Art Lies, Volume 47, Summer 2005 Page: 55
128 p. : ill. (some col.) ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
a a .
Royal Art Lodge
Michael Dumontier and Neil Farber in Venicegarde-a notion already and famously debunked by Rosalind Krauss.
In this sense, there is nothing threatening about "maverick artists"
because this notion is simply a rehashing of old ideas. But are there
new ways of thinking-new strategies that speak to what it means
to make and market art today?
Dave Hickey has written extensively-and a bit apocalyptically-
about the increasing institutionalization of the art world. Many artists
who make installations, videos or performance work have become
increasingly dependent on museums, art expos and biennials, non-
profit art spaces and residencies to gain exposure. This places artists
in a matrix of curators, museum boards, corporate and government
funding traps-elements that all have the power to shape an artist's
work and, quite possibly, water it down.
Technology is also affecting the production of artwork at a remark-
able level. Photography and painting have a longstanding relation-
ship, but today the added influence of digital on traditional media,
including the complicated push and pull between film and video as
"art" or "filmmaking," are redefining what we have come to know
as fine art. One could easily say the same thing about crossovers
between many other media: performance art, dance, theater, sound
art, music, digital art and video games. In the last forty years, experi-
mental mediums have certainly found a home in the art world, but isthere a way that we as artists can actively solicit productive relationships
with participants in other fields rather than remain passive receptors of
larger cultural and technological phenomena? It is precisely because of
the growth, organization and institutionalization of the art world that art-
ists expect critics, curators and advocacy institutions to deal with such
issues. Artists have a different investment in this scheme and should
regain a sense of agency-learn to function as critics, curators and advo-
cates of their own ideas.
Here we come to a larger issue: the balance between pleasure and
intellect. Many artists make artwork because they enjoy it and simply
want to continue making it, showing it, and occasionally reaping a bounty.
There is nothing wrong with this, but a space needs to be reserved
for artists who want their work to function within a larger intellectual
context.
This brings me to my final point. The art world has become more
global than ever, and as a result there is a tension between the extremes
of two attitudes. On one hand, we can approach our "globalized" exis-
tence from a perspective that has remarkable similarities with a Marxist-
formalist approach: we are all the same and have the same opportunities,
a common language and equal access to the meaning and intention of all
artwork. Or, we can approach the situation from the opposite extreme,
acknowledging that our cultural, historical and political differences
define us as being necessarily separate.
I would like to propose that there is a middle route-one that acknowl-
edges that we are all implicated by one another, while at the same time
accepts that we all come from a very specific perspective. American art-
ists still function primarily within a Western tradition. It is the primary
history taught in both art and art history classes. Often, when similari-
ties are seen at art fairs between contemporary art produced in the West
and East, it is tempting to believe that disparate cultures are moving in
the same direction, but I would argue that these similarities are predom-
inantly the result of cultural imperialism.
How do American artists see themselves in relation to the rest of the
world? Does the war in Iraq and Afghanistan affect us in any way? How
are we implicated, not just as citizens but also as artists? This war has
increased polarizations beyond the generalities of "East" and "West."
It has pushed forward religious and social issues, such as concepts of
morality and a global idea of feminism. It's odd to think that both George
Bush and Shirin Neshat can speak adamantly about the role of women in
Islamic culture, for example.
Religion dominated much of the history of Western art, and it has
recently experienced a resurgence on a cultural level, especially in the
U.S. What reactions do artists have to this? We often take such things
for granted, preaching to the converted in art schools, art magazines or
panel discussions about the evils of the religious right and the wrong-
headedness of warmongers. But how are we, as artists, affected by the
social and political currents of today? And how does our work participate
in a larger cultural reality? It's best for us to talk to each other now rather
than wait and see what happens.ARTL!ES Summer 2005 55
as r
r
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Bryant, John & Gupta, Anjali. Art Lies, Volume 47, Summer 2005, periodical, 2005; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth228012/m1/57/?rotate=270: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .