In the recent past, I've suggested perhaps some writers talk about art in a more approachable way than others. This is and isn't true. Art writing is a case-by-case basis which is largely subjective – we pick and choose the articles we like to read based on how tasty they are. So I don't mean to say that any one of us is particularly elitist, I mean to say that we may all be in danger of being elitist.
I have these groups of friends from different eras of my life, and many of them freely give me shit about the way I talk. In one case, someone stopped me mid-sentence because they were hung up on the word "materiality" – he thought I made the word up, and he's a rather well-read lit major. He said when people talk about art that way it makes him feel like it's a bullshit conversation, and his bare statement made me see how true it is.
I think it's incredibly easy to write about art in a way which comes across as elevated. I don't even think it requires a certain diction, I think it's inherent in the description. Like a dialect, almost. So how do we avoid certain language in discussing art? It's difficult. Art beckons to be described differently. So the question is can we speak about art in layman's terms or is it just a matter of education, and are either of these things our responsibility?
I don't mean we should talk down to people, or dilute the conversation. I mean perhaps language should be tempered in a way that doesn't assume a background in the field. When we all start artspeaking at each other, it comes with the pre-assumption we have a base we're building on which I think we take that for granted. Wait. I'll speak for myself – I take it for granted.
Look at it this way:
If art is a language, and those who don't immerse themselves in art are already left out of the conversation because of the way it is historically written/talked about; we who are immersed in the art world might be in danger of excluding them further with our internally-structured language about it. It doesn't matter whether or not it's intentional. It's simply inevitable.
And it is a matter of education for me. From Artomaton to now, my ambition has always been to widen the circle of art world participants to include those on the fringe or the outside; for me there is absolutely no reason why some should make art or talk about it and others should not. If I can chip away at any form of elitism to get us all at the core of why we do what we do, I will. And since I don't want a one-way discussion with myself, I promise to try harder to speak in a way which includes you.
So let me open it up –
Is art approachable to you and if so, how?
Are you turned off by art and why? Are you suspicious about the art world (inside joke, pulling one over, it's above you somehow, you don't know anything)?
How could the art world become more approachable to you?
Artomaton's shelved. Maybe I'll just write a new book, rather than checking out the same old same old.9:33a 1 June 2009
Interesting post Sharon...
ReplyDeleteI obviously can't resond to these questions in the way you are asking (being an artist,and and arts-writer) but it reminds me, of a couple frustrations with the art world that I have commonly experienced. One of which is "curator speak". Often I find myself both as an artist, and as a museum employee having to translate some of the curator speak I have heard.
This can be a challenge-sometimes it involves simply defining esoteric terminology while at other times entire concepts must be explained in a different way. I usually try to use these situations as teaching opportunitites. But occasionally the gap is so wide between the knowledge that the curator is laying down, and the knowledge that the patron has that it requires a full survey course just to get them started in the right direction.
I have often found myself summing up modern to contemporary art in minutes.
Okay, I could go on at length about this...
but i'll make one more point. The art world in general, that art world beyond craft or decoration (high art, contemporary art, call it what you will) does have it's own history and language, and it is very specific stuff. Many writers, curators, and artists do sound like they are speaking a different language, or dialect, as you have said and I think it can be quite detrimental to the art experience. It is intimidating, pretentious, and full of peril (how can you ever rebuke an argument in art speak when art is wholy subjective?).
The danger of too much art speak is much like the danger of the artist whose work is too historically referrential (or obsessed with pushing formal/material/subject boundries)- It becomes a case of preaching to the choir.
Nothing is more boring than that. Go after the people, go after the congregation, the choir already gets it.
Damn Molo, well done!
ReplyDeleteIt's true the conversation is often obsessive and self-referential - one might even say it's masturbatory at its worst.
I like the idea of using these instances as opportunities to teach, a la Mandy Greer. You with your summation of contemporary art history and her with her interactivity are shining examples of going after your afore-mentioned congregation.
The thing about artists is that we're all narcissists, and I mean that in the nicest possible way.
ReplyDeleteThink about it. The artist is by definition one who has reflected some part of himself across the axis of creation and is sufficiently delighted with his own reflection to keep doing it. (This even goes for the stormy, tormented types among us who prefer to call that which delights them "misery".)
Who are the art writers? Sometimes artists themselves; more often non-artists who identify strongly with the self-reflections of artists. Art writers are art writers because they take delight in completing the artist's task of self-reflection, building a hall of mirrors called context for the work to live in.
