Sunday, April 13, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
rather be dead than cool
Fashion is like most other arts: fleeting, really wonderful when done right, and exceptionally satisfying when ahead of the mainstream. Of course, in mimicking fashion, art can also be a trigger for saturation, or a point of discovery, a social collectability. We hope for the latter, but more than not receive the former. In art scenes, the trials of vulnerability, not originality, are of essence to an art with consciousness, (that being an art derived from an inherent place of self, a place where vulnerability can seek refuge in expression without paying homage to current trend). This place of course is not easily found, understood, or managed by most. In art scenes we don't experience good or bad as much as we experience a desperation to connect on a level of idealization, of what we're seeing, of its meaning, of where we are in terms of place, geography.
The emphasis of activity is more valuable than even the art in art scenes. You can find art, good/bad/mediocre, in coffee shops, libraries, clothing stores, salons, galleries, et al, but the desire for more art to fill spaces to connect in has brought the art world an inquiry beyond the simple and regular commodity question: what do we expect from art now? Fast, instantaneous connection, social responsibility, background conversation, a safe familiarity that breaks slightly with traditions. What ever it is we want as viewers is what is developed by artists to a large degree. Has contemporary art become more and more conservative due to the safeguard of activity and safe social connection? I would argue this point. As the world becomes a more globalised place, methods become quicker, flash-communication expands, divides in wealth distribution and educational barriers widen, and time becomes more of a specialized tool. Political or social messages, especially controversial ones, become extremist by default. Art with these attributes become either maketably fashionable (diluted) or so marginalized they seem insane (obsolete).
Grunge is fashion again right now. 1990 is 2008, an eighteen year turn around. What's incredible is living a rebirthed trend that you experienced the first time around. Its a sensation unlike other trends that you maybe did not live the first time around, its old-new to you. Art, like fashion, has its story and reasons for origination or revival. Its a second or third look into a sensation. The first time was new, controversial, hated or loved, nonetheless experienced. The redo seeks the height of extremes of the original(s). In contemporary art scenes any sense of revivalism is almost dead. Our contemporarily deemed 'art stars' deliver us an experience of an experience, and in actuality, based on our art scenes, maybe that's all that we're asking for from art: a reflection and connection. We want a band to play at the opening more than we care about what the art is doing, we concern ourselves with ease of transportation rather than what we're being visually provided, we care about the curator's name on the announcement as that signifies the shows worth like a brand.
With change comes controversy, with controversy comes entropy, with entropy comes resignation, and finally familiarity. Art is in this cycle as well. We're currently living in a world of uncertainty, grave consequences, extreme polarities in terms of almost every possible variable, and with very limited resources. It makes sense that people look to art for social collectability, to feel like a part of something larger when solidarity is a scary prospect. Art is mimicking our desires: its passive and in bulk, design friendly, and interactive. We are looking to art to be both connected and shielded from controversy, but controversy is not the violation of our happiness that it has been levied with. Adding a number of live distractions to an opening does not create intensity. Curators acting as dual social informers (educators, instigators, couriers) and cultural investigators, creates intensity. Artists being conscious of their important role and work instead of becoming mere factories creates intensity. Viewers being inquisitive and critical about their experience creates intensity. Most desperately needed in the world is vulnerability on everyone's part in order to create change and to kill the current conservatism in art.
The emphasis of activity is more valuable than even the art in art scenes. You can find art, good/bad/mediocre, in coffee shops, libraries, clothing stores, salons, galleries, et al, but the desire for more art to fill spaces to connect in has brought the art world an inquiry beyond the simple and regular commodity question: what do we expect from art now? Fast, instantaneous connection, social responsibility, background conversation, a safe familiarity that breaks slightly with traditions. What ever it is we want as viewers is what is developed by artists to a large degree. Has contemporary art become more and more conservative due to the safeguard of activity and safe social connection? I would argue this point. As the world becomes a more globalised place, methods become quicker, flash-communication expands, divides in wealth distribution and educational barriers widen, and time becomes more of a specialized tool. Political or social messages, especially controversial ones, become extremist by default. Art with these attributes become either maketably fashionable (diluted) or so marginalized they seem insane (obsolete).
