Gone fishing...Sorry for the lack of posts recently but I was away in Norway at the beginning of this month and I am now frantically trying to finish the text of my next book. Aaaarggghh...
So I'm afraid that I don't have any great personal philosophical insights to pass on (did I ever?) but I would like to draw your attention to a fascinating article by a painter called Martin Dace: Towards a new art
It's a wonderful and insightful critique of Postmodernism (well, see KK's post in comments for an alternative view!) and a plea to return to older values for art.
Please do post any comments you have on it and I'll give you my thoughts.
Back to the white hot keyboard (aalctuly olny luke wrsm as I can't tpye that fadt... well not accurately)
9 comments:
I assume that the title is ironic since the proposal is actually for old art. The article is based on the idea that we have a dying and even barbaric culture. Where is the evidence for this? The six common errors listed hardly prove the claim. They apply mostly to a coterie of people who happen to constitute what is largely the art establishment just now. Heaven help us if we ever equate culture with the establishment.
I will go through the 6 points and comment briefly on each one (much more could be said).
1. Relativism. Of course the extreme version discussed is utterly absurd and untenable; it really isn't worth wasting our breath on it. Instead "objective art" is proposed but it is not clear what this is. Is it art with rules by which to judge it or is it art that "shows things as they really are?" The latter is riddled with problems, see E.H. Gombrich's book `Art and Illusion.' The former is possible but there are still unacknowledged difficulties. The author comes close to seeing this when he discusses briefly other cultures (but pointedly not their art). Yes every culture has something wrong with it but also lots of things right. Amongst these is often a concept of art that is radically different from western ideas (traditional or otherwise). I am not arguing that there are no standards (or that there should not be any) but they can hardly be objective being based at least in part on historical and cultural developments.
As an example, in traditional Chinese paintings buildings tend to be shown straight on or from slightly above (irrespective of any implied viewpoint). An artist of the Five Dynasties period (907-960 not a misprint!) called Li Cheng painted things as they appeared to the eye when seen from below. He was criticized by a famous scholar of the Song dynasty (960-1279), Shen Kuo, who stated that Li did not understand how to "perceive smallness from largeness." Li's approach was not followed by arists in later dynasties. (Source: `Three Thousand Years of Chinese Painting' by Yang Xin, Richard M. Barnhart, Nie Chongzhen, James Cahill, Lang Shaojun and Wu Hung). Whose rules are to be followed? Traditional western perspective (Li Cheng) or the rest of Chinese painting? How does "objective art" fit in? Both approaches have rules.
As another example look at Greek Orthodox icons. Here perspective is at times reversed to make the theological point that the saint represented is also looking at us. This traditional art form has plenty of rules, they just don't happen to be those of western art.
Let's not go so far afield. Is the art of Paul Klee objective? I neither know nor care. It is certainly wonderful.
2. The illusion of originality. Well the idea that anything "original" no matter how shallow and banal makes interesting and good art is patently absurd. But it is just as absurd to claim that there is no such thing as originality in art. What is very rare is for an artist to break new ground that is genuinely new and worthwhile. Are we to believe that Cezanne made no original and worthwhile contribution to art?
It seems to me that there is a confusion here between originality and shock. Duchamp and his ilk aimed at the latter and succeeded for various sociological reasons (e.g., a ready supply of fabulously wealthy patrons eager to be reassured that they had good taste and deep insights). However their antics hardly negate the existence of worthwhile original innovations. What is wrong is the excessive adulation of this single aspect of art.
3. Is art to make you think? Well yes of course but there are many forms of thinking, not all of them linguistic. See Roger Penrose's book `The Emperor's new Cloths' and references therein. The fact that ultimately our explanations come to a stop is pretty obvious, hence the notion of axiom in mathematics dating back to the ancient Greeks. As to conceptual art, its vacuity is self evident. I have a simple rule: the artist must put into the work of art more work (in all the senses of this word) than the intended audience. Doesn't guarantee good art but does cut out a lot of rubbish. Maybe I lose out by this but there is no shortage of things to do.
For me art has to make me think *and* feel.
