"There has been a shift in the functions of the various strata in the art work in recent decades. Something far stranger than a power realignment alone has been happening in the art world. Earlier, historical changes were relatively transparent transpositions of domination. Novel now is the seeming shift of interest, of focus --- almost of aesthetic object."
Way back in 1997 I wrote these words in an essay which was published in Switzerland in German and English as a part of a small book on contemporary art. The book was not that important, but I think some of my points are even more relevant to the art scene of today. I will excerpt and rewrite parts of it here for discussion.
In the history of art, the weight of influence and determining power has often shifted this way or that. Predominance has transferred from church to patron to galleries, sometimes to museums, in some places to collectors, every once in a while to artists themselves. There have been short-term moguls, such as John Ruskin in the late 1800s, or Clement Greenberg in the 40s, 50s and early 60s of this century. At times these people may be powerful enough, such as in the case of Greenberg, not only to draw attention to specific artists and away from others, but even to determine what is accepted as art at all.
If one envisions the art world as a layered pyramid, there is a slip of levels and their roles. Let us delineate a possible pyramidal illustration. The (1) artists make (2) aesthetic objects in their (3) manner (4) exhibition curators (institutional or not) put these in (5) exhibitions they organize. These artworks, and artists, may or may not -but usually at some point must be - taken on by (6) gallerists in their (7) galleries. where they are hopefully bought by (8) collectors and put in their (9) collections. Ultimately with enough acceptance the art works wind up being put by (10) museum directors in (11) museums. At least that is the diagram most of us have in our minds. Independent of the fact that this model is relatively new and rather specifically so-called late-capitalistic and predominantly American, that it now mutates is intriguing.
This change may have been happening slowly over quite a length of time. With Picasso, Duchamp, Warhol and later Beuys, however important their art, the focus tended to shift to the person, or rather to an image of each that had more to do with the drives of publicity and fashion than with humanism. Within our current pyramid or hierarchy of artworld functions. it seems that the true stars are the exhibition organizers. The Harald Szeemanns, Hans-Ulrich Obrists, Jean-Christophe Ammanns etc. I do not intend to plaintively deplore their success. I am in fact a fan of the work of several of the exhibition-maker superstars. Their influence has often been refreshing. and is certainly preferable to a narrow thralldom under someone like Greenberg. My design is to comment on our general cultural context. The point is not only that these exhibition curators have the spotlight, or even that they have become more original and creative than earlier organizers, but that all tiers of my hypothetical diagram sketched above have clearly slipped a notch or two.
The exhibition curators are in effect now the artists. Their exhibitions are the works of art, populated by artists who assume the position previously held by periods or styles or movements. The creator is the curator. the artist an aspect of the work. This continues across the board. Museums often act like galleries. Gallerists seem uncertain as to what it is they do --- having functions stolen from them on both sides. By the logic of this model they would become public service exhibitions privately funded by the gallerist. Most disconcerting is that although visitor numbers are increasing, the number of collectors is certainly not vastly growing. This makes one wonder what kind of effect the experience of blockbuster shows actually has on the viewers. In the 60s and 70s at the expanded exhibition's birth. It was thought such exposure to good art would be enough alone to enlarge the understanding public.
This exigency raises the question of what is to be done within it, through it. after it, or even against it. How can this situation be enlisted into the service of art? As in any situation. its
"cash value" is important, to use William James' term. That is, what good is it, what can be done with it? Let us consider our state pragmatically. In the real world, no situation has been ideal for art or the artist. Whether working for the king, church, state, merchants, whatever. How do art aficionados react, given the new hierarchy?
One choice has been to ignore the circumstances, practicing the old tried and true ostrich tact, denying history, saying it was ever thus so. Mapping culture as nature is a popular approach of atavistic style mimics. Or alternately one can cynically get on the bandwagon, a prevalent stance in much Neo-Conceptual art today. A careerist achievement of success as its own and only goal has even been promoted by some theorists. This amounts simply to sophistry, to train to win with no concern for why. True thinkers such as Socrates have criticized this know-nothing stance since 400 B.C. Wanting to convince people, without caring what you speak or paint about, or where you are going, seems to be an historically repeating infirmity of weak wills. A third reaction, and perhaps the most effective one, is to simply live in conditions as given, but to pry a little content in whenever possible. Not blatantly heroic perhaps, but nonetheless admirable. This has been a tenable option at many times and in many locations. Goya, for example can be seen in this light. The final and best reaction of all is to strive to make a very material itself of the situation, to incorporate it and force it to be creative by using art's ontological and metaphoric expansiveness. This should not, however; be the only material. Creative interpolation is called for, doorways of opportunity for new and necessary experiences of art. If we have no positive comprehension, then we will simply be the blind purposefully misleading the blind.
