WTF — Art and Free Food! by William Dolan
WTF is a periodic rant about an ill of the art world, one of humankind’s most screwed-up endeavors.
I recently found myself in a discussion about painting and specifically why good interesting work that can stand on its own rarely gets the attention that Neo-Conceptual work, even when poorly executed, receives.
Since academics have taken over art, the purpose of it is to teach a so-called lesson to the viewer. An artist is presumed to have special insight into humanity that ordinary people don’t have. By pointing out social ills, perhaps the viewer can become a better person or at least feel smarter.
To garner more success in today’s art world a painter would be better off to create an installation. Here’s an idea: an artist can hang some work on the wall and also have one of those elotes carts in the center of the gallery. The artist can write some nonsense that he or she is demonstrating the differences between the upper middle class and the struggle that is created when a minority is brought in to prop the middle class up by doing the menial and hard work that allows us our freedom. As a special treat, the cart would actually serve free corn, melon, churros, etc. This would be a way to help bridge the gap between us. Of course, the artist should use a lot of sociological buzzwords like “commodification”, “sociological construct” and maybe throw in “transgression”. Or, perhaps it can be labeled a demonstration of the dehumanization of people in the urban environment and their efforts to enjoy life. Overall, I think the key is to have a somewhat preachy or self-righteous tone to the multi-paragraph statement.
The free food helps, too. The popularity of the heavily-armed ice cream truck at this years NEXT show at Art Chicago was the free Haggen Daz and not the juxtaposition of the artillery and the ice cream truck. Of course it’s through this participation with the work that the viewer learns. It has nothing to do with feeding one’s face with free food, even if the viewer goes back for thirds. It’s a shame that the art world seems to eat this dreck up.
There is some good Neo-Conceptual art out there but most of it seems trite and any visual tools are secondary and only have to help illustrate the artist’s point. Whether it’s good or bad or even of the artist’s hand, it doesn’t matter.
Category: WTF | Tags: acedamia, aesthetics, art world, conceptualism, painting 32 comments »
June 15th, 2009 at 9:27 am
John Hughes article on Eric Fischl:
Cal Arts epitomized the frivolity of late modernist art teaching no drawing, just do your own thing and let Teacher get on with his. “Everybody was naked,” Fischl recalled of one of these “life classes … .. Half the people were covered with paint…. The two models were sitting in the corner absolutely still, bored to tears. Everyone else was throwing stuff around and had climbed up into the roof and jumped into buckets of paint. It was an absolute zoo…. They didn’t teach technique at Cal Arts.”
June 15th, 2009 at 10:00 am
http://www.stopgostop.com/pvonzweck/
June 15th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
There’s an interesting trend toward food-centered events as art. They’re having/had a panel discussion on whether these art events are art or just a party.
I sat in on a panel discussion at NEXT where a girl talked about her practice in Brooklyn, where she bakes treats and sells them at art openings in NY. Her description sounded like a sociological textbook description of the interaction that goes on during the sale of goods.
It sounds like fun and I’ll bet the baked goods are tasty, but it seems more like a food service operation to me, possibly skirting licensing under the guise of art.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
http://www.minidutchgallery.org/walk-in-pantry/
June 15th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
This exhibit addresses all of Bill’s key points:
http://www.mcachicago.org/exhibitions/exh_detail.php?id=214&syear=2009
June 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
That John Hughes article excerpt is hilarious.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
I’m totally with you on trite art, but I also don’t want to be the humorless prude in the corner. If the work is boring, I’m right there hatin’, but getting mad about serving people ice cream? I think we should keep in mind that many people are either intimidated by art or simply don’t understand how to engage it. Call me a plebe, but I think an ice cream cone might help alleviate that (a point you seem to acknowledge but then label dreck).
As for the light exhibit linked here, I saw that one, too, and interacted with it (mainly to determine what the damn point was, yes). This piece read as a Science & Industry prop more than an art installation, but it was not mean-spirited or cocky, as its so-called Neo-conceptual brethren often are. Nor was it void of all visual concern (the lamps were all white and the screen was real purty), as so much MFA-grade work (”Sloppy is the new Insightful!”) seems to be these days.
