Discuss

Recently there has been a lot of discussion about the "new" in art and if it's important to be "new." See this for the latest (read the post, comments and links). My question is this: if it's not important to create something "new," why create anything at all? I mean, our museums are already full of great art. If we want to see something beautiful or thoughtful or whatever, we only need to travel downtown and go to the NGA. If "it" already exists, why do we need another? Especially given that with all likelihood it will be of inferior quality.

If I were to create an exact replica of the Picasso painting that recently sold for over $100 million, do you think mine would sell for even 0.01% of that amount? Why not?

Why do we value innovation in every other aspect of our lives (medicine, business, technology, etc), but it's taboo to expect the same from art?

Is the "new" not valuable at all? If something is "new" but lacks quality, is that totally bad? The first attempt at anything "new" is most often a failure. But with refinement it gets better. Take two exhibitions at The Fraser Gallery as examples. Andrew Wodzianski had an exhibit where he combined his paintings with podcasts and yellow arrows. As far as I know, this was a "new" thing for art. However, the merging of painting and technology failed. The text messaging aspect didn't work for me (literally, I never received my text message) and the podcasts were pretty boring. However, you have to give Andrew credit for trying (I loved his paintings by the way). Hopefully, he'll continue to refine his approach and one day be the grandfather of an art movement. On the other hand, there's the Scott Hutchison exhibit up at Fraser now. Though Lenny is pushing the show as something "new," it's actually far from it. Animation (e.g. "videopainting") from stills (painted or drawn) has been around for decades. How did the first Mickey Mouse cartoon get made, or the most recent South Park? Actually, it turns out that the show is called "Animated," so there is clear acknowledgement of the connection. Given the well-defined path carved by past animators, Hutchison's show should be more successful than Wodzianski's, but which is or will be more important? I have a guess.

Every period in art history was once "new." Pop art was once new. Minimalism, too. And AbEx, Impressionism, etc. Why do we now seemingly wish to stop innovation and stick with something known?

If an artist isn't trying to make something "new," then are they even making art? Or are they just making a picture or object? Are they just making a good to be sold in the marketplace?

As you've likely noticed, every time I use the word "new" it's in quotes. I recognize that defining what's "new" is extremely difficult to impossible. Many would say that nothing is new any more. I disagree... there will exist a piece of art 50 years from now that today would blow our minds.

Discuss.

Comments

[Scott]

JT,

Great topic. You asked: "My question is this: if it's not important to create something "new," why create anything at all?" And I think the answer is, if you're an artist, "because you're compelled to create." And also, " to learn something new about myself; to learn something new about my society." I don't think the artwork necessarily has to be "new" to accomplish any of that.

My biggest problem with the concept of "innovation" in art is that it encourages gimmicks. The artist is focused on his/her place in the history of art rather than on just creating great art. My sense is that most great "new" art didn't spring from an effort to create something new; it sprang from an effort to create good, meaningful artwork, and this effort lead in new directions, and the artist was brave enough to follow. It wasn't some external requirement placed on the artwork.

New art is great, but rare; new gimmicks are just gimmicks, and really all too common.

Scott

[Lennox Campello]

Great points by Scott...

I think that Hutchison is doing something "new" because he's marrying super traditional oil painting with animation and with self-portraiture and with video.

Add all that together, and I think it's "new." Takes cel animation a step further to the modern dialogue of art.

Having said that: I for one have always thought (and still think) that "new" has been vastly overrated in art and has been driving artists towards gimmick rather than crativity.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Thanks for getting things going, guys. I don't want to weigh in too heavily but I do want to ask another question. Can you provide examples of "new" art that you think is gimmicky? Was Wodzianski's use of podcasts and yellow arrows a gimmick? Can we immediately discern the difference between the gimmick and the "new" or does that take years of flushing out?

[wwc]

The romantic part of me wants to say that any real expression by someone will be "new". I'm not sure if that's true though - people may do what they believe is free and real but is locked into ways of expressing that they've become used to.

