Art. Modern Art. Contemporary Art. Conceptual Art. I understand the difference between these ‘phrases’ as I went to an Art college that really focused on such things. But I do believe that it is the jargon that you become familiar with simply by studying it, and then perhaps, going on to working within it. Therefore it’s exclusive. It excludes people on many levels. Such as language (as mentioned), location, history and class. (Or, the non-elite?)
There comes a moment in ones life were you stand back from what you are doing. A freeze frame. You’re wandering along the busy street with your husband and friend. You walk into a gallery space were people are sitting in the sun, reading papers, you have a beer, laugh about your week. You pay, you thank your waiter and then you move into cloak your bag, chat about how amazing buildings are, and then you’re looking at work. Or, more specifically, pictures in frames valued at a lot more than other pictures in frames you have at home. And then it hits you. What am I doing? What am I looking at? What the hell does this mean? Should it mean something? Am I wrong thinking that this is a waste of space? What is this dreadful feeling creeping up on me..Why am I embarrassed that I brought people here….Oh, I’m disappointed.
Before I go on to answer my questions, here’s the context in which this all took place. A gallery space called Kunst Werk (KW). The exhibitions had artists Annette Kelm, Wolfgang Breuer and Sergej Jensen. The first space you go into, if you start from bottom floor up, is Annette Kelm’s. I am passionate about photography, re my last post about it, but this is the type of work that I can understand that people look at and get, well, dispassionate. You may think that that is the purpose of the work, the ‘over-saturation of image’, but I didn’t get a sense of that at all. There was no continuing theme through the work either. And the sizes of the image were neither that big or that small to invoke any sort of interest in presentation. This is when I had my freeze frame moment. There was an image of a horses hoof in the snow, where I pointed at it and said, ‘that’s kinda interesting..the texture of the snow…’but it held no real weight. It didn’t sit with the rest of the images. They were just of interesting European houses, records, trucker hats and strange pianos. I wouldn’t even call these catalogue photos. Or happy snaps. They sat no where and even in that they weren’t interesting.
I’m going to bypass Sergej Jensen, as I feel that all I need to say is minimalist paint strokes and stains on large canvas will give almost everybody a pretty good idea.
But Wolfgang Breuer is the cherry on top for me. A huge room filled with found objects. Found objects; an Artform that really is quite questionable to me. (I have seen some great work made in this manner, but I do think it is a form that is very rarely successful and praised far too much. Perhaps because it’s a form people aren’t used to responding to, feel intimated and therefore just except it as high art.) ANYWAY, to understand this type of art, you generally have to engage with a pretext… In big National galleries it is generally the text on the wall. In this gallery (and others like it) it is a handout you will find sitting somewhere near the entrance, which gives you the lowdown on what the artist was thinking when they ‘assembled’ the found objects. These are usually peppered with wordy-words; words that you don’t really need there, from someone who probably wants to sound like a philosopher, or an aspiring writer. (Neither of which I have an issue with, it’s the fact that this is NEEDED to accompany the body of work, that I find a big issue.) This work is so thought out. It has gone through so many processes. The original concept, the philosophizing, the execution (the grant application and than approval of said grant application), exhibiting, praising, and the whole thing just goes on and on. When really, when it comes to Wolfgang’s piece, it is a few recycling bins assembled in front of a bus shelter (literally). These bins and shelter apparently ‘represent’ the kids he saw throwing bottles into the bus shelter, as though they were somehow ‘feeding’ it. Somehow this is validated. Somehow this is praised. Somehow this means something. Now don’t get me wrong I am sure the action was interesting, and the through of these kids ‘feeding’ this urban structure was interesting too, but don’t you think that just by simply removing the structures that were apart of this, and putting them in a gallery and telling us about that on a piece of paper, is a little absurd to be labelled high Art?
In my opinion, this form of Art has gone too far for too long. Artists are being forced to produce this type of work, and if they are not, they are not considered to be important contemporary artists. I admire the aforementioned artists for managing to fit in and be exhibited to fit into these conditions, however it is a shame that it is this way.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder…
You have a good point but i think you still give this style of Art a little too much credit…
This is what you call conceptual art, it's all about concept and sometimes nihilism. The beauty is in the idea, the original "act" or "performance". One can consider it as "high art" but it's credibility is no more or no less than any other modern art form. I agree with you that a lot of times, these concepts look a lot like a "swinddle" of some sort but i think that posterity takes care of this very well. If Marcel Duchamp had created nothing else except his ready-mades would he still be remembered as being an important figure of 20th century art?…
Some people like these kind of exhibitions because it's cool to talk concept and wacko ideas but this phenomena goes along with your style of art as well. Can you imagine that five hundred years ago you would have been burned on a stake because of "witch craft" style drawings!!
