How out of touch is the art world?

SteveGangi · Sep 24, 2004

Sean said:
I have decided to declare myself as "Breaking into the art world", but I am not going to do anything, and then I'm going to call my inaction "art".
..

Dammit, you beat me to it.

Ed Sukach · Sep 24, 2004

Robert Kennedy said:
...
Annointing of yourself at opening as a "genius" by a crowd of turtleneck clad "avant garde artistes" ...

Hey!!! I not only wear turtleneck shirts ... I have been known to wear BLACK turtleneck shirts!!!

Two reasons ... from the "spot news" (a.k.a. "Paparazzi") days ... having a black camera, instead of chrome, against a black or at least dark shirt/ jacket was the least obvious way to operate; and black/ dark clothes are least noticeable in glass reflections during "street" photography.

Besides ... I like them. One does not have to wear ties.

I don't "anoint" though. Oil is messy.

papagene · Sep 24, 2004

Robert Kennedy said:
...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.

Robert,
This is why I don't let this type of stuff bother me. In my old copies of Artforum, artsmagazine and Art in America there are articles and reviews of so many "Hot Artists" and their hot-ness lasted less than one year. I now concentrate on the artists and the work that I like and enjoy and don't care about the rest.
If we ignore them, maybe they will go away.

gene

Robert Kennedy · Sep 25, 2004

My complaint is that they all seem to get teaching jobs....

TPPhotog · Sep 25, 2004

Robert Kennedy said:
My complaint is that they all seem to get teaching jobs....

Robert you have just put me off trying to be an artist, I don't want to go back to teaching ... mmmm maybe suicide is the better option LOL

papagene · Sep 25, 2004

Robert,
You mean they get the very, very,very few teaching jobs remaining. I gave up chasing the holy grail of teaching around 1985. The only positions available were 1 semester or 1 year sabatical replacements. Not worth packing up and taking a wife and two small kids to chase after those type of jobs.
I just want the chance to work on my art, which nowadays is photography.

gene

Robert Kennedy · Sep 26, 2004

Should have been born the child of an art school Grand Poobah. Here it means you get a job at a well-ranked program fresh out of grad school.....

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 26, 2004

A colleague of mine in art history (I teach literature) received a warning with his acceptance to graduate school to the effect that "THERE ARE VERY FEW JOBS IN THIS FIELD." He came out okay with a curatorial position at a major museum, but it is still tough, and family connections aren't usually much help in competitive departments.

A good position in the humanities will typically attract from about 60 to 250 applicants (depending the reputation of the department on how narrowly the job description is written). Of those who are hired at the junior level at a major private research university, about 18% in the humanities get tenure.

Robert Kennedy · Sep 26, 2004

The big problem is the general decline in even tenure TRACK positions. The University of Washington hasn't awarded a full professorship since the mid-1970s.

Honestly, I expect this to change in the next few years. It has literally reached critital mass at many schools and with strong competition from new, private schools, many with on-line classes, people will need to start looking at what they offer students.

Or you can just play the DNA lottery.

Sorry, but blatant nepotisim like that bugs me.

Nobody can tell me that out of EVERY person out there, only the daughter of a department head who has NEVER held a professional teaching job before was the one qualified to fill in for a prof who has decades of experience?

Nobody else was more qualified?

I mean come on....

Next thing you know we will be electing our leaders this way and....

Ummm....never mind....

dr bob · Sep 27, 2004

Robert: Don't let those turkeys get you down. Yes, the existing "high" art world is controlled by the art variety of "good-ol'-boy" bunch but there ways of penetration. Keep pestering until you get a showing, even is it is at one of the "unacceptable" galleries. But you must do all your own promotion - press releases et c.

OBTW, thar's nuttin'' wrong with a little nepotism as long as it's kept within the family.

Art Vandalay · Sep 28, 2004

Not bothered

These are the most common comments that I see on photography forums. I think the reason is that photography, by it's nature is purely superficial. I don't mean that it's ideas and feelings are not deep but that it's all on the surface of a piece of paper (or plastic) - it's quite constrained when you think about it. Personally I'm not bothered at all by the type of art reported above, as it is clearly called 'performance art'. My belief is that art cannot be defined so easily. As soon as you do then an exception pops up...then another and another after that. Then you have to keep redefining it. My view is 'live and let live' when it comes to art. The art world by it's nature is free and open, mainly because artists are also this way. If someone does not understand a piece or form of art then it does not mean that they are stupid - nor does it mean that the artist, or art community is stupid either.

Robert Kennedy · Sep 29, 2004

I wil argue though that the art world is not "free and open" when people bash Adams (seriously...I hear a lot of AA bashing now), and seek out "cutting edge stuff".

