it is a great analogy. a truly pious christian does not engage in warfare. a wise artist is quite close to a truly pious religious person, actually.
akbar
whoops, pot got stirred, disregard too, if you like.
Mark I have read all of these comments and I don’t see where anyone is saying painting is the best medium for making art.
I think you might be missing the point of this discussion if that’s what you are taking away from it.
I never said the discussion was pointless, I’ve tried to say that these rules outside of this discussion are pointless.
As this discussion keeps unfolding it is tough to respond to the total question without focusing on the comments right before. That is why I think Mark was commenting on the painting thing, and I don’t think that will be his or anyone else’s take away point.
We’ve used Byron’s Trophy Soldier drawings as an example, so I feel okay in using them again. I like those drawings a lot, but not for maybe the same reason as everyone else. The political aspect to me is not the best part, but still an interesting part none the less.
I think the chasm here, is that I believe we are living in the best of times. I believe that man is making the world better not worse. I think maybe Byron and Akbar would disagree and I think that is why you guys think it’s so important to make art that sheds light on the problems that you think exist. I could be a little of base, but that is what I infer from the blog.
Mark said, “I feel like I am talking to a christian evangelist who is making judgments about the “moral character” of artists based on thier (what?) medium? style? how apparent their belief system is in their work?
I feel the same way, I feel like you guys are making judgments based on your belief system.
The way I see it, everyone makes judgments based on their belief system. I think the core to this discussion is to just have a belief system. I mean if you are going to make something make it mean something. And be able to stand behind it with that belief system. Even not believing in something to me is a belief system. That’s why I think even atheists are believers.
I definitely don’t think we are living in the best of times. You are correct with that assumption Kurt. I could make a list of reasons why but I’m sure you can think of a few reasons yourself if you’ve watched the news lately.
I’ve said this before, if your work is fun and playful and escapist in nature at least know it and be able to stand behind why you are doing that with your personal belief system. To dismiss exploration of something deeper to me is a cop out.
What gets me is that it’s not even expected these days to have a reason why one is engaged in the process of art making. It seems nearly fashionable and stylish in nature, and to me specific to the times we live. I see it paralleling some of the huge obstacles we have as a species. That we are no longer held accountable for our own actions. I definitely think it’s one more sign of the fall of our empire, our world.
If artists can’t be held accountable for the stuff they make, then criminals should not be held accountable for the crimes they commit. I know possibly a very drastic conclusion. But for me it comes down to being aware, and responsible for the choices you are making. If artists aren’t being held accountable to me it seems to be a symbol of a diseased culture. I would think we would not only want to have accountability in our own work, but seek it from others.
And Kurt made a good point, that through the thread we have gotten off topic by responding to the last comment. Which brings me back to the original topic about art reaching for something higher. Something that is possibly sublime. I believe that if all artists do indeed have a belief system then they are consciously or unconsciously using that internal set of rules/laws to reach for something higher than themselves. So I agree that art reaches for the sublime. And the artist’s definition of morality is is mixed in with the artists personal belief system.
What say you?
Byron, prepare yourself for razzle-dazzle: I agree with your last paragraph. All previous posts, directly or indirectly, seem to support that simple idea.
About the conversation spiraling out of the original question, I say ‘good job, little blog, good job.’ Love the dissension.
————————————–
Mark, in reference to the sites you mentioned..
I’ve seen the paraSITES work on the Wooster Collective in the past. It seems more like activism from an artist and than what I usually consider art. Frankly, pretty brilliant idea to keep warm. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it in the next Bladerunner kind of Sci-Fi movie. Since I have strong feelings about the problems of/about the homeless, I found the essay posted along with it to be passionate (common condition from artist it seems), but one sided, which continues to slant it more towards activism. Honestly, I don’t have the words right now to go into my initial impression about art/activism. At this point, that would further confound the original question.
The Interventionist review sounded interesting. I would have liked to seen that show. I see why you grouped the two together.