4. Elitism. Yes people have got into a right mess with this notion but if you look at the last 40 years there have been serious revisions of its uses and abuses. I do, however, have a problem with the assertion that modern art is simply riding on the back of this unfortunate and confused notion. Modern art consists of more than the relatively tiny elite (sic) of highly paid and highly publicised artists and bureaucrats. There is a very thriving art scene all over the country, but the prices don't have quite so many trailing zeroes. People work in all sorts traditions and I know of no sure way of deciding in advance which type of work will appeal to me. There is plenty that doesn't but not all of it is of the "bag of rubbish" school; for example I really cannot work up much enthusiasm for the Angel of the North.
One of the most wonderful takes on this nonsense was given by the Hungarian composer Gyorgy Ligeti during an interview on the BBC. The interviewer asked if Ligeti was not concerned by the fact that his music (they were discussing his opera `Le Grande Macabre') is known only to a very small audience. He replied in his unflappable style that art music was always a minority taste (end of answer). There's a sense of perspective!
5. Why have rules? This question has been answered many times over by artists in all ages and areas, e.g., music. During the period when Baroque music was seen as of the past, composers such as C.P.E. Bach wrote music that was at first exciting but soon palled because of the "too easily won surprise" due to a lack of a well worked out system of harmony. The advent of classical harmony remedied the situation. Naturally all the classical composers knew full well the value of older systems and used them when it suited their purposes. In due course classical harmony became problematic as music became more and more chromatic. Thus the 12 tone system evolved but so did many others. True there were some who refused to use systems (no rules) but their music, such as it is, has not fared well. We should not be fooled by the noise made by a few well placed people into believing that everything is lost! Good artists are too busy making good art to do anything on the grand scale of spin generated by the essentially talentless.
6. Self-expression. Agreed there is nothing more nauseating than people shouting look at ME, ME, ME! But this is not a new phenomenon. There has always been a distinction between those who essentially have nothing to say but will employ whatever tricks are available to attract attention and those whose work is the whole point and who don't give way to egocentric distractions. But I don't like the assertion that we have a dying culture. This is just projecting private dislikes onto society in general; something done in every age by those who do not like what they see around them. Look at E.H. Gombrich's book `The preference for the primitive' for an account of similar claims in Roman times!
Even more objectionable to me is the association of contemporary society with ugliness, shallowness and even barbarism. Do we really believe that society was more elevated in the past? Sending children to work for untold hours in dreadful conditions used to be the norm. Hanging people for minor crimes (who were often driven to them by dire poverty) was seen as reasonable. You get the idea. We should not be fooled by partial selection of the best of the past (which has by definition stood the test of time) into believing that everything was that good. Most art produced at any given time is pretty uninteresting, and so it is now. Moreover the most interesting art (to us) from the past was very rarely what was officially approved of at the time. The current century is too young for appraisal but look at the 20th century and wonder at the amount of truly great art produced (the rubbish can safely be left in the dustbin of history).
It is particularly ironic that Plato is cited in support of the proposal made. Plato was extremely suspicious of all art, especially mimetic art (which was very advanced in his times). He held that it peddled lies and was thus immoral. He proposed a strict system of censorship that would sanction only art that followed his particular ascetic set of rules and would actually ban artists who did not toe the line. (See E.H. Gombrich's book `The preference for the primitive', especially Chapter 1, for a discussion.) Er, thanks but no thanks.
To sum up, I agree with much of what is said (rather inevitable as I wrote a long article covering some similar points a while ago) but do not agree with many of the arguments made. Much of current state sponsored art does indeed "actively promote idiocy, desolation, ugliness and despair" and we should argue against it as an automatic tendency. We cannot win the argument with questionable reasoning and exaggerated claims that do not take account of history.
KK.
Hi KK
Not being ironic with the title, just referring to the fact that I've been away from the "shop"!
I think that you're quite right that Martin is overstating the case when he says that Western culture is dying and barbaric. But I do agree with him (as you do!) that most of the art that receives high praise amongst those supposedly qualified to praise it is complete rubbish (even if - for a change - it's not made of rubbish!)
The problem seems to be that the most vociferous – and therefore in the eyes of the media – the most influential modern artists live, along with their critics (I use the word with some unease as they seem more like apologists), on planet Art. This is an urban world that has a very rarefied atmosphere and is entirely paved over with concrete.
Over half a century ago Edward Weston wrote in his daybooks, “It seems so utterly naive that landscape - not that of the pictorial school - is not considered of "social significance" when it has a far more important bearing on the human race of a given locale than excrescences called cities.” So true.
