Living art

There's recent art criticism that makes me hopeful. I came across this article in Prospect Magazine, which draws comparisons between Post-Modernism and Rococo, comparing (rightfully so) Damien Hurst to the likes of Bouguereau. It is a compelling argument. So much of the blue chip art of the last decade, or even two, has been narcissistic, vapid pastiche; willfully plagiarising in the name of Concept or Commentary.

Ben Lewis lays it on the line in this unflinching article and I applaud anyone in this day and age with the cajones to say what they feel and the intellect and substance to back it up. Political writers could certainly take a page from this book. Similarly, the now-seminal Roberta Smith article from earlier this year gave so many of us hope that there may actually be art critics in New York that are paying attention to what they are NOT seeing instead of reaffirming the Program imposed upon us by Museums, auction houses and dealers. Smith is poised to become a truly great art critic, one that history will vindicate, even celebrate if she is willing to take it one step further; to get out into the studios and get dirty. Get thee to Brooklyn, Ms. Smith.

It's one thing to recognize there is great art (yes, I said great) being made outside the collective limelight. It is quite another to take the time, effort and risk to seek it out and champion it. Isn't this what a handful of art critics are best known for? Not only did it propel their own careers, but it brought unknown, desperate artists into the light of day (and under the lights of the galleries) who have since become the bedrock of contemporary art. Sadly, we have forgotten that the Impressionists were once outsider artists but were championed until people were able to see rather than look. This job is never over, and the onus of discourse (and to some degree discovery) lies squarely on the shoulders of those who would call themselves critics.

The current thread in Carol Diehl's blog about artist statements relates well to what I'm saying. It has become our task as artists to create not only our work, but equally to draft crib notes about that work for the flaccid art press. It's high time we got some educated feedback. I for one, make work because I want a dialog. I want to interact and to know what YOU, the people seeing it think. Art is not art in a dark studio. It only becomes art when people see it, and respond to it. In the end, my intentions, -no matter sacred or profane, matter little to the life of the work.

Art, ultimately, has to live and die on its own. Yet we have lost a sophisticated audience, and more poignantly, we have lost cultural leaders who can positively inform and educate audiences as to what they are looking at. I've beat this drum before, but art is not, NOT, 100% subjective. Like wine or literature or other cultural expressions, one must bring a certain amount of knowledge and awareness (as well as openness) to the table when encountering art. Personal tastes are inherently flawed and lack credibility in the broader conversations. There is a vast history that informs the way we perceive, and without knowledge or concern for these and other contexts, we become little more than gawkers.

Medium-sized cities like the one where I currently have a show want to import some kind of culture-template. But vibrant art scenes are not out-of-the-box products. They take time and nurturing and they take the audience meeting the artists and galleries half way. Asheville has this built-in because of decades of residents from Europe and New York and notably the Black Mountain College experiement. Contemporary art is not feared there, and audiences know how to respond to it because they have taken part in its genesis in America. Sadly, the recent influx of new wealth (that which lacks this very sense of history and tradition), may well be that city's arts undoing.

In this region there is a provincial mindset which lacks the tools to deal with anything post-Impressionist for fear of looking foolish. But this very fear is one of the major obstacles to a thriving scene. Artists would move here in droves if they felt supported. The cost of living is low, studios like mine can still be had at reasonable rents, and there are relatively few serious artists, so there is an honest potential for community. Moreover, the influx of truly professional artists to the area would thin out the playing field, marginalize the dilettantes, and bring the overall quality up. Right now we have fine art, craft artists and so-called Outsider artists all lumped together with no delineation that can easily be understood by the art public. The galleries, for their part, cannot execute real programs because they are forced into a one-size-fits-all, appeal to everyone business model that may sell a few $50 paintings here and there but does little to advance or cultivate a diverse and thriving art scene.

This hurts craft artists and artisans as much as it hurts struggling artists like myself. To be fair, why should someone pay $5000 for a painting that is hanging next to another of the same size and,-at least to the uninformed eye, same style for $500? The answer is a no-brainer, they shouldn't. The juried show presided over by an amateur and the flee-market approach to curating that is so popular here do not serve anyone. They only highlight the cultural inadequacies which are so prevalent. (But I am digressing and this is really another post).

Rather than embrace the accepted, isn't it time we ask to be surprised? I don't mean shocked, and certainly not shocked for shock's sake. I mean genuinely surprised by what we see on the walls? This is a trickle-down economy that actually can work, in visual currency and in aesthetic trade. The big city critics scour the studios, the museums get spines to risk ridicule and low attendance with shows of living artists, medium and small city museums follow suit, and the smaller scenes and remote artists respond to the renewed dialogue.

More next week.