Opinion Over Theory Any Day

Tyler Green at Modern Art Notes posted a small blurb the other day talking about art theory and how he hates it. Tyler links to an LA Times op-ed piece denouncing art theory as well. This, in conjunction with a brilliant piece written by Jerry Saltz and published on artnet.com yesterday, caused me to give some thought to art theory. I highly recommend reading all of the links above.

After some thought I found that I too have a strong distaste for art theory. What in the world does it add to the art viewing experience of 99.9% of the general public? Not much, I think. Certainly there is a place for theory in our academic institutions and surely contextualizing art among all the various -ism's is valuable. But Jerry Saltz's piece blasting Damien Hirst is a perfect example of why theory in art criticism and reviews in mostly useless. Give me Saltz's 885 words without theory any day of the week. Saltz's article actually means something to me. I can feel his experience of Hirst's work. I can connect to his opinion. I can sense Saltz's emotional response to the work.

Anyone can learn art theory if they wish. I'd venture a guess that if you took 100 art historians and asked them to write a theory-based critique of Hirst's show, you'd get 100 very similar writing samples. It's not unique like economic theory isn't unique. We can all learn it. For me, econometrics is much more exciting and insightful. You can use some theory and techniques, but without some creativity and a personal approach, you'll get stale results. Art for me is the same way and it's why I write my reviews from a personal, opnionated viewpoint. Some may say, "We've all got opinions!" And my response would be, "That's the point!" We don't all have knowledge of theory.

I get so sick and tired of reading reviews full of theory. I don't have the education to understand it all (I'd rather look at art or make art instead of read about it) and frankly it doesn't do anything for me. I imagine that is what happens when most people read these types of reviews. Unless you feel your audience is mostly academics, I think writers should gear their reviews to bringing more people into the art world. Don't isolate your reader with theoretical mumbo-jumbo. Use that knowledge to frame your opinion and communicate it with directness and honesty. Sounds simple but I think it's a very difficult thing to do well.

I'm not sure I agree fully with Saltz's stance on the Hirst show - I enjoyed it - but man did I love his writing. When I finished reading the article I had a huge smile on my face. Thanks Jerry! I'll do what I can to follow your lead.

Comments

[wwc]

:..Backward I see in my own days where I sweated through fog with linguists and contenders" - Walt Whitman

"Don't believe the hype" - Flavor Flav

Theory is fun if you're of that dry mindset, or if you're trying to pull wool over someone's eyes. Saltz is like Scheldahl - smart art writers who can WRITE.

What's really bad is that the circle has turned around - what was a way for a critic to sound smart is now a way for artists to talk and even think about their own work. They believe the hype!

I remember one summer in the early 90s I was at an art summer program, and several of my pals were reading all kinds of theory. They knew all of it and talked about it a lot - I tried but it was like pulling teeth to read that stuff. I felt really dumb, until one day I found out they read no poetry, no novels, no literature at all. Whitman, Faulkner, Joyce - they were to them like Foucault and Baudrillard were to me. Ok, so I didnt feel so dumb then, I felt lucky.

[meso]

You have a few points regarding art theory but shouldn't be so general. The better theorists are artists in their own right. Sure, much of that jargon that clogs the pages of popular art magazines is useless and meaningless, but when theorists are good their words and ideas cut like Whitman's. The better theorists would be the first to acknowledge the fictional aspect of what they do, I'd hope. Jerry Saltz is a lesser Schjeldahl, who can break your heart with his language. He should write novels and screenplays. I'm tired of hearing both of them go on about painting, as if there was nothing else. In the realm of art, they're both cowards. Jerry Saltz's review of Hirst's show shocked me for its emotional vulnerability. I thought it was a great show, in fact. It's a matter of opinion, but given Saltz's inflated estimation of the value of painting his review only made me more convinced Hirst is on to something.

[Joseph Barbaccia]

I just read the Jerry Saltz piece on Hirst. Whoa Jerry! He laid into NYC Art Money Machine like I've never read on that site before.

