(Movies Movies of Dowagiac, MI, captured by Dane Martin)
I recently took a trip to Indiana to visit friends and family, and was lucky enough to be able to spend a day in Chicago and to check out the Museum of Contemporary Art. Now, readers will note, I typically tend to shy away from the more dense comment threads on this blog, but this place had me asking a lot questions about art in general, so here goes...
The main floor was exhibiting the work of Alexander Calder and the work of those inspired by him, so there were a lot of mobiles and statues that involved form and balance. I believe we’ve already covered the topic of functionality, i.e. the location of works of art like these, the inability to keep them in your home, only being able to exist in a gallery setting, etc., but I found myself being tremendously critical towards everything in this area, considering every tiny aesthetic aspect. I tend to think about things with a certain sense of utilitarianism, I hate waste and the fact that the entire art world is controlled by the whims of rich collectors, so when I see something like this:
...I tend to get a little disheartened, confused, cynical, which brings me to my first question.
1. 2-D vs. 3-D: what makes a drawing instantly relatable, even if you don’t like it?
This might not be true. Obviously, I am biased, being a cartoonist probably does that, but even when presented with something like a Mark Rothko painting or Ken Kagami’s “Snoopee” (which I bought later that day for a buck), maybe I don’t want to surround myself with the work, but I understand and respect it, and can at least make my own interpretations of what the artist’s intentions were. Where do you even stop with a work like Martin Boyce’s? I imagine him in his studio staring at his iron fence and thinking, “what is this missing? Oh, I know!”, and then he rams a big piece of foam through it.
After observing the main floor, I went downstairs to the bathroom and, while waiting for my sister, watched a DVD of the artists I had just seen explaining their work, pointing out shapes and aspects I totally overlooked, and I immediately felt closer to it. Every piece in the entire museum had a placard that explained the intentions and process, which almost felt necessary to truly appreciate it. I’m a big fan of the PBS “art: 21” series, because it sheds light like this that I can’t access on my own, which brings me to question two.
2. Should art be able to stand alone without explanation?
That’s the great thing about comics, they generally require close to no explanation to be enjoyed, the voice is already within. I guess it’s important to remember that nothing really has to be anything in art, practice what I preach, “total freedom”, but that’s why I’m posing these items as questions, not statements.
Heading up a floor or two, we came upon the “Works on Paper” exhibit, which I was obviously totally psyched about, great work by Peter Saul, Raymond Pettibon, and a real Henry Darger painting, massive and double-sided, that left me speechless. Also in this exhibit was a piece done by Mike Kelley in 1988 entitled Disembodied Militarism, which was simply a “Sad Sack” comic story re-drawn on six oversized pieces of paper without the characters, just word balloons and flop sweat (apologies, can’t find any pictures). Seeing this and the Pettibon drawings reminded me, for whatever reason, of work by Jason Overby and Jason T. Miles, which are obviously wonderful on their own, but aren’t on museum walls.
3. Is longevity the key to popularity?
Of course, the hype machine can make anyone and anything famous overnight but, otherwise, it seems like an artist needs to be “in the biz” for at least ten years before they garner any “New Yorker”-style attention (moreso for others, e.g. Kim Deitch, what was up with that anyway?).
Happy to see a healthy stock of various comics in the museum gift shop, disappointed to see a Jeff Koons book that weighs nearly ten pounds. I should also mention that the most popular thing in the museum was the guide dog in training that someone brought in, captured everyone’s attention (including yours truly). Something to think about...
Also went to Quimby’s that day, best stock of cool books and mini-comics I’ve ever seen, really satisfying to see a small display of my own stuff, pleasantly surprised to find Edie Fake behind the counter, who I watched make great recommendations to other customers, and whose Gaylord Phoenix series will be collected into a book by Secret Acres this winter. It’s almost winter, can you believe it?
37 comments:
in b4 andre serrano
Indiana is worse than Hitler.
Raymond Pettibon is worse than Hitler.
That genederless scarf-wearing hipster is worse than Hitler.
Keep up the good work.
the entire midwest is blushing at the comments thus far
"Should art be able to stand alone without explanation?"
Yes.
Because it's for looking and experiencing.
