How out of touch is the art world?

Are we talking about Andrea Fraser?

On the one hand this work is saying something old and familiar--"art is prostitution." It is subject to the charge that even as it attempts to make such a statement, it's part of the system anyway and is just more prostitution.

On the other hand, some of what she does tries to reveal new elements of the evolving brothel of the art world. In that sense, she's part of another current of artists who are doing a kind of performance art based on bureaucracy of producing institutional art. They apply for grants, make presentations, commission engineering studies, etc., and the reams of documentation produced by this process are evidence of the artistic performance.

Here's a (fairly dense) statement by Fraser that gives a little more context:

http://adaweb.walkerart.org/~dn/a/enfra/afraser1.html

Or not. Maybe we have become that jaded. Which seems to just encourage greater excess.

As to "conceptual accesibility" -

While in the past artists have irritated the critics and the masses, the images have always been decipherable.
"Naked Maja" - by Goya, not El Greco BTW...I confuse the two myself... is pretty much as it seems. Nobody is gonna wander around it for an hour going "Huh?"

Same with "The Nigh****ch" (have they cleaned that yet BTW?). There may be hidden depths to the piece, but nobody is going to be left out in the cold wondering what the subject of the piece is.

As to Ed's comment about "bullying" -

I think there is some subtle, and not so subtle bullying going on in the art world.

First off there is what people are taught. Yesterday everyone in my color class was told that you must title all your work so people can understand it. I pointed out that David Levinthal (who was mentioned earlier in class that day) doesn't do this, and we can all understand his work. He titles the series, but not the piece.

This of course resulted in the "You aren't David Levinthal! He can do what he wants! He is famous!" response, which, sad to say is just plain juvenile. My point was the by using good IMAGERY you don't NEED a pithy title. Or ANY title!

But the push by people like this is pretty strong at times. At others it isn't. Like the quizzical stare from the gallery manager when you don't have a statement or a title. That is what I got when I hung my work. For someone who isn't as obstinate and bullheaded as I, that could be a really bad moment making someone feel as if they NEED those things to make it "art".

Which is the whole issue isn't it?

There is a clique', so to speak, that while proclaiming that art has no rules, immediately sets about making rules.

As in the "Hooker/Artist" example. The rules state that only an "Artist" can legitimately do that piece. If a common streetwalker went into a gallery they would be quickly asked to leave and then mocked. But when the "right person" engages in the same behavior, it is "art".

Or more to the point, why do they even have the term "outsider art"? If art is so inclusive now, then why do you even need that commonly used term?

And to compound this perception of mine, the person defending prostitution as art is such an insider as to be a joke (which, sadly she is in the program). Her dad is a bigwig at the school of art and he has been either working for, or an alumni of, every school she went to.

Friends in high places and all....

With this kind of inbreeding and closed minded attitude, is the art world even remotely in touch with the everyday?

lee said:

I have spent some time with Google this AM trying to locate this Proformace Artist and nothing is turning up online. One would think that this sort of behavior would get some notice with the blog people and the real press.

lee\c

Click to expand...

Fess up, you just wanted to see some blue movies.....

Robert, this is no different than the british woman who decided to put her messy bed on display and called it art. This is what I call the "elitist" art, which unfortunately seems to be predominantly present in museum and "avant garde" galleries. This is art that is precieved to be "cutting edge" by those "in the know" who have to justify their position somehow. If they chose something the rest of us the unwashed masses would apprecite, then they would not be percived as doing their job, or "knowing" more than us.

This no longer upsets me if it is all done between private individuals or entities. Someone wants to pay $40000 for a roll in the hay with an "artiste," well then more the power to him or her.

Where I get pissed is when Museums and goverment sponsored facilities start buying and showing art that is crap or offensive under the guise of being "controversial" and using our tax money to do so. About two years ago a mexican american woman was given a grant and her pieces were shown all over the country. The theme was some catholic religious icon that had been "updated" to reflect the present. So what does this moron used, in one photograph, she used a facsimili of the Virgin of Guadalupe where the virgin was depicted with hot pants and the angel supporting her was some other woman with her breasts hanging out. Not surprisingly, this caused an uproar in the latin community, but the funny thing was that this woman was surprised that people were upset. This is what I call being out of touch and I certainly understand where you are comming from.

In short, welcome to the club of the bewildered who sometimes think "what were they thinking?"