Art theory is very dense for me too. I understand little of what is written and what I do understand I have to read three times with a dictionary beside me.

But something else in that article stood out for me. And that was Saltz's mention of the fact that the paintings where not painted by Hirst himself. Many Artists are fine with not creating "hands on" work. I myself sometimes farm out parts of my work; things for which I don't have the knowledge, time nor aptitude. Things such as glass blowing or wood turning. What I'm wondering is what everyone thinks of this. Are these objects not "originals"? Does the lack of "hands on" deminish the value? Is the personal/physical interaction of the artist with their work more important than the concept?

What's more important material or mental/spitritual?

[wwc]

Meso,

Right on about how theory can be art, I'm reacting more to the way it's been used by artists and art writers over the past 20 years. By comparing it to literature I was trying to say either way is a way in to understanding things better - but both are valid. So often in the early 90s only the hardcore theoretical was seen as valid.

I agree that Scheldahl ( a former poet!) is mostly better that Saltz - Mr. Jerry seems so bitter all the time. I haven't seen Hirst's paintings, but however they were made and whatever art-talk his gallery wraps them in they sound just kind of crappy. Maybe that's a statement in itself, but it's not one I'd really want to spend my time on.

Mr B.,

Hirst's not actually making all of them doesn't matter to me at all - that's how all those beautiful Rennaissance altarpieces got made!

[Lou Gagnon]

I read theory, philosophy, literature and cereal boxes. I look at objects, environments and linear media. I smell fragrances, taste flavors and listen to music, noise and silence. Not because I seek to align with or delineate from these things, but because I want to engage vital entities, to live with other living things, to share in the potential intimacy of self-expression.

Sure there are those who choose to couple ambiguity with condescension, hoping to elevate themselves by alienating others. That tactic is not limited to writing. I don’t understand most of what I read (with the authors intention in mind). Partly because I am dyslexic and partly because I bring my own baggage to the meaning of words and phrases, as I do for all other stimuli. Many of my most rewarding epiphanies have come while immersed in something I did not and still do not understand.

[wwc]

Thats why I like Scheldahl so much. He doesnt box in art he writes about, he opens it up. He keeps it mysterious.

[James W. Bailey]

The American Artist Protection Act – An Act to Protect American Artists Against Postmodern Art Theorists

I’m sharing some of my covert lobbying efforts with the readers of Thinking About Art – I think it dovetails nicely with J.T.’s timely post.

Please feel free to use my letter, as well as my proposed legislation, as a template for your own artistic purposes and causes.

James W. Bailey

Dear Senator Cochran and Senator Lott,

As both of you know, I have for several years been lobbying the Congress of the United States of America to support passage of The American Artist Protection Act – lobbying would probably be too polite an expression of my actions considering how much money I have invested in greasing the palms of certain of our mutual friends at home and on the Hill in securing the future of this legislation, and taking into further account my deranged hostility and endless stream of angry correspondence to both of you over the dramatic failure of past attempts at passage, supposedly due to the unfortunate events of 9/11 and the emerging concerns over rallying continued support for The Patriot Act (as I have expressed before, I do understand the need to snuff out international terrorists and fully support that effort, although I was sorely disappointed that this concern had to rise to a preeminent level of national security without first addressing the philosophical and aesthetic underpinnings of acts of international terrorism: the vile and inflammatory words of art criticism penned by postmodern art theorists).

Anyway, at this point in the post 9/11 national matrix, it is all water under the bridge. Moving forward, this important piece of legislation (since I personally wrote the proposed legislation I consider it as a treasured child!) will finally offer American artists a certain and sustained degree of protection from the insidious thoughts, actions and writings of evil postmodern art theorists.

As both of you certainly recognize, postmodern art theorists, one of the most despicable breed of shallow cultural elitists that have ever existed, conspired throughout the later half of the 20th Century up to the present day to decimate the value of art in the minds and eyes of most American. Worse than that, perhaps their greatest sin is the fact that they also tried to supplant the artist in America with the meaningless void of their incomprehensibly vain and self-serving words.