How does this concretely apply to us now? What shall be done? I have only a very few suggestions. For one, there is a collapse of roles? Well then, collapse your own roles, define yourself. In fact probably ones varied plural selves, "each of those creatures called one's self," in E. E. Cummings' words. Be "multiapplicable," depending on and following the nature of your thought. Be an artist, curator, writer, thinker, activator and more. When proper interpretation is valued, a more dialectical relationship with experience results. Mikhail Bakhtin has stressed the way that expressions not only reflect controlling interests but more importantly can be made disruptive. thereby unshackling alternative views. This comes about, he states, by developing a "polyphonic"' or "dialogic" form, utilizing varied and not subordinated points of view. A concern for context and meaning permits one as well to allow multiple approaches to retain their quirky individuality.
In addition, we need to reinstate a positive historical memory, yet one without a melodramatic "burden of the past." As Elaine A. King rightly points out, "an acute case of historical amnesia" is one of the factors killing art today." A historical consciousness operating against the amnesiac academy, rather than promoting it as history painting did. Plainly, the lack of any real acknowledgement of the past serves now chiefly to allow the continuous re-sale of the same few, stale notions as "cutting edge." If I go into a Kunsthalle one more time an see a bar stretched across the display space, on which "found" items of clothing are hung on hangers wall-to-wall I'll regurgitate. I've now seen that five times, each claimed to be shocking and new and cutting edge. Furthermore, stop yer whinin', but increase yer criticizin'. Yes, all artworld denizens have a tendency to whimper about their difficulties. It is hard, for almost all of us, not just artists. However, not all critique is bellyaching. In our Prozac-framed culture, very often even justified analysis and protest are immediately labeled as "whining." Have the gumption to speak openly and clearly about what you perceive of as objectionable. As my father said, if you have no enemies, then you have never spoken clearly enough. Not everyone needs to, or can, be fond of you and your ideas.
When I wrote these words, in their original form, I meant it as a call to artists to become curators themselves. Instead, the opposite has happened. The roles have shifted farther and solidified more densely. In German a new word has been forged to legitimize the situation. Historians, curators, organizers, critics, museum educators and so on call themselves as a group "Kunstvermittler." They even give themselves art awards for this "Vermittlung" activity. They frequently ask me to translate this into English. Fortunately, it cannot be done. And laudably, Raphael Rubinstein at Art in America assures me that such a term has been actively combated by better writers on art in the English-language world. For your information, that word could be framed as "art-intermediary" or "art broker" or "art middleman" or even "art procurer." Most of these, especially the last term, reveal more of the truth of the situation than the "Vermittler" would like, far more than the rather self-flattering connotations of the German neologism.
What do I do? Amongst other things, this: http://www.atelierernst.ch/PicsMSB/PTViewerPanoramas/Kiosk_PTV.htm
Now I am asking you: what more can we do now in this situation? To pragmatically exist in it, but also to criticize it, cure it or use it as material?
Ehh. My second thought, how natural and criminal it feels to be so callously apathetic and uninformed with respect to the canon of today’s Art World. I understand musicians and writers have it bad enough performing within their own respective industries. But not even they feel obligated enough to endure perceived contrivances such as these, i.e.; the suggested adoption of current art world industry qualms as a source for creative material, as if all our initial sources of existential passion are probably secondary anyway come to think of it, and thus readily disposable in service of this insipid cause.
Working creatively and exclusively in response to symptoms presented by the art world toward some visionary end in itself - however genuine - more often than not carries my way the stench of necrophilia, like one of those viral zombie films in which the bulk of the less sensitive protagonists are rightfully, almost thankfully, infected by a rotting acquaintance and punctually dispersed of their souls.
The current intellectual manifestations of the art world were established, however unwittingly, to pander to buyers and creators alike with no gut connection to their art. Namely, the faithless and the confused. Everyone got fat on good cigars and drank well at the openings. You can give the populace all it can swallow by way of theoretical rumination, intellectually stuffed and basted like a genetically modified turkey, even good art. Doing so, however, won’t give it the primal hunger a culture demands in going forward artistically.
