Welcome to Rough Trade
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Theoretical Disengagement - Series
These blogs originally appeared at Henri Art Magazine. They are a discussion of the issues facing art in the early 21th Century. Rough Trade is determined to confront Postmodern issues and bring those ideas to the forefront of art discussion. We believe that painting, particularly abstract painting, is due to find a new vision and we present a few artists that we believe will move these new visions forward. As David Hockney said in Secret Knowledge, "Exciting Times Lie Ahead!"
Theoretical Disengagement Part VII
In this series of blogs we've shown how Postmodernism has changed the structures of art - how it's conceived, how it's produced, how it's marketed and how it's fundamentally changed the definition of an artist. In this final installment we will discuss a new type of artist growing out of the end of Postmodernism.
The problem with a new thing is that we don't quite understand what to look for or what we're looking at and so we miss it. It is a problem of vision. Modernism, the great unknown of the late 19th and early 20th century, beginning with the Impressionists and ending with the Abstract Expressionist, created a culture where radical visions were formed out of the challenges of accepted ones. Each ground breaking theoretical idea was part of the dismantling of the old western visual tradition and each answered the challenge to "make it new." Which meant, above all, to explore one's moment in this short life, to honor one's difference and to say what is true within oneself. Through all of these fast and violent changes in vision over the last 100 years or so, the concept of an artist had remained steady. Along with their connection to the history of art, artists were always responsibile to the concept that vision moved forward, ideas were built out of historic accomplishments and advancement came from the development of art's perceived weaknesses. To be an artist meant to find truth through one's vision, to think with sight, to understand and ruminate about the truth as it lay before one's eyes.
For artists, vision is both a verb and a noun - to see, to interpret, to understand, and more importantly, it is a description of the revelation itself. After the final success and ultimate failure of American-type abstraction, Postmoderism filled the descriptive void, changing the game, creating an auteur class - the concept of a visionary, an artist was destroyed - first through Postmodern theory, then through its practice. Fine Art Culture became endemic, tied to economics, education and entertainment. It is a billion dollar industry, driven by corporate economic systems, fueled by academic institutions and maintained by art professionals - all in the business of manufacturing and selling luxury leisure products graciously upgraded for today's contemporary tastes. And with the rise of this economic system we've seen the extinction of what used to be called the avant garde - but that is changing.
It is easy to assume a style. Especially with a lens and a computer. After that all you need is a technician to produce it - to give the product that handmade, one-of-a-kind sheen, 5 to a series - a reproduced original. Art is, today, all about the manufacturing of luxury goods. In fact most all of the arts are now subject to reproduction, because most all of art production is designed through programming. Series of cibachromes, series of sculptures, series of DVDs - the idea of the one-off does no one any good in a market driven world. Andy said it best - everyone gets the same Coke. The unique product is too unstable, is too uneven, too unknown, and therefore too risky as a business proposition - it may fail to sell to enough collectors to be economically viable for those who sell and those who invest. Andy became a machine, and once his machine patent was out in the public domain lots of little machines got built fast. The industry of machines are clicking, whirring and humming along as you are reading this, creating art products left and right, employing hordes of assistants, technicians, bankers, lawyers, shipping agents, clerks, salesmen, gallerists, bloggers, websites, professors, students, art supply stores, and well, the list is endless....Autuers direct the product, provide the name recognition and live as celebrities in our small world. They pick and choose, direct and manage, but rarely actually create. How do we know this is true? Because there has been no real stylistic change or theoretical challenge to visual art in the last 40 years, just a plethora of personality driven product. 40 Years at least - 2 generations. (It may be more - you can trace this back to the Surrealists - but that is pushing a point.)
So what are we talking about?
I have seen the promise of a few 21st Century artists' work. It shows up occassionally for a bright moment and then falls away just as quickly. A recent example was Chris Ofili's show at Zwirner (which we have written about.) He pushed himself in an old way, and came up with a new idea for his work. He wasn't making product, but trying to push his vision, his style to a different level. There was risk on the wall and you could feel it if you looked for it. The show blipped on our screens because of who he is and his history with the press - but once that personality excitement came and went the work of the show disappeared. For the most part the show was written about like all the other product, but some of us saw the difference of Matisse in the work, and we took note. Here was someone struggling to understand what was on offer, what remained in the challenge left us by the master - and he put it out there for all to see. Chris fought well. His vision sharpened - he found expansiveness, but he didn't win - he's not strong enough just now. Still an artist strives to find style. There are others as well, but they come in small bits and pieces to the public. These shows usually get overlooked, because most who go to galleries don't know the history of what they're looking at - they know the narrative of the press release, sure, but they don't know what's at stake. For them art started with Warhol and flowered with Koons and Hirst. What they know about history is served up in auction catalogue descriptions, executive summaries prepared in gallery borchures, or what is blurbed about in a feel good essay written by an academic critic for an autuer's show catalogue. What's at stake for artists is HUGE, and yet Postmodernism continues to foster and manufacture this endless solipsism.
Artists inherit their time. It is what's given to them to make sense of. They live as all humans have lived - against and within the time they inherit. Matisse and Picasso existed through 2 world wars and a world wide economic collapse. They spent their times developing a visual memory of that epic. Occassionally they looked to the past for help, for inspiration, for sustenance, but they never expected that past to express their unique moment. Humans live as they always have - if you'll forgive - with Eros and Thanatos - the urge to Life and the urge to Death. It's simple enough. You live, and it's up to you to pack as much life as you can in that time - you're going to die - and even though you may be young and healthy - death can come at any moment. For artists this underscores their urge to create, to put their memories, their life, into their work. Matisse found the need for joy and fullness, color and form - women, women, women! Picasso wanted power and strength and physicality and flesh - women, women, women! Both had an urge for life and an urge to build their memories, to fill their lives with the images of their time and existence, and to recreate that memory, those images, those fleeting moments in the minds of others.
Matisse sat in his home surrounded by as much comfort as he could afford - large cages of birds singing, flowers, patterned fabrics, overstuffed chairs and naked women, Ingres' promise of Odalisques made real in his life. And what emerged was a body of work celebrating that promise. Picasso chased greatness and power - pushed his way into the vangarde - packed his mind with images of speed, form and light and remade the Western Visual Tradition in his own flesh. His work defined how we see form and physicality in the 20th Century. Their achievement was at an apex of culture - a time that had been made ready for change by fantastic artists pushing forward to new visions.
But what of those artists that inherit a "virgin" time - a time that has no supporting precedent for what their vision can bring? What happens to those who are the first innovators, those that must clear the fields, clear the land - those who see something different in the system they inherit - the first artists rather than the grand ones? Giotto, Bellini, Donatello, Tintoretto, Caravaggio, Delacroix, Manet, Cezanne, Gorky - Are they any less for being the first to take in hand a new expression, for opening the door for others to walk through, for risking acceptance and giving permission to those who follow - Phillips before Alexanders? Would we have recognized their innovation if we had been part of their time or would it have slipped by unnoticed? Would we have just seen crazy fuckers working hard on wacky projects? What is happening at this cultural moment is something similar to what art has seen in the past. Artists are starting to make good on the promise of avant garde art. Occasionally we see them wresting the future from the decadent mannerist art world we've inherited.
What we are talking about is the LIFE of art. Art that comes from one's existence, and is witnessed not through lenses, not through reproductions, not made by teams of professionals, but up close, in the flesh, real and breathing in front of YOUR eyes. What is it like to be alive at this point in time - how do we SEE, how do we remember, how do we express? Hell, we understand that we are digitized, blackberryed, uploaded and programmed, but when you take your lover in your arms - what is it to be alive at that moment? How do we see joy, life, pain, death - what is the VISION of our lives? What are we seeing and feeling, and how do we express it? Whether we're about pleasure or power - what is our life like in the 21st century? We want direct interpretation, we want to see through those eyes, not mediated through contextual interpretation or presented as a bought-and-paid-for product. We want the things artists experience, but even more, we want the things that artists have poured into their memories, that define experience. And because these types of artists don't ask permission, they're willing to express it in the first person and stand out of the comfortable systems on their own.
We are living through an incredible moment for human history, and America is supposedly leading the world into the future. We are experiencing climate change, war, the collapse of our democracy, the political rise of corporations, the spread of super diseases, the rise of fundamentalism, the patenting of DNA, the digitization of human existence and fuck all. Huge amazing changes are happening in quick succession and somehow the art world is fixated on the next auction, whose prices are up, or which gallery so and so is showing at. Auteurs continue to ply their POMO strategies and none of it, none of it, speaks to this time, to what it means to be human right now. Rough Trade it is then - out of the systems of comfort and through our own experiences. Here's where the new visual memories are being made. "I´ve seen things you people wouldn't believe...." Just as the great artists did "strange" things without permission in order to make new art, just as they forged a visual record of their memories and lives, a few 21st Century artist are starting to understand what's at stake, and for those that do, maybe forgiveness awaits.
Exciting Times Lie Ahead!
...better to ask forgiveness than permission...