Robert,

I think you need to realize that there is two art worlds. There is the New York-LA axis where the more bizarre, strange and sensational the better, regardless if the work has anything of merit to say or has any beauty to it. One of the prerequisites of such art is that it usually emphaisizes the ugliness of humanity, and any message is pessimistic and negative in nature.

The other prerequisite is that the really avant-garde have to glorify the most deviant and obnoxious aspects of society and culture. If the artist can gain some modicum of repect or acceptance of such art, they can hope society will eventually grow to see such deviance as acceptable behaivor.

A good example is the recent book by Timothy Greenfield-Sanders caled XXX Porn Stars. I have not read the article in View Camera yet, but do know that the book takes a variety of porn stars and through his portrait style shows these people as normal everyday people that just have a job they are good at.

I am not critical of someone's right to produce, act in or view pronography, ( I saw plenty during my mis-spent college days) But I am critical of trying normalize an industry where success depends on the ability to demonstrate subjagation and domination of women by men, and the exploitation of women to make a profit. Study after study shows that pornography is a trigger to males who are prone to violence or aggresion toward females. But the idea is trendy, controversial and in vogue with the idea of political correctness. I mean Why can't Ron Jeremy or Jenna Jameison be role models for your children?


Then there is the rest of the "world" where people appreciate beauty and the idea that art can communicate up lifting and inspiring messages as well as work that can challenge our beliefs and assumptions wtihout the sensationalism of the avant garde who consider themselves as important as the work itself. Of course to the "cutting edge" this majority is a bunch of backwards rubes who still believe in God, mom and apple pie. To really understand the art and the artist, look at the audience it attracts.

One other thing. Andy Warhol was the most under talented and over rated artist in the history of the world (imho). But he did make that statement about everyone getting there 15 minutes of fame sometime in their life.
You simply are seeing that on the walls Of NY and LA. 99% of these artists will be forgotten, their work cleared out of storage rooms and tossed into dumpsters with the museum curator 25 years from now wondering what somebody was thinking when they purchased it. Thier work only remebered in some dusty photograph in an old museum catalogue. Yes some of it will be remembered and considered influential and one or two of the thousands hailed as a genius. But that work will probably contain some beauty or idea that resonates with themes of the human spirit.

Jim Chinn said:

One other thing. Andy Warhol was the most under talented and over rated artist in the history of the world (imho).

Click to expand...

Jim, this is MHO too!

Jim Chinn said:

......one or two of the thousands hailed as a genius. But that work will probably contain some beauty or idea that resonates with themes of the human spirit.

Click to expand...

Again, another statement that resonates well with me. Nothing lasts as long or as good as beauty.

It took me about 10 years of photography to feel comfortable shooting a portrait with part of the head cropped off like I had seen it done in other people's pictures. It took another 15 or so to feel comfortable shooting photographs with tilted horizons, odd compositions, camera motion and off-subject focus. You see, I knew all portraits should be the standard "head shot" and all photos absolutely had to have straight horizons, rule-of-third compositions shot in perfect focus, preferably with the camera on a tripod to minimize motion. I shot those types of pictures religiously. Because I knew how to follow the rules, I finally felt comfortable breaking them all.

I think artists do that for us. They push us until we feel comfortable with new ideas and new visions. Even when they piss us off or when we ridicule them, we are acknowledging that they have affected us. By "us", I mean the person who sees/hears/experiences the art.

Andy Warhol was more of a cultural prophet than an artist, IMO.

I would say that the art world is very much in touch - with itself. I leave it to your imagination to think of some other acts that involve being very much in touch with one's self.

Is the question why the art world is out of touch with the rest of the world? I think it is because it can be. Starved of grants and tenure, the whole apparatus would go up in smoke, and many artists/university types would soon be seen scraping the breadcrumbs off of tables with the little popsicle sticks.

Jim Chinn said:

... Study after study shows that pornography is a trigger to males who are prone to violence or aggresion toward females.

Click to expand...

This has been the subject of an ongoing search of mine for a few years now. Can you cite a specific study?

I am familiar with a number of foreign sources, and a few domestic, that conclude the opposite .. so I'd be really interested.

Jorge said:

Someone wants to pay $40000 for a roll in the hay with an "artiste," well then more the power to him or her.

Click to expand...

Somebody posted Frank Zappa's definition of art the other day on Photo.net: "Art is making something out of nothing and selling it."

God I miss that guy.

I don't want to be misunderstood. All art, no matter how vain or self serving has an audience. Good art does not have to scream or shock to gain one. Bad art usually tries to get your attention by saying "I am over here, i am important, i am different therefore I am art!"