As a viewer I look for new things (though new to me can be old stuff I've never seen) but as an artist I just work and try to only worry about whether I'm being "new" after the smoke clears.

Do you guys worry about "newness" while you work?

This conversation is similar to one on Winkleman's blog here:

http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2005/11/artist-of-week-extra-112805.html

(look in the comments)

[J.T. Kirkland]

Good link Warren. That's another recent discussion that got me thinking about this. Although, I always think about this.

[AAS]

I always thought of Wodazianski's use of podcasts & yellow arrows as:

a) part of the presentation and exhibit, NOT part of the art

b) a gimmick- but not in a bad way, because I saw it as presentation, not art.

I agree with both Scott & Lenny and I'm going to pick on Scott for a bit right now. When I see his work, I see very traditional documentary photography. You've reviewed his work very positively and have a piece of his in your collection. So, you must like it. But really I don't see anything "new" in it- and that's one of the reasons why I think it's so spectacular.

When you reviewed the Kertesz exhibit at the NGA, you wrote:

These are images that anyone can appreciate because the captured scenes are a part of everyday life. Kertesz's eye was so good that he could see a monumental scene - one that would surely be overlooked by almost anyone else - and snap a well-composed photograph. When I finished viewing the show I couldn't help but think to myself, during this time of huge, brightly colored c-prints, that I wish we had more photography like this today.

So if "new" is so important- why do we find ourselves drawn back to the traditional and the old? Scott's subject matter is contemporary, but his style (except for this digital nonsense he is talking about) is, in my opinion, heavily rooted in the past- and that's not a bad thing at all. In fact, I like his work quite a bit.

[Jim Chinn]

The problem with "new" art is that every MFA is trying to make a name for themselves with the next new thing. Because of the shear volume of this work anything good or evloutionary is drowned out by the majority that is pretty bad.

It usually takes some time and distance for new art to be appreciated and by that time it is no longer in the vangaurd. Think how gimmicky Flavin's early work with colored flourescents must have seemed to many. Today it is appreciated as a masterfull genre all on its own, held by major institutions the world over.

Maybe it simply comes down to a comfort zone of not excepting new work or new ideas untill the right critic or gallery gives the work a stamp of approval.

[J.T. Kirkland]

AAS -

How am I supposed to stay out of this if you direct questions to me?!

I'll say a few things:

1) Why don't you think Wodzianski's use of podcasts and such was "art"? Maybe today it seems like presentation but tomorrow it'll be an interesting combination of painting, performance, and audio art.

2) I haven't seen any photos like Kertesz's. It's traditional B&W photography, but what he captured was "new," I think.

3) I'm not calling for new media in art. You know how much I dislike most video art. Take oil painting for example. There will be something truly "new" in oil painting in 50 years. It can happen with any material. I mean, I chose to work with wood... and that medium goes even farther back.

4) I think there's a distinction to be made between "new" and "good." "New" is important because it is. It's a requirement, I think. Look all around you. The "new" is important because that's how we advance. Look at hybrid cars. These are "new" and important. It's the future. So are flying cars. But I'd rather look at a 1967 Mustang Shelby and I would even rather look at a replica of the Shelby made today. The hybrid car is far more important though. Perhaps, if we continue to produce hybrids, we may make one that is even better to look at than the Shelby. How will we know if we don't try?

5) Since we are picking on Scott here (sorry man, I mean no offense), maybe he isn't making art. Maybe he's just making beautiful and interesting pictures that we like to look at. Just a thought... I definitely think he's making great art.

6) I'll end with something cryptic. I don't drill thousands of holes in a week (my right thumb is still numb, by the way) for the fun of it. It certainly isn't an enjoyable activity.

Good conversation... keep it up!

[wwc]

You do it for the glory, man, the GLORY!

I would argue there's more room for "new" in old mediums than new ones. Video and web are held back sometimes by limitations of the software used. We in old ways have lots to steal and renew from.

