'Contemporary art', representation, and art

[beriredux]

I’m starting a thread on this topic because it became clear here:  that this was something I wanted to talk about. 

 

Further to what I said there, I don’t think that a debate around representation/non-representation is specific to painting and drawing - it is, I believe, a general concern of art in relation to what is going on in the world. I also don’t think we shouldn't conflate a discussion about contemporary art with one about representation. 

 

Terms like representation, contemporary art, and art can be contentious - depending on the participants - so some kind of care needs to be taken to distinguish between them, particularly because distinctions we take for granted are often (sometimes?) the ones we need to examine the most.

 

A discussion about ‘the genre of contemporary art’ (whether it is indeed a 'genre') is, I believe, a political one about making a move out of a perceived rut of indeterminancy, in which we are unwittingly conspiring with 'the system'.

[Jonsuit]

Beriredux, 

 

This is a great prompt. The phrase "genre of contemporary art" does seem apt. I am interested in taking up your discussion, however addressing the distinction between terms like "representation, contemporary art, and art" would necessarily be exhaustive (if not unending), but that's not to say that it wouldn't be worth the while!  

 

 

What I do find interesting in your statements though is the implicit idea of an administrative structure. 

 

Who is responsible for perpetuating the "genre of contemporary art"? How do we comprehend the entity that might potentially be moved from a "rut of indeterminacy"? How is that structure identified? 

Is it the majority of works being produced, the work shown by the most well-known galleries, the newest work with the highest price tag, the table of contents in Art Forum???

 

Is is all of that and more?

 

If so, (and this is what I assume you mean by a "political" move") it seems like you have already given a satisfactory answer. The one (kind of) stabilizing factor for the production of artists, critics, historians, gallerists, and so on is the higher education system, and like any change of ideology you have to re-examine the accepted history and adjust your view.

 

The question is how far back do you go to begin re-writing??

    

[beriredux]

Hi Jonsuit from [ah-ken-swah] :-)!

 

Sorry to take so long, I just saw your response this morning. Yay, thanks!

 

A discussion about representation and abstraction seems to be a-brewing in a far off corner of “the art world”, not in terms of their aesthetic concerns, but in response to pressing social, political and ethical crises. You are right, of course, it is a big topic!

 

In terms of “the system” I guess I actually mean “systems” (plural). I don’t think there is one overarching administrative structure - I think there are many smaller entangled systems (critical, historical, economic, etc. in, around and out of, the art world), often in conflict with one another, and often blind to the other’s concerns. If, as artists, we feel powerless (as I think we often do), it might be useful to re-consider the characteristics of systems in general (of course, artists have been looking at systems since the 70’s - maybe earlier - and many still do): what are they? and how can they be disrupted or even in some cases, destroyed?…thinking about entropy - dis-organization…I mean, things die all the time! What are the physical conditions in which a system can no longer maintain itself? I think the difference that is being proposed by some today comes from a frustration with the limitations of tools of discourse and theory alone - in the humanities in general. Despite compelling critiques of the dominant social order, things have failed to change in any really significant way.

 

Discourse and theory have been important emancipatory tools, but we seem to be caught in some kind of endless loop (or rut) where discourse and theory just feed the systems that hold us under their sway - Are they still the best tools - on their own? What others do we need? What else can we do? 

 

I think the question is not about the views of particular ideologies, but rather how they behave and what do those behaviours produce.

 

Cheers!

 

*A correction to my post above:  “I also [ ] think we shouldn’t conflate…” (instead of the double negative I wrote :-))

[Jonsuit]

Please bare with me as I try to keep pace.

 

I understand you to say:

 

1. We as individual "artists" are seemingly caught in ineffectual discourse, and are held by the influence of a system(s) which prizes ambiguity and, I infer, also promotes a dominant social order that continues to be compellingly criticized.  

       and

2. The humanities (broadly) have a responsibility/obligation to to address/influence social, political, and ethical crises.

 

I understand your question to be:

 

By what means can "art" improve it's stance in dismantling said system, beyond discourse and theory? 

