C is for Crux! part one
9 June 2008
15 Comments 
“At the base of contemporary cynicism is the fact that men and women learn by experiencing rules rather than “facts”… Learning the rules, however, also means recognizing their unfoundedness and conventionality. We are no longer inserted into a single, predefined “game” in which we participate with true conviction. We now face several different “games,” each devoid of all obviousness and seriousness, only the site of an immediate self-affirmation—an affirmation that is much more brutal and arrogant, much more cynical, the more we employ, with no illusions but with perfect momentary adherence, those very rules whose conventionality and mutability we have perceived.” Paolo Virno
So now that the (squid) dust has settled, I would like to reflect on a few enlightening aspects of the previous kerfuffle. In former incarnations, I had been witness to various disputes among dancers, poets, and musicians. And of course, visual artists have not been exactly tussle-free. Luckily, thanks to the accessible interweb, we get to put up our dukes and bare our fangs in unprecedented public display.
In case anyone was wondering, although I attempted to participate in the discussion, the two aspects of my personality (one resembling Rodney King and the other a polemic spewing fascist) kinda canceled each other out. Suffice it to say, they have agreed to disagree and allowed me to hopefully present something resembling enlightened, tolerant thinking.
To begin, the reader (you) should (as always) consider the source. I am an MFA educated, adjunct art professor. Not that self describer means much, all MFAEAAPs are not alike (BELIEVE ME!). But it does reveal a condition that causes me to break out in rash pronouncements like I somehow know what the hell I am talking about.
And what does/did the squiddust controversy reveal? Well, for starters, apparently a line in the sand has been drawn (what else would they do?) by various participants in our local visual culture, forcing all of us active agents in that culture to decide in which side of that line we want to hang out. If true, it certainly was not the result of a single blog post but has been bubbling up to the surface for a long time, revealed in seemingly benign associations and promotions or personal psychological episodes requiring a bit of hand holding now and again.
Or, we can look at it another way. What if the controversy itself is forced? What if there was some wisdom in the realization that, when comparing apples to oranges, there was no debatable significance to “peeling sucks!”? That debate certainly has personal significance to someone deciding what to eat for a snack, but it has no rational basis within the wide world of fruitdom.
But values and agendas are always contingent. And in this case, in this wacky “prosumer”, networked world we live in, one group of cultural producers feels another group is privileged undeservedly. Or at least, the first group feels the amount of attention and consideration enjoyed by the competing group is disproportionate according to the value structure of said group.
Now, any casual observer, reflecting upon the particular case of Jacksonville’s art scene, may validly wonder what the hell kind of resources exist for groups to compete over. All I can say to that is, even without physical resources, there still exists among cultural producers a strong impetus to affect the culture on some level. It’s a desire that sometimes borders on a sense of entitlement that is magnified all the more by an advanced degree, a position in academia, age and experience (in the prime of life 30s), a body of research and work, published writings, etc. This results in a tricky game for us artists however. And I think so many irrationalities, in-fighting, and insincerity come as a result of the delicate balance we try to maintain avoiding marginalization while, at the same time, reveling in our status as producers outside of the mainstream. We want our rightful place on the hegemonic bandwagon, but not in such a visible way that our ideas become co-opted and (God forbid) “common” (at least not until well after we’re dead).
I think that most of us academes (especially those over age 35) do not realize we are faced with a new paradigm in how culture is produced, consumed, and legitimized. In this “prosumer” arena of youtube, blogs, podcasts, and etsy, culture is no longer exclusively probed, molded, disseminated, and determined by the old legitimizing institutional structures. Not that those structures have completely dissolved and are valueless, just that they can be circumvented and deemed one of many “games” rather than THE game.
So, to our sensibilities, a regurgitated cultural meme, or a co-opted aesthetic stylization should be a “stage one goes through” towards a more complex expressivity. And that the road to becoming a completely unmediated producer, devoid of conventionalities is a worthy (although quixotic and maddening) journey to pursue.
