This post has to do with art students and those who hold art degrees. There's a lot of rambling and wandering, but I get to my point. I've
felt for a long time that I should put my philosophy into words,
because many people say that it “blows their mind” to hear me
speak about it. But when I personally consider it, it is elusive and
esoteric. This was very difficult to write, but I think my points come through in the end.
I
believe that someone should always stay abreast of what is going on
in their world. It is your world, you must know what is happening in
it in order to be relevant. I do not believe an artist can be
successful, in their own eyes nor the eyes of others, without at
least reading the newspaper.
That
is not to say that all artists need to be social. Joseph Cornell, who
made some of the most beautiful artwork I have ever seen, was a
notorious recluse. This, however, did not stop him from falling in
madly love with one of art's queens of self promotion: Yayoi Kusama.
He had to be connected to the New York art scene in some facet in
order to meet her.
Wonderfully
alluring things can come from reclusive artists, but they are always
innovative works, and not works that draw heavily on tradition. Art
brut, the lovechild of the '90s, works in this manner; however many
of art brut's saviors were mentally insane and were not only
“reclusive” but also institutionalized.
So,
art must come from either the point of view of someone who thinks
deeply about his own culture and how to translate its symbols and
philosophies into a meaningful, critical visual language, or it comes
from someone who is entirely removed from it and creates a visual
language that is entirely his own. Either way, great art is always
innovative.
I
do believe that while art should be informed by the traditions of its
predecessors, one must deviate from their forms in order to be
successful. It cannot be denied that we live in the 21st
Century, and beautiful drawings executed in a renaissance style,
while extraordinarily aesthetically pleasing, do not apply to our
culture in the same way that the applied to that of Florence in the
1500s.
I
have a fundamental disagreement that schools that emphasize the
academic traditions of art, and the students who follow their
pedagogy to a t, are not relevant artists today. Many county colleges
are guilty of taking this narrow view of aesthetically pleasing art,
but also some true “art schools” never hold classes that help
their students to escape this box that they are bound into: where
portraiture is revered and printmaking reviled as a craft, and not a
tradition (even if the school has both of these departments as majors, it is often well known within the student body of which department has more clout).
I
do believe that a beautiful drawing can be relevant if executed in an
innovative manner. The same can be said of portraiture, and of
paintings. However, I find that these traditional meetings often
hinder artists who are taught only of their tradition, and not of
their possibilities, by which I mean, not being exposed to the ways in which contemporary artists are using and mutilating the mediums.
I
feel as if I am loosing my thread. There are exceptions to the
groundwork I have laid down. A painting or drawing can be relevant, and it does
not have to be made by someone who is entirely informed. I will say
again, my point is regarding innovation. One cannot expect to paint
portraits in a manner that they have been painted for hundreds of
years and to then be accepted into the cannon of art.
Even
if what an artist strives for is not to necessarily be accepted into
the cannon, I feel it is important for their work to be innovative.
And with regards to those who study art in today's schools, it is
indelibly important for artists involved in that world to understand
and appreciate modern and contemporary art. I would argue so far as
the schools have a duty to instill this appreciation in their pupils,
although perhaps appreciation is the incorrect verbiage Students at
least must be aware, and active participants of, this world.
My
fear is that today's students are going to go on creating new ways of
painting and sculpture and what have you with their own philosophies
only to later figure out that their particular framework has already
been approached by another artist. This is something that I believe
will certainly happen if artists are not conscious of the modern and
contemporary art world. Artists who are pushed through artistic
institutions in order to attain their degrees must have a dialogue
concerning the world around them, and know what has come before them,
in order to make work that is truly reflective of their current
culture, which is what all art should strive for in order to be truly successful.
I
would think this argument has been made before, but I am continually
astonished at how many people I preach this to tell me that they have
never thought of things this way before. That they're amazed at how I've thought so much about this topic as to have a strong opinion on it.
Often, I hear that one does
not have the funds for a subscription to The Burlington
or ArtForum. I
personally stay abreast of events in contemporary art through blogs.
While I often worry that I am not getting enough of a dosage of art
criticism and only seeing tidbits of news by doing this, I must say
that Hyperallergic and
Art21 are wonderully
informative and filled with criticism not only on new shows, but on
the state of the art world today and new trends, as well as many
comparative analyses on contemporary artists.
So,
to all my friends who are burgeoning artists: I encourage you to read
voraciously, attend new exhibitions and museums, not only to inform
your own practice, but to stimulate your visual vocabulary and
perhaps even provide inspiration for your own work. I encourage you
to read about artists, especially the ones you hate (I'm currently
trying to get through a book on Renoir). Even if you hate their
style, if you hear their name enough to know that they are relevant
to you, you should at least make an attempt to understand why.
These are the tenements by which I approach art. I constantly think about it and consider new works that I come across. Although I live in Philadelphia, I believe that we have a vibrant art scene, and am striving for our city to have hows that equally as noteworthy as what is exhibited in New York, and I long to see our city as a place of a innovation in a list of the must see galleries. I do not expect everyone to hold this view, but I would be happy to argue with anyone who thinks that it is possible to work only within traditional mediums, traditional frameworks, and relative isolation, and come up with a work that is sincerely culturally reflexive and thereby successful (within what I acknowledge would possibly constitute a rather narrow framework for some).
