I think they're just bored...

In what may ruffle a few feathers, I want to talk about one of my favorite topics: crap installation art. Jerry Saltz of the Village Voice writes a nice piece - the title, "Clusterfuck Esthetics," says it all - about this exact topic and it was published yesterday on Artnet. See it here. I want to pull out some of the key quotes (for me anyway):

"...the practice of mounting sprawling, often infinitely organized, jam-packed carnivalesque installations is making more and more galleries and museums feel like department stores, junkyards, and disaster films."

"It is an architecture of no architecture, a gesamtkunstwerk or "total artwork," whose roots are in opera, Dada, the Merzbau and the madhouse. Whatever the subject -- be it bodily fluids, pop culture, or politics -- terms that describe this sculptural strategy include grandiose and testosterone-driven." [his italics, not mine]

"Nowadays this all-at-once gambit can be seen as a way to compete with the paranoia and havoc of everyday life... a way to fill space and get attention."

"Paraphrasing Pompidou curator Christine Macel, New Museum curator Laura Hoptman says, 'Women artists accrue like crazy but apparently don't get off as much on making messes.'"

"...[Sarah] Sze and [Phoebe] Washburn replace the crazy-out-of-control male ego of the men with something ego-driven but more profuse and less tyrannical."

First things first, with this post I do not in any way mean to suggest that this type of crap installtion work is not Art. I don't want to go there. But these quotes hit on a big problem I have with the contemporary art world. Sze and Washburn are good examples of how this style of art can be done well. That is, with skill, form, craftsmanship, talent, vision, etc. I see two types of responses to art made today:

1) "That is beautiful."
2) "Dude, that's like, so freaking cool, man."

I am sick and tired of response #2 and this response is more prevelant than you think, probably because it's so common. Lots of things are "freaking cool" today... video games, action movies, crap music, etc. But where's the beauty? This type of installation art seems to be made by people who are bored, with no vision at all. So they say, "I want attention. How do I get some?" And boom, they throw a bunch of crap together with lights, bells, whistles, sound, "edgy" stuff and then viewers say, "Wow, that's freaking cool." I'm sick of cool. I'm sick of reality tv. I'm sick of bad rap music (other music too, but rap seems to have really hit the skids lately). I'm sick of remade movies. I'm sick of the bright lights and hyper-advertising we see on streets, tv and the internet. I'm sick of "edgy." I'm tired of beauty being replaced by cool. Sick of it. Enough is enough.

Sze and Washburn seem to employ generally the same style of installation art, but their's is ordered. It looks to the future at different extremes. Personally, I can see the world in 50 years as Sze's world or Washburn's. But if the world is John Kessler's, I don't want any part of it. Why? Because we will not have advanced at all as a society. And that brings up another thing I'm sick of: art that reflects today. When a critic writes, as Saltz does, about art reflecting the times, I'm left to wonder what the big deal is. If today is X, and an artist makes X, why should I care? I can see X outside my window, on tv, on the radio, on the internet, etc. Give me Y instead. Why reflect today when today will be over in about 12 hours? Why not try to reflect tomorrow? Because it's hard and risky, that's why. But this gets into innovation and we don't have to open that can of worms again.

What will tomorrow bring? I have no idea. My guess is that as the world joins me in being sick of all the hyper-reality around us, we'll return to something more pure and beautiful. Something along the lines of Minimalism, but with a soul at its heart instead of an industrial machine. Simplicity. Beauty. Today is a time where bigger, brighter and wilder equals better. What do you think tomorrow will be?

Comments

[wwc]

" If today is X, and an artist makes X, why should I care? I can see X outside my window, on tv, on the radio, on the internet, etc. Give me Y instead. Why reflect today when today will be over in about 12 hours? Why not try to reflect tomorrow? Because it's hard and risky, that's why. "

Great point J.T. So much contemporary stuff is about passive reflecting or "referencing" without any thought of transformation in any way.

[onesock]

I heard a few "Thats cool!" or "thats wild!" comments at Art Baz last weekend. I got a kick out of it. I think that it is mostly an innabilty to use any other words or ideas. Again, it comes from this attitude that art is only to be looked at and not thought through also (note I say "also")

When it comes to installation art, I find myself also more attracted to work that seems more "precise" or "quiet" in its presentation. Artwork by Tony Feher comes to mind, as well as Sze and Washburn. But i can also appreciate the sort of "pathetic asthetic" of Thomas Hirschhorn. Someone in between these two poles perhaps would be a Tomoko Takahashi.