Why should the artist feel creatively obligated to behave within any modicum of the established art world at all? Should a perfectly resourceful animal, such as the rat, be condemned to fortify itself upon its own dung? One may just as well abort the artistic pursuit entirely and go into accounting or stamp collecting. Is it a question of selling work, earning a living as an artist? More admirable, then, to take a part time job in a decrepit sports bar on the outskirts of town, with little football shapes for taps. More admirable to take up residence in your parents’ bathtub. However competent or incompetent we are as artists, the closest we will ever get to relevance is qualified by our threshold for extremes.
I don't believe the art world can do anything to either save or impair what was sacred in the impetus to make art in the first place. It is, by nature, an institution of no visceral or spiritual relevance. The more creatively dependent one is on the machinations of the art world, the less, in my mind, that individual ultimately has the need or faculties to express.
The most an artist can do for the phenomenon we have come to understand as the art world (outside its basic transactional functions) is to serve graciously and patiently as its mortician.
Mr, Brandl,
I hope my opinions do not seem too inside the vernacular, but i am so impressed by the validity of all that you say that as an artist outside the dissemination of the "art world", much was triggered by your analysis.
I wonder what, you think. If anyone has the time, any criticism is appreciated.
I don't view "the art world" as a whole- & i don't think it's a whole, to me it's more "the art worlds" & how they effect, confuse & relate & argue with each other. Mostly i think "the art worlds" can get quite incongruent. Vast variety begets, "taste."
I think this is in part because of the vastness of options one is presented as to what art is. Part of this i think, is due to our inability to manage any singular mainstream analogue appropriate to an "artworld" because of the immense distractions of progress in the industrialised western world.
This is maintained globally as well. We live in a complete immersion of media of the likes that none has ever seen before in history. Though i don't view photography & painting as that different, there is more of a desire for the photographed image, or the filmed image than that of painting.
This i find ironic, when one considers that painting & art can never "die", because all that exsists for the sake of civilisation & at the hands of human beings, throughout history- is simply a manifestation of the evolution of the mind. That which is basically the will of an artist & the work that is produced- creating an effect out of a myriad of creative options, a presentation of thought.
A gifted actor, with a unique sense of cognition may be in a small theatre group for a number of years, then decide to go to hollywood, work for perhaps a number of years & attend auditions..With no formal training or diploma, & much hard work, their talent is recognised & then they become a film actor & attain celebrity, allow their image to be exploited & thus garner a rediculously healthy financial living.
It is actually common to hear about "overtrained" actors having a hard time finding work. This is a good example of the fact that individual cognition & intelligence, or talent- cannot be taught.It is truly tough for actors to make it in the entertainment industry, but it is one of the last options where an extraordinarily talented individual can garner work without expectation of a formal education, or a "film history degree".
Hollywood amasses billions in the film industry, film is inclusive in the arts, yet not many seem to take so seriously this relation & an apparent monolopy of interest & who benefits.We will not see Stan Brakhage films on dvd on shelves in major film supplier stores, or see his films in a lowes theatre any time soon....( I am glad to se the emergence of participant films, however) Entertainment & media holds great popularity not only in this country, but abroad.
Much the way the art Salons of the 17th -the 20th centuries ( even those who felt the work in salons was bland, the "radicals" had a wide audience in their 'unofficial exhibition sites")& captivated a wide audience for what was considered of great social signifigance of very real, art movements. Second to the entertainment industry in popularity is the gambling industry & *ahem the porn industry, these two industries garner much attention from the majority & are quite financially successful as well.
So what am i saying? What does this have to do with art or the art world? Everything i think, to me the arts are able to be put in a "unified whole" when we take a step back & look at which directions the arts have taken & how they got separated in the first place.. I find it interesting that the film industry garners billions & can produce a great number of projects of quality & ( yes many that have no quality) exposure to the masses, yet; the art world is this sort of "ousider world" that the majority- never sees or hears about on the common news, or even on the radio,"the art world" is relegated to the echelons of the elite-a sort of private sector function.
So, what do we expect.Was it always this way? No, not really it was not. Honestly throughout most of history, especially with the emergence of christianity, most of those who viewed art, were the poorest of the poor, common laborers who went to church to pray. One also sees this in Afghanistans history, the giant Buddhas, carved into a mountainside at Bamiyan in the heart of the Hindu Kush mountains of two magnificent buddahs (the Kushan people were the first to show Buddha in human form )that used to stand nearby the silk road.The Kushan people adopted buddhism from the Yuezhi people, creating the Gandhara culture.
