Re: End of Wallpaper*-ish art? What is your take on the future of post-09.11.01

by so_far_away (09.27.01 02:38 am)

If I may - i can't help but remember an episode of some late night talk show where elton john is trashing roberto benneni and his then recent flick "life is beautiful." firstly, i am huge sucker for that movie and was more moved by the death and hate portrayed in that film than by watching my own friends and loved ones crumble with skyline as was case sept. 11th. "Life is Beautiful seems to me a great example of how a film can directly and powerfully approach difficult and often tired ideas about, well, "life" and "death." Such a straight forward approach is often fatal and during happier times, well, it's just down right unwelcome, actually, i would argue that MOST of the time it's unwelcome. But, none-the-less, i think efforts such as these - among them i would like to include goya's third of may, possibly works by gericault and delacroix as well - basically people dealing with themes of life and death in a direct narrative sense.

these works, when not serving as the picture pages for western civ. 101 are rooted deeply in the belief that art has the power to bring a sense of urgency and revelation to world on the cusp of struggle and self defeat. and so it went until the shifting of the picture plain away from that as a window to that of a field space.

Now enter elton john. i would like to use his persona and work as a metaphor for the early modernist, ever flattening, aesthetic created in the wake of early ab ex and mondrian. eventually, the line between the lofty goal of the meta-narrative, and suspiciously decorative techniques of the ab-exer's start to blur. eventually motherwells are sunk behind couches kenneth noland along with more legitimate abstractionists begin to shamelessly cross over in the world of interior decoration. then comes pop, then minimalism - i always seem to forget that, and then few more things, and now we are left feeling guilty for drawing any lines at all between art and interior decoration, architecture, industrial design...who is to draw the lines?

the problem is, that while many other art forms are elevated to museum status, contemporary art (or whatever you want to call it) is reduced to a consumable level, much less important in terms of social and political significance. this welcome complacency within the artworld is an indicator of the peaceful times in which we live, and anything of sincere political or social intent is thought to lack "beauty," or whatever criteria is used when one picks out the best wall paper.

For Elton John "beauty", $2000 shoes, and lines of coke are the only thing. For Roberto Bennini making the very most out of every single moment, regardless of how dumb and impossible that is, is the only thing. the artworld is interested in elton john and will never be interested in roberto bennini, although the art schools love him wildly. I wish the best to artists who try to use art to bring social and political awareness. it IS possible without being too didactic. And i welcome the day when collectors are open to such an idea. But in the meantime, I am happy seeing the how dissinterested most have become with usual ny artworld routine, and I hope that tragedy can instill some daring on the undemanding artbuyers who are responsible for all my complaining!

Re: End of Wallpaper*-ish art? What is your take on the future of post-09.11.01

by TylerGreenDC (10.22.01 08:02 pm)

This paragraph in the preceding post really caught my eye:

"the problem is, that while many other art forms are elevated to museum status, contemporary art (or whatever you want to call it) is reduced to a consumable level, much less important in terms of social and political significance. this welcome complacency within the artworld is an indicator of the peaceful times in which we live, and anything of sincere political or social intent is thought to lack "beauty," or whatever criteria is used when one picks out the best wall paper."

At any particular time in history, the majority of art that is contemporary to that time is utter commercial crap. The Art in 1900 exhibit at the Guggenheim a few years ago is effective testimony to that. Some of the art being produced now will hold up well 50 years from now and the vast majority won't. Why does most art contemporary to a period not hold up? Because it is consumable crap driven by sales and marketing (see YBAs).

Re: political art... Very, very little great art in the last 500 years has been political in nature. I can think of virtually no great political art in the last 50 years. To me only David Wojnarowicz comes close and I think his art probably falls short of greatness.

Tyler Green
modernartnotes.blogspot.com

Re: End of Wallpaper*-ish art? What is your take on the future of post-09.11.01

by so_far_away (10.23.01 02:38 am)

thanks for the reply. i am glad you thought enough to respond. i hope that i can clarify my previous words by saying that i was not commenting on contemporary art being "crap" but instead, losing a critical edge - something that is currently causing much of a stir in art schools and anywhere else people try to elevate "art making" as something valuable in an "autonomous" way. My position on this matter is simply that "contemporary art" is currently absorbed by its closely related utilitarian brothers and sisters (i.e. interior decoration, architecture, fashion...) and because of this, those who enjoyed a more "autonomous" art are forced into compromise. I was also talking about the concept of "beauty" as promoted by Dave Hickey, and while i enjoy his writing, i feel his definition of beauty elevates the concept only inches above the same conception of beauty used by those who create barbie dolls, or expensive wall paper. not to get too off track, but i also wanted to make the point that dealing with "beauty" as a serious component of artwork is like judging the lives of great historical figures with a vague concept like "greatness." to be blunt, i think that a misguided enthusiasm about "beauty" has catalyzed the lack of desire for further criticism.

Secondly, to say that "very little great art in the last 500 years has been political in nature" is a big mistake. I don't think either one of us is talking about rhetoric or propaganda when we say "political" art. I am simply talking about art that deals with the socially relevant events , and more so those which have broad implications. Any "history painter" is the perfect example, so take your pick. In addition, in this century we have two wars and plenty of art to accompany.

Re: End of Wallpaper*-ish art? What is your take on the future of post-09.11.01

by olicon (11.01.01 08:57 pm)

I strongly disagree that value placed on art relates directly to political and social implications of our time. It would be hard to argue that a great deal of art can't help but use these issues as a platform for content, much less be influenced by these factors at all.

I do believe that art should have a responsibility of promoting thought. Work that accomplishes this on a general level, independent of societal concerns of the time is equally as valuable regardless of our current state.

New work an artist such as Serra seems no less appropriate now than before the tragedy. I do think that certain commercial art that has been misconstrued for art has lost its appeal in the short term.

Octavio Licon
olicon@nomadiclabs.com