[J.T. Kirkland]

More questions:

Is it easier to be "new" in a well-defined medium (e.g. oil painting) or to discover an altogether new medium? Is the weight of those who came before us greater than the limitations we impart on ourselves for what can be art? In other words, how hard was it for Flavin to say that a single flourescent bulb could be art?

Also, what role does technology play in creating the "new"? By technology I mean that which is involved in creating a work of art (computers being a current example) AND that which is addressed/depicted in art.

[elaine Mari]

please, what are you talking about? "However, the merging of painting and technology failed. The text messaging aspect didn't work for me (literally, I never received my text message)." I did not read much of your post, same old, same old. art is about what? You just do it don't you, and some times it is noticed and some times it is not and some times it sells and some times it does not?

[J.T. Kirkland]

Elaine,

It may help if you read more. Follow the links. The quote you pulled will make perfect sense.

I, for one, think art is much more than selling it or getting it noticed. In fact, I don't give a darn about selling my work - there are much easier ways to make money - and I'm not into making a commodity. And I don't "just" do it.

Back to the discussion...

[onesock]

When I was in grad school I read Peter Berger's "Theory of the Avant Garde" in which he postulates that (his) contemporary (or neo-avant-garde) art negates the "real" historical avant -garde by aestheticising it. SO we see the diatribe of the "real" art vs the the new "fake" art pop up all over the place. I think that for many (like those who frequent Franklin's blog), "newness" designates art to the level of commodity and therefore brings with it all the deviant strategies and bogus catering to desire that comes with a commodity based system. This is why the language they use to desribe their product includes "truth" and "purity". It seems to me that the search for innovative forms and strategies is as truthful and pure a condition of being human I can think of.
The silly aspect for me in all this is that the members of each generation designate their greatgranduncles' art as the "pure" art and this designation advances as each generation advances, so that 100 years from now the purists will all be dipping animals in pickle juice and masturbating under gallery floors!

[Lou Gagnon]

Innovation, in technology, is important in that it offers “new” tools and techniques. What is made with these new tools and techniques is typically derivative of what was made with the old tools. Most innovation is fueled by a desire to make an existing process more efficient.

Humans have been mixing pigment with fat to document the human condition for tens of thousands of years. The innovations of fresco, oil or acrylic are derivative improvements. Photography offered efficient alternatives to painting in the already established need to document contemporary life (events, people and places). Video offers alternatives to photography in that the linear format has the potential to distribute a more explicit narrative.

Efficiency and effectiveness are not the same. The limit to a tool's effectiveness is in the imagination of the maker. In art, I believe effectiveness is measure by the power of a work to engage people. Does the engagement temporarily distract someone from his or her daily existence or does it shift his or her paradigms and actions? Work premised on technology will be irrelevant when the technology changes. Work premised on the human condition has the potential to be timeless. Have there been innovations in light, color or form? What about fear, love, desire, freedom or apathy?

The “new” in art is that unique intimate engagement between an individual and his or her relationship with these larger issues. That fragile union between the ephemeral and the eternal is magic.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Does anyone else think that Lou really needs to start his own art blog? It'd be a daily read for me.

Thanks Lou!

And thanks onesock... I enjoyed your perspective too.

[Scott]

JT,

You've got alot of good questions. I don't have any examples readily available of new art that I think is gimmicky, but I've seen alot of it. Alot of computer-generated art and photography falls into that category for me - computer distortions for the sake of computer distortions.

You also asked: "Can we immediately discern the difference between the gimmick and the "new" or does that take years of flushing out?" I think I can tell immediately, but I acknowledge that some of what I think is gimmicky may in fact be really good, new stuff that I just can't appreciate right now. There is a good discussion of this phenomenon in a book called "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. He discusses the difference between rejection of music based on it being crap, and rejection based on it being too new, different, etc. for people to process.