As modern art became increasingly inward looking over the last century, and almost completely turned its back on the natural world, so it increasingly became separated from common experience and so Modern art’s popularity plummeted. What more common experience do we have than the planet we live on?
It is clear to me that many conceptual artists are now scraping the bottom of the barrel. The continuous search for novelty has led them into an artistic dead end. It is perhaps worth repeating the words of architect Antoni Gaudi, “Originality is to return to the origin.” Nothing is closer to the origin than the natural world.
We can see the effect of the dominant clique in the Art photography market where the deliberately cold, drab and enervating work of photographers such as Andreas Gursky is not only highly praised but also the most economically successful photography of today. David Lee, writing in Ag Magazine, noted that, “Self delusion abounds in all walks of life… there is a universal belief – taken as read – that Andreas Gursky is a great living photographer… but on the visual evidence alone, without reference to price tags, size and the promotional rhetoric of his galleries and doting critics, there is nothing to support this view.” We might usefully ask why does Gursky’s work fail to persuade Lee at a visual level? I think the work fails because it doesn’t evoke an emotional response. His images are illustrative rather than transcendent. The concept may be exciting but the execution is dull. Isn’t it important for the visual arts to stimulate us visually?
David Lee went on to write, “I wish sincerely that someone would explain [Gursky’s] genius to me because I’m damned if I can see it or, more importantly, feel it.” This last point is for me the most telling; we should feel something other than disdain or boredom when we experience Art. For me one of the most important criteria of painting, sculpture, music or photography is that they should evoke an emotional response. Interacting with works of Art should make our heart beat faster, make us feel sad or happy or wistful or depressed or whatever… Just make us feel!
P.S. Oh, and since you didn't notice perhaps I should point out that the image has a "fish" in it!
Two, if you also count the giant 'shark' lurking in the background!!
Julian.
I think I should clarify things a little. All my comments in my previous posting were about the cited article. I disagree very strongly with its overall thesis, i.e., that we need a new art (actually it is a call to return to old art so far as I can discern). The real problem is precisely the age old one of the establishment having a fixed mind set about things and promoting just that (by and large). This is nothing new, just look at the history of 19th century art and the influence of the aceademies. They certainly had plenty of rules and "objective" standards by which to judge art. Naturally masterpieces were produced but a much larger amount of dross was promoted because it conformed to official expectations (sounds familiar?). I remember my first ever visit to the Louvre as I went form one gallery to the next with yet another overblown history painting as polished as it was vacuous. The exceptions stood out a mile, e.g., the work of Ingres (admittedly neo-classical rather than academic, but the one fed into the other).
The situation now is, of course, not exactly the same. Whereas in the past most critics were only too ready to dismiss they are now only too ready to accept. I dislike each position equally. What we need is not a new art (there's plenty of choice about what to pursue) but a new attitude and integrity. Specifically we need public debate that can distinguish between open mindedness and credulity. There is no formula that I know of for achieving this but this is hardly a unique situation. The change we need is as simple as requiring those who pass judgement to give supporting arguments in clear terms. True there is always a point beyond which words cannot really help but it is a long way down the line; just read the work of E.H. Gombrich to see what I mean. There certainly are critics who are willing to do this but they are very much in the minority at last so far as public platforms are concerned. Such a change will not be brought about by yet another manifesto, we simply must plug away and expose posturing whenever possible with appropriate questions.
By the way I'm not particularly taken with the Gaudi quote. It is not an original(!) observation and misses more than half the point. No good going back to the origin without proposing a new and genuinely interesting departure. After all this is what Ingres and Jaques-Louis David did with neo-classical painting. Beethoven as part of his preparations for composing the Missa Solemnis made a deep study of Paletrina's work; a lesser composer would have produced some sort of pastiche after going back to this particular origin. It is also possible to be original by carrying a well developed tradition in a new and surprising direction (compare Beethoven's Eroica symphony, still classical, with all those of Haydn). Slogans will not do, the matter is much too subtle for that.
KK.
Hi KK
Well, time to tear up my manuscript and just stick to making images...
I only quoted Gaudi in passing because it seemed apt in the context of my plea to rehabilitate nature in the eyes of art critics as a worthwhile subject for art. I'm largely preaching to the converted here (at least I assume both of my readers share my general outlook...) so perhaps I should just shut up.