I was curious, do the two examples of overly clever artists clear my original statements up or further confuse?
I can somewhat understand why my use of painters for examples and in reference to my views would imply Painting Above All. That is the media that I do love the most and get the most out of. No apologies there… but I don’t see any direct statements regarding painters being the prime carriers. That’s just silly. As far as feeling judged, at some point, that seems to always enter such a conversation about beliefs… what can u do? As mentioned before, it’s not new to this blog.
I just finished looking at your flickr photo stream. Your ruband 1 gives me an idea for a painting – thx. I saw your work at the Portents show. I didn’t get to go in, just looked through the window with a flashlight in the earlier morning hours (the gallery was on my beat). It all makes more sense when I see your pics together. Seems you really love STUFF. Neat.
the world just is…. better or worse, what’s the difference.
it is most exciting regardless of the state of the world to engage with it fully, to live consciously, to make things, to work, to play, but to do so consciously, with a feeling that one is an active creator in the universe. knowledge, and understanding about the universe is vital, and being present in the things that one creates, having a sense of what one is saying, these are valuable, i propose.
doesn’t matter if the world is going up or down. an artist’s purpose is to make art, not things, and this is mysterious, but an artist does not get to hide behind that, the mystery, an artist is challenged to have a conscious relationship with mystery, to be a bit of a mystery him/herself.
like frank said, judgments come from belief.
Judgments are not bad things, the only evil comes from action.
There is wise action and there is ambivalent action.
alluding to frank’s statement, I’ll take an honest heathen over an ambivalent artist.
the question is what do you believe art is Kurt and Mark? If it is something that cannot be defined, then does it exist?
What values do you use to judge art? for you must like some art and dislike others.
i agree with Frank, that there is a lot of activism out there.
it seems i am eliminating a lot, and that is true. i find the world to be a fascinating, wonderful, interesting place, but i choose very few things to call art, i save that word, for the most special things i see. they are neither activism, or aestheticism or play, they are a little bit of all and something even more, they represent the depth and wonder of the universe itself, a true reflection.
more thoughts of a preacher, praise jesus!
akbar
Okay.
I believe there is wisdom in uncertainty. I believe great insight can come from serendipity and reflection upon that serendipity. I believe that my sensibilities do express themselves in judgments, but since my sensibilities are open, inclusive, accepting of chance, cognizant of context, and hyper-aware (on good days), my discriminatory judgments are utilized within a broad, seemingly ambiguous field rather than a narrowly defined set of parameters. I believe that my inclination to deviate from the norm is not simply for the sake of deviation but rather to attempt to always be at the highest level of creative and imaginative energies. I believe that this is a personal process, I can only deviate and expand from my own experience, therefore the more experiences I have the more i experiment and the more creative energies I have to work with (much like working out at the gym). I believe that the flow of creative energies is always expanding, it cannot be contained, to try to do so would only be stifling one’s creative potential. Again, I believe this is a personal journey. I believe everything has meaning. I believe my efforts are to seek that meaning rather to impart. I believe that meaning can be dynamically malleable and complex/simple without being arbitrarily assigned. I believe I can set the stage for meaning to be created but I do not myself assign that meaning alone, it is created collaboratively through a subjective interpretive process involving the particular form/context/content relationship of my creation interacting with the sensibilities and experiences of the viewer or experiencer. I believe that my personal ethical and moral character plays out within the scope of my life and certainly has bearing on how I practice art-making, but, since it is also a reciprocal process (the discoveries and experiences I have through art inform my character), it would be self-limiting for me to employ my art to explicitly represent my morals or beliefs. I believe if any belief system can be garnered implicitly from the work (by myself or others), it must happen organically via the meaning -making process I previously outlined. I believe that if anyone feels my work or approach to art is valueless or escapist or a sign of a “diseased culture” that is his or her prerogative. I believe that since i grew up an agnostic in the southern US of A, this is nothing I have not encountered before.