I don't think art has to stand alone. Art is part of a culture, never alone, and you can experience it differently, perhaps more strongly, if you're informed about (or instantly understand) the bits and pieces. Some art wants to be a secret. But, actually, I like art where I can get up close and imagine the artist's hands moving all over it...
One thing I loved about the Yves Klein retrospective (still up at the Hirschorn in DC and well worth the visit), was that there were no critical/explanator comments on the placards. Just title, year, size, media. But, the walls the exhibit had quotes from Klein himself on the walls which added some context. Klein was rather prolific as a writer, so it worked for him.
I've taken to not looking at the placards in museums until I've taken time to look at the work (if the work is worth taking the time for). And then it's often cause I'm curious who the artist is, or I'm curious if my guess at who the artist is is correct.
This post rules! RE art standing alone: Blaise and Jesse and I were palling around the other day talking about (at my instigation) how we (I) are often more attracted to reading interviews or essays by makers of culture (particularly more conceptual makers) than their work itself. The book I'm working on right now is about this - or it's me trying to make autobio culture that addresses this and gets around this problem. This blog is another example. The response I've had to posts I've made here has been more immediate and enthusiastic than it generally has been to my comics work. It might be because this is a feedback system, but who knows? I think, also, that some work grows on you and doesn't reveal it's greatness right away (Panter for me, for instance) so it's hard to just say your immediate impression of like/dislike or understandability is a good barometer. What I often don't like more is work that I get an immediate thrill or chuckle out of and then gives me nothing else.
Don't get me wrong - I think texts can add to a richer understanding of an artist's work. Reading what Derek or Jason have written helps me see more in their work more just like knowing some of Kirby's biography can add to an understanding of his work.
But when the work is wholly dependent on context, biography, explanation and wall text - FAIL.
Oh yeah, I love reading about the art. But if the art is so opaque I can't get anything from it without that extra information, then it seems... unsuccessful (or often, in the case of the "art world", insular).
and I don't see that insularity in comics too much. It's doggone rampant in the wider fine art world.
I might not know what's going on right away in every Overby or Molotiu I see, but what I see is enough to convince me that something is there.
I think you can try to perceive art in a social vacuum, but it's really just a mental exercise. We can't divorce ourselves from our social reality. Just look at how much being an artist affects our view of art. You could even argue that the comics we are most interested in are made specifically for other artists. Same goes for contemporary art. It's art made for artists, the collectors are just commodity traders. To the culture at large it's irrelevant.
most art i experience is via translation. i'm more familiar with artist books than i am with the originals. when it comes to the 60s on, a lot of the originals don't exist. if the work is walking around mexico on drugs, how does that stand alone?
with books / the internet there is no original. it's all translated. it's point to point vs hub and spoke, decentered vs centered.
That's exactly what Jesse was saying when we were talking irl, Ian - since we're "makers" we seek out culture that is invested in or exposes its process.
Agreed, Warren, Derik - I just don't want to dismiss things too quickly because I was super reactionary in my early twenties. There is a lot of insular bullcrap, though - lots of more fashion-related stuff.
"i'm more familiar with artist books than i am with the originals."
That's a great point. Me too. I was talking more about when you do get to see the real thing and there's no there there. And of course, the printed thing IS the real thing in comics. Or the online thing.
just got back from a walk
was thinking about how 3d space is scarce/limited but 2d space is not
also it seems more natural to represent the movement of time in 2d space - video, comics, etc - than 3d space
movement of time seems equally capable of expression in 2 or 3d, but what tools do we have to harness/understand it?
we've got holography, we've got 3d movies, we've got an infinitely expanding set of concepts to parse through mentally and execute through a variety of (maybe) unsuspecting physical avenues.
a big part of 2d art is the artist looking at it and sorting out the details for themselves, a process which totally involves 3 and 4 dimensions in order to be fully resolved......i'm talking about light/space factors in the space in which the work is made and the time it takes to make it.
internet space is interesting for how much it intelligently deals with 4d in a strictly 2d environ. the dates/times in which these comments are posted, for example.
*shrug*
I'm cool with explanations because I'd rather have a work explained to me than just never ever get it.
I like to think I'm clever enough to sort things out on my own, but a couple years of art school discussions/critiques showed me how incredibly far off even trained viewers can get if untethered. Probably the most important part of Art for me is encountering things I haven't or wouldn't or couldn't experience on my own, so I don't think it makes sense to me to examine a work and exclude anything supplemental the artist has given us in favor of my own conjecture.
Although I see how that could ruin the joke for some people.
Did you ever really love a song and then find out later that the lyrics are different than what you thought they were and then have to reconcile the two versions of the song?
absolutely. I seldom get the artist's intention (particularly in oblique works) - I make up my own explanation that's often totally different. I think there's a lot of value in this; my "explanations" will lots of times provide jumping off points for other ideas that wouldn't have occurred to me otherwise.
@ Ian
Have you heard Jim O'Rourke's solo albums
They seem to deal with the very same trickiness you find so very sticky
Definitely, all the time, but even if my misheard lyrics are more clever it doesn't change The meaning of a song. If the lyrics aren't clear to me than either I'm a bad listener or there is some obstacle in the music itself. That's why liner notes are useful.
There is Viewing a work, and then there's projecting onto it.
"I make up my own explanation that's often totally different."
It's honestly comforting that no matter what piece of art, even art we've seen a million times, our damn futile awesome human brains will have at least a somewhat fresh way to compute it. Everything is "new," everything is "experimental," somewhat negating such terms, while buffering them all the same......
that previous post was just so optimistic, that i felt i should just dang soar in and make sure you knew it was genuine!
the word verification is 'imple'
chew on that fat arse, lame-oh
my grandpa saw a two headed girl in a mall in suburban Minnesota recently
talk about genuine. what a world.
ahhhhhh
i feel so free
I don't buy the notion that the creation of art, especially visual art is a controlled act of communication. I think that the artist's perception of their own work is just as unstable and relativistic as the viewer's. Telling your audience what a work "means" is only another interpretation not the "truth". The object exists as an independent entity. Everyone must reconcile their perception of it. Of course there will be a lot of common ground, but I don't think that necessarily makes a work more successful. Art isn't a vessel for platonic ideals. The most interesting art inspires diverse opinions, not dogmatic harmony, IMO.
totally. any art I make is as much a process of deciphering what has just happened (marks I've made, associations between words and images, the narrative, my surroundings, etc.) as facilitating an ideal correctly.
I agree too - art doesn't fail if it doesn't communicate exactly what the artist was thinking about when making it. We all bring ourselves and our own baggage to everything we read and see. I don't really care what the artists was trying to do or say - I'm interested in what I'm seeing and hearing.
That's looking at art for the experience. If I'm looking at something as art history then or course all that context matters.
"any art I make is as much a process of deciphering what has just happened (marks I've made, associations between words and images, the narrative, my surroundings, etc.)..."
That describes my whole working method.
Then, if it works, the thing is autonomous, a golem!
Jason, I think your attitude comes through in your work though. I really like your comics, but I don't stress out over their meaning. Maybe I'm picking that vibe up through the work itself ironically. On the other hand John Hankiewicz's work stresses me out. I'm not sure which one of you I like better though, ha!
I disagree! Art has one meaning, that intended by the creator and none other! ...just kidding. I wanted to try being contrarian. It doesn't work so well.
Well, I mean, I wouldn't discount a recreational appreciation of art or an artists assertion that their work is best experienced casually (I get way too much out of staring at plants and insects and other things that don't traditionally "mean" anything to support that). Those sorts of feelings are impossible to fully remove, and can be quite rewarding both in making and experiencing art. And it's fine if that's all you're looking for from a work, but for most things I don't think that's sufficient preparation to seriously unpack or discuss a work.
There's infinite room for abstraction and dissonance (most lyrics aren't clearer that most misheard lyrics) but for me an artists intentions are often as integral and eye-opening as anything they'd paint.
"Blaise and Jesse and I were palling around the other day talking about (at my instigation) how we (I) are often more attracted to reading interviews or essays by makers of culture (particularly more conceptual makers) than their work itself. "
I wonder if that is due to wanting to be an artist and having a stature of brilliance more than wanting to make art.
probably. but what constitutes "making art?"
"John Hankiewicz's work stresses me out."
hankiewicz is SO midwest
"probably. but what constitutes "making art?""
My dearest compatriot, if you don't know what it is to make art today i don't have to tell you are not an artist. ONe I do know is making art isn't talking about things.
Post a Comment