So now that I have attempted to explain some of the motivations and subjectivities that create such a line in the sand to be drawn, I will, in my next installment, propose why some of the values and methodologies that exist on my particular side on that line kick ass. And, more importantly, why members on the other side would benefit from adapting some of those values AND why that exchange can and should be reciprocal.
Mark, thanks for explaining your side. I think what I learned from the exchange is that one side is not open for any type of debate. Which is fine.
Look forward to your next post on the above subject. I wondered why you didn’t engage in the back and forth and now that you described your personality traits it’s very evident
Thank you Mark. I’m under 35 but feel like I’m right there with you. I too tried to sit and hash this out intellectually, but got caught up in the cultural side and found myself using words like quixotic as well. Thanks for narrowing it down and also thanks for the term prosumer. One problem with this enlightened approach to the kerfuffle (which in no way reflects on you!) is that the folks who really need to read up on this subject likely will not. That’s the real line as I see it and it has been drawn by folks who feel that reading has also gone the way of the dodo.
I thought about this some more the past few days and to me the real issue seems to me comes down to awareness or expecting awareness and conscious choices.
On one side of the line you have artists involved in conscious thought out choices and on the other you have artists who would rather not question why they are doing what they are doing.
Now I don’t believe that one has to be involved in socio political work to be engaged in thoughtful aware work. But I do think that one side expects awareness from their peers and the other doesn’t. Is there some gray here? Is it all white and black? A line drawn in the sand? I’m not sure but judging from the reaction from one side there does seem to be some animosity in the notion that their side should be challenged or questioned at all. And the other side seems to pride itself in the very act of questioning and possibly sees that as the premise for art making in general. Are we choosing sides? Has this been brewing in the local art blogosphere for months now? All good questions to think about if you do indeed enjoy thinking and questioning such matters.
I suppose “a line in the sand” isn’t an apt metaphor here or anywhere people are discussing matters of cultural distinction. All kinds of conditions apply to this argument and individuals’ artworks may demonstrate the particular traits we’re focusing on to differing degrees, so yes it is all gray- a spectrum of gray. If all we can comment on are distinctions, then it is indeed all generalizing. All we have is out own experiences to base our claims on, so lets be careful to only speak from experience and leave room for more perspectives.
So let’s talk distinction. There is obviously a major distinction between the makers of so called “smart art” which we associate with a more conscious, political or conceptual approach, and the makers of unabashedly fun “lowbrow” art, which we associate with a approach that turns away from such intellectualizing. In my experience, as an artist who vacillates between both “genres” and as an educator of college students (born around 1989) and middle schoolers (born around 1996) the crucial distinction here is the matter of NARRATIVE. My claim is that we are becoming a zero-narrative nation in just about every way, due to the hard fact that as a nation, we are no longer READING.
It is a lack of interest in reading, I believe, that has dumbed down every aspect of our culture and now poses a threat to democracy, liberty, and free unmediated thinking. We can see it in art, yes, but it has been unfolding in other areas of culture for a while now. This is the crux of the biscuit. This is where the criticism lies.
My angle for the rest of this thread will be that the purveyors of more cerebral artworks read a lot of things that nourish their creative experience making them more aware of placing their art within a larger cultural and historical narrative. I take the position that the lowbrow artists probably read less and do not see a consciousness of a larger social narrative to be as important an ingredient in their work.
I tend to place more cultural value on works that locate themselves within a larger narrative, but a lot of “lowbrow art” does this well- I think of the works of Robert Williams, Todd Shorr, Ronny Cutrone, Kenny Scarff, Takashi Murikami and Barry McGee as examples of people who are quite conscious of cultural narrative despite at times being put into the category of lowbrow.
My major criticism lies with artists I see (many of which label themselves lowborw) that are apparently unconscious of a larger more far-reaching narrative, and in fact take umbridge with the expectation that as artists they should be conscious of such things at all. This leads me to believe that they don’t place reading near the top of things they do to nourish their artmaking experience.