The problem with a new thing is that we don't quite understand what to look for or what we're looking at and so we miss it. It is a problem of vision. Modernism, the great unknown of the late 19th and early 20th century, beginning with the Impressionists and ending with the Abstract Expressionist, created a culture where radical visions were formed out of the challenges of accepted ones. Each ground breaking theoretical idea was part of the dismantling of the old western visual tradition and each answered the challenge to "make it new." Which meant, above all, to explore one's moment in this short life, to honor one's difference and to say what is true within oneself. Through all of these fast and violent changes in vision over the last 100 years or so, the concept of an artist had remained steady. Along with their connection to the history of art, artists were always responsibile to the concept that vision moved forward, ideas were built out of historic accomplishments and advancement came from the development of art's perceived weaknesses. To be an artist meant to find truth through one's vision, to think with sight, to understand and ruminate about the truth as it lay before one's eyes.
For artists, vision is both a verb and a noun - to see, to interpret, to understand, and more importantly, it is a description of the revelation itself. After the final success and ultimate failure of American-type abstraction, Postmoderism filled the descriptive void, changing the game, creating an auteur class - the concept of a visionary, an artist was destroyed - first through Postmodern theory, then through its practice. Fine Art Culture became endemic, tied to economics, education and entertainment. It is a billion dollar industry, driven by corporate economic systems, fueled by academic institutions and maintained by art professionals - all in the business of manufacturing and selling luxury leisure products graciously upgraded for today's contemporary tastes. And with the rise of this economic system we've seen the extinction of what used to be called the avant garde - but that is changing.
It is easy to assume a style. Especially with a lens and a computer. After that all you need is a technician to produce it - to give the product that handmade, one-of-a-kind sheen, 5 to a series - a reproduced original. Art is, today, all about the manufacturing of luxury goods. In fact most all of the arts are now subject to reproduction, because most all of art production is designed through programming. Series of cibachromes, series of sculptures, series of DVDs - the idea of the one-off does no one any good in a market driven world. Andy said it best - everyone gets the same Coke. The unique product is too unstable, is too uneven, too unknown, and therefore too risky as a business proposition - it may fail to sell to enough collectors to be economically viable for those who sell and those who invest. Andy became a machine, and once his machine patent was out in the public domain lots of little machines got built fast. The industry of machines are clicking, whirring and humming along as you are reading this, creating art products left and right, employing hordes of assistants, technicians, bankers, lawyers, shipping agents, clerks, salesmen, gallerists, bloggers, websites, professors, students, art supply stores, and well, the list is endless....Autuers direct the product, provide the name recognition and live as celebrities in our small world. They pick and choose, direct and manage, but rarely actually create. How do we know this is true? Because there has been no real stylistic change or theoretical challenge to visual art in the last 40 years, just a plethora of personality driven product. 40 Years at least - 2 generations. (It may be more - you can trace this back to the Surrealists - but that is pushing a point.)
So what are we talking about?
I have seen the promise of a few 21st Century artists' work. It shows up occassionally for a bright moment and then falls away just as quickly. A recent example was Chris Ofili's show at Zwirner (which we have written about.) He pushed himself in an old way, and came up with a new idea for his work. He wasn't making product, but trying to push his vision, his style to a different level. There was risk on the wall and you could feel it if you looked for it. The show blipped on our screens because of who he is and his history with the press - but once that personality excitement came and went the work of the show disappeared. For the most part the show was written about like all the other product, but some of us saw the difference of Matisse in the work, and we took note. Here was someone struggling to understand what was on offer, what remained in the challenge left us by the master - and he put it out there for all to see. Chris fought well. His vision sharpened - he found expansiveness, but he didn't win - he's not strong enough just now. Still an artist strives to find style. There are others as well, but they come in small bits and pieces to the public. These shows usually get overlooked, because most who go to galleries don't know the history of what they're looking at - they know the narrative of the press release, sure, but they don't know what's at stake. For them art started with Warhol and flowered with Koons and Hirst. What they know about history is served up in auction catalogue descriptions, executive summaries prepared in gallery borchures, or what is blurbed about in a feel good essay written by an academic critic for an autuer's show catalogue. What's at stake for artists is HUGE, and yet Postmodernism continues to foster and manufacture this endless solipsism.
"...overripe bits of rough trade, with yearning mouths and hair like black ice cream." Robert Hughes' description of Caravaggio
Artists inherit their time. It is what's given to them to make sense of. They live as all humans have lived - against and within the time they inherit. Matisse and Picasso existed through 2 world wars and a world wide economic collapse. They spent their times developing a visual memory of that epic. Occassionally they looked to the past for help, for inspiration, for sustenance, but they never expected that past to express their unique moment. Humans live as they always have - if you'll forgive - with Eros and Thanatos - the urge to Life and the urge to Death. It's simple enough. You live, and it's up to you to pack as much life as you can in that time - you're going to die - and even though you may be young and healthy - death can come at any moment. For artists this underscores their urge to create, to put their memories, their life, into their work. Matisse found the need for joy and fullness, color and form - women, women, women! Picasso wanted power and strength and physicality and flesh - women, women, women! Both had an urge for life and an urge to build their memories, to fill their lives with the images of their time and existence, and to recreate that memory, those images, those fleeting moments in the minds of others.
Matisse sat in his home surrounded by as much comfort as he could afford - large cages of birds singing, flowers, patterned fabrics, overstuffed chairs and naked women, Ingres' promise of Odalisques made real in his life. And what emerged was a body of work celebrating that promise. Picasso chased greatness and power - pushed his way into the vangarde - packed his mind with images of speed, form and light and remade the Western Visual Tradition in his own flesh. His work defined how we see form and physicality in the 20th Century. Their achievement was at an apex of culture - a time that had been made ready for change by fantastic artists pushing forward to new visions.
But what of those artists that inherit a "virgin" time - a time that has no supporting precedent for what their vision can bring? What happens to those who are the first innovators, those that must clear the fields, clear the land - those who see something different in the system they inherit - the first artists rather than the grand ones? Giotto, Bellini, Donatello, Tintoretto, Caravaggio, Delacroix, Manet, Cezanne, Gorky - Are they any less for being the first to take in hand a new expression, for opening the door for others to walk through, for risking acceptance and giving permission to those who follow - Phillips before Alexanders? Would we have recognized their innovation if we had been part of their time or would it have slipped by unnoticed? Would we have just seen crazy fuckers working hard on wacky projects? What is happening at this cultural moment is something similar to what art has seen in the past. Artists are starting to make good on the promise of avant garde art. Occasionally we see them wresting the future from the decadent mannerist art world we've inherited.
What we are talking about is the LIFE of art. Art that comes from one's existence, and is witnessed not through lenses, not through reproductions, not made by teams of professionals, but up close, in the flesh, real and breathing in front of YOUR eyes. What is it like to be alive at this point in time - how do we SEE, how do we remember, how do we express? Hell, we understand that we are digitized, blackberryed, uploaded and programmed, but when you take your lover in your arms - what is it to be alive at that moment? How do we see joy, life, pain, death - what is the VISION of our lives? What are we seeing and feeling, and how do we express it? Whether we're about pleasure or power - what is our life like in the 21st century? We want direct interpretation, we want to see through those eyes, not mediated through contextual interpretation or presented as a bought-and-paid-for product. We want the things artists experience, but even more, we want the things that artists have poured into their memories, that define experience. And because these types of artists don't ask permission, they're willing to express it in the first person and stand out of the comfortable systems on their own.
We are living through an incredible moment for human history, and America is supposedly leading the world into the future. We are experiencing climate change, war, the collapse of our democracy, the political rise of corporations, the spread of super diseases, the rise of fundamentalism, the patenting of DNA, the digitization of human existence and fuck all. Huge amazing changes are happening in quick succession and somehow the art world is fixated on the next auction, whose prices are up, or which gallery so and so is showing at. Auteurs continue to ply their POMO strategies and none of it, none of it, speaks to this time, to what it means to be human right now. Rough Trade it is then - out of the systems of comfort and through our own experiences. Here's where the new visual memories are being made. "I´ve seen things you people wouldn't believe...." Just as the great artists did "strange" things without permission in order to make new art, just as they forged a visual record of their memories and lives, a few 21st Century artist are starting to understand what's at stake, and for those that do, maybe forgiveness awaits.
Exciting Times Lie Ahead!
Theoretical Disengagement Part VI
Auteur Theory is defined as “…reading and appraising films through the imprint of an auteur (author), usually meant to be the director.” The implication is that there are many forces that go into making a motion picture, and they are driven by the vision of the director. This idea of the auteur was developed to discuss the ghost in the "Hollywood" machine - it was a way to find style in the corporate mix. Auteurism, once used to describe only film directors, has been expanded by Postmodernist theorists to describe the personalities behind recognizable production styles. The idea of the auteur has been stretched to include actors who pursue a type of character or acting style, producers a type of film, writers a type of story and it’s been used ad nauseum to describe creative individuals in a slew of other professions. In addition to defining the functions of style a main contingent of auteur theory is the acknowledgment that the product is influenced and built in collaboration with a team of other auteurs. For instance, Stephen Spielberg’s visual style and look of his movies has developed over the years as he has changed his cinematographers - since the early 1990s he has collaborated with the DOP Janusz Kaminski. Though Spielberg continues to employ the same directorial tropes that defined his early career, the visual presentation has become markedly different because of the photographic sensibilities of Kaminski - who has changed the lighting, camera movement, angles, and textures of the images.
This idea of auteur collaboration can also be seen in architecture. The public ascendancy of the engineer Cecil Balmond has been instructive and difficult for the architectural attribution system. Balmond, a structural genius, is responsible for many of the technical innovations in architecture that we’ve seen over the last 20 years. His ideas of engineering have pushed the material planning and production of contemporary architects into new visual territories - creating many of the amazing architectural forms of the early 21st century.
As with Balmond, true innovators cause concern when they clash with the Postmodernist corporate auteur model and its subservience to the corporate hierarchy. Auteurship when it is seen as innovation erases the conceptual limits of the production system - which can cause problems for management - especially if a personality becomes larger than the controlling system. Where does the idea of authorship begin and end within this corporate structure? Who is driving the aesthetic engine?
Let’s face it - auteurship is designed to meld nicely within the political structures of a CEO driven economic model. This prototype is based on the top down heroic creative “decider” and is essential to the institutionalization of corporate hierarchy. It can be compared to a modern-day version of an Alexandrian mythology or Arthurian Right to Rule - the leader is uplifted and supported by an army of dedicated heroes realizing the ambitions of a god-like MBA/MFA. The corporate system is designed to compartmentalize and decentralize production - research, marketing, and manufacturing - each isolated and dependent on the directed flow of the system - all of which are in place to foster a personality culture rather than a revolutionary one. The CEO becomes the synthesizing force - a boardroom Caesar, a Napoleon of desire - ensuring a top down institution with a creative force that is expendable and replaceable. What is interesting in this structure is the hierarchy of command to control, and how the corporation can then implement the creative act without any observance of distinctive personalities or their contributions of individual style.
Fukuyama’s essay in “The End of History and the Last Man” makes quite a display of Hegel in regards to the triumph of post-historical consciousness. His contention is that with the collapse of communism and the rise and dominance of corporate (my word) economics history has ceased to exist. Western economic structures now proliferate throughout the world and they tend to establish systems of control that best support these types of economic structures - in his estimation - liberal democracies and free markets. Little is actually said about human beings and their adjustment to this post-historical society except at the end of the essay…
I like the phrase “caretaking of the museum of human history.” This describes the postmodern relationship to theoretics in a nutshell. Even though the POMOs make the claim that they are outside of history they are bound by it, even subservient to it - caretakers one and all. The subtext of history has become the context of art. POMOs can not move forward, can not create new forms - they can only recombine or reproduce. We see this in the art, the galleries and the museums; art that mashes past styles together or customizes previous styles, galleries that recontextualize much like the recent show of Old master’s work and contemporary painters at Zwirner and Wirth, and museums that mix and match their collections to create new “resonance” with the works. The term “parasitic” is used by Postmodernists to describe their practice - they need a host in order to feed - ultimately depleting the source and creating only waste and disease (OK that’s harsh, but I reserve the right to hit hard and mean against a bigger, uglier opponent.)
For now let’s examine the auteur’s relationship to this control model using the Hegelian Master/Slave dialectic - so often cited by POMOs -
Using these concepts we might be right to think that the final capitulation by the auteur/slave to the CEO/master reinforces the idea of the Postmodernist as a consciousness outside of history. But unlike Hegel's hoped for move beyond subservience to a free consciousness, Postmodernism must preserve the mechanics of the dialectic. This could be the beginning of a post-creative society based on the concept of the Last Man - acceptance of corporate structure as life. The CEO/master remains in an endless state of desire micromanaging the fluctuations of his disposition - the auteur/slave works to manufacture recombinations of familiar product in order to perpetuate that desire - perfect symbiosis. It ensures that the auteur/slave never moves beyond the confines of acceptance - never breaking the dialectic. And it leaves the CEO/master to experience constant fluctuations of unfulfilled desire - never experiencing consummation - perpetuating the system. We’ve seen this dialectical endgame in the art world for the past 30 years as the Postmodern economic and theoretic structures continue to perpetuate themselves - we are deep into our third reworking of this system.
This political/economic structure finally hailed as Post-History is the basis of POMO sensibility. Postmodernism’s theoretical debasement of singular innovative consciousness, and its disbanding of an independent avant garde have resulted in a corporate art product culture driven by the recombination and marketability of a recontextualized "art historical resource." The theoretics underlying POMO is based on the mining of history instead of the production of possibility - exemplified by the emergence of the auteur class - a creative that works within the confines of a corporate structured milieu. If the auteur moves beyond the confines of recombination, institutionalism and marketability to innovation an old and dangerous idea tends to emerge - that of the artist.
We will conclude this series in Part VII…
This idea of auteur collaboration can also be seen in architecture. The public ascendancy of the engineer Cecil Balmond has been instructive and difficult for the architectural attribution system. Balmond, a structural genius, is responsible for many of the technical innovations in architecture that we’ve seen over the last 20 years. His ideas of engineering have pushed the material planning and production of contemporary architects into new visual territories - creating many of the amazing architectural forms of the early 21st century.
His solutions inevitably have an enormous impact on buildings, but it’s not as if
he wants them to look like “feats of engineering.” Instead they appear so integral to each project that you can’t tell the engineering from the architecture. This brings up all sorts of authorship questions. “The whole question of influence in my view is barely relevant,” Koolhaas says. “And I would even say so is the issue of authorship.” The issue nearly got Balmond sued by a young firm he worked with in the late 1990s when it accused him of
taking too much credit for the work.
As with Balmond, true innovators cause concern when they clash with the Postmodernist corporate auteur model and its subservience to the corporate hierarchy. Auteurship when it is seen as innovation erases the conceptual limits of the production system - which can cause problems for management - especially if a personality becomes larger than the controlling system. Where does the idea of authorship begin and end within this corporate structure? Who is driving the aesthetic engine?
Let’s face it - auteurship is designed to meld nicely within the political structures of a CEO driven economic model. This prototype is based on the top down heroic creative “decider” and is essential to the institutionalization of corporate hierarchy. It can be compared to a modern-day version of an Alexandrian mythology or Arthurian Right to Rule - the leader is uplifted and supported by an army of dedicated heroes realizing the ambitions of a god-like MBA/MFA. The corporate system is designed to compartmentalize and decentralize production - research, marketing, and manufacturing - each isolated and dependent on the directed flow of the system - all of which are in place to foster a personality culture rather than a revolutionary one. The CEO becomes the synthesizing force - a boardroom Caesar, a Napoleon of desire - ensuring a top down institution with a creative force that is expendable and replaceable. What is interesting in this structure is the hierarchy of command to control, and how the corporation can then implement the creative act without any observance of distinctive personalities or their contributions of individual style.
Fukuyama’s essay in “The End of History and the Last Man” makes quite a display of Hegel in regards to the triumph of post-historical consciousness. His contention is that with the collapse of communism and the rise and dominance of corporate (my word) economics history has ceased to exist. Western economic structures now proliferate throughout the world and they tend to establish systems of control that best support these types of economic structures - in his estimation - liberal democracies and free markets. Little is actually said about human beings and their adjustment to this post-historical society except at the end of the essay…
In the post-historical period there will be neither art nor philosophy, just the
perpetual caretaking of the museum of human history. I can feel in myself, and see in others around me, a powerful nostalgia for the time when history existed. Such nostalgia, in fact, will continue to fuel competition and conflict even in the post-historical world for some time to come.
I like the phrase “caretaking of the museum of human history.” This describes the postmodern relationship to theoretics in a nutshell. Even though the POMOs make the claim that they are outside of history they are bound by it, even subservient to it - caretakers one and all. The subtext of history has become the context of art. POMOs can not move forward, can not create new forms - they can only recombine or reproduce. We see this in the art, the galleries and the museums; art that mashes past styles together or customizes previous styles, galleries that recontextualize much like the recent show of Old master’s work and contemporary painters at Zwirner and Wirth, and museums that mix and match their collections to create new “resonance” with the works. The term “parasitic” is used by Postmodernists to describe their practice - they need a host in order to feed - ultimately depleting the source and creating only waste and disease (OK that’s harsh, but I reserve the right to hit hard and mean against a bigger, uglier opponent.)
For now let’s examine the auteur’s relationship to this control model using the Hegelian Master/Slave dialectic - so often cited by POMOs -
…if one of the two should die (in the confrontation) the achievement of self-consciousness fails. Hegel refers to this failure as “abstract negation” not the negation or sublation required (for freedom). This death is avoided by the agreement, communication of, or subordination to, slavery. In this struggle the Master emerges as Master because he doesn’t fear death as much as the slave, and the slave out of this fear consents to the slavery. This experience of fear on the part of the slave is crucial, however, in a later moment of the dialectic, where it becomes the prerequisite experience for the slave’s further development…Truth of oneself as self-conscious is achieved only if both live, the recognition of the other gives each one the objective truth and self-certainty required for self-consciousness. Thus, the two enter into the relation of master/slave and preserve the recognition of each other….The master self-consciousness is dependent on the slave for recognition and also has a mediated relation with
nature; the slave works with nature and begins to shape it into products for the master. The master only has an evanescent desire/pleasure relation to things whereas the slave sees his work objectified in products. Only when slavery is abolished and there is mutual recognition will both fully achieve self-consciousness.