I understand what you are saying but I as a teacher I can also understand the danger in just being focused on "beauty" (what is that?) Let me try to be precise. What I mean is that I find the search for beauty a worthwile (perhaps the most worthwhile) endeavor for a creative person. But along with that is an expansion of what "beauty" means. I can say that what I once thought ugly ten years ago I now find beautiful. And yes some of that realization has developed through an intellectual (along with visual) analysis of that art. This is how I can now appreciated a Feher or Tuttle or Dieter Roth.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Mark,

I have no idea what beauty is, but I know when I see it and when I don't! And of course what you think is beautiful can change... that's the nature of the beast. I just wonder if many of these artists truly believe what they create is beautiful. And if it isn't, then why not? You know, what's their reasoning for not pursuing beauty?

[marksock]

Probably the aspect that both Modernism and Postmodernist art activities share is the elevation by the artist of what may not be deemed socially "beautiful" as beautiful, interesting,elegant,profound (whatever word you use). I personally think that a more sustaining experience (in terms of viewing and making art) is a combination of an intuitive bodily response (call it joy?) and an intellectual engagement. Now, one of the intersting things is that both enhance each other in many ways. Yes there are artists trying to be "edgy" for its own sake, for the market, for the fame, whatever. These are , to my estimation, the minority, and even when one is spotted (upon closer inspection) you find that there is actually something there. An open mind isnt "cool" its liberating and life enriching.

[resock]

Omigosh, I am not implying anyone here has a closed mind! I have learned all too well how easy it is to be misunderstood with web communication.

[opening-minded]

I think when you are truly open-minded you start to make fewer choices, and more decisions, clearly because the choices you make pertain to you: get whatever you are doing right.

Choices that are boundless can be so misinterpreted. But it's true! We don't need prescriptive notions to guide a new vision. A clear, exciting, vision is quite enough. Then no matter how ugly, putrified, the result may appear the choice made represents the core of beauty in the arts, the marriage of artist and their expression.

Beauty needn't be so unanswerable either. Take a wild stab and in minutes you figure what's wrong with your assumptions. Enough stabs the finer, the wilder, they'll get.
It may end up as a frustrating exercise, but, I bet, you'll be better off for it, and extremely, much more equipped to go out there with whatever you have to offer as a unique delivery.

[eve]

I decided to comment on your comments on my own blog... And finally posted the 'bring back beauty' manifesto. While I agree that there is (and should be) a wide definition of what 'beauty' is, I also agree that you know it when you see it. One thing to keep in mind is the separation between subject matter and the artistic creation. A work of art can be beautiful even if the subject matter is ugly. I think beauty is less of a 'pleasing on the eye' than an emotional response.
Depending on one's opinions of art critics or theorists, Danto's 'The Abuse of Beauty' and Kuspit's 'The End of Art' are two good places to further explore modern and contemporary art. I marked many pages in 'The End of Art'. Kuspit calls much of contemporary art "post-aesthetic" and "bully pulpit in-your-face". Yummy I will have to read that again (even though I just read it in July/August) and blog it. Thank you JT for keeping the discussion going. Let's not stop here...

[onesock]

I personally like the thoughts of Dave Hickey. He had been much maligned by acedemia for mentioning the "B" word. I appreciate his distintion between "Beauty" and the "Beautiful", the latter being more of the socially constructed "everyone agrees this is beautiful" kind and the former being more of an innate personal response. I would imagine this is in agreement with "know it when you see it" kind of thing. I like his atttitude and way of presentinging the subject. It is much less "end of art", or "the sky is falling" dogma of Kuspit. Hickey just reminds us that its really no big deal, human beings seek joy, they are attracted to "beautiful" things because they enhance joyful experience. He said that beauty isnt the end of a work of art, its the beginning from which other types of engagements can be made. In my own work I strive for focus and clarity while at the same time keeping a wide angled view on the types of materials and presentations to use. It is a razor's edge no doubt but one that for me fends off "boredom" and stagnant routine.

[onesock]

ALso, a "bring back the beauty" manifesto is not needed by my estimation. At art basel and the other fairs I saw countless beautiful things. Beauty never went anywhere. This is what Hickey tried to remind everyone. So many academics resisted because it is a danger to think of the "beautiful" in universal terms- there is a lot of ethnic cleansing type baggage that goes along with that. But beauty can safely exist within a construct of our own personal response as an individual. Making pronouncements and manifestos is fun! But taken to the extreme means that you are ascribing your personal tastes on everyone else.