So where does that leave us? I think I'm still at the point of thinking that newness for newness sake is usually gimmicky. Newness that results from working to, hitting and overcoming boundaries is really "new."

Scott

[J.T. Kirkland]

Scott,

Yeah, lots of good questions... not many good answers!

I think that is evident for all of us when you say, "I think I can tell immediately, but I acknowledge that some of what I think is gimmicky may in fact be really good, new stuff that I just can't appreciate right now."

You're right, it's hard to tell. The artist who made the art knows if they're out just making a gimmick or if they are "working to, hitting and overcoming boundaries." That's why I think what Wodzianski is doing is new, although some reviews have immediately place him in the gimmick category. I know he's trying to break through boundaries.

As always though, time will tell.

[Lou Gagnon]

Thanks for the encouragement J.T. Perhaps that will happen some day. For now, I am grateful to enjoy the contribution you, Lenny, James, Edward and others make.

[Scott]

JT,

I'll acknowledge that I may too easily dismiss some deserving work as gimmicky, but I think it's a mistake to make too much of that admission. The vast majority is probably pretty easy to identify as gimmicky. I think of it as the art equivalent of those inflight shopping magazines with all the latest new gadgets. Sure, there may be one or two real gems in there (those massage chairs look pretty sweet). But for every gem, there are hundreds of gold-plated golf tees and nuclear-powered nostril clippers. These things are gimmicks -- newness for the sake of being newness. And they're not that difficult to identify as such.

Scott

[Andrew]

Wodzianski here. Apologies for the lack of contribution, I just found the discussion this morning. I appreciate my exhibit being used a vehicle for conversation, but it may be a little misplaced. My opinion is similar to that of AAS. The Yellow Arrow / Podcast offerings were a presentation issue. Gimmick? Sure.

To that end: I felt the gimmick was sincere. The information provided through those formats was geared towards insight and inspiration. If viewers wanted to investigate a painting's/subject's origin, they could. Likewise, if viewers wanted to passively take a peek before heading back to M street, they could do that too. I unabashedly admit the PR campaign focused on the technology side of the exhibit, and for good reason. Lenny can share the staggering statistics of gallery shows to press coverage anytime. It's not in an artist's favor. Was the gimmick a success? No. In addition to unreliable tech service, it was a failure with critics and sales. Positively, I did receive further exhibition opportunities and expect to tweak, modify, and polish the concept. It's an organic process, yet (at least right now) separate from my paintings.

My own studio practice is hardly "new". It's pretty traditional. My painting technique's similarity to photography is nothing new, nor is my subject matter, nor my compositions. I do believe my vision is a bit bizarre, unique, creepy, funny, etc... But new? No.

However, I'm a young painter. I'm learing my craft and having a blast doing it. And JT's comment about painting/performance/audio art has me brainstorming. I'm going back to the studio right now.

Keep the discussion growing and have a great weekend, Andrew

[J.T. Kirkland]

Hey Andrew!

Thanks for clarifying your intent as the artist. As a viewer, I thought the technology aspect of the work was more about art than presentation. But therein lies another gray area in art. For example, we've all seen a framed piece of art that has a crack in the glass or a noticeable scratch in the plexi. I've never been able to separate the presentation from the art in those cases. They very much become intertwined and often in a very negative way.

The same applies to framing. Yes, it's presenation, but it also has a very big role in the viewer's experience of the art.

In terms of Andrew's show, I could not separate myself at all from the presentation. When I walked in the small gallery I was immediately impacted by yellow arrows the wall, instructions for use and the sight of Ms. Fraser sitting at the ready with MP3 players. In other words, I couldn't just see paintings, even if I wanted to.

For me, art is an experience. The piece of art, presentation of art, etc, all impact my experience. While technically a frame or MP3 player may not BE the art, it becomes a part of the art viewing experience and can make it or break it.

Just some more thoughts on the subject.

FYI... Scott Hutchison wrote a bit about this subject on his blog: http://www.silentforms.com/blog/2005/11/new.html