This said, that doesn't mean we should all have the same taste and that criticism shouldn't express a very honest personal view on the art work simply by wanting to be hype. I completely agree with you there.
The question is, What is Art? Can absolutely anything be one day or another considered as a work of art? Yes i believe so but only if we recognize that not all art is good art…
"The question is, What is Art?"
Duchamp began exhibiting his 'readymades' in 1913. The reason that Duchamp's 'fountain' is interesting art is not because it's anything special in and of itself, but because it was a challenge to the status quo of art at the time. It's been 96 years and we continue to regurgitate the same work, however it is no longer pushing the boundaries of art but strongly adhering to them. Contemporary galleries such as Kunst Werk will not accept artist's proposals unless they are heavily conceptual. Perhaps it is time that we began challenging the new status quo and put up some paintings, drawings and sculpture. Perhaps it's time that we moved the visual artist back into the visual medium and away from the word processor.
I'm not really talking about the past, I acknowledge
Mister Duchamp's work and what it did, but that isn't what I am really talking about.
I agree that this work has it's place. And it definitely HAD it's place in the evolution of art. However, what I am questioning is why it is now the only form of art that is excepted by the elite…and those aspiring to by apart of the elite.
I personally think that this type of work is coming from some kind of machine, it's so processed that it lacks the substance of the original concept it was 'created' with. My friend likened it to fast food. I think he is very correct.
That being said, I understand that some of these artists have these exhibitions to talk about concepts and ideas.. But does that really happen anymore? Do people actually talk about ideas anymore? And further more, aren't all the ideas people talking about relatively 'safe' considering all the things artists could be talking about, but don't?
I'm staring to go onto a different tangent there.
These artists are mere imitators of the likes of Hirst, who he himself is but an imitator, but to date a successful one. You may take comfort in the fact that certain corners of the art world are begining to call a spade a spade, especially since the glitzy gloss has warn off after the "world finance crisis" came back to bite the art market. It is a bad fashion that people will only laugh at in years to come.
As for the following, "What is art?" and "Pushing the boundries" these are the same sad old excuses trotted out every time to justify mediocre ideas that are passed off as something of intellectual worth.
The issue should be more succinctly worded here as "What is visual art?"
For when a two dimensional work (painting, drawing or other media) or sculpture (traditional and installation) relies upon the written word to convey its meaning and purpose, it is no longer visual art. The art, the artifice now resides in the crafting of words (ideas and concepts).
So most of these "artists" we are discussing should rightly be classified as writers or (ahem) philosophers.
Then if we actually consider what they write about, we find that it is mostly observational or open ended questions.
As Lily had said previously, these artists lack the courage to actually make a specific statement. They lack the intellectual rigour to actually engage in debate about their ideas, and so will often fall back to the fail safe position of "asking questions". It allows them to shift the foundations of their concept once people start digging at them, masking the emptiness of their "art" in ambiguity.
Therefore there is no longer any art that is built from craft. Something crafted is fixed. Therefore it is derided in the art institutions and denigrated with the word craft as if it were some dirty word. Otherwise we might actually see conceptual art for the emperor's new clothes that it is. It is no more than intellectual slight of hand, and done very badly at that.
Their works is purely contextual, often self referencing. When it bears no discernible relationship or meaning to the people or the world around it, the "artist" may as well keep it in their own head.
Art is about communication. The success of an artwork should be judged on its ability to communicate.
Visual art is about giving colour shape and form to that which did not exist before, or that which is unexpressed. A visual artist may use whatever visual media they so desire. But when that visual art fails in its task of communication, then we can indeed judge, what is good and bad art.
Snobish galleries don't make history, gotta stay away from them…
I've been to a lot of art exhibits here in my region of France, in Luxembourg, Paris and in the USA as well, and it's not all conceptual art…
This discussion reminds me of the nineties when people used to tell me that Techno wasn't real music…
Art and music is a question of taste, history one day or another sorts out what's important and what's not…
Today, with the help of technology, anything is possible in art. Could exhibiting a good idea be the final frontier? Why not, i think Lily's art is beautiful but the typographical art of the Dadaïstes brings me a lot of emotions as well…
Techno..it isn't real music, is it? I think the 90's techno dated very fast, there are elements of it that are still in use, I guess.. But it dated, and people would be embarrassed to pull out those cassettes! Maybe, just like this form of artwork?
I do think taste is important, but I am trying to be as objective as possible here when I discuss this trend/problem in contemporary visual art. There is a lot of music/art/film/writing, etc that is not to my taste. But I can respect things for what they are. Based on anything they have to offer. I fear that this work, hasn't got much of anything to offer. Maybe it did, but because it is so 'intellectual' or 'conceptual' people feel too intimidated to step up and express how they actually feel. They just stand there sipping wine and nod their heads as someone tells them the supposed meaning behind it all.