Good art is just the opposite. It gives the observer the choice to make the decison. It doesn't try to cloud the issue by being garish or over the top. It can be provacative, even disturbing in some ways but it always lays itself bare for the audience to decide and appreciate.

Here is an example from the June/July issue of Art in America. Not to single out American artists, in 1996 there was a video installation called Zooming into Focus at the Shanghai Art Museum by Zhang Peili. The installation consisted of 12 video monitors with each one showing a tape of someone scratching or itching a various part of their body.
Now please, can some one here defend this as art?

But for everyone dozen or so of those hack artists you can find somone like Julie Mehretu who makes some incredibly complex and interesting abstractions such as Dispersion, 2002. (if you want to find it on the web) As well as artists such as Robert Baribeau, Odd Nerdrum or Su Kwak. IMO these artists are among many who currently produce some outstanding work.

c6h6o3 said:

"Art is making something out of nothing and selling it."

God I miss that guy.

Click to expand...

I would say that is good salesmanship.....coupled with the gift to BS people, I am starting to think are the two most important attributes an artist can have.

here a link containing information:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw00/module5.html

Robert Kennedy said:

While in the past artists have irritated the critics and the masses, the images have always been decipherable.
"Naked Maja" - by Goya, not El Greco BTW...I confuse the two myself... is pretty much as it seems. Nobody is gonna wander around it for an hour going "Huh?"

Click to expand...

Thanks, I think we have much the same idea, anyway. I personally *LIKE* the idea of wandering around saying "Huh?" at times.

Jackson Pollock once wrote that he always paid particular attention to the work he did NOT like (a.k.a. "understand"). His point was that the familiar stuff was nice to look at, pleasant, made him feel good at some level, but had no lasting effect on his view of the world. The work that he did not understand ... that was understood and had special meaning - an "Artistic Statement" - from another human being who was different in his/her pre-conditioning, her/his life experiences and inner configuration - and their vision - was, not necessarily worse than his, but different - and very valuable to experience. His idea was to try to empathize, to somehow "fathom the depths" of that person's being. If he could, it would be an EXPANSION of his own aesthetic makeup.

I've been mulling over the assumption that "Art must necessarily be beautiful". That is not an absolute, as far as I'm concerned. I've been thinking of such works as those by Heironymus Bosch representing his views of Dante's hell; many works showing St. Sebastian pierced by scores of arrows (Matteo Di Giovanni); one by Paul Cezanne: "La Vielle au Chaplet" - the description begins, "The gnarled hands over which her head is bowed are fumbling with a rosary (chapelet). She had been the inmate of a convent, but had lost her faith, and, at the age of seventy, had taken a ladder and scaled the convent wall. Cezanne had found her wandering and half-demented and had taken her into his service." These are not, in my opinion, "Beautiful" in themselves ... yet they serve to expand our view of the world in some way ... and their ultimate effect, if only to set up a contrasting background, IS often beautiful.

You are, of course, right about Goya and his "Naked Maja". I momentarily confused that wih Diego Velazques' "The Toilet of Venus (The Rokeby Venus), and got El Greco... ??? Anyway, I hope that carried the point I was trying to make.

Hmmm... A SCANDALOUS "menage a troi" - (sp? - still sleep deprived..) circa 1580(?) "Unfaithfullness" by Paolo Veronese.

After reading this thread I think I now know where I'm going wrong. Maybe if I print a whole series of these and take them to a gallery I will become rich & famous, after all I don't have to say they were for a local story LOL

An Alien (extra-terrestrial) archaeologist excavating our civilization might wonder about our mound building culture - the mount trashmore's that contain our artifacts.

Btw, don't cultures like Denmark, Sweden that have higher acceptance of pornagraphy/nudity also have lower rates of violence against women?

TONY!!!
I simply must have it! I'll pay any price!

Tony, are you familiar with American photographer Robert Adams? He was a pioneer in the "new topographic" movement of 30-odd years ago. His landscapes are brutal and include trash, litter, powerlines, billboards, etc. For some reason, I have become a fan of his work but I'm not sure why it appeals to me. Your photo is in the same vain.

Call me out of touch, I guess?

c6h6o3 said:

Somebody posted Frank Zappa's definition of art the other day on Photo.net: "Art is making something out of nothing and selling it."

God I miss that guy.

Click to expand...

I miss him too. He was one of the few who understood what he was talking about.

doughowk said:

Btw, don't cultures like Denmark, Sweden that have higher acceptance of pornagraphy/nudity also have lower rates of violence against women?