It is no exaggeration to call these miscreant postmodern art theorists out for what they really are: Domestic Cultural Terrorists.

Desperate times call for desperate actions. Southern gentlemen have never wilted from a wicked enemy; and we must not lose our resolve now. The American Artist Protection Act will empower the creative energy of citizen artist courts across the country. Artist will finally have the legal authority to issue and effect citizen artist arrest warrants for postmodern art theorists, convene trials of these defendants and mete out severe punishment to them, including the death penalty.

I think the American people will rally behind this legislation once the full force of the degeneracy of postmodern art theory is revealed as the cultural virus that it is, and indeed, was designed to be.

I write to you now to formally request that you consider co-sponsoring the introduction of The American Artist Protection Act to Congress at the earliest opportunity.

The American people are desperate for relief from the evils of postmodern art theories; American artists have had enough as well.

Just imagine the American nation freed from the slavery of postmodern art theories – I am actually weeping as I write this as I am so choked with emotion over the prospect of these conniving postmodern art theory terrorists actually being held accountable for their crimes…please forgive the tear stains on my quality bond personalized letterhead paper.

I know that both of you do not want to be accused of putting people out of work in this still perilous economy. I have had several quasi-compassionate artists ask me what is proposed to happen with all these postmodern art theorists if their jobs are suddenly made illegal – of course, it is not as if most Americans would ever care because many of these people currently hide-out in academia and live on the public dole at over-priced universities.

Anyway, I do not think their job security is an issue. Being the pseudo-academic spinsters of arcane and meaningless words and phrases that they are, no doubt they will comfortably transition to jobs in the Office of Management and Budget where they will be embraced by thousands of other useless federal workers who toil away in basement cubicles writing indecipherable passages in massive bureaucratic volumes of bullshit that will never be read by anyone other than their sexually frustrated husbands, wives and companions who are forced to read and assent to their convoluted opinions before being allowed to go to sleep at night.

Please stay strong in your collective resolve to address this important cultural issue. But more importantly, please sustain the courage to support this legislation.

Art and America need your support now more than ever.

Sincerely,

James W. Bailey

P.S. On an unrelated matter, I also beseech your intercession on behalf of our friend Bernie Ebbers in his upcoming sentencing. New York just won’t let go of their seething hostility to all things Mississippi and the prosecution of Bernie will go down in history on the order of the kangaroo court that tried and convicted Jesus. Unlike the Romans, I trust that President Bush will do the right thing and pardon Bernie.

P.P.S. I’ll also look forward to meeting with both of you later this summer to begin work on The Mississippi Blues Heritage Preservation Act. This legislation is also long overdue. By providing Trademark ™ protection to the word Blues ™, and by reserving that protection in trust to the great state of Mississippi, our home state will finally be in a position to prosecute fraudulent rich white guys from England who want to pose as “bluesmen” on the backs of the creative efforts of real African-American blues musicians from the Delta who died penniless. The licensing of the use of the word Blues ™ by the state of Mississippi will finally place Mississippi on top of the economic mountain. Speaking of the Blues ™, I’ll look forward to seeing both ya’ll at the Belzoni Catfish Festival later this spring!

The American Artist Protection Act

An Act to Protect American Artists Against Postmodern Art Theorists.

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That if any postmodern art theorists shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any art or acts of art of any American artist, which are or shall be directed by proper authority (the sole conscience of the artist), or to impede the artistic self-confidence of an artist, or to intimidate or prevent any artist from holding a place of appreciation and respect within the artist community of the United States, or from undertaking, performing or executing his artistic duty; and if any postmodern art theorists or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not of holding an American artist and his work in disrepute, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and on conviction, before any duly empanelled artist court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding the balance of the postmodern art theorist’s net estate, and by imprisonment during a term not less than 10 years nor exceeding life, yet in extreme cases as determined by the artist court, death.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted,

That if a postmodern art theorist shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against any American artist or artists, with intent to defame the said artist or artists, or to bring them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any of the art created by the artist or artists, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any good reviews of an artist’s work, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign postmodern art theorists against an American artist, then such a postmodern art theorist, being thereof convicted before any artist court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, and by imprisonment during a term not less than 10 years nor exceeding life, yet in extreme cases as determined by the artist court, death.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted,

That if any postmodern art theorist shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be unlawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defense, the truth of the matter contained in the publication charged as a libel. The postmodern art theorist shall be compelled to argue his defense in plain spoken English. And the artist court jury, who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the artist court, as in other cases.