Using these concepts we might be right to think that the final capitulation by the auteur/slave to the CEO/master reinforces the idea of the Postmodernist as a consciousness outside of history. But unlike Hegel's hoped for move beyond subservience to a free consciousness, Postmodernism must preserve the mechanics of the dialectic. This could be the beginning of a post-creative society based on the concept of the Last Man - acceptance of corporate structure as life. The CEO/master remains in an endless state of desire micromanaging the fluctuations of his disposition - the auteur/slave works to manufacture recombinations of familiar product in order to perpetuate that desire - perfect symbiosis. It ensures that the auteur/slave never moves beyond the confines of acceptance - never breaking the dialectic. And it leaves the CEO/master to experience constant fluctuations of unfulfilled desire - never experiencing consummation - perpetuating the system. We’ve seen this dialectical endgame in the art world for the past 30 years as the Postmodern economic and theoretic structures continue to perpetuate themselves - we are deep into our third reworking of this system.
This political/economic structure finally hailed as Post-History is the basis of POMO sensibility. Postmodernism’s theoretical debasement of singular innovative consciousness, and its disbanding of an independent avant garde have resulted in a corporate art product culture driven by the recombination and marketability of a recontextualized "art historical resource." The theoretics underlying POMO is based on the mining of history instead of the production of possibility - exemplified by the emergence of the auteur class - a creative that works within the confines of a corporate structured milieu. If the auteur moves beyond the confines of recombination, institutionalism and marketability to innovation an old and dangerous idea tends to emerge - that of the artist.
We will conclude this series in Part VII…
Theoretical Disengagement Part V
Galleries look for the branded artist - or an artist that can be branded. They develop an idea about who that artist is and what they do. In the corporate world of PR this is called Perception Management. These are techniques used to manage the public's knowledge of what the brand is doing. We see this stuff all the time in the media world. My favorites were all that "green" advertising that BP was doing a couple of years ago. TV advertising, billboards in Times Square, that sort of stuff all of it designed to promote one of the largest oil companies as friendly to the environment and looking to improve environmental problems for the future. They must've spent millions. It was designed to have the company appear as caring and concerned about the future of the environment and practical in their search for alternative energy. This goodguy advertising hit the air just as oil futures began their ascent to the stars. Wall Street analysts, economics experts, government committees and now Alan Greenspan have all been stating over the last couple of years that oil will hit 100 dollars a barrell, and that this amount for oil futures is still a feasible price for the non-inflationary US economy. Oil speculators have been pushing the 100 dollar price ever since the first futures speculations hit the air waves. It is now almost at 90 a barrell thanks to speculators on the commodities market driving the price up by creating artificial shortages and price spikes. The oil companies are busy coming up with further perception management advertising which will come at us in torrents, especially as profits now in the the super billions of dollars, make their way into news stories. Sorry for the aside - but it is advertising's job to provide a perception of the brand, and I just wanted to make a point.
In the artworld we have similar branding going on through business, entertainment and art media. I can point to a few easy cases like Koons, Barney and Hirst, but we will go for a lesser known artist who shows at a very connected corporate gallery.
I think this is one of the iconic pictures of the last 15 years of an artist in their studio. I wanted to visually break it down a bit. First, this story on Ms. Boesky and her new gallery space appeared in Conde Nast's new business magazine entitled Portfolio. What struck me right off in this picture that accompanied the story was that Barnaby was wearing a lab coat. I don't know about you, but I don't know too many artists that wear lab coats in their studios. So why was Barnaby wearing a lab coat that had a pen in the pocket along with something that looks like a name tag (I can't make it out in the picture) - like he would write me perscription, and enter something in my medical record? Additionally, the painting is laying on a table, as if he's unrolled plans for a presentation meeting, or he's going to present a proposal to a group of investors. In the background is the only hint as to what is happening in the studio - a still life of painting materials - which brings it back to creativity - R&D in a studio equals art. I thought this picture of the artist was at odds with the work that I had just seen at Boesky's gallery. Basically the show included a number of itchy drawing/paintings of Jesus-like figures in expressionistic backdrops - plus a room full of giant paintings with huge swaths of red paint waves. In his Saatchi online PR bit it says..."Drawing from the ultra-violence of big-screen cinema and illicit video games, Barnaby Furnas develops his own subversive cartoon world, populated by rock stars and Abe-Lincoln look-a-likes hell-bent on maniacal destruction. Barnaby Furnas uses his blood-and-guts subjects as a means to flirt with abstraction and design, entrenching his hyper-contemporary scenes in historical tradition." The incongruity of the image of the artist in Portfolio as a professional medical type and the over-the-top violent painterly iconography is a brilliant stroke of manipulative marketing genius. This image of the artist levels the images in the work. It makes the collectors feel at ease, especially if they can deal with one of their own. And what is more corporate or professional than a nicely groomed man in a lab coat? I'm not sure how much of this is staged, but it is interesting in the context of Barnaby's agressive visual images.
There are many other examples of this type of PR at work - especially in this media saturated art world. But branding an artist is part and parcel of the corporate structures that push product on us. Barnaby's work is very well made, very professional, but visually, it covers no new territory, offers no new aesthetic ideas. Nor is it particularly engaging or thought provoking. It is decorative and timely, and unfortunately, it suffers from the POMO preponderance on a bigger is better routine - especially in the giant red wave paintings. But what is very interesting is how this show and artist were marketed in Portfolio - tied to the fortunes of the gallery and part of the idea of Ms. Boesky as a tastemaker and aesthetic adventurer. Perception Management for good or ill is now part and parcel of the marketing of the artworld - artists need to confront these sort of ideas in order to push their work into new territories. I say this because the aesthetics, theoretics and economics have now become all the same thing. It is a Cerberus that keeps new ideas at bay.
In the artworld we have similar branding going on through business, entertainment and art media. I can point to a few easy cases like Koons, Barney and Hirst, but we will go for a lesser known artist who shows at a very connected corporate gallery.
I think this is one of the iconic pictures of the last 15 years of an artist in their studio. I wanted to visually break it down a bit. First, this story on Ms. Boesky and her new gallery space appeared in Conde Nast's new business magazine entitled Portfolio. What struck me right off in this picture that accompanied the story was that Barnaby was wearing a lab coat. I don't know about you, but I don't know too many artists that wear lab coats in their studios. So why was Barnaby wearing a lab coat that had a pen in the pocket along with something that looks like a name tag (I can't make it out in the picture) - like he would write me perscription, and enter something in my medical record? Additionally, the painting is laying on a table, as if he's unrolled plans for a presentation meeting, or he's going to present a proposal to a group of investors. In the background is the only hint as to what is happening in the studio - a still life of painting materials - which brings it back to creativity - R&D in a studio equals art. I thought this picture of the artist was at odds with the work that I had just seen at Boesky's gallery. Basically the show included a number of itchy drawing/paintings of Jesus-like figures in expressionistic backdrops - plus a room full of giant paintings with huge swaths of red paint waves. In his Saatchi online PR bit it says..."Drawing from the ultra-violence of big-screen cinema and illicit video games, Barnaby Furnas develops his own subversive cartoon world, populated by rock stars and Abe-Lincoln look-a-likes hell-bent on maniacal destruction. Barnaby Furnas uses his blood-and-guts subjects as a means to flirt with abstraction and design, entrenching his hyper-contemporary scenes in historical tradition." The incongruity of the image of the artist in Portfolio as a professional medical type and the over-the-top violent painterly iconography is a brilliant stroke of manipulative marketing genius. This image of the artist levels the images in the work. It makes the collectors feel at ease, especially if they can deal with one of their own. And what is more corporate or professional than a nicely groomed man in a lab coat? I'm not sure how much of this is staged, but it is interesting in the context of Barnaby's agressive visual images.There are many other examples of this type of PR at work - especially in this media saturated art world. But branding an artist is part and parcel of the corporate structures that push product on us. Barnaby's work is very well made, very professional, but visually, it covers no new territory, offers no new aesthetic ideas. Nor is it particularly engaging or thought provoking. It is decorative and timely, and unfortunately, it suffers from the POMO preponderance on a bigger is better routine - especially in the giant red wave paintings. But what is very interesting is how this show and artist were marketed in Portfolio - tied to the fortunes of the gallery and part of the idea of Ms. Boesky as a tastemaker and aesthetic adventurer. Perception Management for good or ill is now part and parcel of the marketing of the artworld - artists need to confront these sort of ideas in order to push their work into new territories. I say this because the aesthetics, theoretics and economics have now become all the same thing. It is a Cerberus that keeps new ideas at bay.