Like I said, I think we more or less agree about the levels of bullshit out there (how can you be an “artist” and not know how to draw?), but we also have to realize we’re not mad about how shitty it is; we’re mad about how much press the shit gets. Sad to say, but welcome to America, gentlemen. We are a culture spiralling exonentially inward towards vapidity, in no small part because that’s where the money’s at. There are always glimmers of hope, but I dare not say anything more comforting than that, lest I incur my own wrath, let alone Norbert’s.
Point being: I get ya, but let’s not let our ability to spot crap make everything look like turds.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Hey Russ, good to see you here. Your new work is looking pretty decent.
So…
If I find a piece of paper in my pocket and tack it to a wall in a gallery – - is that piece of paper considered art?
If someone else paints that wall, let’s say gray, and re-tacks my piece of paper to the wall – - is the gray wall considered art?
If I turn the sink that is in the back of the gallery on and let it run – - is the running sink considered art?
If I disassemble the gallery including the gray wall, the piece of paper and the running sink and make a boat using all of the components and sail that boat down a river – - is that considered art?
If someone documents me sailing down the river with photographs and essays – - is that considered art?
If I reassemble the gallery including the gray wall, the piece of paper and the running sink within another gallery – - is that considered art?
Are the people that interact with the gray wall, the piece of paper and the running sink considered art?
Is the idea of the gray wall, the piece of paper and the running sink without physically having the gray wall, the piece of paper and the running sink considered art?
Is writing this comment considered art?
June 17th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Sure.
Sure.
Sure.
Sure.
Sure.
Sure.
Sure.
Sure.
That is, if you (or, perhaps, someone) call(s) it art.
Now, is it good art? That’s where you start having an interesting conversation.
In my case, apparently, the art is “pretty decent”… You crack me up, Marszalek.
June 18th, 2009 at 8:26 am
If that stuff is not good art, is it worthy of attention?
June 18th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Russ, I like your work (and your new work) and always thought it strong as I have stated to you in the past. My declaration concerning your new work was made with the best intention though it may have sounded a bit corny.
I’m not a huge advocate of the mindset that everything is art. Or it is art because someone says that it is art. If everything is art where does that take us?…maybe we are finding that out. I think this is also an interesting topic and has been for a century now but I would like to focus on the topic that Russ addressed: is it good art?
Let’s take the running sink. Let’s assume it’s art because it has been proclaimed art already:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4720741.stm
Is it good art?
June 18th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
No, the running water piece is exactly the kind of smarmy faux nihilism that is trying to be smart by being stupid. And I mean stoopid. Number one, he’s justifying his art by claiming its efficacy as a PSA. Shallow and self-important (you can hear him cackle, “I’m teachin all them rubes a real lesson with this one!”). Number two, he’s illustrating a supposed concern of his by exacerbating the problem. Stoopid. This guy is a hack, to be sure, and his art sucks.
To Bill’s question: No, if something is boring it does not warrant attention. My point was that by trying to define art, to set up boundaries around it and declare what is and isn’t “Art” is to inevitably get mired up in a circular argument with someone who thinks that the thing in question IS “Art.” I think a more interesting conversation to have with that person would be to explain why, if we must agree that X is Art, X is not good art. They get a better understanding of how their work is received and interpreted, and you get to wax all fancy about how they’re a schmuck who’s wasting your time.
Plus, surely there is some conceptual work out there that is actually really interesting; will the rubric for art then be that conceptual work is only called Art if Bruce Nauman or Vito Acconci do it? No, a shitty painting of a sailboat is still art, ergo…
Again, I think our main complaint is not that the work sucks (because we aren’t getting pissed off at the sailboat painting); it’s that the shit seems to get all the press.
Sorry for rambling on so long. I’m not well versed in messageboard etiquette. Norbert, I was just yankin your chain about the decency of my work. I took no offense, but thanks for the supportive comments nonetheless.
June 19th, 2009 at 6:14 am
Insightful comments Russ.
“Again, I think our main complaint is not that the work sucks (because we aren’t getting pissed off at the sailboat painting); it’s that the shit seems to get all the press.”