Respectfully submitted to Senator Cochran and Senator Lott,

James W. Bailey

[Bill Gusky]

If it can be spoken or written, why the hell paint it? http://www.billgusky.com

[Joseph Barbaccia]

Bill,

Of couse it can be spoken or written, or sung, or danced, or painted, or built, or any combination, ie opera.
I don't understand your point. Why not choose any discipline?

BTW, went to your website and liked the energy of your work.

[Mardou]

I disagree that 100 art historians would write a critical review of Damien Hirst's show in the same way. If anything, one would probably receive 100 different and equally unintelligible pieces of drivel, each invoking a different theorist of the moment.

I acknowledge that for many art historians the practice of writing about art has become a process heavily reliant on flexing one's theoretical biceps(see Harry Frankfurt’s recently published monograph 'On Bullshit'...). Many--not all--seem to do this with little or no regard for the work of art itself. The specialized language/jargon/shoptalk with which they seem compelled to express themselves is infuriating and off-putting. It also leads one to wonder if the reason that they feel the need to express themselves in such abstruse language is that they really don't have anything much to say.

I don't pretend to understand why this is the direction that art history seems to be headed. It is called ART history after all. It can not and should not exist in a vaccuum. Neither should the writing about art ever take precedence over the work of art itself.

See Frank Whitford's recent review of 'ART SINCE 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism' by Hal Foster, Rosalind Krauss, Yve-Alan Bois and Benjamin H D Buchloh, for an account of one more frustrated reader's attempts to plumb the depths of a seemingly pithy topic as presented by a group of art historians...enjoy...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-1526637,00.html

[J.T. Kirkland]

Mardou -

You have rightfully disagreed with me! I agree totally and thanks for chiming in.

[ruslan]

sensationalist and uncritical opinon is the model of foxnews.

those who cite words and ideas they do not understand only display their lack of understanding.

as we are all participating in this discussion, art necessitates social discourse. in order to collectively elucidate the complexities of art expereinces we must culltivate a specific lexicon. indeed, the language of our life praxis is insufficent for articulating art. and as the plurality of art practices proliferate, theory thrives.

engaging artworks begins with opinon. it is our emotionl connection to art that drives critical examination. without opinons, criticism is left soulless. and without critical rigor, opinions are dissmissable.

certainly, the flailing theory bashing i have stumbbled across is a collective unexamined opinon. agreed, art's relationship to theory has become problematic. but a critical discussion is necessary!

...

art's forms and functions abound. not all art is for everyone. more acurately, some art is for some people. ambitous art requires ambitious conversations. so, please take jay-z's advice: "if you don't like my lyrics you can press fast forward."

whining accomplishes nothing.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Ruslan,

Who's doing what whining?

My position is clear... I think theory-based, academic criticism is necessary for art. I just don't want to read it. I have no use for it and the same goes for most people. I simply want to know what art is making waves and what I should go look at.

I am curious why you chose not to follow Jay-Z's advice yourself and fast forward through my post. You seem to think that opinion is not worthwhile but you don't hesitate to share your opinion on the value of criticism here. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. Of course, however, I've never even heard of the words "praxis" or "lexicon," so I'm likely not educated enough to understand your point. Regardless, I'll continue sharing my experiences of the art I see and I'll leave the academic writing to you. Deal?

[ruslan]

first, deal :) (i apologize if my comment seemed maliciously confrontational)
second, dictionary.com (i do not believe you are uneducated)
third, engaging other perspectives is more productive then ignoring them. i see the flaw in the jay-z quote.

you can learn theory, but dont want to, yet criticize it. i find this situation problematic.

as much as my gut despises our countries fascist administration, i am not competent enough to attack it in a considered manner in a public forum.

