appx. 4' x 3'
detail
on a different note, i wanted to share some interesting ideas and quotes that i have come across in the past month. for me they relate to my own insecurities as an artist. these insecurities manifest themselves in the constant dialog in my head, where i find myself repeatedly trying to validate what i am working on to myself. but i found these quotes from louise bourgeois helpful in their dismissive manner and unwillingness to have other agendas imposed on her through insinuation. i came across these quotes while reading a compilation of interviews and writings called destruction of the father, reconstruction of the father:
on materials being the subject of the work -- "the material itself, stone or wood, does not interest me as such. it is a means; it is not the end. you do not make sculpture because you like wood. that is absurd. you make sculpture because the wood allows you to express something that another material does not allow you to."
on art history -- "i am not interested in art history, in the academies of styles, a succession of fads. art is not about art. art is about life, and that sums it up. this remark is made to the whole academy of artists who have attempted to derive the art of the late 1980's, to try to relate it to the study of the history of art, which has nothing to do with art. it has to do with appropriation. it has to do with the attempt to prove that you can do better than the next one, and that a famous art history teacher is better than the common artist."
i think i like these words because it helps me to feel like it's okay to simply explore materials, images, and composition intuitively without feeling the need to justify what i'm doing with reasoning based on what i anticipate others are looking to hear. it's ok to simply work on art as my own means of dealing with being human. to borrow an idea from contemporary art historian michael paraskos, who, while i don't fully subscribe to his contemporary art movement (due mainly to my objection to art historians, critics, and curators attempting to artificially co-opt starting art movements to bolster their scholarly kudos in the art world) put forth an idea that i find a satisfactory way to describe art and art making.
One last point, I would also want people to recognise what I mean by the word aesthetic. I do not mean the popular definition of the term as meaning 'beauty' (which is a misunderstanding of Kant). I always take aesthetics back to its Greek origin, where it meant to experience through the senses. To me this suggests a material and physical engagement with the world by the artist, which results in a material and physical response in the production of the art work, which is then experienced as a material and physical phenomenon by the viewer. That is an extreme simplification, but I would always base aesthetic art on this at least as a starting point. (this quote is taken from a discussion thread on his review of damien hirst's recent painting exhibition. to read the full thread, http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2497595668&topic=13527#topic_top)
It shouldn't be necessary to point out that art must be material and transformative. It never illustrates ideas or holds a mirror to the world. But these concerns are now offered as art, whereas in fact they belong to the disciplines of politics or philosophy or anthropology. Such dialogue may be of interest but it should never be confused with art.
Art offers an alternative to this dialogue on the actual world. Through a creative process of thinking through the manipulation of material, the artist makes a new world governed solely by an aesthetic totality. The world on the other side of the picture plane is not subject to the rules of our world. It may remind us of our reality, but re-presents it in terms that are unique to art. To make art and to view art requires faith in this alternative reality. Without this faith we would read the work of art as a narrative on our world. In this, there is no greater purpose in art than any other form of social dialogue in which we enter on a daily basis. If art is just about communicating an opinion, we could all be artists and everything could be an artwork. (from artist clive head on the same thread listed above) i think this is a good way to go about looking at and understanding art. at least for me, this makes sense and seems very inclusive. let me know what you think about any of the quotes above, if you agree, disagree, or just have something more to add.
Dear Erin.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog, and am obviously flattered that you quote one of my reviews. But you seem to ascribe to me a rather low motive of trying "bolster their scholarly kudos in the art world."
On that you might be right or you might be wrong, but as you don't really know much about me, do you have a right to assume I have such low motives? How about assuming that I just believe in art? After all saying the things I do about the art world tends to make me more enemies than allies, so it hardy bolsters any kudos.
With warm regards
Michael
thanks for reading michael! my comment was not intended as a direct or personal attack on you, but rather the tendency i've noticed of art historians, but more art critics and curators, to attempt to be the "next big thing" by getting artists to .. buy in?.. to their idea and make art based on it. it comes back to the antiquated idea that art is a "progression" and we need to "move forward", which implies a hierarchy of betterment and one-upsmanship as we move through time. but art is more akin to evolution in that, while it can be misread as a hierarchical system of betterment, it is really just a natural response in creatures to the surrounding environment and conditions of the world, and in evolution creatures might develop very distinct features, but then perhaps conditions change and those features disappear or the species dies. but there is no progression or hierarchy to some perfect future end point. it is simply about what works best for the time and environment, just as in art. so while art making is a very intuitive process, art movement making should not be forced. critics, curators and historians tend to try to jump the gun and declare they've found something new, or worse yet, they try and form something new themselves that artists may join into. that is like creating a new breed of animal. while it is done all the time with dogs, they generally get over bread and have terrible health problems. it's just not natural.
ReplyDeletei certainly do not doubt your belief in art, but in turn, you cannot say my suspicions of critics and historians are baseless.
again, im flattered you found my blog and read it! hope you're doing well in england -- incidentally i'll be there next summer to begin a master's course at bath-spa uni! take care!