While I feel that artists (as opposed to other types of creatives) have a larger responsibility than to simply entertain consumers, I also feel that the art of our time ought to entertain us some. The problem, I feel, arises when it is entertainment without regard to narrative. Unfortunately, (and I think this is where Byron’s and all of our larger frustrations with lowbrow culture lie) the scene appears to be part of a larger turning towards an America that is in effect a zero-narrative nation. And a culture without a narrative, without a memory, isn’t a culture at all.
v. for president, globatron could you settle for vice i just want to run security and mayhem for the masses. snails crawling to the sea drifting in and out of memorless memories. ask the mans soul why? the shift has been happening here for decades now and artists can fork some of the blame, the world needs a more humanistic approach. mold the time spent with your own hands in making some sense of existence step away from the dollar. first steps to freedom…
That is a fair distinction James. Due to our reading, we share a certain base of knowledge which can start a dialog. And further enrich that dialog by adding our individual specialities in hopes of having a productive exchange. Its interesting how reading/research informs the work (and perhaps this is a further distinction), how reading becomes part of the process of developing the work either directly or indirectly. When did that begin to happen for you James? Perhaps school was crucial in getting that started for me, but I read and study more now than I ever did in school. Its crucial to the process even if the content of the reading isnt necessarily directly apparent in the work.
I think its about simply being inquisitive. The particular content that one reads is not important. Being engaged intellectually isnt about knowing a specific set of information and spewing it out in artist statements and at parties. Its inquiry, simply being curious about some aspect of ourselves and our sensitivities. That curiosity leads down a path of layers and layers of information that can be used rather than just regurgitated. I would say the quality I see less and less in students is that simple curiosity.
You know about the zine project I assign design students where I allow them to choose whatever topic they are interested in. The subject is not as important as the level of inquiry. Well, so many (not all) of the results are extremely superficially explored. I know most know how to research and read, I am beginning to wonder if it has more to due with the fact that they are used to using words instead of images to convey content? any thoughts?
I’ve been following this dialogue and I just thought I would put in 2 cents, and that’s about all it will be worth.
It seems to me this is a very long way of saying there is a difference between art and craft. This difference has been around since the creation of the Venus of Willendorf.
I have often believed it a kind of grace for us artists, those of us who inscribe our craft with philosophy, to be gracious to the craftspeople, for they are, for the most part, capable of recognizing the difference, and there is nothing wrong with craft.
To argue the point too strongly is to reveal a kind of insecurity about one’s artfulness, and that is due to an alienation that has been occurring to us intellectuals due to many factors, the rising population, the disintegrating community structure, and an acceleration of paradigm shifts.
The answer is unity, a new approach, not so much to utopian models of society, but utopian models of coping with this new world of constant change. I suppose in some way, what is happening is not so much an attack on the craftspeople but an attempt for the philosophers of jaxcal to define themselves, to come to consensus about some things, and this is both hard and valuable – but beware, no unity is achieved without sacrifice, and the sacrifice of personal freedom is always difficult for artists (in the old paradigm) but the payoff is relief from the alienation.
anyways, there’s my thoughts.
akbar
I think the point Mark made about sheer inquisitiveness being the crucial element is key- I would add this caveat: that all the new supposedly connective technologies we have (Blackberries, laptops, wifi, Tivo, iPods, etc) are really isolating us and dumbing us down to the point where folks are too distracted to be inquisitive. The level of distraction we have in our everyday lives right now is
I might be a distinct case. I was born and raised in Iowa, a state which loves education so much it put on its US quarter design the phrase “Foundation in Education.” I also had the benefit of having a reading teacher as a mom. So I was introduced to the value of books at an early age and could therefore read before I entered school. I always have a book or two or three on my bedside table. If I ever become a millionaire, I will give my money to building libraries and fighting illiteracy. The illiteracy numbers in Jacksonville are appalling. Just look up JCCI’s 2004 Quality of Living Assessment.
I probably incorporated the things I read into my art at an early age. I began as a cartoonist, and comic strips (the newspaper variety, not the graphic novel variety so much) were the main thing I evoked in my work for school publications through high school and college. I discovered printmaking in 1997-98 and there found a good place to make works that I thought could have the authority of published works. So to answer Mark’s question, I always have been using deep reading experiences to inform my work. It’s how I fight my ADD. Not drugs, but books. I read anything from critical theory to Art Journal to Playboy Magazine to pop fiction, to contemporary lit, to epic poetry and ancient classics. Oh I can hear the sneers of “elitist” already.