[J.T. Kirkland]

First, I've never criticized criticism.

Second, isn't it funny that it is apparently a bad thing to criticize criticism? I don't get that at all. But critics seem to think they should be able to stand on the high ground and avoid taking their own medicine.

Art would exist without criticism or theory. Criticism and theory (in the art context) obviously couldn't exist without art. That, in my mind, makes your eager defense of criticism (when no one was disparaging it) problematic.

Artists without any education whatsoever have made great art since art was first made. You don't need an MFA from Hunter (wink!) to make great art. You don't need theory make it. It is valuable (please read that again so you don't think I'm criticizing criticism or theory, heaven forbid) to assist in understanding and contextualizing what has been made. But it has very little direct impact on what I make, yet somehow I am still able to create. For me, that's the end of the story.

[Mardou]

R--

Frequently when one says that they don't understand, they are indeed displaying lack of understanding. Not understanding has nothing to do with being put off by misuse of the language.

There's nothing wrong "culltivating [sic] a specific lexicon" in order to aptly discuss the experience of art--but that specific lexicon should be written in a manner that can be understood by those who want to learn. It doesn't have to be easy--a difficult read is frequently a more satisying one--but it should make sense. No one that has contributed to this discussion has expressed an unwillingness to learn. Quite the contrary, my sense of what I have read is that people want to talk about art. They want to read what others have to say about art. But they are frustrated by the open and notorious abuse of language by many who choose to discuss art theory.

And here is the crux of the issue as I see it: no one is belittling art theoreticians. As artists, we can only help ourselves by exploring all the possibilities for meaning and expression that are available to us. Speaking for myself, it is the mis-application of the theories of others, frequently couched in nonsensical sentences of deliberately obscure describers and misused catch-phrases that can make the experience of reading art history a frustrating and ultimately disappointing one.

The focus of art history has shifted from the work of art to the historiography of art history. Insodoing, the writing frequently becomes more about the writer and less about the proposed subject. And all I'm saying is that as practitioners of a specific discipline, art historians could at least make a pretense of being more interested in art.

And as to the whining...

"art's forms and functions abound. not all art is for everyone. more acurately, some art is for some people. ambitous art requires ambitious conversations. so, please take jay-z's advice: "if you don't like my lyrics you can press fast forward."

puuleez!!!

[Bill Gusky]

Joseph - my long-ago point was that, at least so far as my interest goes, painting is best when it does what only painting can do. What music, for example, communicates Jackson Pollock's "Blue Poles?" What poem communicates Klee's "Twittering Machine?"

The context of my comment, "if it can be written, why paint it," was the extensive writing on the subject, particularly within this post. We're urged to become strong verbal communicators about our work, to points that sometimes reach absurdity. For example, I recall an article many years ago in which a critic asked an artist about his subconscious. The artist actually answered the question, describing his subconscious. But, in point of fact, our subconscious minds are out of conscious reach. That which I might learn about my subconscious mind becomes, by definition, conscious. The artist may have even been aware of this. But if we're going to interact intelligently with our world as artists, we are often required to interpret verbally that which, ideally in my mind, we best communicate visually.

thanks very much for the compliment about my site -
Bill

[Teresa]

Hi I'm in Melbourne. Last week I went to an exhibition at the National Gallery of Victoria(NGV) The works were all from the Guggenheim collections. I was not that impressed(although it was more to do with the space and the choice of works as a collection than the individual works themselves. I am doing a writing course and decided to write something about this because it stirred me quite strongly. Anyhow, in my search on the internet(my God!) All these blogspots!) for some opinions about this exhibition I moved on to looking for what people had to say about meaning and value of art in general and found myself here. I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that art theory has overtaken the importance of the work itself. I simply hate the idea that art must be explained to be appreciated. I have saved the 2 of the 3 links (L.A. times op-ed piece is gone)and look forward to reading. This is very a very interesting discussion.