[eve]

Mark -
I both agree and disagree on the need for a 'bring back beauty' manifesto (I can do that right?) I have seen a lot of beautiful work in the galleries in chelsea, so it is there. At the same time the actual meaning of a manifesto is merely "a public declaration of intentions" so it doesn't really imply that anyone else has to agree. What it does do (one hopes) is call together those who might share ones beliefs. That certainly doesn't mean that I won't go look at artwork that I don't like or don't agree with. That is a very closed minded way to approach anything, and ultimately leaves one putting forth flat, uninformed thoughts and work.
I also tread carefully since a lot of the statements above are broad generalizations.
Will read up on some of Hickey's commentaries to see what he has to say.

[Tim Quinn]

"Dude, that's like, so freaking cool, man."

I think you could translate this comment as, "Isn't it a relief to see some work that simply relies on what is happening between the art and the viewer and not a bunch of BS theory that they want us to believe is justifying that ugly old door jam leaning against the wall with the photo of Duchamp just behind"

I remember a few years ago Chris Burden being quoted in the paper saying," I just want to make neat stuff." This was slightly disingenuous, but I think he was trying to sooth an overactive expectation that art is about explanations and not about experience.

In a world that craves, is addicted to, explanation "Dude, that's like, so freaking cool, man." could be seen as a step in the right direction.

[onesock]

Yes I agree that saying something is "cool" is a valid reaction, or a valid first step to a more indepth analysis. I hear what Tim is saying about it being a step in the right direction. I still find myself with the attitude of why does art have to be experienced or explained why cant it be both, with no distinction as to which has primacy.

Eve, I think it is great you have a manifesto, which I enjoyed reading on your blog. And i like that you regard it as a work in progress. I think I have to mention though the irony of the fact that you are using a type of declaration basically invented by groups that were decidedly anti-aesthetic (Dada, Fluxus, Futurist) to make your pro-aesthetic pronouncements. I find it funny and "cool"

[Joseph Barbaccia]

Some artworks are like fireworks; their beauty is fast and fun then disappears. Some artworks are like mosquito bites; they're ugly and itchy and get a hold of our attention, staying with us longer than we would want; but eventually fade and are forgotten. And some works are like a sunrise. You can go back to them time and time again and they will continue to inspire and illuminate.

There's room for all and more.

[onesock]

very nice

[Tim Quinn]

nakedfoot asks:

why does art have to be experienced or explained why cant it be both?

sure, why not, best to do both, probably, yes?

My point was that that can become a distraction or a substitute for struggling with what is really there. We shouldn't teach people to have a glance and then look for the didactic panel to tell them how to interpret what they are seeing. Imagine if you walked over to the wall label and it said "just go back and look again, everything you need to understand it is right there." We live in a diverse culture that does require some explanation sometimes, but you can't deny that the explained joke is just not as funny.

[onesock]

If I ever saw a didactic panel like the one you describe Tim, I would yell " Wow how totally cool!"
I had this experience, right before I went to Miami I received thru Netflx the new season 3 of Art 21 on DVD. I watched most of it before I went on the trip and learned much about artists that I had never made much effort to "get" (due to laziness on my part or just the sheer limitations on my time) Well, having had that education I was able to see what was going on with some of the works by the same Art21 artists that I found at Art Basel. So that DVD was my didactic panel of sorts and certainly added to my experience/understanding of the work. For the most part if I see certain work by these same artists in the future I probably will not need to read the museum explanation since I could apply my own thoughts and feelings as well as what I learned on the show.
Now that being said, there have been times when I have disagreed with some interpretation presented on a didactic panel or on a documentary and, in that case, I still appreciaite the fact that I was exposed to those thoughts so that I could compare my own against them. I agree with Tim that there is a danger that things can be spoon fed and this lessens the effect of a one-on-one (art and viewer) experience, but i think that, on many levels, a dynamic interaction can exist that involves several viewpoints creating an almost art-to-community axis. Not to say that intimate one-on-one isnt necessary as well.

[Joseph Barbaccia]

onesock,
Thanks for the props.
You and I agree about the fact that knowledge of the artist improves one's understanding of the artwork. I'd compare it to how knowing the shape a funhouse mirror explains the type of distortion of the reflected image. Not a great metaphor, but you get the idea. It's for this reason I put a web cam in my studio. It will allow people who are interested in the work access more information about the artist as well as the process. All the different angles of understanding make for a more holistic view. In the near future I plan on purchasing greater bandwidth so I can include direct voice communications, as well as more images per minute.