Who are the art audiences? Sometimes artists themselves, sometimes art writers. Then there is the rare breed that actually enjoys being communicated to without expecting an audience in return. This is the voyeur. And the voyeur is silent. He won't even let you know you've attracted him. How do you get feedback from him? Maybe you don't.
The question of how to evade Echo seems to me to be a re-iteration of the age old question of how to attract an audience. I don't have all the answers, but like you, I have managed to attract a small audience on my own blog doing little more than what comes naturally, talking about the stuff I'm interested in. (Hello, Voyeurs! I can't see you but my sitemeter assures me you exist!)
Here's my secret: people started paying attention to my writing when I started paying attention to other people. (All creative types, and thus narcissists...again, I mean that in the nicest possible way and I count myself among you!)
I don't think this was a cynical move on my part. Rather I found, when I started paying attention to other artists and writing abou what they were doing, that there was quite a bit there for me to be genuinely interested in. This enthusiasm rubs off on others, inviting them take a reciprocal interest in what I'm doing. Building community and so forth.
So back to your original question. How to avoid Echo, attracting an audience for your (and my) art and art writing? I think you nailed it with your Mandy Greer comment. Like all artists, Mandy's work is a reflection of self, but like successful community builders, she takes a genuine and deep interest in other people. Her current project is all about the real conversations that open up when people are engaged in the act of making together. It's great that she's been getting grant funding for her projects because she is building a future art audience by listening and paying attention to THEM.
It's cheesy and every kindergartner knows it, but in order to have friends, you have to be a friend. In order to have an audience, you have to be an audience.
As for your friend, it seems like he may be on the ornery side, perhaps, or just letting a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel. I don't know that tailoring our language to the lowest common denominator is the solution, especially since that really is a bottomless proposition. (Have you ever actually watched FOX NEWS?!) I think it's enough to be aware of the pitfalls and tend toward concise, direct words that are more illustrative than flashy.
Ew, no -- art writing should definitely never follow the route of Fox News, ptheh, ptheh...and you nailed it, my friend is ornery (good call). But that didn't cloud the small grain of potential truth I saw in his statement.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point. We absolutely have to nurture one another, that's not being cynical. I think your move and suggestion is sound, and writing/asking questions in an approachable way is one way I hope to do it.
We clearly do what we do because we want something more than just creating art in a vacuum, and that means engaging other people on various different levels, and it absolutely has to be genuine or it doesn't work. This is how bridges are built, isn't it?
I think it's enough to be aware of the pitfalls and tend toward concise, direct words that are more illustrative than flashy.Perfect.
Sharon, I really appreciate the humility on your part that led you to open this subject. In an earlier post (sorry for paraphrasing) you stated "you don't have to be versed in theory, you just have to be hungry". My sense is that hunger exists in a lot of folks, and always has.
ReplyDeleteOne book I'm digging into this summer is Suzi Gablik's "The Re-enchantment of Art". The late Su job recommended it to me. She and I had a lot of good talks about art's continuing need to operate on a non-verbal, metaphorical, sometimes spiritual plane, and what that even means in a current context.
I confess I cut my teeth on "The Elements of Style". For nearly every $5 word there's a less expensive but equally valuable substitute.
My maternal grandmother painted from the age of till shortly before her death in 2007 at age 96. Artmaking was modeled for me as integrated with everyday ordinariness. The whole family were martinets about education but I still remember my Mother (a hardcore old-fashioned classroom teacher) and her attitude toward the "pseudo-intellectual". And this was a woman who adored learning.
MY formal education's been reverse-loaded onto 15 prior years of making work which sprang from a simple desire for internal congruency. Through the 80s and 90s many of my closest friends were in visual/performing arts and also in recovery, so I was exposed to a lot of dialogue about channeling creativity without falling prey to delusions of grandeur or flights from accountability. Trying to remember a different level isn't automatically a lower one.
When Emily wrote "to have a friend, you have to be a friend" it brought all that relational history back home.
In 1994 I sat before Max Beckmann's "The Departure" at MoMA and just burst into tears. From the gut. Sure, my background and character made me open to the response. The experience was distinctly not intellectual, but about openness. How do we nurture that, indeed.
It's also about trusting the work to speak for itself, and refraining from babysitting the viewer. That's a huge risk. It's not about everything having to be expressionistically weepy or sentimental either.