It is these sculptures that exemplify the union of the two, a hybrid of cultures that artmaking constructs.As before this time artists had preferred symbols such as the footprint, stupa or tree of enlightenment, either out of a sense of sacrilege or simply to avoid persecution. Artist, as mediator in cultural evolution. We live in a time where our population is larger than any other century. This country, is progressivly moving towards a complete state of un-worldliness, we are not fortunate enough in our educational system & in all the available media to have a true sense of the world outside this country.
This is a very "western" effect that is obviously felt in other countries as well.It is a global market, after all. We all live very fast paced lives, it's a fast culture!!Fast food, fast merchandise, fast travel, fast work, fast money, entertainment....fast art.I don't even think i need to get into what corporations have done to music & the music industry. For the majority of us, our time is limited, so so are our pleasures, emotional & mental lives.
We have to lower our already unusually high expecations, in order to reach a wider audience, because ironically an artist is born out of the audience. The artist that speaks clearly now- is one who is viewing the crises of western civilisation, clearly, independently.
This also, gets us to our sense of history, is actually quite innacurate. ( we forget many of the lovely subjects in our favorite Vermeers were occassionaly without some of their teeth, thus the closed mouth smile,heh heh).So i don't know why we dwell & bicker about it so much, this is where we favor the unrealisable & history repeats itself.
There are truly so many different versions of history, one of which i present here- that it's virtually impossible to recognise every single interpretation, it's open- to interpretation.& it does, tend to repeat itself.This i think, is the reality of history. An obvious example of this is the fact that we have an "omnipotent & supposedly benevolent power" in the white house & also- they exsist-elsewhere- ones that also maintain huge interests in oil.
Which is where we speak of the "material plane" & it's tremendous value, & it's interesting & dangerous association with faith.The art- of function. This "omnipotent power" also has great interests in our private lives, much the way a typical corporation does, here we recognise the inception of "spy ware". Art, which has tremendous power & is presently overlooked by the masses- gives us the opportunity to truly look at things, life, self, politics, thought- ( etc) differently, to speculate all that is apparent or otherwise.
The greatest artists, with the most unique sense of self & cognition are the ones that create "markers of identity", that allow us, to evolve out- of the past- not into it. An example of this is the tremendous evolution of the imagery of religious icons ( obviously was our only meal ticket for the majority of history) we achived a rather admirable sophistication in imagery,over the centuries- with the emergence of dare i say- his name leonardo da vinci.
The same evolution of sophistication in style occurs in hindi works, buddhist works- throughout history, etc. Even the style of writing in the muslim faith which does not believe in imagery, ironically garners more poetic stylisation over time...(Adolf Grohmann's Arabische Paläographie II: Das Schriftwesen. Die Lapidarschrift remains an indispensible reference for studying the evolution of Arabic paleography from pre-Islamic era until after the advent of Islam.)
The sophistication of our imagrey, in fact- became so sophisticated, that we were hired later on towards the ( forgive me if i exclude much, the egyptians & other periods)baroque & renaissance periods on- that we worked making some of the most painstakingly beautiful architectural ornaments, works of portraiture, clothing & objects of fancy imaginable.. This led- of course to the age of enlightenment.The 18th century in european philosophy- which constituted of value that consited of rationality as a means to establish an authoritative system of ethics, aesthetics, and knowledge."
The intellectual leaders of this movement regarded themselves as courageous and elite, and regarded their purpose as leading the world toward progress and out of a long period of doubtful tradition, full of irrationality, superstition, and tyranny (which they believed began during a historical period they called the "Dark Ages"). This movement also provided a framework for the American and French Revolutions, the Latin American independence movement, the Polish Constitution of May 3 as well as leading to the rise of capitalism and the birth of socialism.
It is matched by the high baroque era in music, and the neo-classical period in the arts, and receives contemporary application in the unity of science movement which includes logical positivism." So, here we are, now. In a vast diaspora of distraction, options & elected zealots.We are increasingly dangerously employed by the upper class instead of private employers- the competitiveness in our society, is tremendous in every single arena.
We outsource all our production to china & lose jobs here- while maintaining a 525.5 ( as of 2002) billion dollar trade deficit with china as a result. What does this say about the arts? Nothing really i suppose, I cannot think of any work i have seen that is deifying this reality.Or- in perhaps, an arcane way, are there works in possession of collectors, that- are?.....