Theoretical Disengagement Part IV
I recently bought the book Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, the author of No Logo. And without finding myself seated in the lunatic fringe section I'd like to play with a few observations. It is Ms. Klein's contention that The Shock Doctrine is the way in which..."America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries." Conspiracy theory aside there are many real ideas of how those in positions of power can and do push their policies into place and set up systems to keep that power in their hands. The book takes a hard look at these Machiavellian techniques used by both political and economic systems in the Postmodern age. It an't pretty.
As I thought about it, I realized that I've been saying something similar about our smaller Art World which has experienced a similar shock indoctrination both aesthetically and economically. Let's discuss the economics of it first. In the early 1990's the art world shrank precipitously after the economic shock of the late 80s. Galleries that had expanded from the East Village into Soho were suddenly faced with the fact that their better-known artists were leaving for more established galleries because the economy had dried up. No one was buying art - the stock market had crashed and money was tight. There were no new millionaires looking to decorate their apartments, and those who had survived the fallout were waiting to see what would happen while they tried to sell their now worthless work. It is called a contraction - a painting that sold for $10000 a year ago was now worth $5000. A lot of artists started to look for a bigger gallery - one that would protect them during just such an economic downturn. It was the beginning of the super gallery - which would take on the look of Pace, Gagosian or Marks - galleries with outlets all over the world. It also began the practice of galleries partnering with auction houses - if I remember right, the first I heard of this was with Emmerich gallery, later Deitch came on board - now the auction houses are actually creating their own galleries. It was a way to create a conduit, an economic line to capital. Galleries were now offically part of the money train known as the secondary market feeding directly into it, and those economics demanded that along with the delivery system - a consistent product had to be developed.
Which brings us to the product. Postmodern theoretics has been around since the early 1960s. About the time that Andy Warhol became a machine a new type of art based on electronic media had begun to develop. Artists became schooled in the discipline. By the 1980s the schools were turning out Postmodernists left and right - they were the generation - most in their 30s - who were part of the boom and part of the new media friendly art world. They were also the ones who suffered when the market collapsed, just as they were beginning to raise families, finding themselves with new financial responsibilities and/or suffering from the horror of AIDs. When the showing markets dried up, those who didn't disappear, went back to the universities. The entrenchment of Postmodernism had begun and continues today. Video, photography, installation, sculpture and painting all began to have a certain look - the theoretics around each new artist began to have a similar sound. A standardization of aesthetics hardened into a pure Mannerism. And with the standardization came all the production values of corporate materialism. Artists and galleries realized that the product would sell better in series. Thus work started to be made in series. A one-off like a painting or sculpture no longer would suffice for a system intent on delivering product. The one-off would be the advertisement. Damien's diamond skull has been the launch pad for a thousand prints. Even better, the image of the artist or the media inflated image of the artist would suffice - limited editions of 10 DVDs of Matthew Barney's movie. Art, to be truly economically successful, had to become accessible to more money.
We've been dealing with a corporatized art for the last 10 years. You can trace the beginnings of it with the move to Chelsea. The entire art community by 2001 was there. After 9/11 the fortunes of the art world went with the privatization politics of the Bush economy. By 2007 there were art fairs, biennials, galleries, and auction houses by the bucketful showing the same works, by the same artists, in the same styles. There hasn't been a serious theoretical challenge to the aesthetic establishment in nearly 25 years. But there is plenty of product. Art is moribund while art products fly off the shelves. As I thought about it - the shock doctrine offers a bit of clarity about the systems. How we get by this is up to us - the rough trade. For us, it's about the personal, about actual vision - how we see - how we experience our lives - in this new media world. It's about seeing life - not about systems, not about text. To rework the visual we have to get back into our physical lives and get over the shock.
As I thought about it, I realized that I've been saying something similar about our smaller Art World which has experienced a similar shock indoctrination both aesthetically and economically. Let's discuss the economics of it first. In the early 1990's the art world shrank precipitously after the economic shock of the late 80s. Galleries that had expanded from the East Village into Soho were suddenly faced with the fact that their better-known artists were leaving for more established galleries because the economy had dried up. No one was buying art - the stock market had crashed and money was tight. There were no new millionaires looking to decorate their apartments, and those who had survived the fallout were waiting to see what would happen while they tried to sell their now worthless work. It is called a contraction - a painting that sold for $10000 a year ago was now worth $5000. A lot of artists started to look for a bigger gallery - one that would protect them during just such an economic downturn. It was the beginning of the super gallery - which would take on the look of Pace, Gagosian or Marks - galleries with outlets all over the world. It also began the practice of galleries partnering with auction houses - if I remember right, the first I heard of this was with Emmerich gallery, later Deitch came on board - now the auction houses are actually creating their own galleries. It was a way to create a conduit, an economic line to capital. Galleries were now offically part of the money train known as the secondary market feeding directly into it, and those economics demanded that along with the delivery system - a consistent product had to be developed.
Which brings us to the product. Postmodern theoretics has been around since the early 1960s. About the time that Andy Warhol became a machine a new type of art based on electronic media had begun to develop. Artists became schooled in the discipline. By the 1980s the schools were turning out Postmodernists left and right - they were the generation - most in their 30s - who were part of the boom and part of the new media friendly art world. They were also the ones who suffered when the market collapsed, just as they were beginning to raise families, finding themselves with new financial responsibilities and/or suffering from the horror of AIDs. When the showing markets dried up, those who didn't disappear, went back to the universities. The entrenchment of Postmodernism had begun and continues today. Video, photography, installation, sculpture and painting all began to have a certain look - the theoretics around each new artist began to have a similar sound. A standardization of aesthetics hardened into a pure Mannerism. And with the standardization came all the production values of corporate materialism. Artists and galleries realized that the product would sell better in series. Thus work started to be made in series. A one-off like a painting or sculpture no longer would suffice for a system intent on delivering product. The one-off would be the advertisement. Damien's diamond skull has been the launch pad for a thousand prints. Even better, the image of the artist or the media inflated image of the artist would suffice - limited editions of 10 DVDs of Matthew Barney's movie. Art, to be truly economically successful, had to become accessible to more money.
We've been dealing with a corporatized art for the last 10 years. You can trace the beginnings of it with the move to Chelsea. The entire art community by 2001 was there. After 9/11 the fortunes of the art world went with the privatization politics of the Bush economy. By 2007 there were art fairs, biennials, galleries, and auction houses by the bucketful showing the same works, by the same artists, in the same styles. There hasn't been a serious theoretical challenge to the aesthetic establishment in nearly 25 years. But there is plenty of product. Art is moribund while art products fly off the shelves. As I thought about it - the shock doctrine offers a bit of clarity about the systems. How we get by this is up to us - the rough trade. For us, it's about the personal, about actual vision - how we see - how we experience our lives - in this new media world. It's about seeing life - not about systems, not about text. To rework the visual we have to get back into our physical lives and get over the shock.
Theoretical Disengagement III
Artists are always judged and categorized by their first public efforts. Most underfunded artists do not have the capital to invest in the production side of their work, and must rely on their own skills in order to create and fabricate it. Depending on the level of skill of the individual these first public steps are the beginnings of a "personal style." Without any corporate budgetary excesses what you are getting is the unfettered artist - the beginnings of an autuer - or that is the narrative. The autuer must make do with what is available and affordable in order to manifest a production. In the art industry lack of capital or venture investment can and does confer a certain handmade heft and value to the production of the work. And it is the handmade nature of the work that defines the perception of autheticity regarding the artist.
For critics, collectors and gallerists the twin barrels of youth and “newness” are aimed squarely between the eyes of every critical investigation - or better - the recognition of style. This is the pure artist at work. The artist relying on their own skills in order to create a physical manifestation of their ideas. Loaded with the ammunition of a biographical backstory, usually viewed as brashness, spareness, and economy, the critical implications of youth are that the artist / auteur is both authentic and noncorporate - outside the system because they are outside capital. Like a vast reserve of oil beneath the desert sands they are an untapped natural resource. As a “new” artist the economy of the production of the work is part of the experience of its authenticity. This handmade production confers a certain theoretical weight to what you may be looking at because it is tied to the physical abilities of the artist. For most, the ideas of youth and lack of venture capital create this illusion of raw style, of newness, of potential, and mostly authenticity. And for the auteur the story behind the production of these works is what is being sold to the viewing public - more so than the actual work. The accompanying narrative insures that the work is the real deal because it hasn't been paid for, it hasn't been tapped, and it comes from lived experience.
In the film industry a 3 million dollar film that grosses 20 million dollars is a huge hit, and the auteur will be guaranteed a bigger production, a bigger budget for his next film. In the art world it is similar. The artist who manages a sell out a first show (either at the fair or in the gallery) and get publicity (of any kind) at an entry level gallery is guaranteed collectors' further interest and perhaps a larger venue from the more upscale galleries and collectors. We hear so much about the youth factor in collecting new work. Ideas of "Youth" and the "New" are both connected by coded narratives that bolster the appreciation and salability of the work. And these narratives usually have to do with outre lifestyles, rough stories of banal existence, drugs, danger, death and sex. Narratives are the insurance factors that exist outside and beyond the value of the work itself, and deal with the legend of the artist - the work is merely a token of that narrative - an illustration of the story of the artist. It is this backstory of the autuer that is fascinating, and usually, their first projects retell and mythologize that backstory. Later the "youthful" narrative will become the problem that must be overcome.