Hell, having just gotten a BFA and going on to an MFA at my stage of life, there are days I feel like a hopeless oldster, and it makes me reluctant to stick my nose in places like this. But if I have these apprehensions as a working artist, there must a an audience out there who feel intimidated rather than adversarial toward art.
At least I hope so. Thanks for listening.
Artstache, this is en pointe -- It's also about trusting the work to speak for itself, and refraining from babysitting the viewer. That's a huge risk. It's not about everything having to be expressionistically weepy or sentimental either.I'm fairly unromantic about being an artist, and I think it's perfectly fair to breeze through art and let it sit only to pop up later after we've thought about it more.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to colour or sway people's experience as either a writer or an artist. Presenting is one thing, dictating is entirely another. This is why the critics of old no longer hold as much sway - we'd like to find our own stories in the work.
Art is (or at least should be) outside of age. Poke your nose everywhere you can - it's how we live is immersing ourselves. Otherwise we're stuck in the attic with our can of beans (who lives like that?!)
I'm 34 and don't have my MFA yet. If you're going by some longstanding art institutions/publications, I'm already hopelessly behind and too old, even as young as I am. That's ridiculous.
P.S.
ReplyDeleteThere is the whole issue of "Art Snark" (which you alluded to in the questions you posed at the end of your post). It feels like superfluous gamesmanship to me. Regina Hackett alluded in speaking about the "Seattle Times" to its "we-precious-few" attitude, specifically referencing the paper's appeal to the "comfortably middle-class" (how many of those are left, actually?). But it's that very smugness that can also be alienating and hurtful in this context.
Something to consider.
Sharon, thanks for being so prompt with your response. We're actually conversing. I'll be 48 in November, and it's reassuring to know others out there feel the same vulnerability. And it's ridiculous for me to believe it too. Also, if it's always supposed to be about the next new young hot thing, what does that do to both artists and viewers who aren't?
ReplyDeleteNayland Blake, a Livejournal buddy who heads up the MFA/photography program at Bard, stated (again, I'm paraphrasing) "it messes with my students...isn't artmaking something you get better at as you get older?"
Hurray for conversing! Whew, I'm glad I'm not just talking :P
ReplyDeleteYour professor friend is a smart cookie -- I've always thought the same in regards to what he's saying. "younger than jesus" my ass.
Before leaving the screen, I had to add-
ReplyDeleteAmen to that! Strictly secularly, of course.
Thanks again!
This is a really interesting post and conversation, Sharon! This is something I think about a lot!
ReplyDeleteI often feel like I wander haphazardly between points-of-view where all of this is concerned. Like, sometimes I am the one flexing my Artspeak muscles; sometimes I'm gawking at the text on mounted foam-core, "dear god is that language really necessary?"; sometimes it feels good to be an "expert" at something; sometimes the elitism in the art world is a big turn-off.
I can see the truth in both sides. In some ways, it makes sense that there would be a sophisticated (read: potentially undecipherable) language in Art, just as there are equally specialized languages in all academic fields. I don't think I could make it through a single page of an advanced math book, or geophysics, or maybe even a doctoral dissertation on some specialization within Psychology. Part of me has the urge to defend Art's right to a specialized language. I think something exciting can happen when you get into that language; it takes on a life of its own, and the breadth of understanding is widened.
Though, on the other side, it must be acknowledged that while academia and intellectual conversations play an important role in Art, they are NOT (or maybe SHOULD not be!) the end-all destination. Art that has only the academic/curatorial community as it's intended audience isn't really Art, it's an illustration of ideas. Art functions very differently in the world than advanced math, and necessarily, different considerations should be made regarding the inclusivity of language used to communicate ideas to a wide variety of people.
oh dear I could go on and on....
But, "materiality?" Not too crazy a word.
There's gotta be a middle ground, right?, where an Art-educated person can use nice words (like "materiality") appropriately, without being called a pseudo-intellectual?
And the whole age issue-- ack, totally ridiculous. How many of the Young Fresh Things from London in the late 90's are still making interesting work that is being talked about in interesting ways? NOT MANY! blah blah! time to make dinner! Thanks for writing this!
Susanna, I'm glad you popped up because you've written some beautiful, eloquent, and very personal words in the wake of the CA court decision on Prop 8. Thank you for that, first of all.
ReplyDelete"Materiality" is SO a word, I feel like telling folks now. There is a middle ground that comes precisely from someone like you articulating both sides of the issue.
Though your reponse wasn't directed at me, I felt it in hindsight a good idea to clarify a word choice.