Grunge is fashion again right now. 1990 is 2008, an eighteen year turn around. What's incredible is living a rebirthed trend that you experienced the first time around. Its a sensation unlike other trends that you maybe did not live the first time around, its old-new to you. Art, like fashion, has its story and reasons for origination or revival. Its a second or third look into a sensation. The first time was new, controversial, hated or loved, nonetheless experienced. The redo seeks the height of extremes of the original(s). In contemporary art scenes any sense of revivalism is almost dead. Our contemporarily deemed 'art stars' deliver us an experience of an experience, and in actuality, based on our art scenes, maybe that's all that we're asking for from art: a reflection and connection. We want a band to play at the opening more than we care about what the art is doing, we concern ourselves with ease of transportation rather than what we're being visually provided, we care about the curator's name on the announcement as that signifies the shows worth like a brand.
With change comes controversy, with controversy comes entropy, with entropy comes resignation, and finally familiarity. Art is in this cycle as well. We're currently living in a world of uncertainty, grave consequences, extreme polarities in terms of almost every possible variable, and with very limited resources. It makes sense that people look to art for social collectability, to feel like a part of something larger when solidarity is a scary prospect. Art is mimicking our desires: its passive and in bulk, design friendly, and interactive. We are looking to art to be both connected and shielded from controversy, but controversy is not the violation of our happiness that it has been levied with. Adding a number of live distractions to an opening does not create intensity. Curators acting as dual social informers (educators, instigators, couriers) and cultural investigators, creates intensity. Artists being conscious of their important role and work instead of becoming mere factories creates intensity. Viewers being inquisitive and critical about their experience creates intensity. Most desperately needed in the world is vulnerability on everyone's part in order to create change and to kill the current conservatism in art.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
why the art world would benefit from consolidation
This trend had been noted before, but lets not lose sight of the ever-declining value of overdoing things...or rather bludgeoning them to death and then putting their mangled carcasses on podiums: why is the overwhelming feeling that almost every contemporary gallerist is trying to squeeze the last buck out of color blocked, dreamscapes? Half architecture, half mountain? Half rainbow, half sunset? I haven't found the best coverall term for it yet, but I hope you catch my point well enough. In painting and or drawing the need to color ramp the dirty, destroyed stripmall-construction site into the rainbow (the rainbow usually taking on the bendability of the rainbow leading to the pot of gold), is desperately looking like the powerline-bird situation. The reason for this trend leads me to consider one of four things:
1. You're an artist primarily for economic return in which your method is to stay the tried and true course as tightly as possible. In this case I can understand the method, but its still kinda dumb because you're an artist primarily looking for an economic return-- wrong field.
2. You're an artist exclusively interested in imitating what everyone else has already deemed interesting. In this case you're really in the wrong field.
3. You have no identity yet.
Any of the above reasons, albeit depressingly appropriate, are also causing a massive backup for the advancement of exciting and interesting works on paper, so we might want to move right along. Past the graphite fall-away, past the kool-aid colored dimensional mountain ranges, past the diamond rainbow halos, past the split-level train tracks leading nowhere but to insanity for the viewer because this is not a urban outfitters t-shirt design contest, its an exhibition they drove or somehow traveled to in a messy rush since most gallerists haven't caught on that art openings do not double for dinner parties, so why the fuck do they start at 6 pm and end at 8pm? (sidebar: annoying hours = annoyed viewers = less viewers, less interest. Smart galleries have started having their openings on nights Th-Sat start 7-10pm at minimum, much more reasonable, Sunday openings can easily do the 6pm-9pm for more conservative types).
