hi PK!
Mail art is merely a means of circumventing the control of others whose
interests are not the same as the artists who work through the mail art
system. It is nothing in relation to art other than a kind of liberation
through limitation. Art is really a mode of being, a way to approach
life, a process of learning to see and to apprehend and to express our
relationship to the world we find ourselves in. Thus some mail artists
and some mail art will, without question, be art or an art relic. But
mail art in and of itself is essentially a pre internet form of low
budget exchange of ideas and images among artists or artist-like people.
There is an unquestionable political edge to much mail art but again
that is political expression using art. Art has nothing to do with
political or religious or sociological or capitalistic or or any other
ambitions but of course this doesn't stop most from subverting art to
these purposes. Art is a kind of sub world that supplies the powerful
tools that people of other purposes use it to achieve their ends.
Art has more to do with depth of insight which yields expressions of
beauty and harmony and order.
some of John Held, Jr.'s basic ideas concerning the relationship between
art exhibited in galleries and art exchanged through a mail art system
are flawed. for example...
John Held, Jr. writes:
"Taking Duchamp by car to catch his train back to New York, Jean
questioned him about the future of art with its current emphasis on
consumer, rather than spiritual values. "What will happen to serious
artists who hope to retain these qualities in their work," she asked.
"They will go underground," Duchamp declared."
This assumes that artists will not be able to pursue their spiritual
interests and show their work publicly or be able to sell it. That is a
false assumption. There have been many wonderful shows in galleries and
museums which seem to me to not be compromised in the least by the fact
that they happen to be shown in some sort of space and could be sold as
opposed to being send in bits and pieces to other mail artists. A mail
art system just doesn't provide the ability to exhibit in the same was
as an exhibition space. While many artists may become confused that they
need to cater to a collector base and then try to 'pitch' ideas to this
group that they believe those people want buy, this does not mean that
such miscalculation and misunderstanding of the art market is the norm.
I don't believe that it is.
John Held, Jr. writes:
"The practice of mail art has itself become a complementary relay. It
bypasses the art and gallery system allowing the artist to convey his
work among a variety of correspondents across cultural boundaries.
Rather then join the fray in the marketplace of commerce, it is a gift
among friends partaking in the marketplace of ideas.
Expanding energy in the pursuit of art, rather then the pursuit of
reputation in a corrupted environment, is perhaps why the artist of
today chooses to go underground. "
There seems to be an assumption of Held's part that artists either are
gallery artists who are cutting each other's throats and walk all over
each other to get the most fame and fortune working in a competition
against each other as enemies cranking out empty, meaningless objects
designed to sell to shallow consumers in order to make themselves and
their galleries as wealthy as the unsuspecting fools they are selling
the art to or, in sharp contrast, are high minded altruistic
independently wealthy (or poor) mail artists who are absorbed in a
constant state of artistically enlightened generosity, bestowing deeply
meaningful works of art upon each other for the pleasure they derive
from it like propertied aristocratic gentlemen. I don't believe that's
the actual reality of the mail art community.
John Held, Jr. writes referring to mail art: "A community is fostered
that can move forward free from jealousy. Because let's face it - when
you "make it" in the artworld, it's at the expense of someone else. And
that someone else is not necessarily less talented or motivated then you
are, but sometimes only less wise in the ways of the world. It has
nothing to do with art, and everything to do with connections,
posturing, and luck."
All I can say is: Get real. Making it in the art world is a relative
term and a concept that is, for the most part, a fantasy. If an artist
is able to live out his or her realistic expectations, THAT is making
it. I would say that, like being an actor in hollywood [as opposed to a
movie star] or a working musician or composer or a writer who makes
their living from writing or a chef that is able to cook in a fine
restaurant, etc. and so on is a matter of developed skill, dedication
and a love of excellence coupled with the willingness to continue
forward where others loose interest or heart and give up. Yes there is
luck, there are blessings from above, there are connections [but all
mail art depends on connections] but this is true in anything. The
bottom line is most people don't want to live an artist's life. Too
unstable, too insecure. Stability and security and generated from within
not by outside circumstances.
John Held, Jr. writes "Duchamp rejected the professional life of the
painter. He was dependent on no public or dealer. Instead he was free
to operate outside the system to pursue his own concerns on a trajectory
of his own devising."
Well, duchamp didn't really even like painting anyway. So it was no
sacrifice for him to renounce it. if you read up on Duchamp he in fact
was dependent on his public and dealers who supplied him with places to
live and whom he supplied with various artifacts and even employed
Joseph Cornell to help him build multiples of his Bo�te-en-valise. He
took advantage of his fame as much as he acted as though he was
indifferent to it. [and why shouldn't he?]
I used to paint houses as a house painter. I rejected the professional
life of a painter as well. I am not dependent on any homeowners whose
homes I used to paint. Now I am free to operate outside of the house
painters system to pursue my own concerns on a trajectory of my own
devising.
But I do this by being represented by art galleries in various cities. I
sell off some of my work and with this money I continue to live and work
when I want at what I want. I compete with no one. I do not seek fame. I
have some sort of marginal 'public' but I don't have a clue who they are
because, in reality, they are the galleries' publics.
Artists can't really compete anyway. The galleries pick from the
communities of artists according to the 'look' or the program that they
believe in or want to support and thus, themselves be represented by.
They pick artists according to what they themselves would want to hang
in their own homes so this means they are often in or catering to an
economic class different that the artists whose works they represent and
sell.
I fashion my art objects to fit those environments, but mail artists do
the same, they make objects that they can mail. Me too! I make art that
fits the Fedex and UPS size limits., It is easy to handle for gallery
personnel, or fits in the drawers and shelving systems that galleries
use and fits into most residential or corporate spaces. But those
limitations don't hamper my spiritual life but to me spirituality cannot
be expressed in the actual objects but only implied in the works.
That I study and comprehend the environment in which my work shall be
placed and that I conform to certain standard limitations for my own and
every one else's convienience and that I have a love of visual art such
as collage and painting and also poetry and sound does not make me a
backward dunce. My interest is in being holistic and self sustaining and
that includes the need to generate income, while at the same time
working full time at my chosen activity and not some other activity such
as a 'job' that I personally have no interest in. Sure, I stay fairly
poor, sometimes we are utterly broke but that is a condition of doing
exactly what I want and I know that not that many people get to live
that way; to live their life exactly as they design it on a daily basis.
So is mail art anti art? who cares?
cecil
http://touchon.com/
Patricia wrote:
>
> What about mail art? Certainly, still against established gallery
> conventions. Is it anti-art?
>
> http://www.geocities.com/johnheldjr/TheyWillGoUnderground.html
>
> Best,
> PK