- – I wasn’t thinking of it this way but you are correct. The complaint is really not about the work (though it is bad) but because of the press and recognition the art world gives this stuff. I don’t want to walk into a “real” gallery or a museum and see shitty paintings or “running sink” let alone read about this stuff in Modern Painters…but then again Modern Painters has turned to shit too!
June 19th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Yes, it is a circular argument that most often does not allow for a discussion of craft and aesthetics. There is good conceptual art and conceptual art that embraces craft and aesthetics. When that happens, the work is exceptional. Too often though, the work is some convoluted theory with poor or no visuals. There’s also a trend toward art being replaced by social events. There was a panel discussion about this topic as part of the DIY show at the Hyde Park Art Center. There’s nothing wrong with an art party, but lets include some good art in the mix, even if the visitor has to return after the party to fully appreciate the work.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Thanks for the compliment, Norbert. I suppose our challenge, as thankless as it seems, is to make art that catches people’s attention; in short, to be interesting. And to market ourselves accordingly. (I try to think of it as sharing my work, but it still feels a little dirty.) The Art World may not notice, but someone will.
In defense of art parties, I actually sold 2 of 4 pieces at one I was part of last summer (and a third a while later from someone who had seen it there). The party was really fun, too, not all used car lot sellsellsell as you might expect. But yeah, uninteresting art doesn’t deserve its own party.
June 20th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Interesting article from Dawoud Bey:
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/art-talk-chicago/2009/06/editorial-by-dawoud-bey—the-harsh-realities-of-being-a-professional-artist-or-what-does-race-gende.html
June 20th, 2009 at 10:47 am
That guy knows how to hit a nail on its head.
June 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Dawoud’s perspective is almost always insightful. He went at it from the other end a bit at the Hyde Park Open Crit, still keeping to the importance of knowing the context of one’s work but making a point that effectively just illustrating current accepted (academic) theory does not engage any more than the genre/decorator art he references in the article linked here, calling it boring (as I recall). The larger point — any media or direction (neoconceptual art, installations, painting, etc) can all be bad or good, boring or interesting. Depends how the artist and then the viewer engage the work.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:54 am
The Starving Dog
“Hello everyone. My name is Guillermo Habacuc Vargas. I am 50 years old and an artist. Recently, I have been critisized for my work titled “Eres lo que lees”, which features a dog named Nativity. The purpose of the work was not to cause any type of infliction on the poor, innocent creature, but rather to illustrate a point. In my home city of San Jose, Costa Rica, tens of thousands of stray dogs starve and die of illness each year in the streets and no one pays them a second thought.
“Now, if you publicly display one of these starving creatures, such as the case with Nativity, it creates a backlash that brings out a big hypocrisy in all of us. Nativity was a very sick creature and would have died in the streets anyway.”
- – Is this considered art? Is this considered good art? To me, this is a public service announcement, though produced in a twisted sort of way. Guillermo Habacuc Vargas should call himself an activist not an artist. I don’t think the people at PETA think of themselves as artists.
Hey, I’m all for art bringing on social and political change but marches, boycotts, strikes, hunger strikes, guerrilla tactics, a starving dog, a running sink, etc… this just isn’t art.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Disgusting. See my evaluation of the running sink piece; it applies here word for word.
But if we’re so determined to be hung up on what isn’t art, anybody wanna offer a definition of exactly what is? Tread carefully…
June 24th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
If Norbert disassembles his above mentioned gallery including the gray wall, the piece of paper and the running sink and makes a boat using all of the components and sails that boat down a river….well who doesn’t love a boat assembled out of found objects? I vote yes as art, and I would probably like it. Nathan Redwood’s installation at gallery 40000 was just such a boat and it was pretty spectacular to experience in person. http://www.nathanredwood.com/wheresmyship.html
The idea that anything is art if I say it is has an enormous appeal, especially to young minds – it’s rebellious. Also, skipping over any rigorous training and going straight to experimentation, concept or “style” is similarly attractive. I’ve been around for a while so most artworks in this vein just bore me. A person starting out in art school can easily be enthralled with this idea (although probably secretly fear the fraudulent aspect of it). I felt this way in college and went as rogue as I could as fast as I could and was rewarded for it. It’s fun and can certainly spark some interesting conversations. Lucky for me (I think), I took my life drawing classes very seriously and my mom had started teaching me painting technique from an early age.
I certainly prefer the questions that ask is a piece of art compelling, does it have integrity, is it compositionally solid or exciting, well thought out, a good example for it’s genre etc…? A debate over is it art or not seems pretty much irrelevant at this point.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
I think that at least in the academic world — and therefore, the forefront of the artworld — the discussion of theory and ideas have all but replaced aesthetics and craft to the point that just bringing it up makes one appear to be backward.
No one knows what art is anymore. The idea that anything is art has been regurgitated over and over since Duchamp. The boundaries have been broken, stepped on and driven over to the point where the only thing that’s left is pulling off stunts to get attention.
Aesthetics and craft need to be brought back to the forefront. Right now they are often an afterthought or not even considered. The work is thrown together or reappropriated.
One needs only to look at the world of printmaking to see that aesthetics and craft still matter. Fortunately, the nature of this art form almost requires it.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Bill – what you say is exactly why I think elevating aesthetics – caring about what a artwork actually looks like – and being unapologetic about it has ironically now becoming more interesting. I love talking about my work by emphasizing that I’m mostly interested in unpopular, currently unsanctioned ideas. There is a certain amount of power that can come with being anti- or outside of the establishment – in this string that being shoddy conceptualism/art is anything. Don’t you think this will become just as cliche and backwards as aesthetics seem to be now?. I can’t really take the system on – but I can do what I do with a great deal of confidence and not be shy about it. The winds will change – they always do.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
“A debate over is it art or not seems pretty much irrelevant at this point.” Exactly!
RE: the lack of “aesthetics and craft”
I’m of a mind that, perhaps, if you challenged a person who makes thoughtless conceptual pieces to produce a painting, the final piece would turn out less than inspiring. Point being: sometimes the problem is not questionable art forms but vapid artists. Now, I’m all for training and encouragement; I’ve long said that there is no such thing as talent, only cultivated skill. I say teach painting, drawing, sculpture, photography, performance, conceptual, and printmaking with the same rigor and gusto, and you will be rewarded (however occasionally) with outstanding works in every discipline.
It just seems that we’re over here working ourselves up into a lather about all these damned kids with their bookthinkin’ who ain’t doin’ no old-fashioned artmakin’, and it just sounds like sour grapes. Other than perhaps being jealous of its “success,” why bother being offended by mediocrity?
(Unless, of course, there’s a fucking dog tied to a wall… don’t even get me started on that.)
Granted, I haven’t been near school in 5 years. From whence this indictment of academia, Bill?
June 25th, 2009 at 7:58 am
there are a lot of things running through my head but I do want to say good points made by all.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Hello everyone,
I’m a watercolorist by love and a graphic artist by trade. I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t into art; it has always been in my blood. I paint for myself, computer graphics pays the bills.
My daughter Ashley (a fine artist in her own right) and myself have a wonderful game we play whenever the new Art in America magazine arrives. We call it the Crap Game. It’s about the only thing Art in America is really good for other then driving real artists to suicide.
Please keep in mind my subscription to Art in America was not purchased by myself but was a gift from a wonderful, much loved and well meaning aunt. Anyway, I’m sure everyone will want to get involved as soon as possible, so without further ado here is how to play.
The rules are flexible, you can do exactly as we do or go totally free-form, the choice is yours and yours alone. There is really no wrong way to play but the fun factor depends much on the company you keep. Special Note: although the Crap Game may be played alone it is always better with one or two close artistic friends.
To play the game simply obtain a copy of Art in America. As an artist you may say “hey, I can’t afford pricy high class magazines like Art in America. Not to worry my friends, they can most often be had for free. You may find a copy lining the bottom of a bird cage, being used as uber classy “Bum TP” or most often sitting predominately on the coffee tables of the rich and clueless.
Once you have procured your very own illustrious copy of Art in America, sit with your friend/friends and simply turn the pages one by one in quick succession crying out your split-second opinion of each picture as the alleged artwork passes by your wondering eyes. The game should sound something like this; Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Art, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Art, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap, Crap.
Ashley and I both noticed a funny thing about this game. Not only is it lots of fun, leads to uproarious laughter at the expense of the “truly crappy” and brings the family closer together. The real funny thing is, usually when the word “art” was uttered it is in reference to a beautiful oil, acrylic, watercolor or sculpture featured in one of the copious advertisements and not the “art” that Art in America thought we should be interested in.