Now that we've hit on the topic of openings, the gang up of art openings in inconvenient locations (i.e.. scattered, not all within a few blocks), is ridiculous. I understand it creates the illusion of many, and its an event, however, it does little for the galleries outside the few blocks and makes viewers have to pick and exclude. And a bus, shuttle, or hoarding devise doesn't make it any better. It makes better sense for galleries to have their own openings singularly in terms of turn out. True, there is power in numbers, but in this case with the specific geography of venues outside of tight city centers (walkable blocks) for example, its more like divide and conquer. And why should scheduling flaws hinder art anyways? Its not about convenience...its not meant to be a drive-thru event. If you're interested in going to an art opening to begin with, you've already made the decision to make it a destination within your night, so I don't understand where the huge emphasis on convenience comes from.
And just incase your line of reasoning is the non profit argument, lets be clear: no matter how non profit you profess to be, artists are living breathing people who need to eat and create and be compensated in some form, and non profit doesn't mean let yourself go. There are plenty of npo's vying for the same cash you are, so its never a given. Unless your idea of a good time is showing unsellable work to a non buying audience in a sadly wood paneled shack, in which case I don't get why you'd be in a field so predominately powered by image in the first place. I think its time for a hasty restructuring. We could cut the bad taste and tactless practices in half if many galleries would just join forces. It would be: managable in sheer numbers, less of the same, and bring out more of an interested (and possibly interesting) crowd. Thus, the art world and everyone in it: artists, buyers, curators, writers, directors, would all benefit from consolidation.
1. You're an artist primarily for economic return in which your method is to stay the tried and true course as tightly as possible. In this case I can understand the method, but its still kinda dumb because you're an artist primarily looking for an economic return-- wrong field.
2. You're an artist exclusively interested in imitating what everyone else has already deemed interesting. In this case you're really in the wrong field.
3. You have no identity yet.
Any of the above reasons, albeit depressingly appropriate, are also causing a massive backup for the advancement of exciting and interesting works on paper, so we might want to move right along. Past the graphite fall-away, past the kool-aid colored dimensional mountain ranges, past the diamond rainbow halos, past the split-level train tracks leading nowhere but to insanity for the viewer because this is not a urban outfitters t-shirt design contest, its an exhibition they drove or somehow traveled to in a messy rush since most gallerists haven't caught on that art openings do not double for dinner parties, so why the fuck do they start at 6 pm and end at 8pm? (sidebar: annoying hours = annoyed viewers = less viewers, less interest. Smart galleries have started having their openings on nights Th-Sat start 7-10pm at minimum, much more reasonable, Sunday openings can easily do the 6pm-9pm for more conservative types).
Now that we've hit on the topic of openings, the gang up of art openings in inconvenient locations (i.e.. scattered, not all within a few blocks), is ridiculous. I understand it creates the illusion of many, and its an event, however, it does little for the galleries outside the few blocks and makes viewers have to pick and exclude. And a bus, shuttle, or hoarding devise doesn't make it any better. It makes better sense for galleries to have their own openings singularly in terms of turn out. True, there is power in numbers, but in this case with the specific geography of venues outside of tight city centers (walkable blocks) for example, its more like divide and conquer. And why should scheduling flaws hinder art anyways? Its not about convenience...its not meant to be a drive-thru event. If you're interested in going to an art opening to begin with, you've already made the decision to make it a destination within your night, so I don't understand where the huge emphasis on convenience comes from.
And just incase your line of reasoning is the non profit argument, lets be clear: no matter how non profit you profess to be, artists are living breathing people who need to eat and create and be compensated in some form, and non profit doesn't mean let yourself go. There are plenty of npo's vying for the same cash you are, so its never a given. Unless your idea of a good time is showing unsellable work to a non buying audience in a sadly wood paneled shack, in which case I don't get why you'd be in a field so predominately powered by image in the first place. I think its time for a hasty restructuring. We could cut the bad taste and tactless practices in half if many galleries would just join forces. It would be: managable in sheer numbers, less of the same, and bring out more of an interested (and possibly interesting) crowd. Thus, the art world and everyone in it: artists, buyers, curators, writers, directors, would all benefit from consolidation.
4 real luv.
I've been so kindly asked to keep a log of my thoughts on contemporary art, maybe review-like segments sans the structural normalcy of an art review, that's olden anyhow. But this is casual, and I claim no conclusions only thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)