yo mark, it was cool to see you lay your philosophy out there, and i don’t got no problem with it yo, seriously, i have no moral prerogative myself for engaging in this dialogue, you feel me? all i am saying is whether or not you are conscious of it, your actions exhibit a set of beliefs. in other words, your beliefs about creative energy and agnosticism, they are a part of your work, there is no escape from the subjective, even though attempting to be free of ’self’, i would agree, is a valuable artistic approach.
your belief in open sensibilities, it is a belief, and when you posted your video as Law #4, that sprang from a desire to impose an openness in this dialogue, and that is cool, seriously, as akbar lightning i totally believe in the trickster spirit, i am merely pointing out that all one can do is respond.
i think in some strange way we are all the same, we are, afterall, human beings. and when you argue that we are all different and valuable, aren’t we both arguing in some strange mystical logic the same thing. i am saying yes, i think so.
i don’t know, i’m trying to tie a bow here, but that is what i am a ‘bow tier.’ not because i want to force the universe to adhere to my will but because i feel called on some level, a kind of agnosticism, in my own form, that compels me to seek unifying energies.
i think the greatest traditions in human history are those springing from peace-loving radicalism, dissent. and those are my loves, and those are what call me into action. i share this, i think, with byron.
ok, to respond in a more focused way to your last post, your mystical approach to creative energy reminds me very much of Martin Buber’s concept of “I and Thou’, that the subjective relationship of every interaction represents the infinite, and that openness to that enables us to conceive on a very high level a greater sensation of reality.
i do think, however, that a relationship is benefited by a clarifying of the I, for the full-disclosure that it offers the Thou. when people encounter art, there is a stress produced by art that asked a viewer to ascribe all the meaning, especially if they don’t know that they have been given this responsibility. and that’s cool, man, seriously, but this is a fact, that’s all, a fact about working from that perspective, a reality of the relational that you are exploring. personally, i find it rewarding to see an artist attempt to answer the question of existence, especially if they have a kind humility that knows it is just an artistic leap, not the true answer. like picasso said, a lie that exposes the truth.
your last sentence, you talk about an ‘encounter’ as an agnostic. deep meaning is there. deep experience, emotion, reality. i’m just saying, i’m ok with artists who have such things. i believe there is a middle way, being more from a buddhist perspective myself. that’s why i love Kiefer, because he seems to have a deep agnosticism to him.
peace, love, and lightning,
akbar
This thread offered some great stuff and i truly enjoyed reading it. I think in a nutshell, as humans, not only as artists, we should live our life with intention, be a blessing to everyone we meet, and never stop searching for wisdom.
Art in it’s simplest and mindless form is still influential and inspirational. I remember as a child I had story books from a Sweet Pickle collection and Dr Seuss, I would spend hours looking at the illustrations, then Stephen Gammell (he illustrated the Scary Stories) had me just floored with his illustrations and at the ripe age of 12, I started some of my own monster art. Then I was fascinated with Gary Larson’s simple illustrations of the Far Side cartoon and the dark humor and how just one picture and one sentence could just set a mood. All this happened before I was knowingly introduced to the classics & contemporary/modern fine artists in our art history books. Some may argue that my list of influential artists, are just illustrators, but I feel they changed my life and started my foundation for the line of work I do now.
As I got older, other artists/movements in particular that moved me and inspired me even further, Surrealists especially Salvador Dali , Frida Kahlo, and conceptual artists like Christo & Jeanne-Claude. I’m not too sure what category Botero would fall under but on one of my trips to Colombia I discovered him and have loved his work ever since.
I think as people we can be inspirational and as artists we can be exceptionally inspirational because we have a gift that speaks to people visually and can interrupt a person’s thoughts and redirect them without saying a word.
Even the “escapist” artist is inspiring someone somewhere to do something different.
A pretty painting of trees can remind someone how good it felt to go camping as a child and as they look around they realize there aren’t as many trees as before and this could start a domino affect to save a local tree, forest or jungle from being cut down.