As usual, it's considered impractical, to question authority, because it is common knowledge that we wish to gain authority, ourselves. & it is those- that dominate, that rule over our concepts of self, that dominate history. Ultimately, all is a sublimation, materialisation, of the brain, thought, desire, imagination, madness, self- , art emerges out of reality, the world, the nature of being & ego. I am also marcusian & one as well worries when the olympics garners much more attention than who won the nobel peace prize, let alone who is the greatest artistic influence of our time.
I think when we place more emphasis on a simple combination of humanism, ecology, science & the individual & a resurgance of philosophical thinking, that these newfound yet not so entirely new- allegories will be overcome.Sounds utopic hm? We place to much emphasis on educational background & pedagogy in the arts & not enough on individual cognition & ability-.It is those individuals, after all- that present us with markers of identity to spur a recognition, re-invention of our place in time. I wonder what will happen if we do not learn to take these opportunities, to view & be inspired by those who present these markers..As we continue to let them slip inevitably into the predictable, mediocre & unknown.
Thank you,
A.D
Wow! I'm cool and all, but call me "Mark," or "Brandl," but please not "Mr."
Both these comments deserve to be their own postings! Keep it up. I had a little trouble connecting all the dots in the second post by "A.D." (what's your eal name?), but I myself am known to try to integrate (too?) wide-ranging stuff, so what the heck. I believe we are all three on similar wavelengths here. I directly applaud much of what Ted has to say (commenter number one). Yes, this whole thing nowadays is mannerist, academic (in the perjorative sense) and is creating vaste arrays of mediocrity. Are you suggesting we "drop out" Ted? I can't face that, however morally justified it might be (and it IS, I think) --- I'm too much of a fighter, stay in the ring and plug away. What can we do if we "stay" in? How can we twist this around? The whole thing is a relatively recent development anyway. Alles musst nicht so sein, A.D. It ain't necessarilly so. Tahnks for the extensive thoughts!
THE FAKE ARTIST IN THE FAKE GALLERY
www.flyinshoes.fsnet.co.uk/fake/
The Fake Artist and the Fake Gallery
a response from an impuritan..
This article really hits home from the perspective of an 'ex' artist, future artist struggling to deal with the multiplicity of styles and cliques now infecting the British 'Body Artistic'. I was a party to the initial infection of 'oblique strategy' art through a couple of interviews for Goldsmith's College of Art here in the late 1980's ( ironically just before the Brit-Art boom).
I was discarded as being too 'traditional' at these interviews and responded by disappearing literally to the countryside where I was born to complete the supposed 'reactionary' art I was accused of. I ceased exhibiting soon after and have led a merry dance around the genres ever since and in fact came across r.d.roth through that dance.
It seemed then and it seems now that a a badly misunderstood 'mission statement' based on an outpouring of cobbled together cod philosophy (especially French) actually mattered more than an ability to actually develop or complete a body of work. This trend has thrived like a virus to the extent I examine in the essay at this blog
colourwheels.blogspot.com/
especially in regard to art-training which has shed all pretence to accomodate 'skills' in favour of 'networking' and 'business acumen'.
As an example of how far this trend predominates I recently had a show where I instinctively felt that my actual 'work' ( traditional landscape drawings in line from Paul Nash ) werer irrelevant to my audience and in a fit of pique I started drawing on the day of the show a series of sarcastic and irreverant cartoon sabout the art-world in Nottingham on basis if you can't beat them join them! I immediately gained attention, some small renumeration and a possible future show..both urls follow..
www.flyinshoes.fsnet.co.uk/landscape/index.htm
idiotsguidetoart.blogspot.com/
I feel that I have stumbled into that world the article describes of small pecks at the rhino's hide in search of my own artistic salvation. I increasingly over last decade and a half admired 'polymath' souls such as Butch Hancock (musician/photographer) and anybody operating well away from the main stream especially so-called 'outsider art' as they seemed immune to this 'tainted generation's' stylistic morass.
It seems to me that artists have two choices...travel to Rome and adopt the clothes of the conquerer's and become 'curators' or walk to the furthest edges and break down fences that border the still wild and unexplored possibly with multiple personas....Pessoa comes to mind and in his spirit I have invented any number of 'Fake' musicians and artists recently....indeed to the point where I declared myself a 'Fake Gallery'and declared my various 'styles' separate personas...
Only in fakery did I become real...