Click to expand...

Nope and nope. I am a foreigner living in Sweden the past 8 years and I can tell ya these are misnomers, at least about Sweden. They are as prudish as anyone else and they are violated as much as (percentage wise) the next gal.

"Watch out where the Huskies go and don't you eat that Yellow Snow" - Frank Zappa

Boy, Howdy. That's one piece of advice that you won't ignore twice.

Francesco said:

Nope and nope. I am a foreigner living in Sweden the past 8 years and I can tell ya these are misnomers, at least about Sweden. They are as prudish as anyone else and they are violated as much as (percentage wise) the next gal.

Click to expand...

Interesting!! Can you direct me to a valid source for this data? I've made a promise to myself - to be adamantly opposed to pornography, obscenity, eroticism ... just as soon as I can find credible data indicating that these are harmful. So far, I haven't ... only insinuations and "urban legends". Most serial killers have experienced pornography at one time or another. Most of everyone else .. have experienced pornography at one time or another. The incidence of serial killers and sexual deviants who eat mashed potatoes is far greater.

The last reports I've read from the World Health Organization indicate significantly LESS violence across the board, to BOTH men and women in the more "Open" countries. I'm open to information indicating otherwise.

Flotsam said:

TONY!!!
I simply must have it! I'll pay any price!

Click to expand...

Mmmmm Neal now you do realise the cost may prevent you from buying any new toys for a day or two? LOL

Lee Shively said:

Tony, are you familiar with American photographer Robert Adams? He was a pioneer in the "new topographic" movement of 30-odd years ago. His landscapes are brutal and include trash, litter, powerlines, billboards, etc. For some reason, I have become a fan of his work but I'm not sure why it appeals to me. Your photo is in the same vain.
Call me out of touch, I guess?

Click to expand...

Lee yes I'm old enough for that and thank you I'm flattered to be mentioned in the same paragraph I actually didn't think this one would get published but the timing must have been just right for the story that went with it and it caused one hell of a stink (ooops pun) around here. Alas I'm know know as the guy that photographed the loo But I got paid for this and a supporting one in the same issue so as is life. Also interesting how many doors it has openned for me locally to get into events to shoot LOL

Refreshing my memory of his work I've found a quote of his that will make a perfect signature, so thank you

David A. Goldfarb said:

Are we talking about Andrea Fraser?

On the one hand this work is saying something old and familiar--"art is prostitution." It is subject to the charge that even as it attempts to make such a statement, it's part of the system anyway and is just more prostitution.

On the other hand, some of what she does tries to reveal new elements of the evolving brothel of the art world. In that sense, she's part of another current of artists who are doing a kind of performance art based on bureaucracy of producing institutional art. They apply for grants, make presentations, commission engineering studies, etc., and the reams of documentation produced by this process are evidence of the artistic performance.

Here's a (fairly dense) statement by Fraser that gives a little more context:

http://adaweb.walkerart.org/~dn/a/enfra/afraser1.html

Click to expand...

Considering what I have been doing lately, does this make me apug's film whore?

Aggie - No, just a little fast....

Ed - You make some good points. Like I have said, my biggest gripe is not with a work having any "mystery" to it (which to me is the "huh?" factor done right), but in works that have a strong "huh?" factor and then a tacked on "statement" used to justify the work.

I mean NOBODY can tell me that the statement comes first with a lot of this work. In fact in most cases it seems to JUSTIFY the work.

To break it down into a flow chart....

Strange/Offensive/Unsanitary/Felonious/Annoying/Bizzare Concept

|
|

Digging in the trash/Killing of animals/Grave robbing/Defecation in jars/Prostitution AKA "Getting the supplies"

|
|

Assemblage/Eating of/Smearing on/Burning/Throwing/Defiling/Felonious assault of said "supplies"

|
|

Pricing of newly created art (seven figures is a minimum)

|
|

Writing of 27 page "statement" to justify your juvenile creation

|
|

Placing of "art" in gallery owned by a guy named "Lars" who speaks with a vaguely European accent but who is really from La Jolla.

|
|

Annointing of yourself at opening as a "genius" by a crowd of turtleneck clad "avant garde artistes" who are so out of touch with reality as to think a jar of feces is art.

|
|

Fade into obscurity 8 weeks later and make plans to commit suicide/die of an overdose/die from a veneral disease/smash car into telephone pole so that you can revive career with your own death.