I think (apparently in a wooly way!) we can't be prescriptive about directions. The new and surprising direction you talk of will no doubt arise unbidden from the mind and heart of some as yet unknown artist. But it's not for you or I to suggest what that my be. So all I was suggesting is that we at least look at nature as an appropriate subject and don't dismiss it out of hand as most critics seem to.
I agree that art criticism has become too unfocused, self-indulgent and lacking in rigour. I'm probably not helping! We need some structure or at least a more coherent philosophy to support the production of art. Artists' self criticism is just that SELF-criticism, on the whole too inward looking to be of any great utility when applied to the work of other practitioners, especially in the current climate of anything goes.
I think that it's healthy for artists to have a sounding board for their ideas, some more objective take on what they're doing. More than that, for most artists who are well below the level of Haydn or Mozart or Cezanne, it's essential. Statistically artists of that calibre are so rare as to be non-existant. The huge amount of dross you talk about being produced is there simply because the vast majority of artists are somewhat less talented – you and I included! We muddle along doing our best and hoping that the muse will visit us.
Yes, it would be great if art criticism could solely be dispensed by someone of the standing of Gombrich or Nigel Warburton or Roland Barthes but sadly there doesn't seem to be a requirement for any qualifications in order to become an art critic. All you need it seems is an opinion. Perhaps Gordon Brown's next piece of legislation should tighten up the lax regulation of art criticism. Of course the only problem then is getting the artists to listen to any criticism...
Aaaaaargh....no, publish and lap up the praise (again)! "Landscape within" was a breath of fresh air (I think I've now read it 4 times) and surely the follow up book will once again make people think.
Yes I agree that we should not be prescriptive about new directions and certainly cannot create a formula for them (well not if we want them to be genuinely interesting and productive). I don't think that I put forward any contrary view. One reason for my unease about the cited article is that it felt very much like that to me with its insistence on an "objective art" without any definition or examination of what that would mean when tested against the long history of art (not just western, not just classical). I suggest that it would be found either very wooly or inappropriate. It is difficult to be sure of exactly what the author wanted but it seems to me that he needed to take at least one step back, not a new art but an insistence on lucid discussion and explanation of why this or that work is rated to a certain level by the speaker/author etc. If you want to have fancy terms we are more at the level of meta-theory rather than theory but I mustn't start on this tack.
Yes art criticism has become very unfocused to the extent that a few disjointed vague phrases, passing for criticism, go unchallenged. Sometimes the vacuousness is hidden behind dense and almost impenetrable prose but that can only fool those who are willing to be fooled (but beware that there are issues that require technical language, however this is a different matter and is really a question of precision rather than obfuscation). To some extent they are playing a game reserved for their particular circle and each knows what the accepted moves are. This is not a unique or new phenomenon, just pray that you never have to be on a committee of some large organisation of a certain type; again everybody knows what can be said and what will gain instant approval accompanied by the nodding of wise heads. Those who want an easy life (and success) play the game; those who question just a bit too far are branded as mavericks or worse seen as "delightfully entertaining." We should still put the boot in at every opportunity.
Certainly it is healthy for artists to have outside intelligent criticism. Actually I suspect that the really harmful thing is for them to be surrounded by fawning critics and to start to believe the spin. Otherwise, good artists just ignore critics and learn from their peers ("nobody ever erected a statue to a critic" as Sibelius said). No matter what, we do need a healthy climate of discussion since, if nothing else, it affects public policy and funding and that in turn affects the development and opportunities for young artists. Intelligent criticism would also help in distinguishing between work that is worthwhile but at first very difficult, work that seems good but will not last and work that really has not succeeded (and we must bear in mind that this is possible even with the most committed and serious artists).
