I'm curious how you detect a bitter tone in my comments; I've been puzzling over this on and off for the last two days. Perhaps I tend to be a bit to abrupt in my comments? Or maybe I should litter them with a few more lol's and emoticons :) ;) 8-) - that sort of thing? haha, I don't think it would be appreciated.
I do tend to get a little peevish and short tempered when I'm tired, and since I usually only post after I'm done with everything else of interest, that may have an effect. I'll try and keep an eye on it. As for damned mad, or even mad - I really can't see anything even to get angry about, when it comes to the art world. Sure lots of people who don't actually make art seem to have a lot of say in defining big money art. But big money art is just one subculture among many in the art universe; the definitions they set for art only really extend to those concerned with membership in that subculture. Few of the people I deal with on a regular basis care about it, though it is a source of endless amusement. If the norms of one part of society bother one so much, why be part of it? One of the greatest blessings of a free society is the ability to go seek out others that are more sympathetic to one's vision, and leave the rest in peace. I don't, in general, find much of value in Hollywood, so I just don't go to Hollywood films; I don't see much of value in most pop music from the 60's on, so I just don't bother listening to it on the radio or buying pop CD's. I don't even have a functioning television. There's plenty of other places to go and things to do. On the other hand, if we move from the practices of big money art to it's relationship with the powerful, I think that's something worth thinking about. But as far as I can see, it's been well covered in books like Popular Delusions, The Theory of the Leisure Class. A really interesting read on the mechanics of the relationship is Mainardi's The End of the Salon. As for most of modern art, I think a good deal of my own view is derived along the lines of the books The Vertigo Years, combined with The Shock of the New. (I.e., it's a passive-aggressive reaction towards industrial/post-industrial society; but society on the whole is finally adapting to the changes, and we are heading back into an artistic milieu where people count. Could all be wishful thinking on my part, of course) But I digress; the point I am trying to get to is that this is where I find the use of taxes for the funding of arts to be problematic. I am quite content to have tax money put into things like real art education (the practice of art, the study of art history, etc.), the maintenance of museums that focus on providing historical art with a minimum of interpretation; the support of symphonies, libraries, CBC Radio 2 (the apolitical side of CBC), etc. There's a lot of work in those I might not like - or even find morally wrong - but I think that as long as there is a conscientious effort to avoid shaping the conversation, I'm happy to pay taxes for their support. The rest is something that people do best working out for themselves. That working out, in our society, is largely done through the broad market. Certainly one narrow part of that market generates the most noise, or at least seems to if one only pays attention to big money media. But as long as the other parts are free to operate as they choose, what difference does it make? All the money in France couldn't save the Salon. I like doing on intimate portraiture and landscapes; if someone else wants to make great big inkjet wallpaper and call it art, it's no skin off my nose. Of course I can laugh at their efforts, just as they can laugh at mine, and we can let our descendants sort out the winners and losers . But as long as neither interferes with the rights of the other (for example, by demanding taxes for their support), we can each go our own way. Cheers; Chris On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 5:42 PM, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: > Fine, Chris, I'm not going to argue with you. My friend John Miller does not > feel slighted, I'm sure. His attitude may be similar to your own. Yet I > always > detect a bitter tone in your comments. That's different from just being > damned > mad. > > I don't quite get your comment about taxes. But it always puts me on high > alert > when someone gets upset about taxes going for art or artists. Lately, people > here who hate taxes tend to be those who should be paying a lot more. A lot > more! They scream against 'redistribution' but moving capital away from > concentrated and non-useful pools of wealth is exactly what is central to > democracy, and good for economic health as well. > > I don't think the true-blue sincere artists examine the market and look around > for gaps to fill or plan to adjust their work to some perceived notion of what > might sell. They are obsessed with some idea and need to work with it. The > point of my comment about Wade was that he did his thing for his own reasons > and > someone, a curator, etc., decided it fit what they were projecting as the next > step. Artists, if they're lucky and good, find a way of working that's right > for them. If someone notices, fine; if not, annoying but also fine or OK over > the long haul. > > I think the American power class is doing better than ever. Super-Rich idiots > are filling the cultural space. If the name of the game when it comes to > power > is the freedom and wealth to do just as one pleases, to be both political and > economic anarchists, the American big shots are winners. I like Canada, or I > should say Canadas, but I sure get sick