Personal predujices can be a bitch....

bjorke · Sep 29, 2004

I think this thread has a very narrow notion of the "art world" -- and a convenient straw man. How does one define "the art world"? By a few galleries and student groups? Or by dollar volume, in which case Thomas Kincade knocks the student scene on its carefully-polished ass? Or by durable appeal, which carries forward DaVinci and Rafael but casts aside Braque and Leighton?

If they ain't buyin', sell elsewhere. Here's an old post from my blog, some of the references might be useful.

RAP · Sep 29, 2004

Several years ago, there was a very controversial exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum. It centered around a painting of the Madonna, with elephant dung smeared all over it. The rest of the exhibit was parts of an elephant, strategically hung up in glass cases.

Mayor Ruddy Gulianni was totally outraged and wanted it closed, taken down, cut funds, etc, etc. The crys of cencorship, freedom of speech rang out. I don't remember what happened, but several things ran through my mind.

I thought about all the artists whose work was passed up for this show. Artists who are very talented and worthy of recognition. Was their freedom of speech violated? Were they censored?

What about the curators who approved the exhibit and hung the show? What of their qualifications to judge art?

Since I have a degree in Biology, I remember the zoology labs, physiology labs and the jars of specimens suspended in formaldehyde on the shelves, including aborted fetuses. I am glad I was not charged more per credit for art classes.

Maybe I should go back and make some photographs? Would that sell?

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 29, 2004

Chris Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary" (1996) doesn't have elephant dung smeared in some random way all over it, and it would probably be worth finding out what the significance of elephant dung is in the context of Ofili's Nigerian heritage before assuming that the painter's intention is to desecrate an icon that he himself considers holy. Here's a good article on the subject--

Dead Link Removed

The other work that achieved some notoreity was Damien Hirst's "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living" (1992), which consists of a shark sliced and suspended in a tank of formaldehyde, but this was only one work, and not "the rest of the exhibit" and did not involve any elephant parts.

The most serious question that I have about the 1999 "Sensation" exhibit, is whether the museum put on a show of the Saatchi collection--and therefore enhancing its value--mainly for the purpose of attracting a major contribution from Saatchi. Many essays on the policy issues around the exhibit have been collected in this volume:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813529352/103-0025942-5976632?v=glance

Many of the works in the Saatchi collection, incidentally, were destroyed in a warehouse fire in May 2004. I'm not sure whether the Brooklyn Museum has seen much in the way of Saatchi money.

TPPhotog · Sep 29, 2004

Reading through this thread (and here's where people hit the ignore button on me if they haven't already) it occurs to me that like the works mentioned or not, they have achieved one of the objectives of art in that they have provoked thought and discussion. Therefore in effect if they were not really art before they are now due to this thread and others like them. So those from the galleries that chose them were correct.

Another possible problem is the education system where students are told this it what art is as a definition. After that anything produced as long as it conforms to the definition and the teacher / lecturer / whatever marks and grades it to that definition is art.

I recently completed a photography foundation course (anything to get darkroom facilities) and all I heard was Ansel Adams did this, did that, wouldn't have done that. Or if you have a model blowing out a candle then it's ONE candle, anymore is too busy and where's the rule of thirds? At the same time I was getting told like your photo of the story in last nights evening wag. I've learned more here than on the course so thank you everyone.

The end result was that I was the only person in the class who didn't present a portfolio at the end of the course which was of dogs, children or landscapes (all of which I love so don't take offence anyone please). Mine was completely of models from portraiture to artistic nude and even included fetish. I did include a few still lifes errrrm bondage gear I borrowed from a friend. Result the auditor spent longer looking at my portfolio than everyone else's (well he was / is male) and I still got the loo paper for the wall.

My point here is that if we didn't get taught by it's this way or it's wrong then we wouldn't see the same old stuff churned out and the occasional student wouldn't have to rebel to such an extream simply to get noticed or maybe that's a good thing.

Tin hat on and open to comments.

Ed Sukach · Sep 29, 2004

TPPhotog said:
My point here is that if we didn't get taught by it's this way or it's wrong then we wouldn't see the same old stuff churned out and the occasional student wouldn't have to rebel to such an extream simply to get noticed or maybe that's a good thing.
Tin hat on and open to comments.

Point well taken.

Hmm... without the "concretion of thought" from the Halls of Academia - how would we be able to escape from the mainstream - without a "mainstream"?

- Something like the moron who kept hitting himself over the head with a hammer - "Because it felt SO good when he stopped!"

I think the key here would be balance. It is good to recognize the conventions, but recognition does not necessarily require - or imply - conformance.