Does being literate make me an elitist? I don’t think so. I was raised rather blue-collar and attended public schools. I nor my family have never been rich, and I found the snobbery at the highest levels of the Museum culture in which I once worked to be odious beyond belief. As an artist and educator I guess I have an expectation on society that is hardly ever met and which makes me an ardent critic of a lot of art being made by an increasingly aliterate culture.
FOCUS is a crucial distinction for me. If I see work that is focused and wrestles with ideas I’m often more engaged than with work that is unfocused and refuses to wrestle with any idea, even if it has an idea to it. In the same way I prefer stories with conflict (is there such thing as a story without conflict?) I also look for narrative in artwork that present conflict, either visually or in terms of content.
What seems to be eroding in our culture (and which I see in a good deal of lowbrow art) is the artist’s ability to wrestle with ideas and focus deeply on an idea or narrative.
Is it a turning point of civilization? Are we entering a new (albeit technological) Dark Age? I don’t know, but anyone paying attention to US culture and studying it with focus and looking at the national narrative can see that we are entering a period of cultural decline. With entertainment news (TMZ, etc) taking the place of cultural current events and getting more and more play on seemingly legitimate news sources, I do see a trend towards the dismantling of the West’s long tradition of literature and culture.
This, in addition to the dwindling amount of civics being taught in public schools and the dumbing down of every aspect of US culture, to me, says we are beginning to sink into a period of cultural decline where the lack of depth (it all goes back to reading!) in our national political discourse signals a real threat to our democracy and ultimately our ability to govern ourselves. And if it’s finally being played out on the stage of art (allegedly a High pursuit) by the increasingly surface-level lowbrow aesthetic, which tends to pay no regard to narrative, then so be it. What can we do?
Lowbrow to me is mostly (although not always) kitsch. And kitsch is cheap, mass produced, marketed, and sold like any other commodity. It’s leading to a growing legion of artists who create, for all intents and purposes, collectibles. Tasty but worthless fashion nuggets. The equivalent in literature would be pulp novellas, I guess. My question is- who will write the epic poems of the future?
If we only react to what’s new and kitschy in our culture we are entering a dark age where we give up everything to become professionally trained consumers.
And in this consumer society there is a no place for learning, average people don’t care about politics or democracy or current events or far-reaching narratives because there are too many distractions, too much crap derailing our minds from focusing on things eternal.
I don’t advocate becoming an insufferable luddite bookworm who reads a lot but creates nothing, that elitist description of an intellectual is as foul as it is hopelessly ignorant.
The ability to follow current events and make work that situates itself within a critical historical and narrative framework is not some elitist pursuit, but is the essential element of artist/citizens capable of understanding and retaining enough information to know what goes on in their country and the world and make meaningful work about the human condition. How can our current level of ignorance and our lack of depth not be fatal to civilization?
If commercial TV has trained an entire generation of kids to have attention spans of 6 seconds, and the internet has turned our kids into people who are supplied with video clips instead of narratives, then what can we expect of them when they try to express themselves as artists?
The answer, is, sadly, lowbrow art.
So we have our hypothesis–that inquiry and a willingness to read fervently makes an artist more aware of his/her place (or the place of his/her art) in the grand scheme. Which increases the likelihood of being a conceptual artist, no? If this is true, then the inverse is also true: most lowbrow artists are not fervent readers of literature or profound nonfiction.
What I gather from the Art Coverage 1 feedback (and I could be wrong; I am willing to be wrong) is that most of our local “monster” artists don’t want to look in the proverbial mirror. They don’t want to know why it is they do what they do, and so make no efforts to expound on this topic. I would posit that they are afraid to look at their art as a viewer, are afraid to forfeit their perspective as the creator and take on that of the viewer, even if temporarily, for the sake of critique. And this is not something to sneer at–most creative people are afraid to make that first leap. Writers are afraid to be readers because they won’t be a writer at that point any more, and the piece will die. The creativity will die.