Once the indie auteur has access to a larger budget the weaknesses of their intellectual theoretical involvement and physical artistic abilities can become apparent fairly quickly. With the growth of budget comes the inevitable upscaling of production - this is called ambition. Painters are required to become better painters and sculptors better sculptors etc etc. Ambition requires a leap in skill by the artist / autuer. However the cobbled together nature of their original enterprises and the backstories surrounding these works were the original enticement to the buying public - not the content nor the physicality of the piece itself. The raw production values enhanced by the narrative actually are the intended art piece. (A good example of this idea of narrative and production can be seen in the recent discussions of Tracy Emin's lackluster paintings and drawings in the British Pavillion in the Venice Biennale. She had for years been making installations of a specific handmade nature tied to her lifestyle excesses and for the Biennale decided to create a more traditional painting and drawing exhibition based on her backstory.) Our aesthetic expectations in front of new artists’ works have come to rely on this “economy” - in today’s art world it is visually coded and presented through slapdash paint handling - crap found materials - familiar visual ideas - faux naive drawing - and elaborate undefined narratives. Artistic reality is continually re-presented by this spareness and nakedness - artists strip down, go back to basics (“getting real”) and economize. These ideas become the driving claim to poetic depth in the work. We equate seriousness and realness with economy. Similarly we hear about a corporation’s stock that is not doing well in the markets - they make cutbacks - trim the fat - which means they are getting serious about increasing the value of their real product - their stock. IN the artworld the real product being sold are the autuers themselves . This view of economic reality is always tied to production and it's seen through industry, thrift, value, seriousness, and ultimately, success. For the indie auteurs managing the economics of the backstory is the ultimate work and pathway to a more successful public career.
A further conundrum to this success is the autuer's ability to satisfy the demand for product while maintaining authenticity. As an autuer becomes more known the production of art objects must be ramped up. In order to do that a certain standardization of form must take place. Most artists / autuers these days outsource their work. This is actually cheaper than keeping a large studio full of employees. And it has become the norm as a few production companies now make many different artists work. "...ARTISTS have relied on the aid of apprentices, artisans and studio assistants for centuries. Raphael, Titian, Rubens and Rembrandt all presided over busy workshops where apprentices churned out paintings to which the master would add finishing touches — and his signature. What has changed is the expectation that artists actually possess the skills to produce their own work." The point is that with outsourced production the standardization of style is now a key factor in extending the autuer's economic viability and career. The backstory accompanying the style must be managed during this difficult transition from autuer to ceo. And it is done through media. Damian Hirst's career is an effective example - going from rough art school entreprenuer, to provacatuer, to rehab-bound slider, to rejuvenated CEO of Hirst Inc to the tune of 130 million dollars net worth.Hirst has documented every aspect of his career using techniques developed by his first collector Charles Saatchi.
In art today the look of the handmade is the preferred indie auteur trope (a rough type of drawing - a scrawled line - a careless impasto - graffiti from the street - prefabricated found objects - refabricated found objects.) This sort of handmade "reality" has now gone across the boards in all the arts - music, video, movies - without any discernable appreciation as to its fuller meaning. The indie auteur feels that “reality” is ultimately uplifted as art through the delivery systems - galleries, theatres, art fairs, museums, etc. (A photographic depiction of a blow job can seem like art when it’s hung on gallery walls - regardless of its author's intention.) The autuer's style has to be codified into the mass production of art objects. IN essence once the style has been coded work can progress without the autuer - this is called branding (we shall speak more of this later.) Additionally, the importance of the delivery system is defined by the calculated programming of the venues themselves (galleries, art fairs, museums etc), which can not, will not, and do not differentiate the content. It cleans it up, it packages it for consumption and provides a venue for the marketing of saleable objects. The delivery system is designed to transform any content into a diversion - making the content familiar and acceptable - or more commonly - an entertainment product to be consumed. We no longer are confronted or challenged by ideas - instead we are entertained by them once they are packaged by the delivery systems. This concept of entertainment is the great leveling force in all of this marketability. It creates an illusion of safety by distancing the content of the work presented from any implication as to its deeper meaning. Jeff Koons’ porn pictures of the early 90s used all the visual tropes of the porn industry. The critical establishment around these paintings still maintains that they are not pornography. Why? Other than the fact that they are shown in a gallery and made by a “famous” artist - what is the difference, and more importantly, why should we differentiate? The autuers' discussion will always be on the production values in creating the piece, not on the theoretics behind the presentation of the blow job - one is tied to the backstory, the other tied to ideas. Jeff maintains these paintings are about innocence and love, and I have no doubt that is ALL they are about. Anything deeper, and they would devolve into their content, becoming calculated and specific destroying the backstory that creates the value of the work. Entertainment creates a nebulous sort of safety, a kind of cushion for consumption. The auteur must maintain the tropes of this defined reality in order to titillate, to create a stir, to create heat for consumption all the while maintaining the simplicity and innocence of the original backstory. These ingredients must mix in the minds of the viewing audience in order to re-create the distance required for saleable entertainment.
part IV to come....
For critics, collectors and gallerists the twin barrels of youth and “newness” are aimed squarely between the eyes of every critical investigation - or better - the recognition of style. This is the pure artist at work. The artist relying on their own skills in order to create a physical manifestation of their ideas. Loaded with the ammunition of a biographical backstory, usually viewed as brashness, spareness, and economy, the critical implications of youth are that the artist / auteur is both authentic and noncorporate - outside the system because they are outside capital. Like a vast reserve of oil beneath the desert sands they are an untapped natural resource. As a “new” artist the economy of the production of the work is part of the experience of its authenticity. This handmade production confers a certain theoretical weight to what you may be looking at because it is tied to the physical abilities of the artist. For most, the ideas of youth and lack of venture capital create this illusion of raw style, of newness, of potential, and mostly authenticity. And for the auteur the story behind the production of these works is what is being sold to the viewing public - more so than the actual work. The accompanying narrative insures that the work is the real deal because it hasn't been paid for, it hasn't been tapped, and it comes from lived experience.
In the film industry a 3 million dollar film that grosses 20 million dollars is a huge hit, and the auteur will be guaranteed a bigger production, a bigger budget for his next film. In the art world it is similar. The artist who manages a sell out a first show (either at the fair or in the gallery) and get publicity (of any kind) at an entry level gallery is guaranteed collectors' further interest and perhaps a larger venue from the more upscale galleries and collectors. We hear so much about the youth factor in collecting new work. Ideas of "Youth" and the "New" are both connected by coded narratives that bolster the appreciation and salability of the work. And these narratives usually have to do with outre lifestyles, rough stories of banal existence, drugs, danger, death and sex. Narratives are the insurance factors that exist outside and beyond the value of the work itself, and deal with the legend of the artist - the work is merely a token of that narrative - an illustration of the story of the artist. It is this backstory of the autuer that is fascinating, and usually, their first projects retell and mythologize that backstory. Later the "youthful" narrative will become the problem that must be overcome.
Once the indie auteur has access to a larger budget the weaknesses of their intellectual theoretical involvement and physical artistic abilities can become apparent fairly quickly. With the growth of budget comes the inevitable upscaling of production - this is called ambition. Painters are required to become better painters and sculptors better sculptors etc etc. Ambition requires a leap in skill by the artist / autuer. However the cobbled together nature of their original enterprises and the backstories surrounding these works were the original enticement to the buying public - not the content nor the physicality of the piece itself. The raw production values enhanced by the narrative actually are the intended art piece. (A good example of this idea of narrative and production can be seen in the recent discussions of Tracy Emin's lackluster paintings and drawings in the British Pavillion in the Venice Biennale. She had for years been making installations of a specific handmade nature tied to her lifestyle excesses and for the Biennale decided to create a more traditional painting and drawing exhibition based on her backstory.) Our aesthetic expectations in front of new artists’ works have come to rely on this “economy” - in today’s art world it is visually coded and presented through slapdash paint handling - crap found materials - familiar visual ideas - faux naive drawing - and elaborate undefined narratives. Artistic reality is continually re-presented by this spareness and nakedness - artists strip down, go back to basics (“getting real”) and economize. These ideas become the driving claim to poetic depth in the work. We equate seriousness and realness with economy. Similarly we hear about a corporation’s stock that is not doing well in the markets - they make cutbacks - trim the fat - which means they are getting serious about increasing the value of their real product - their stock. IN the artworld the real product being sold are the autuers themselves . This view of economic reality is always tied to production and it's seen through industry, thrift, value, seriousness, and ultimately, success. For the indie auteurs managing the economics of the backstory is the ultimate work and pathway to a more successful public career.