In my previous postings I did not claim or mean to imply that art is divided into masterpieces and dross. In my book what counts as dross is work that is either plain incompetent or just does the expected thing of the time and no more. Such work can be highly polished even appear brilliant at first but ultimately leaves us cold and uninspired. We have all seen examples of landscape photographs that are on the face of it amazing but the minute we turn away we are left with nothing (paraphrasing one David Ward, talk at the opening of the Calumet exhibition, 2006). However there is plenty of art that is very rewarding but is not at the supreme level, much of it by the great masters themselves. We could not live on a diet of masterpieces alone and in fact masterpieces are mostly borne as the culmination of other "lesser" work some of it by contemporaries or predecessors of the great artist. Beethoven was very much informed about the work of his contemporaries and was very ready to follow it up with his take, which was usually much more impressive. In my discussions I cite the greatest work for various reasons. Firstly there can be little dispute about its position so at least we can focus on the lesson drawn from the example rather than a dispute about it. Secondly it reminds us of what can be achieved and how far we have to go, a sense of perspective is always useful (especially for photographers!). Furthermore any proposal that cannot account for these is surely suspect ("The illusion of originality", oh really? Looking at the greatest masterpieces it is a really convincing illusion, next theory please.)
A lot more could be said, in particular can a single photograph achieve the highest level of art? Indeed can a single painting achieve the same depths as, e.g., Beethoven's or Bartok's quartets? One distinguishing feature between music and visual art is the key part played by time and the unfolding of the work as this progresses. There is again no easy theory here (e.g., modern composers have sought to negate the notion of "one way" forms an example being Pierre Boulez, see the introduction to the score of "Le marteau sans maitre"; he does however still retain the notion of complexity "increasing with time"). Anyway time to sign off and do some work!
KK.
Hi David, KK
I have read your comments with interest and agree with much of what has been said above. However, I am not sure it would be “great if art criticism could solely be dispensed by someone of the standing of Gombrich or Nigel Warburton or Roland Barthes”. Or indeed David Ward, KK and Me! It seems to me that there is a danger of substituting one form of elitism with another. In the same vein, F. R. Leavis sought to defeat the literary establishment with the New Criticism of the 30’s. A return to a “close reading” of the text and its relation to “Life” was designed produced a new canon or hierarchy of great works. The problem was that “Life” in a Cambridge college was far removed from life in the coal mines of South Wales. Yet somehow the implication was that miners might be morally bankrupt and humanly banal because they had not read Conrad. Restricting valid literary or art criticism to those who really do understand “life”, nature, and E. H. Gombrich only serves to hatch a new narrow and prejudiced perspective.
As an aside, Barthes is in my view a particularly dangerous source in any critique of postmodernism and a striving for truth and objectivity in art. For Barthes, no systematic critique of anything is possible, be it capitalism, justice, truth or indeed art. Such a critique, like its subject, is a linguistic “construct”. Reality is not reflected by art, or literature; it is produced by it. Deeply uncomfortable stuff, in my view, particularly as it laid the foundations for the sort of postmodernist relativism (that you rightly condemn, KK) which led to Foucault praising the ‘beauty’ of Ayatolla Khomeni’s Iranian regime and Derrida’s defence of Paul de Man’s anti-semitism.
But so far, this is all polemic. We are no closer to a set of values (or, dare I say, truths) which allow us to separate the wheat from the chaff. Or are we?
It seems to me that a good deal of modern art is (deliberately) ambiguous. It plays to the hand of the postmodernists and the critics as it invites the viewer to construct his own narrative to derive and interpret meaning. These “texts”, as Barthes might term them, can be as esoteric and complex as you like: all the better for the artist who is patently too lazy to construct one for himself. Because these works are ambiguous and inaccessible (as well as in the Tate or the Saatchi collection) they might be assumed to have a powerful and valuable message within them. And if you cannot see the meaning, you just don’t get it, stupid. Just add another zero to the price.
But I do not think that most people are actually fooled by this. It does not necessarily take an appreciation of Beethoven or a close reading of E. H. Gombrich to conclude that a bag of rubbish is, well, a bag of rubbish. The cleaner who threw it away came to that conclusion pretty quickly (surely Metzger must have applauded her actions in vindicating his thesis about the “finite nature of art”?!). I have seen no formal study or poll, but experience and reading the press tells me that this stuff is mercilessly ridiculed by many, many people on a regular basis. It seems to me that people are rather more qualified to “have an opinion” than you imply (at least on this issue) and are, in general pretty good at seeing through the sham. So, what are we getting so worked up about?
If the majority of people are able to make these judgements for themselves (and you may not agree with this contention) all we are left to lament is the inefficient market through which all the money flows to Gustav Metzger etc. and the gallery owners who support and propagate the work. And this is at the expense of real artists producing the transcendent work to be enjoyed for generations to come. It’s a bummer, for sure, but ‘twas ever thus and the solution lies in economic theory and not aesthetics.
To promote a change of direction in art or to break the establishment elite by polemic and aesthetics alone is a noble but I suspect futile ambition: there is too much money involved. What is important and I hope achievable is to promote art and art criticism in an accessible format to allow a wide audience (and not just a new “informed” elite who understand Barthes, Gombrich, Beethoven and Boulez) to enjoy, debate, and learn from it. This is similar to how many of us try to make a good photographic image: a clear, ordered composition that speaks to people unambiguously about natural beauty. To achieve this in art criticism we need to fight against linguistic complication, ambiguity and citations that seek to elevate the discourse to an ivory tower as inaccessible as that which Planet Art inhabits. I am not talking about “dumbing down”. Nor am I arguing that everyone’s opinion carries equal weight. I defer to Beethoven scholars to guide me in a language with which I can engage towards a fuller appreciation of the Quartets. What I am arguing is that we need to wrestle the language of art and of criticism back from those who have hijacked it and used their own obfuscations to jack up prices and perceived value. Once we have the confidence to widen and engage with critical debate in our own terms we have the tools with which to defeat bunkum and potentially further expose the operation of an inefficient market place. If you subscribe to the view that many people already have enough aesthetic judgement to take the first step, we are pushing at an open door. But perhaps you, Martin and KK take a more pessimistic view of human nature?
Apologies for the length of my post. The bottom line is that I think you are a lot more popular than you believe ;o). Great landscape photographers just need a bit more airtime relative to the Metzgers of the world (and on this see my post below on the imperative for showing our photography!) to allow more good art to speak to an audience that already has the ability to listen :o)
Let’s look at photography as art: having been trained as a scientist a long time ago, I only have a very simplistic view of art: if it evokes a positive response (because it portrays beauty, makes me gaze in wonder etc) then it is art. Most of David Ward’s photos are therefore art because I like what they portray – natural beauty. Some go over my head but they still retain or perhaps show a certain simple beauty – they certainly don’t make me turn away.
If however the image evokes a negative response (sadness, revulsion) then it could be documentary or the shock referred to in a previous post. For example photojournalism reporting war is rarely art except perhaps where the images show a beautiful landscape or fabulous light yet at the same time horrific scenes of destruction and death. Many photos from the wars in Vietnam/Cambodia are excellent documentaries but not art as I define it. Images of London tramps can be excellent moody photos, but again I see them as documentary rather than art. So, does art have to be allied to a particular type of subject in addition to the way the subject is portrayed?
What about pealing paint on old American cars, or Tuscan doors? Hardly things of conventional beauty yet if skilfully portrayed they can be shown to have an innate mix of colour, texture and shape which is pleasing to the eye. Revealing these in a photo pleases the viewer who would normally go straight past the subject without ever seeing it.
In my L&L tours I have learnt to see subjects such as these and to take photos of abstractions from nature which before I would never have noticed. Art? Well, I would not be so presumptuous but when I show the results to friends and family they evoke a very positive response, even wonder too! People really look hard at the slide or print trying to guess what the picture is. It was worth getting my tripod feet wet to take that reflection in a cold river….
The pickled animal remains, a shark sticking out of a house roof or the infamous soiled bed are to my very simple mind just plain daft. They don’t make me think other than asking what on earth was the so-called artist doing here – taking the art establishment for a ride perhaps? Similarly much of current surrealistic digital photo manipulation leaves me totally flummoxed, but I admit that Dali does too. It may therefore fall into the category of art but it leaves me unmoved.
Showing the world as the photographer sees it is what photography is about. The techniques differ from those used by artists who paint or draw: the latter can add to or subtract freely when painting a scene, they can manipulate the colours. The photographer can often leave out by careful composition but can rarely add what isn’t there (digital manipulation aside). However, the photographer can and should add emotion: by careful choice of light, composition etc he/she can show the subject in his own unique way, put across his vision and what he felt at the time. If the viewer has the same feelings when looking at the print, then perhaps this is the Holy Grail?
It’s late in the evening and my thoughts are a bit rushed – but I think I managed to say what I wanted to!
Post a Comment