 

 

I am confused by your rejection of the term "ideology". I would say that ideology is the basis for behavioral choice.

 

To take (maybe unwarranted) liberty; I feel you are describing a discontentment with the status of the agreeably inflated, and unjustified market for fine art, particularly visual art. It seems as though you are also bothered that it is not having the political/social impact you believe it should have. Respectfully, if this is the case, I would again differ to history.

 

At what point is it that "art" came to be perceived as an instrument of political/social change, and at that, was it ever really effective? Is it possible that the perception of art as a social barometer or catalyst of sorts was not a political result of that same sway holding system? 

 

My understanding is that art throughout civilized history has been closely entwined with the patronage of wealth, and though the Damien Hurst, Wade Guyton, Jeff Koons crowd is producing particularly inane work, their "products" are status symbols for the wealthy. 

 

Funny story..... I was wandering through our little American art museum here in Arkansas and there is a large Warhol painting/print called Hammer and Sickle. I approach as two ladies are passing by. They are maybe in their late 60's or early 70's, aged enough to fully grasp post WWII U.S. political sentiment. Concerning the image, one says to the other "oh no, this is far too communist for me". The other, agreeing, turns to move on, but glances down at the label as they pass. She stops abruptly and turns to the first saying "wait, it's an Andy Warhol, we'd better get a picture."    

[beriredux]

OMG, a very (funny *sad* typical) Warhol moment!!

 

To clarify (I hope): It isn’t that discourse has been ineffectual - it is important and has done a lot - it’s just that discourse alone doesn’t seem to be having the kind of effects originally hoped for. Worse than that though, I’m suggesting (but really, so far, I’m just exploring ideas - thank you for your indulgence :-)) that theory tacked on to work for the purposes of legitimation, works against its emancipatory potential, and with oppressive regimes of capital. A system that encourages and rewards indeterminate artwork trivializes the work of art (and artists). If artwork can mean anything to anyone, why make the work? If we’re doing work because it is enjoyable, let’s make the doing matter -  focus more on what art work actually does and what it can be made to do. 

 

I think artists and others in the humanities have always taken on social, political and ethical concerns. However over the last 200 or so years, we seem to have placed all our eggs are in one (discursive) basket. The rut we are in (where we have allowed ourselves to be lulled into complacent acceptance of the status quo, with no end in sight), in effect, promotes the dominant order - despite the existence of an overwhelming amount of compelling critical discourse.

 

Art (in its aesthetic mode) has often been put to use - particularly as spectacle - in religion, the monarchy, colonialism, French Revolution (Jacques-Louis David’s paintings, parades and pedestals), Nazi propaganda (parades and architecture), capitalism (everywhere) - and has been very effective! Discourse (Kant seems to have been very influential here), as an emancipatory tool, developed through, around and in reaction to these things.

 

Yes, art has been used and abused constantly!

 

Ideologies don’t make people do things - they do, of course, influence actions - but people often behave differently than their ideologies would suggest. Ideologies accrue power through real physical means interpreted through trauma, insecurities, violence etc.  Re-examining and re-writing ideologies, while important, generally points back to discourse (again, really important!), when the physical realities of people’s lives, the planet, economy etc. are in such urgent need of a change in direction. 

 

I don’t think we can afford (socially, politically, environmentally, ethically) to go on acting as if art exists in a bubble. Art and life are deeply entangled and I think the work of art has a lot to offer. :-)

Edited November 10, 2014 by beriredux

[Jonsuit]

Absolutely, the discussion is a welcome exercise! 

 

The statement "... theory tacked on to work for the purposes of legitimation, works against its emancipatory potential, and with oppressive regimes of capital." is both energetic and lovely.

 

I certainly agree that art and life are integral, but not art and politics, or art and the environment, or art and ethics etc. Of course, all of these things are part of life, and are valid for an artist to address, but that output is only an indicator of sentiment. I don't think it is, in essence, an emancipatory tool, per se. In the event that it becomes a "tool" then it is degraded into propaganda (regardless of moral stance), this likely happens when, as you've said, "theory (is) tacked on to the work for the purpose of ligitimation...". 

 

I agree that the fashionably indeterminate work of contemporary art is stale. I also agree with you that art has a lot to offer, but I would be wholly disheartened to think of art as a mere "awareness campaign". I am not a theorist, but I think there is much for art to explore in terms of interpersonal and internal human experiences. I think it can do a lot with themes of humanity, ceremony, life/death, identity, community,  and generally the individual experience. However, for as much as art is in fact a barometer, the prevalence of indeterminate works of art is a direct reflection of the contemporary culture, as much as it is any "oppressive regime". It seems that the idea "Art" has been over-inflated and misused to such a degree that there exists an erroneous belief that its primary or essential function is bearing influence on over-arching social/political opinions and actions. 

 

You asked; "Discourse and theory have been important emancipatory tools, but we seem to be caught in some kind of endless loop (or rut) where discourse and theory just feed the systems that hold us under their sway - Are they still the best tools - on their own? What others do we need? What else can we do? 

 

I may be digressing but would ask; is the making/doing of art-like things more existential or political; is art a tool or a practice? What about viewing/participating/experiencing?

If discourse and theory are tools (which I agree they are), how are they used? How do they reflect and influence the doing portions of art?      

Edited November 11, 2014 by Jonsuit

[beriredux]

As you point out, there are very legitimate reasons to be wary of any attempt to use art as a “tool”. The examples I gave earlier point to this.  

 

What I am exploring is a little different. It is that things in the world (humans, political systems, art work, climate etc) affect other things, to greater and lesser degrees, whether we are paying attention to them or not. So, paying attention to some of these things in our art making/doing just seems like a good idea. The argument is that in the end, indeterminate work and critique is vapid.  

 

I don’t think anyone is suggesting an end to artistic experimentation, exploration, play, etc. I think artistic practice can be directed and creative at the same time. In this way, it is both existential and political without contradiction, because it isn’t art “in the service” of politics but rather a way of thinking life (including politics etc.) through artistic practice - doing and then reflecting on what has been done.

 

I don’t think that is over-inflating things. Art making/doing may not always be the most effective thing we can do, but it’s what we do.

 

I want to back track a little here so that I can speak to your point about the “erroneous belief that its [art’s] primary or essential function is bearing influence on over-arching social/political opinions and actions.

 

To be clear, I don’t think art has an essential function. I don’t want to suggest that all art should operate in a particular way, political or otherwise. Whether an artist emphasizes a concern for climate change or “internal experiences” is up to them (“themes of humanity, ceremony, life/death, identity, community, and generally the individual experience”  I might add, are all pretty political :-)). I am just trying to make an argument that things do things - have affects - as well as mean things, and we should probably pay attention and see what can be done.

 

I have no doubt that indeterminate works are a reflection of contemporary culture but which part of contemporary culture, whose contemporary culture? And is that particular expression of culture the one we want to invest with our time and energy? To what end? By questioning, at least we aren’t unwitting participants.

 

I just came across this this morning. It’s a different articulation of some of the same things, and more.

 

http://timotheusvermeulen.com/post/100084961566/cher-potter-talks-to-timotheus-vermeulen

[beriredux]

“[The subordination of the work as “art” to political-literary content] comes from a political commitment that exists prior to a creative decision. This in itself would be a normal process. The limitations appear when the creative process is dedicated only to the production of illustrations, didactically worried, and simultaneously follows the rules of the game indicated by the history of art. The didactic function requires a high percentage of redundancy, leaving little room for originality.”

— Luis Camnitzer, “Contemporary Colonial Art” (1969)

[Jonsuit]

You may already be familiar with this, but I just read it through and thought it fit well with this discussion.

 

 

 Participation and Spectacle: Where Are We Now?  -  Claire Bishop  2011

 

 

Apparently there is a video too.. I haven't watched it yet though. 

 

 

Regards! 

Edited November 25, 2014 by Jonsuit

[beriredux]

Thanks for that. Feeling kinda swamped right now, but I hope to come back to this later.

 

Hope everything is going well for you!