A further conundrum to this success is the autuer's ability to satisfy the demand for product while maintaining authenticity. As an autuer becomes more known the production of art objects must be ramped up. In order to do that a certain standardization of form must take place. Most artists / autuers these days outsource their work. This is actually cheaper than keeping a large studio full of employees. And it has become the norm as a few production companies now make many different artists work. "...ARTISTS have relied on the aid of apprentices, artisans and studio assistants for centuries. Raphael, Titian, Rubens and Rembrandt all presided over busy workshops where apprentices churned out paintings to which the master would add finishing touches — and his signature. What has changed is the expectation that artists actually possess the skills to produce their own work." The point is that with outsourced production the standardization of style is now a key factor in extending the autuer's economic viability and career. The backstory accompanying the style must be managed during this difficult transition from autuer to ceo. And it is done through media. Damian Hirst's career is an effective example - going from rough art school entreprenuer, to provacatuer, to rehab-bound slider, to rejuvenated CEO of Hirst Inc to the tune of 130 million dollars net worth.Hirst has documented every aspect of his career using techniques developed by his first collector Charles Saatchi.
In art today the look of the handmade is the preferred indie auteur trope (a rough type of drawing - a scrawled line - a careless impasto - graffiti from the street - prefabricated found objects - refabricated found objects.) This sort of handmade "reality" has now gone across the boards in all the arts - music, video, movies - without any discernable appreciation as to its fuller meaning. The indie auteur feels that “reality” is ultimately uplifted as art through the delivery systems - galleries, theatres, art fairs, museums, etc. (A photographic depiction of a blow job can seem like art when it’s hung on gallery walls - regardless of its author's intention.) The autuer's style has to be codified into the mass production of art objects. IN essence once the style has been coded work can progress without the autuer - this is called branding (we shall speak more of this later.) Additionally, the importance of the delivery system is defined by the calculated programming of the venues themselves (galleries, art fairs, museums etc), which can not, will not, and do not differentiate the content. It cleans it up, it packages it for consumption and provides a venue for the marketing of saleable objects. The delivery system is designed to transform any content into a diversion - making the content familiar and acceptable - or more commonly - an entertainment product to be consumed. We no longer are confronted or challenged by ideas - instead we are entertained by them once they are packaged by the delivery systems. This concept of entertainment is the great leveling force in all of this marketability. It creates an illusion of safety by distancing the content of the work presented from any implication as to its deeper meaning. Jeff Koons’ porn pictures of the early 90s used all the visual tropes of the porn industry. The critical establishment around these paintings still maintains that they are not pornography. Why? Other than the fact that they are shown in a gallery and made by a “famous” artist - what is the difference, and more importantly, why should we differentiate? The autuers' discussion will always be on the production values in creating the piece, not on the theoretics behind the presentation of the blow job - one is tied to the backstory, the other tied to ideas. Jeff maintains these paintings are about innocence and love, and I have no doubt that is ALL they are about. Anything deeper, and they would devolve into their content, becoming calculated and specific destroying the backstory that creates the value of the work. Entertainment creates a nebulous sort of safety, a kind of cushion for consumption. The auteur must maintain the tropes of this defined reality in order to titillate, to create a stir, to create heat for consumption all the while maintaining the simplicity and innocence of the original backstory. These ingredients must mix in the minds of the viewing audience in order to re-create the distance required for saleable entertainment.
part IV to come....
Theoretical Disengagement II
In our Postmodern society (contrary to recent wishful thinking - this theoretical juggernaut is still with us) the avant gardist, once the progenitor of new visual ideas, has been replaced by the more sellable indie auteur. The auteur begins her career as a "creative," then later, slides easily into a progenitor of product. But first, let’s discuss the idea of originality - so throughly discredited by Postmodernism. Today’s new artist is not required to find new ideas or even combine old ones, but it has become imperative that he repackage and rebrand previously successful themes. This is done in the same way that the advertising industry or fashion industry revamps an old product. We have discussed this previously in a blog entitled the New New and you can get it here. Basically the “new new” artist will “customize” a brand - in music it could be neo punk, in fashion neo 70s and in POMO art it’s whatever Taschen book happens to land in the hands of an ambitious grad student. It is the customization that is looked upon as innovation - leaving the basic product/form intact. It is an art production process based on precedent, basically adding the auteur's "taste" to familiar forms - this customization can be used across many sale points. Murakami is instructive for this idea with his latest show in LA opening a Louis Vuitton boutique selling the artist's customized high end goods to the art going masses. The artist who is pushing to rethink history or create theoretical visual advancement is missing the point of the new art entertainment corporation.
R&D is no longer the driving creative force behind the corporate or art world endgames. Mergers, takeovers & acquisitions and outsourcing drive the theoretical and economic engines of both the business and art worlds. The idea is that one swallows up one's competitors and their intellectual property instead of developing one's own. This strategy does two things - eliminates competition and insures the continuity and integrity of one's brand. An artist no longer has to understand the historic changes of art or develop a physical technical skill - the object is to use this history as a catalogue of styles to mix and match developing a branded product - cut and paste academicism. An example of this sort of styling in the art world is found in Jeff Koons' co-opting of James Rosenquist's painting style - customizing this style with his own treasure trove of symbolic tropes applied by a large staff of workers. Or more recently Richard Prince's use of a customized car that he "found" (thanks to Marcel Duchamp) as his sculpture...." Mr. Prince said he was still not quite sure what to consider the car, although he does plan an edition of three, and he thinks of the first one, recently completed for him by XV Motorsports in Irvington, N.Y., a high-end builder of modernized muscle cars, as an artist’s proof. (Its first appearance will be at the Frieze Art Fair next month in London, where the car was recently shipped.) Aside from minor customizing Mr. Prince asked for, the car is identical to an earlier Challenger XV made using vintage shells but filling them with new high-performance engines, suspension and steering. (The company’s prices start at $140,000.)" POMO theoretics is simply a catch-all for this subjective coordination. In basic terms - one doesn’t have to know how to design or build a car in order to drive it, or more importantly, show it. In this recent article in the Times about cooking shows examines the issue of concept over practice and how that has become the ground to launch entertainment products. The article makes clear that entertainment production is not the same as actual art practice..." As they pump out their books, sign their latest endorsement deals and add 3rd or 6th or 10th restaurants to their burgeoning empires, they move farther away from the meals that the diners in those restaurants eat. They’re less creators than conferrers, lending an aura of glamour to products manufactured and projects maintained by others." Understanding and developing theory - its practice and its physical applications is unimportant - only the "good taste" or belief of the chooser (decider) is at risk, and it is the successful tastemaker auteur who will later become the chief executive officer.
Over the last few years we’ve seen the art industry align itself with this corporate model - a corporate model based on the billion dollar entertainment industry. Big business strategies have become the endgame of the current art making and selling economy. Monetary and budgetary concerns are foremost in the minds of popular artists and their gallery venture partners today - not because they struggle to earn a living in a garrett - but because the professional manufacturing, advertising and proliferation of the work is an expensive enterprise in an international art market context. Additionally the Return On Investment must be corporate in nature. In order to meet the demands of a wider audience production outsourcing has become the preferred way to manufacture one’s fine art product - this practice has replaced Warhol’s factory, which in turn, had replaced Ruben’s studio. With this change in nature of art production comes the 20th Century POMO idea of an artist as a corporate director or chief executive of a branded style. As the artist has given up the actual work to others - the pieces can be designed by staff members (assistants), made by manufacturers (skilled workers) and sold through distribution centers (galleries) - all contracted, guided and approved by the chief executive tastemaker. But the road to becoming the CAO (chief artistic officer) of one’s own art corporation begins by obtaining the mythology of indie creativity that fuels this corporate entertainment industry. We shall examine these ideas in our next installment.
part 3 to come...
R&D is no longer the driving creative force behind the corporate or art world endgames. Mergers, takeovers & acquisitions and outsourcing drive the theoretical and economic engines of both the business and art worlds. The idea is that one swallows up one's competitors and their intellectual property instead of developing one's own. This strategy does two things - eliminates competition and insures the continuity and integrity of one's brand. An artist no longer has to understand the historic changes of art or develop a physical technical skill - the object is to use this history as a catalogue of styles to mix and match developing a branded product - cut and paste academicism. An example of this sort of styling in the art world is found in Jeff Koons' co-opting of James Rosenquist's painting style - customizing this style with his own treasure trove of symbolic tropes applied by a large staff of workers. Or more recently Richard Prince's use of a customized car that he "found" (thanks to Marcel Duchamp) as his sculpture...." Mr. Prince said he was still not quite sure what to consider the car, although he does plan an edition of three, and he thinks of the first one, recently completed for him by XV Motorsports in Irvington, N.Y., a high-end builder of modernized muscle cars, as an artist’s proof. (Its first appearance will be at the Frieze Art Fair next month in London, where the car was recently shipped.) Aside from minor customizing Mr. Prince asked for, the car is identical to an earlier Challenger XV made using vintage shells but filling them with new high-performance engines, suspension and steering. (The company’s prices start at $140,000.)" POMO theoretics is simply a catch-all for this subjective coordination. In basic terms - one doesn’t have to know how to design or build a car in order to drive it, or more importantly, show it. In this recent article in the Times about cooking shows examines the issue of concept over practice and how that has become the ground to launch entertainment products. The article makes clear that entertainment production is not the same as actual art practice..." As they pump out their books, sign their latest endorsement deals and add 3rd or 6th or 10th restaurants to their burgeoning empires, they move farther away from the meals that the diners in those restaurants eat. They’re less creators than conferrers, lending an aura of glamour to products manufactured and projects maintained by others." Understanding and developing theory - its practice and its physical applications is unimportant - only the "good taste" or belief of the chooser (decider) is at risk, and it is the successful tastemaker auteur who will later become the chief executive officer.