Seems a lot of the stuff that sells and can thus afford the rather pricey ad fees is actually well thought out and beautifully executed by someone with talent.
Funny how that works out. Keep the faith, paint for yourselves’, the rest be damned.
Sincerely, Bill
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Wait wait Mr Dolan! (spoken in the Bob Dylan manner), are you talking about Jeff Koons again!
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:22 pm
re: Norbert’s comment June 17th,
My original language is French, we spoke it at home, I had to learn to speak English before starting 1st grade, I’m a Chicago born artist.
I researched and found the original text by artist Duchamp, regarding the urinal, read it over and over, in my opinion he really meant to say how foolish the art world was becoming, losing it’s sight on the meaning of what is art. By “ready made” he meant, that if we just pick something up and call it art, is it art. Has anyone every wondered why he used a urinal, well it is an old French expression of insult, kind of like saying, bulsht.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:47 pm
re:what is art?
What is a psychologist? One who has been taught, practices and brings real value. What is value? A measure of relevance, development, importance.
So the first question has to do with accomplishment (not of individual but of humanity) and the second question has to do with a level of value (less or greater value).
So art, if a greater accomplishment of humanity, is a greater value. Found objects, inflated stories, etc, would that not require less accomplishment and lesser value?
So there is “room” for the toilet, but I would not what to be the one who paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a balloon, just because it sat in a castle or museum.
Call me an artist or not, a good artist or a no talent, I know what I put into my work and it is sad when the popularity gets the attention. It’s like waiting for an earth quake before we can muster some empathy.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:16 pm
In all of this rant, the public is also being robbed of real choice and experience. Remember the television industries’ excuse for crappy tv, “it’s what people vote for”. Well what have they been given to choose from, the red balloon or the swash on canvas painting?
I have mentioned before, that I see a divide and conquer attitude in the art industry. Too much division and protectionism, it breeds bad politics. When will we ever see this industry unite.
Why would a gallery refuse to show work, even one piece for one week, under the fear that it won’t sell. Why, do they sell so much already and if so, would that not be an incentive to bring in more work. If they are not selling, well maybe give someone else a try.
The art schools promoting their students, well at what expense? Here come to our institution, we back you up even if you have no talent or imagination or something to say, as long as you pay the tuition! Great reputation!
The museums, well lets have movie and popcorn night instead of showing artwork, or have a brew and view. Hell, let the bars and movie theaters have classical music and show sculpture and paintings and discuss the course of humanity! The MOMA features the work of rap artists, fine, except their thinking is to raise the attendance to their institution. I’ll be right over! Oh wait, not my demographics, hip hoppers, teens, you know the ones who have a real interest in spending time in a museum to check out past cultures.
The media, well lets wine and dine them till they say yes. Good thing theres’ no limits on gifting there.
Then there is Cow town, I mean Chicago, the Monet netted more money for the city, in one show than sports in one year. City response, hey how bout them bears! Even Bush said then was plenty of art on a label of Millers Light beer. burp!
You see there is still a lot of public education to go.
sorry for this rant, good night
February 4th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Good stuff Dan. You’ve made some relevant points…
February 4th, 2010 at 10:34 am
“The art schools promoting their students, well at what expense? Here come to our institution, we back you up even if you have no talent or imagination or something to say, as long as you pay the tuition! Great reputation!”
This is a huge factor in the current state of affairs. It’s leveled the playing field so that those without talent and ability can be as important as those that do.
Duchamp’s work (or rather, point) was an end-game. Instead, it’s been used to not only make aesthetics subservient to theory, but has made aesthetics all but irrelevant in art. There is no need to create anything, visually. One can just appropriate images since they are a “natural resource.”
Unfortunately, since we’re talking about art, the theory doesn’t even have to be good. “It’s not philosophy. It’s art.” Art then becomes an excuse for mediocrity. As long as the right buzzwords are in place and the right topics (globalism, politics, war, climate change, etc. [Did I mention globalism?]) are discussed, we’re good. The artist can than focus on more important things like creating and promoting her or his brand and careerism.