So what I want to know is, is reading the only virtue, or can other media apply? If the piece is in its original form, I don’t see why not. For example, a movie based on Shelley’s Frankenstein wouldn’t do, but an original screenplay like Donnie Darko would.
Would it be pointless then to recommend books/media to monster artists (if someone doesn’t like to read, why would they read now)? Would that be condescending? I don’t want anybody to feel insulted if I recommend they read A Good Man is Hard to Find (which seriously is like 15 pages long), or On the Beach. I don’t want people to get annoyed if I suggest Goya’s Disasters of War series, to enrich the way they choose imagery.
I don’t care if people want to paint monsters as long as some other people don’t. I might have a problem if they were successful and I wasn’t, but I think none of us can sell anything around here. I’m at a point in my life where I’m questioning the importance of making any art. It seems like the only people who get the art that is really meaningful (not necessarily me), are part of the choir anyway. Sometimes I feel like I have to convince myself of the importance of art, so I can feel important for making it.
I’m surprised sometime by the doomsday reports of how “dumb” we are getting. Fat, yes, but dumb no. I think the next generation is re-defining what intelligence is. So what if the attention span is 6 seconds. It takes six seconds to find any information you want from just about anywhere. Encyclopedia Britannica might as well be a Tyrannosaurus Rex. I feel pretty safe with these dumb kids running the world, as long as they don’t grow up to be like the smart guys running the world right now.
Just remember how dumb rock n’ roll was.
I agree with Akbar that drawing such distinctions between different art genres is a helpful way to, not only define your own work and purpose, but to find like minds and see what comes from the interactions. But I think we can imagine these on a horizontal plane rather than a vertical hierarchical structure. There are so many craft oriented practices that are extremely considered and complex. Someone can explore a material or media and gain insight from that process just as much as cracking open a book or two (And I am down with everything James mentions). I guess my original training as an Ab-Ex painter informs that view. And the same viewpoint forms my preference regarding image-based work towards a searched-for, process oriented, pushing paint around kind of imagery.
Kurt, I think that once we realize that art will never be important according to the values of normative society, then we can go ahead and make the art. Since artists’ values tend to differ (to varying degrees)from the norm, I am not certain we need to concern ourselves too much with its importance within the norm’s perspective. Perhaps that is the only way to deal with those insecurities and alienations mentioned by Akbar. The only importance is the process of succumbing to the urge and seeing it thru. I would never presume to tell another human being what or how to think. This may sound antithetical to my job as a teacher, but (as a teacher) I am aware of my responsibility. There is a universe of information that is just out there available to anybody (even more so thanks to modern technology), all I can do is add an insignificant addition to that, perhaps link it to other insights, and allow others to do with it what they want.
Everyone speaks so intelligent with references to this and that. I have a BFA in painting so I PAINT. I wont lie I cant and have no reason to keep up in your debate, I read and research as much as I can. I wont ever dismiss or publicly shun any artists project. I do my work and dont have any thought of how I am perceived, especially by fellow artists who should do what they want, that is ART. Quit reading and start painting.
Ignorance is bliss.
Being ignorant is bliss if you dont know, I know but live and paint expressing my feelings and style not trying to fit into any scene. Artist who truely make art that is their own dont follow or try to fit in with a movement or scene. Good feedback is always nice but shouldnt influence a persons work. Im gonna say it again and my last statement artists should do art let critics and media praise or shun. People write about it cause they cant do it.
Glad you know? What do you know?
And it seems you have found yourself writing about art. Now you are guilty of the so called non-art making that the folks on this blog have been involved in. Strange paradigm shift.
I don’t agree with your last statement. Even critiquing can be an art form as you can see from the eloquently crafted and composed comments on this post.
And I know all of the folks who’ve commented here are not just talking about art but also make art. Thought and art can co-exist peacefully. One doesn’t have to choose on or the other. The way I see it, being able to talk about your work and communicate your ideas in words is part of the art making process.
Can I see you work? Do you have a link to your web site?
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...