Over the last few years we’ve seen the art industry align itself with this corporate model - a corporate model based on the billion dollar entertainment industry. Big business strategies have become the endgame of the current art making and selling economy. Monetary and budgetary concerns are foremost in the minds of popular artists and their gallery venture partners today - not because they struggle to earn a living in a garrett - but because the professional manufacturing, advertising and proliferation of the work is an expensive enterprise in an international art market context. Additionally the Return On Investment must be corporate in nature. In order to meet the demands of a wider audience production outsourcing has become the preferred way to manufacture one’s fine art product - this practice has replaced Warhol’s factory, which in turn, had replaced Ruben’s studio. With this change in nature of art production comes the 20th Century POMO idea of an artist as a corporate director or chief executive of a branded style. As the artist has given up the actual work to others - the pieces can be designed by staff members (assistants), made by manufacturers (skilled workers) and sold through distribution centers (galleries) - all contracted, guided and approved by the chief executive tastemaker. But the road to becoming the CAO (chief artistic officer) of one’s own art corporation begins by obtaining the mythology of indie creativity that fuels this corporate entertainment industry. We shall examine these ideas in our next installment.
part 3 to come...
Theoretical Disengagement I
We have come to expect an art to entertain - not just exist as some things on the wall. And in the art world that art entertainment has come to be defined more and more by the “Theater of Cruelty.” Artaud created this surrealist action in order to bring art and life together. Through the years there have been many productions that experimented with this form of surrealist enterprise. It blossomed most fully in the dance world where form, movement and poetry could come together without words. First with the famous surreal theatre in the 20s and 30s. Then in the 70s and 80s it truly blossomed and went mainstream as the new Postmodern culture became defined by Surrealism. In movies, Cronenberg, Greenaway and Lynch, in dance and theatre Pina Bausch, Robert Wilson and Carole Armitage expanded the possibilities of surrealist theatre through an over the top mannerism - elongations of performance time (some pieces lasting for many hours - some for many days), breaking down the “fourth wall” (creating theatre in everyday settings - including the audience in the performance, etc) and expanding the ideas of what dance and theater could present (including circus animals, stunt men, flatulation, fornication, urination, defecation and Methodists [paraphrasing Mel Brooks] - among many other things.) It has become an extremely successful sales pitch for the avante garde. Advanced theatre productions and organizations such as BAM would not exist without it. In our smaller art world this idea of theatre as “lived” experience has been translated for gallery goers and utilized by some of our more successful entrepreneurs. In so doing it has been instrumental in the changes to the way art is made and presented.
Artists after Allen Kaprow began to seriously explore the idea of theatre in art by creating Happenings. A Happening was simply an art event staged for a select audience. It was an attempt by artists to push open the possibilities of expression and align art practice to life - making both one. Happenings are the very mixture of art and life that Oscar Wilde thought could not exist as he resided behind bars. A man well ahead of his time. These theatrical ideas began to go mainstream in the art world of the 50s with European artists like Yves Klein and in the States with the Hampton Beats ( the scene was a convergence of Manhattan painters, poets [especially Crane and Ginsberg], ne’re-do-wells, beats, alcoholics and Methodists ) - it expanded and popped in Manhattan during the early 60s with the POP crowd. We know of Rauschenberg, Dine, Oldenberg and many others who put together these events. Oldenberg even going so far as to actually create a store to sell his wares in the East Village. Happenings brought together a broad range of sensibilities and added the excitement of theatre to once staid openings and art parties. Since then the idea of a staged event has expanded to include (besides heavy drinking ) installations, videos and movies. All three are now ubiquitous in the art world, and in Rauschenberg’s sense, this form of art presentation lives in the gap between art and life. The “event” has come to define the expectations not only of artists, but gallery goers as well. Artists who continue to insist on showing more traditional wall hung work have had to find ways to bring the contents of that work into the physical world of the gallery - by expansion of the work through the “extended field” (creating a theatrical context - a stage set - for the presentation of the work) or more importantly, through the event of the opening itself (who attended, who purchased, who came to the after party, how large were the crowds, etc.) Without a doubt both galleries and artists have become dependent on the attendance and review of an opening to create buzz and spectacle around the presentation of more traditional work. These days reviews of openings are followed as closely in the art world as they are in the film or theatre industry. That and the profit taking that follows....
Most openings are now part of larger public events. In fact the absolute “show-i-ness” of the art fair or biennial is defined by its ability to entertain art goers rather than present art. These industry events have become the meeting places for the theatre of the absurd. This September as the new season starts - there will be a tremendous amount of art-i-zens gathering to become part of the opening spectacle that the Thursday thru Saturday grand junkanoos present throughout the month. Galleries will have become little more than theme park experiences with the public moving among wall paintings, contrived art objects (usually meaningful flotsam), recreated set pieces, dark video rooms, sound scapes or combinations of the same. Some will continue these events with performances or parties at strategic venues all around the city. In truth the events will be greater than the art seen (scene) to the gallery going public. The totality of these events and the amount of press generated, both paper and cybernetic, will be the greatest artwork on view. By taking the focus off the power of the art presented, the product becomes just one factor in a larger event, allowing the party scene to determine the value of the work. This is a solid marketing ploy and it is seen best in tourist destinations across the world- businesses selling memorabilia. The basic entertainment factor and its fastidious marketing to the art crowd are the diversion - visual strength, sound ideas or ground breaking tactics do not matter in the selling of the product. The event must be bigger than the product.
end part 1...
Artists after Allen Kaprow began to seriously explore the idea of theatre in art by creating Happenings. A Happening was simply an art event staged for a select audience. It was an attempt by artists to push open the possibilities of expression and align art practice to life - making both one. Happenings are the very mixture of art and life that Oscar Wilde thought could not exist as he resided behind bars. A man well ahead of his time. These theatrical ideas began to go mainstream in the art world of the 50s with European artists like Yves Klein and in the States with the Hampton Beats ( the scene was a convergence of Manhattan painters, poets [especially Crane and Ginsberg], ne’re-do-wells, beats, alcoholics and Methodists ) - it expanded and popped in Manhattan during the early 60s with the POP crowd. We know of Rauschenberg, Dine, Oldenberg and many others who put together these events. Oldenberg even going so far as to actually create a store to sell his wares in the East Village. Happenings brought together a broad range of sensibilities and added the excitement of theatre to once staid openings and art parties. Since then the idea of a staged event has expanded to include (besides heavy drinking ) installations, videos and movies. All three are now ubiquitous in the art world, and in Rauschenberg’s sense, this form of art presentation lives in the gap between art and life. The “event” has come to define the expectations not only of artists, but gallery goers as well. Artists who continue to insist on showing more traditional wall hung work have had to find ways to bring the contents of that work into the physical world of the gallery - by expansion of the work through the “extended field” (creating a theatrical context - a stage set - for the presentation of the work) or more importantly, through the event of the opening itself (who attended, who purchased, who came to the after party, how large were the crowds, etc.) Without a doubt both galleries and artists have become dependent on the attendance and review of an opening to create buzz and spectacle around the presentation of more traditional work. These days reviews of openings are followed as closely in the art world as they are in the film or theatre industry. That and the profit taking that follows....
Most openings are now part of larger public events. In fact the absolute “show-i-ness” of the art fair or biennial is defined by its ability to entertain art goers rather than present art. These industry events have become the meeting places for the theatre of the absurd. This September as the new season starts - there will be a tremendous amount of art-i-zens gathering to become part of the opening spectacle that the Thursday thru Saturday grand junkanoos present throughout the month. Galleries will have become little more than theme park experiences with the public moving among wall paintings, contrived art objects (usually meaningful flotsam), recreated set pieces, dark video rooms, sound scapes or combinations of the same. Some will continue these events with performances or parties at strategic venues all around the city. In truth the events will be greater than the art seen (scene) to the gallery going public. The totality of these events and the amount of press generated, both paper and cybernetic, will be the greatest artwork on view. By taking the focus off the power of the art presented, the product becomes just one factor in a larger event, allowing the party scene to determine the value of the work. This is a solid marketing ploy and it is seen best in tourist destinations across the world- businesses selling memorabilia. The basic entertainment factor and its fastidious marketing to the art crowd are the diversion - visual strength, sound ideas or ground breaking tactics do not matter in the selling of the product. The event must be bigger than the product.
end part 1...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)