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.