I think it is important to have intention in life, otherwise many of our actions just seem meaningless. In reality even without intention, our actions, our art, our words, our lives, all have a ripple effect that doesn’t just stop with us so might as well live your life and make your art with purpose so the ripples can go in the general direction you desire.
-Yvonne
Even the “escapist” artist is inspiring someone somewhere to do something different.
A pretty painting of trees can remind someone how good it felt to go camping as a child and as they look around they realize there aren’t as many trees as before and this could start a domino affect to save a local tree, forest or jungle from being cut down.
Yes! Excellent Yvonne. And this reminds us that the “intention” is as important in the looking or reading as it is in the doing, and good example of the collaborative aspect of meaning creation.
Th intention of the artist painting the trees can be informed by the knowledge of the potential for multiple interpretations. She can provide a possible room (of meaning) where the viewer can enter (via form, mood, color, etc), but without closing the door behind the viewer so he can enter other possible rooms unknown to the artist.
This is a very good point Yvonne. Thanks for pointing it out. The viewer has a lot to do in this little ballet we call art. It’s a back and forth between the viewer and the creator. To disregard the viewer or listener is cutting out half the conversation. Very interesting. This opens this discussion right back up. Nice input.
so maybe that opens up another law. it reminds me of that saying about a tree falling in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
if you hang a piece of art on a wall and not a single person, apart from the artist, wants to define it as art then is it art? as much as an artist wants to define their art, it seems society has a much bigger chunk of power in defining the art than we may want to admit and their response to it is definitely an element to how successful the work is.
Then there’s the element that “important” people in society are sometimes the ones defining what is art (ie. Salon de Paris or later the Salon des Refuse) and the masses follow. We see this also in trends, fashion, fame, etc. Or sometimes the artist dies and all of a sudden society sees the value of the work.
This reminds me of a cartoon I saw many moons ago, if i remember it correctly, it was a guy in a gallery, he was examining a fire extinguisher mounted on a wall between some paintings. he went on to ask the curator who the artist was because he was interested in purchasing it, it ended up just being a fire extinguisher and not for sale. I shouldn’t admit this, but I’ve been guilty of mistaking a regular object (an air vent actually, it was eye level with the rest of the work that was hung) for a piece of possible art once at a gallery. Luckily I figured it out on my own, before I made a fool of myself…till now
So the question is: do we need an independent viewer to define our work as art or is the artist’s opinion about what they create sufficient?
This is a great question Yvonne. I think we could turn this into it’s own post. Thanks for the input.
being open to multiple interpretations of one’s work is entirely different from relying completely on the viewer for the interpretation. it is one thing to have an intention in one’s act of expression, and giving into the artistic license that allows for multiple layers of meaning.
to recreate the visual field with paint is a form of craft. what makes it art is the artist is trying to inscribe themselves into the visual field, whether it be emotional or idealogical. this is in response to the idea of a landscape painting. it is a fine line, but consciousness is a key element of this process, and i believe that consciousness is an innate virtue. it is a starting principal for me.
unconscious work might be confessional, or have accidental positive consequences, but these demand consciousness on some level to even acknowledge. consciousness of the effect of what we do in the world, even though we cannot be sure, is not limiting, it is necessary.
akbar
This reminds me of the work of Andy Kaufman. He was a true artist. He didn’t care if anyone got his jokes. He loved himself enough to not need approval from his audience. He made art that was true to himself, to look for the audience to approve sort of mucks up that truth doesn’t it?
Just some follow up thoughts on this topic.
Long live Andy Kaufman. Some believe he is still alive. I would hope so.
Leave your response!
Featured Comment:
Blogroll
Recent Comments
Archives
Recent Posts
Most Commented
globatron.org
Globatron is a work of art.
Globatron is not a blog. The structure of the blog is utilized in order to surrender to this new form of social connectivity.
Read more...