My experience with the term "pseudo-intellectual" defines it primarily as someone who brandishes jargon and education for the sheer sake of a power trip. S/he sometimes hasn't internalized the meaning enough to be able to simplify it if need be, and it has the air of one-upsmanship as opposed to a by-product of hard thinking and earnest exploration of the discipline or topic at hand-which does put one by necessity into a certain level of discourse among peers. So it's a fine line.
The "pricier" words have their place, for sure. My attorney Dad called me once because he couldn't remember the word "obfuscation" which he needed for a legal brief.
Thanks also for your "ack" concerning the age issue.
artstache, you've summed it up perfectly! :
ReplyDelete("My experience with the term "pseudo-intellectual" defines it primarily as someone who brandishes jargon and education for the sheer sake of a power trip. S/he sometimes hasn't internalized the meaning enough to be able to simplify it if need be, and it has the air of one-upsmanship as opposed to a by-product of hard thinking and earnest exploration of the discipline or topic at hand-which does put one by necessity into a certain level of discourse among peers. So it's a fine line.")
and thank you for your kind words.
Answers to your questions:
ReplyDelete1. No.
2. Yes.
3. How? Well, I agree with some of what's already been said, about jargon and such. What you call the "art world" and what I call the "art industry" (because I feel that term is more honest) is basically just loaded up with pretension. People with their degrees, talking their big talk, showing off how sophisticated they are. People who identify as artists are, by definition, egotists because all they do is create something, be it a movie, sculpture, painting, book, sonnet, or multimedia work...and then they insist that this "is" art. They are literally telling the viewer that this IS beautiful and has value, rather than allowing the viewer to decide the beauty and value for itself. Oh, but then they turn around and say, "It's all subjective." Well, if it's all subjective, how about a little more personal responsibility with the lingo and NOT foist beauty and value on someone. Do not speak to others as though the beauty and value of your work is just ASSUMED. Just do what you do, call it your WORK and let someone else decide if you are an artist and if this work is art. I would hazard to say that until "artists" get a grip on this way that they insinuate their values on others just by self referencing the way they do, the art industry will remain in the ivory tower that you observe and dislike.
Because the truth is, Sharon, the art world really is just another industry and it's run by businessmen who view this "beauty and value" as nothing more than a strict commodity. Skill, focus and sincerity in the work do not matter. What matters is one's ability to market his work, whether he's the next Michaelangelo or the next dude to put a crucifix into a jar of piss. That IS what matters in the real art world. You know that. So it rather makes all the pretentious art talk look hypocritical and ethically slack.
Artstache and Susanna, thank you so much for participating with me and with each other, you've said quite a lot that resonates with me. It just solidifies the idea for me that talking about art is always an opportunity for someone who might otherwise be turned off to ask questions or an opportunity for us to delve further into what we mean when we're talking about art that way.
ReplyDeleteSquigglequill, I can't argue with what you've said; the art world and the art industry are neighbouring realms, and I (as well as many artists) exist in the middle where they overlap. It would be silly to claim art is not an industry but on the other hand, for many who make art outside that industry it's not about selling or talking or participating in that side of things. This is as valid a world as the supposed art market (which by the way, if you're using Christies/Sotheby's and the ART MARKET i/e "stock market for art" as the high end of your comparison, then that is absolutely an entirely different world which I feel largely unaffected by - but that's a whole new post).
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'm of the belief that people should make whatever they want and call it/themselves whatever they want, and if that's art to them then so be it. I'm willing to say that because after centuries of an elite class dictating what art is to the rest of the populace it's about time people decide for themselves what art is and means to them, without the dictatorship of a market or critic. Not that those things won't exist, but you don't have to pay attention if you don't want to.
That also means that we should respect others if they think differently. What's art to you might be different than what is art to me. I believe in subjectivity because I have to in order to exist and make and accept.
So I think responsibility rests with the viewer as much as the artist. As one who is immersed in art, I want to be careful to not be exclusive and invite people in. As a viewer, I want to be respectful and hopefully I'm comfortable enough to ask questions if I don't understand, which isn't easy for many people. In fact it's much easier to disregard the work, make fun of it, or become embittered.
How about this instead: if we could have the desire to teach, perhaps it would open up the desire in others to learn? It seems that is where the biggest gap exists - the span between what the art world knows and presumes and what the rest of us denies what we already know, thinks the art world knows but have also presumed.
It sounds as if, from your language, what you want isn't so different than what I'm suggesting. Do you feel that's true?