I only wish that the Gallery Powers That Be, on the whole, would give more than lip service to what they CLAIM to appreciate ... Originality ... and that we, on the other side, accept it - these flights of (weird) fancy - more.

papagene · Sep 29, 2004

Back - way back - when I was a grad student and a TA (Teaching Assist.) teaching Intro to Design, I showed the students different styles of contemporary painting: figurative; pure abstract; geometric abstractions; neo-expressionism, etc. They didn't like any of it, too weird. They wanted to see realism. So I showed them some Photo Realist and Super Realist examples. They didn't like that either.
So I asked them to bring in examples of what they like for the next class. And almost every student brought in either Disney or Norman Rockwell. These were kids who were studying art and had taken art courses throughout high school.
One word comes to mind: SAFE. You could probably substitute Comfortable, but SAFE is more descriptive.
Isn't there a couple of other forums here talking about our society's obsession for SAFE?

gene

Robert Kennedy · Oct 1, 2004

I dunno....

I mean SAFE is one thing, but ONLY going for the UNSAFE stuff because it is UNSAFE is another.

Look at Martin Creed and his "Work No. 227, the lights going on and off."

Can anyone honestly say that out of all the work that could have won the Turner Prize in 2001, a room with poor wiring was THE BEST THERE WAS?

Creed is a perfect example of where the STATEMENT overrides well...ANYTHING!

He only won because of two reason in my mind -

1- His previous fame.
2- The judges had their heads so far up their own backsides they felt that anything NOT "out there" wasn't worth considering.

In other words, the very tyranny of "do this, do that," that these "post modernists" and such are rebeling AGAINST has become institutionalized now to the point that the rule is "ignore the rules or you will never get shown."

So people go to extremes to get shown and make "art" that is really just about coming up with something "out there" and then BSing about what it means.

bjorke · Oct 1, 2004

They needed to award a YBA who was not Damien Hirst?

Seriously, I must again take issue with what seems here to be a very narrow saloniste-like predefined notion of what gallery art should be.

rogueish · Oct 2, 2004

This post seems to go hand in hand with the forum on sites photographed to death.(locations worked to excess? in the geopgaphic locations forum)
The human race (mostly) seems to needs freshness and new (some resist change to their dying breath). they quickly tire of "the same old" and seek the new "never seen or done before".
I don't care if artists make art I don't like or if (IMO)fools want to pay money for said art. I just ignore it and have stopped visiting many galleries. I'm just jealous that these (IMO) fools are NOT paying for mine
Just because I wouldn't call it art, doesn't mean it isn't. After all I'm just a photographer... well.. uhm, I do own a camera...

lee · Oct 2, 2004

I have to agree with bjorke. Art has moved on past what you may want it to be.

lee\c

SteveGangi · Oct 2, 2004

I have to admit that sometimes when it comes to a piece of art, I just don't "get it". On the other hand it is sort of funny, borrowing from the post about AA bashing, that the very same people who are rebels can over the years become the very thing the next group of rebels wants to "break free" from. AA and the F64 group were the rebels of their time.

TPPhotog · Oct 2, 2004

The world is a circular bus route. The bus just hasn't got back to the stop yet where we want to get off and enjoy the view.

Robert Kennedy · Oct 3, 2004

The problem with the "I just don't go to galleries" issue is that this is exactly why art has fallen from grace, so to speak.

Historically, we have taken several steps BACKWARDS in the acceptance of art. It used to be that to own a piece of fine art was something almost everyone (well, the middle class everyones) desired.

Now it seems that people are content with a print of an impressionist work from "Posters R Us."

Something changed.

Owned art used to mean something. Now, to many people it means nothing. Only a small group of people actually buy the stuff and desire it.

And if you ask many people they simply say "I don't 'get' art."

I think in the drive to throw off conventions, the art world threw off their audience!

You can do unconventional things AND more "populous" art at the same time.

By the way, that line is enough to have me labeled as a heretic by many.

The system teaches now two things -

1- Be "out there" and "make statements" above ALL ELSE.
2- You can only do ONE THING.

A recipe for ruin.

How out of touch is the art world?

SteveGangi

Ed Sukach

papagene

Membership Council

Robert Kennedy

TPPhotog

papagene

Membership Council

Robert Kennedy

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Robert Kennedy

dr bob

Art Vandalay

Robert Kennedy

bjorke

RAP

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

TPPhotog

Ed Sukach

papagene

Membership Council

Robert Kennedy

bjorke

rogueish

lee

SteveGangi

TPPhotog

Robert Kennedy

How out of touch is the art world?

Membership Council

Membership Council

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency