The liberation from judgment
Apr. 16th, 2002 06:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gurdonarkOne thing I like about mail art is the concept that responses to a mail art call are displayed without judgment, without a jury, without prizes, without criticism. I read a very well written art critique in our local alternative newspaper on Sunday by a lawyer-turned-art-critic with whom I am acquainted (theme: the decline and flaws of a Texas abstract expressionist) which gave me my usual pause about capital "A" Art and capital "A" capital "C" "Art Criticism". I don't have any tremendous insight into all the Duchamp/Fluxus/Ray Johnson aspects of "gallery art" v. "art in everything". I do think, though, that the current pursuit of what was once "avant garde art"
but now might be called "galleried art for the more intellectual monied class" is deeply dissatisfying to me as a construct. Academic art becomes a sort of odd scholarly hobby, a bit more respectable than alchemy, but hardly any more capable of creating connections or building insights or any of those other things that I, in my naivete, imagine art with a small "c" can do. The slightly more "outre" near-cousins of "too risque for a grant art" and "got an MFA, seeking street cred" art seem even less likely to advance the field.
I like to read about alternative religions in America. I find fascinating spiritual movements such as New Thought which owe much of their theology to distinctly "new frontier" "westward ho" thinking, as well as to "additional scripture" movements such as the Latter Day Saints movement. Both must borrow and reinterpret what has gone before, but both must also create a new language of defined terms, of touchstones for discussion. Hence, Emma Curtis Hopkins, one of the bridge authors who was a precursor for several New Thought movements, wrote books which borrowed liberally from Greek mythology, freemasonry, Eastern philosophies (as then understood in the west),
and redefined Christian ideas. Ms. Hopkins, and her intellectual descendants such as Ernest Holmes (parenthetically, a refreshing honest synthesist) had to create an elaborate language to express theologically what was really a very practical theology--that a person's thoughts and way of thinking could have not only spiritual but physical effects in the everyday world. One who wishes to read New Thought texts can find anything from the most
"how to" "You Can Change Your Life" texts to the most arcane reinterpretation of numerous mythologies.
Distinctly but analogously, the Book of Mormon adapts numerous orthodox Biblical concepts, but reinterprets many of them, ostensibly in the light of a "complete new revelation". The result is that a pragmatic faith (complete with ongoing revelation from a living prophetic group) attracts new members.
In some way, I feel that Art in "the Academy" has all the reinterpretation of "heterodox" religious writings, but much less of the pragmatic connection with the audience.
I still see too many exhibitions based on the concept of the "shock to the system" rather than on an actual connection with the viewer. In a system which is post-WWI, post-Holocaust, post-Cambodia, post-conventional religion, post-nuclear, post-communist, post-fascist, post-WTC and post-quantum mechanics, how many more "shocks" effectively teach us anything about the "system"? Is it now just a matter of a grant, a witty column in the local alternative, a good excuse to smoke an off-brand of cigarette, and disdain those whose particular "school" of "arcane thought" dances the angels on a different pinhead than one's own? The odd thing to me is that the net effect of the past 60 years or so, at least in the US, has been that the avant garde has in essence proclaimed, to paraphrase the cartoon Pogo, that "we have met the enemy, and they is us". As convincingly as music videos absorbed surrealism and dada, the state-funded institutions absorbed the "we will shock you" genres as soon as they arose. We are all now beyond shock. We are all now beyond convention. Paint it if you will--it can be interesting stuff--but don't pretend that you are finding a new frontier.
I find myself drawn more and more to outsider art, to folk art and to art beyond the Academy. Oh, I enjoy "academic" art, and a trip to the gallery, and even the mildly catty bit of criticism from time to time. I do not know nearly enough about art history and art criticism to come to any stunning conclusions about anything. But the more I
see a cultural elitism turn "Art" into a way to distance the gifted from the audience, the less I am interested in that kind of Art. I am tired of heroes and idols and
bohemian godlings. I'd rather have a nice postcard, earnestly drawn, thank you very much, or even a simple realistic if untutored picture. I don't criticize the professional "Academy Artist" who can command a high price for a vocational work of obscure arcana, anymore than I criticize a hair salon assistant to the stars. I will enjoy seeing a print of the work if it is in a book or available via google. Still, give me a little art, freed of high concept and inner meaning, and I'll be as content.
It's amusing to me that in 2002 we still have an Academy and academia laying down a confused sort of dogma.
But I'll still just look at pictures I like. I will enjoy the pictures of others, and without quite descending into the 60s anything goes bit, I will try to reserve judgment. Perhaps art needs a bit less "my complex so-called life" and a bit more "Find Healing Here". But I'll leave that to wiser minds than mine. I just know what I like.
but now might be called "galleried art for the more intellectual monied class" is deeply dissatisfying to me as a construct. Academic art becomes a sort of odd scholarly hobby, a bit more respectable than alchemy, but hardly any more capable of creating connections or building insights or any of those other things that I, in my naivete, imagine art with a small "c" can do. The slightly more "outre" near-cousins of "too risque for a grant art" and "got an MFA, seeking street cred" art seem even less likely to advance the field.
I like to read about alternative religions in America. I find fascinating spiritual movements such as New Thought which owe much of their theology to distinctly "new frontier" "westward ho" thinking, as well as to "additional scripture" movements such as the Latter Day Saints movement. Both must borrow and reinterpret what has gone before, but both must also create a new language of defined terms, of touchstones for discussion. Hence, Emma Curtis Hopkins, one of the bridge authors who was a precursor for several New Thought movements, wrote books which borrowed liberally from Greek mythology, freemasonry, Eastern philosophies (as then understood in the west),
and redefined Christian ideas. Ms. Hopkins, and her intellectual descendants such as Ernest Holmes (parenthetically, a refreshing honest synthesist) had to create an elaborate language to express theologically what was really a very practical theology--that a person's thoughts and way of thinking could have not only spiritual but physical effects in the everyday world. One who wishes to read New Thought texts can find anything from the most
"how to" "You Can Change Your Life" texts to the most arcane reinterpretation of numerous mythologies.
Distinctly but analogously, the Book of Mormon adapts numerous orthodox Biblical concepts, but reinterprets many of them, ostensibly in the light of a "complete new revelation". The result is that a pragmatic faith (complete with ongoing revelation from a living prophetic group) attracts new members.
In some way, I feel that Art in "the Academy" has all the reinterpretation of "heterodox" religious writings, but much less of the pragmatic connection with the audience.
I still see too many exhibitions based on the concept of the "shock to the system" rather than on an actual connection with the viewer. In a system which is post-WWI, post-Holocaust, post-Cambodia, post-conventional religion, post-nuclear, post-communist, post-fascist, post-WTC and post-quantum mechanics, how many more "shocks" effectively teach us anything about the "system"? Is it now just a matter of a grant, a witty column in the local alternative, a good excuse to smoke an off-brand of cigarette, and disdain those whose particular "school" of "arcane thought" dances the angels on a different pinhead than one's own? The odd thing to me is that the net effect of the past 60 years or so, at least in the US, has been that the avant garde has in essence proclaimed, to paraphrase the cartoon Pogo, that "we have met the enemy, and they is us". As convincingly as music videos absorbed surrealism and dada, the state-funded institutions absorbed the "we will shock you" genres as soon as they arose. We are all now beyond shock. We are all now beyond convention. Paint it if you will--it can be interesting stuff--but don't pretend that you are finding a new frontier.
I find myself drawn more and more to outsider art, to folk art and to art beyond the Academy. Oh, I enjoy "academic" art, and a trip to the gallery, and even the mildly catty bit of criticism from time to time. I do not know nearly enough about art history and art criticism to come to any stunning conclusions about anything. But the more I
see a cultural elitism turn "Art" into a way to distance the gifted from the audience, the less I am interested in that kind of Art. I am tired of heroes and idols and
bohemian godlings. I'd rather have a nice postcard, earnestly drawn, thank you very much, or even a simple realistic if untutored picture. I don't criticize the professional "Academy Artist" who can command a high price for a vocational work of obscure arcana, anymore than I criticize a hair salon assistant to the stars. I will enjoy seeing a print of the work if it is in a book or available via google. Still, give me a little art, freed of high concept and inner meaning, and I'll be as content.
It's amusing to me that in 2002 we still have an Academy and academia laying down a confused sort of dogma.
But I'll still just look at pictures I like. I will enjoy the pictures of others, and without quite descending into the 60s anything goes bit, I will try to reserve judgment. Perhaps art needs a bit less "my complex so-called life" and a bit more "Find Healing Here". But I'll leave that to wiser minds than mine. I just know what I like.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
:)
Date: 2002-04-16 05:08 pm (UTC)first though, i have to say i really dig the ghandi reference :) lolol makes me feel a lot better about the grey areas... i've always been confused about how i could be so strongly motivated to believe something that i know to be not necessarily right. lolol. it seems to me that it would be more natural to assume that i'm right, although respectful of others beliefs. somehow that statement made the impression on me that it was ok to belief how i feel without the rational certainty i'd like to have.
anyway once i get it together i'm sure i'll have to post something. thanks for the food for thought :
Re: :)
Re: :)
Date: 2002-04-17 12:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-04-16 06:36 pm (UTC)AVAM
I need to get more aware of outsider outlets here as well.
I couldn't help noticing..
Date: 2002-04-17 08:29 am (UTC)My senior show artist statements was just a list of definitions that I would use to describe my art and then a simple little paragraph on why I did it. I noticed other students speaking from the heart and getting away with complex word combinations that hurt my head.
That is why I love nervousness. org, postcarx.net, artist trading cards, altered books. They have given me some spirit back.
In Kentucky where I live outsider art is big.
So much about doing the gallery circuit depends on your personality, not sure how much it's in mine.
Also so many ppl will never make it professionally as artists and if they do it will be meager so it has to come from a place that makes you want to create at all costs. It is healing, we are all creative and artistic in some form.
Ok enough ranting. But thank you for some very refreshing words on ART Art aRT art aRt.
Ok now I really have to get busy. I am such a slacker.
You made me chuckle
Date: 2002-04-17 08:37 am (UTC)Locusts, I didn't say it :P
He was a bunch of things before becoming an attorney, 3 years now, 1 out on his own, can you tell by the staff he keeps!
The way you spoke about your name made me laugh so I assumed it was invented, i apologize.
Does your wife think you are funny? Wayne is funny but everyone else things he's much funnier than I do.
Ok Mr. Gurdonark, hope to be exchanging some postcard art soon
Re: You made me chuckle
Date: 2002-04-17 08:42 am (UTC)I meant that I put both names on the entry on
postcardx.
My wife thinks I'm hilarious, though I think I'm rather an acquired taste.
I've been in a 2 man firm for 2 years, after 15 years in those "downtown" urban law firms.
Now I'd better go get some work done, so that
I can feel good about today.
Re: I couldn't help noticing..
with strong talent and good hearts pursue
gallery art and academic art to good purpose.
I guess that I relate to mail art, postcardx, and to a lesser extent, nervousness (those LMAOs that drift along endlessly make *me* nervous),
because they are largely free of the need to be vocational or to meet some pre-defined artistic goal. I sympathize with those who dismiss
this sort of thinking as "hobbyist", but I freely confess that I enjoy a hobby in which I can get in touch with things that matter to me.
I'll admit I'd rather get a card that deals with something I find weighty than a card with a unicorn dancing with the My Little Pony ponies on it. But I think it's my preference that's the weakness, not the art. Judgment--formed by media, formed by art magazines, formed by art professors, formed by alternative papers--that's the concern. It's not that I want to abolish all art critical standards in all contexts--it's just that they don't much apply to me or what I like.
didn't you hear...
Date: 2002-04-17 04:22 pm (UTC)I'm so literally sick of the gross-out factor in contemporary art. Are you happy, Damien Hirst?! You got me. I hate your work. Now you can rest assured that you are much smarter than me. Or has your fifteen minutes expired and now I'm smarter than you?
Anyway, my basic thought on all this is that if something is "art" (however you want to capitalize it) it is primarily about ideas. Of course, that leaves things wide open. But it also means that not everything can be art. This has been debated to death and I never was on a debating team...but I digress. You know where I'm going with that.
I have been moved in galleries. I'll tell you what I want. I want to think and I want to be moved. And I want to come away knowing more than when I arrived. It doesn't have to be a sort of knowledge I can articulate. Maybe it's as simple as a sublime shade of orange on a Rothko canvas that makes me think of pumpkins piled high in my grandfather's truck. Maybe it's the delicate arrangement of items in a Cornell box that make me feel whatever he was feeling as he sat under a bulb at his mother's kitchen table at 3 o'clock in the morning. Maybe it's the juxtaposition of two shapes that create a negative space that feels absolutely infinite. I don't know. If I could explain it, I'd be a college professor or something. But that's why it's art and not scholarship.
Outsider art it completely about ideas. It doesn't have to hide behind fancy mediums or technology or book-learnin' or call and response. It is the pure expression of an idea. Perhaps an idea I cannot comprehend, but an idea that I can feel. And that makes it worth something.
Re: didn't you hear...
I am always attracted to the idea, the image,
and, yes, even the explanation. I never thought it out as you have. I will think it through now. There is a place for an "art of witness", a sort of equivalent to Carolyn Forche's poetry. But I get bored of the posing--
the Malcolm McClarenesque "I don't know what I want, but I know how to get it". I am increasingly impressed when I read of French artists in the 30s through 50s how much they got of the problem, and how little they saw of solutions. Fine, shock me, I'm susceptible, but show me the doorways when you're done.
I don't need to be shocked--I know about Rwanda.
about Hiroshima. about AIDS.
Thank you again. I valued your input.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-21 10:44 pm (UTC)I *adore* this site. It is a site where anyone - ANYONE with a camera can take their photo, upload it, and have people critique it. Professionals, sometimes, but anyone who has an account there can upload, and anyone with an account can critique.
To have people from all sorts of walks of life and ideas of what they like to look at your stuff and critique it (and usually very constructively) is a lot of fun. It's opened my eyes in so many ways. I take photos of things I never would have before. Actually, I take photos -- my husband started on photoSIG and after a month I felt left out and wanted to become involved too.
Thats one thing the internet has done, given the 'regular guy' a chance to be heard when it comes to art. I'll read the movie reviews on IMDB before I'd bother reading one in the paper. Same with books on Amazon.com, I look up things I read and see what other people who got it bought, too, to see if its something I would consider. People matter, not just a person. I like that. (Even if I can't figure out why people like my cookie photo better than my dead crab one.)