of the holier than thou attitude that > comes down from there. > > The best and worst thing about America is that its made up of many very > different cultures and values, each contentiously trying to claim the American > Myth for itself. The Myth fits none of them. It fits Hollywood and 1950s TV > and > pulp literature. > > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: caldwell-brobeck <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sun, September 30, 2012 3:10:08 PM > Subject: Re: today NYT > > Re. Wade Guyton at the Whitney, I guess my own take on it would be "So > what?" If John Miller (whoever he is) feels slighted because he was > really there first, maybe he should find a more personal form of > expression, and stop playing in the pool where talent and skill mean > so little. Or maybe he should just get better at pulling strings. The > only thing that would really bother me is if it was being paid for > with taxpayer dollars, but I don't pay American taxes (well, not very > much), so it's not my problem. > > I think there are a lot of things in life one just can't do very much > about - in this case the decline of the American power class, > symbolized by the art they seem to enjoy, and the art establishment > that caters to them. Canada is only a few steps behind. But there are > things in life one can do to make it richer and more satisfying, and > one builds art on that. > > Today, I spent a lovely afternoon with a delightful model I haven't > seen since May; tomorrow I continue on a series with a friend who has > been going through breast cancer treatment; later in the week it's > work with a couple of performers from the Halifax Circus. I'll never > be rich off this (but I'll survive), and I'll never be famous, but I > am content with the way the work is progressing, with the techniques > and ideas I am exploring, and I am very happy with the people I work > with. Whether some big money curator somewhere decides what I do is, > or is not, art, is entirely irrelevant. What is important is whether I > can create something that means something of value to those around me. > > Cheers; > Chris > > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 4:14 PM, William Conger <[email protected]> > wrote: >> No, my point is that he's not a sculptor, no matter how a monument is made, >> until someone else, a curator with status abd power, says so. The >>Institutional >> Theory. >> wc >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sun, September 30, 2012 1:35:19 PM >> Subject: Re: today NYT >> >> Today "ANYONE "can create a bronze monument, any size,of anything >> in a few >> weeks or months, and be called a sculptor, if he can cover the cost. >> >> AB >> ________________________________ >> From: William Conger >> <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Sunday, >> September 30, 2012 8:11 AM >> Subject: today NYT >> >> Take a look at today's NYT >> article on Wade Gayton. He's having a solo show at >> the Whitney. He doesn't >> paint or draw but makes 'paintings' by computer, >> printing out images he takes >> from everyday print ephemera. The curator of the >> show says "Wade speaks to >> the way images travel across out visual culture -- on >> our computers, Iphones, >> televisions and books". Please note the art-speak. >> What the curator could >> have said in ordinary language is, "Wade copies images >> from popular culture >> on his big digital printer". >> >> My point here is that we shouldn't blame the >> artists for doing transgressive >> stuff or making what seems to be silly, >> vacant art. There are always artists >> who are doing every sort of stuff but >> we never hear about them because no one is >> paying them any attention at all. >> It's the gatekeepers, the curators, who pick >> and choose artists through the >> templates of confabulatedart-speak. When the >> curator says, "Wade speaks", he >> implies that Wade has a thoroughly >> intellectualized or analyzed position, a >> stance, from which he issues a >> philosophy of culture and visuality. It's >> phony. Wade himself says he never >> liked drawing and thinks painting is too >> hard (acting out his inner Warhol). But >> admitting a slacker attitude as an >> artist is exactly the key, the push-button, >> to provoke intense concentration >> by the curator. But Wade really simply copies >> images from papers and >> magazines, book endpapers and the like according to whim. >> His fancy printer >> can blow them up to gargantuan scale (extremism at work) and >> the curator can >> present this ephemera as high art (extremism of intentional >> conceptual >> re-contextualization). >> >> There's an artist here in Chicago, John Miller, who >> has been doing similar >> computer and big digital printer art for several >> years. Few have seen this work >> outside of colleague artists. No Whitney >> curator has called. No big collectors >> are pasting his stuff to their dining >> room walls on Park Avenue. The article on >> Gayton makes it pretty clear that >> he has changed the course of painting! No, >> the curator is trying to redefine >> painting and Gayton came to his attention and >> thus exemplifies what the >> curator has already decided is the 'next inevitable >> step' (a Greenberg >> phrase, I believe). Meanwhile John Miller piles up hundreds >> of huge digital >> 'paintings' done before Gayton bought his first pair of trendy >> red tennis >> shoes, that curators ignore. The curators make art, not the artists. >> The >> artists and their work are merely the specimens the curatorial creativity, >> the footsoldiers used by imperialist, unaccountable curators. You go, Wade! >> wc
