The End of Art History and the Last Contemporary Museum

by

–Edward

Until relatively recently, there had been a dominant linear narrative in Western art. Up until its final decades, the 20th Century illustrated this as well as any previous one, with successive movements supplanting fading ones in a series of what I call "kill the father" manifestos. With the end of Modernism, however, and the shift in Western art’s central question from "What is the essence of art?" to the more deconstructably open "What is art?" any attempt at a manifesto was devoured by an increasingly sophisticated and vicious critique, often before the ink on its first-run pages was dry. This has left contemporary art historians with a migraine-inducing problem. As critic Donald Kuspit recently noted at a symposium in Mexico City:

There may be a history of modern art and a history of traditional art, but there can be no history of postmodern art, for the radically contemporary can never be delimited by any single historical reading. Even if one was a Gibbon one could not fit all the pieces of contemporary art together in a unified narrative. In postmodernity that is no longer any such thing as the judgment of history, only an incomplete record of the contemporary. If every piece of art is contemporary, no one piece can be valued more highly than any other, except from a certain psychosocial perspective. But every perspective turns out to be procrustean because it shuts out art that contradicts its premises.

Now this central concept is already old in art circles. Noted art critic Arthur Danto published a collection of now 10-year-old essays in his book "After the End of Art" declaring that "Art" ended in the 1960s, when, essentially, artists stopped believing/participating in a progressive narrative. What he seems to mean by this is that "Art" requires a dominant theory of art. Contemporary artists, each of whom must choose their own constraints and rules (in essence, write their personal manifesto) reject this notion, and so it goes in circles (because a narrative about the end of a narrative is still a narrative…but I digress).

But, Kuspit is right. It seems to have become a narrative no one can write as definitive:

Despite the ironical contemporary attempt to describe history as it is happening, that is, to sell the insecure contemporary short by declaring it history-in-the-making, I want to conclude by suggesting a number of reasons why, if one is truly aware and open to all that is happening in contemporary art, without any pre-emptive prejudices — recognizing that one’s interpretive preferences are not exclusive — one cannot help but recognize that contemporary art has ousted and even destroyed historical meaning, despite contemporary efforts to make history by writing it as it supposedly happens, thus blurring the boundary between the contemporary and the historical.

The reasons include the cross-pollination and interbreeding of culturally, cognitively, and emotionally discrepant — not simply routinely different — kinds of art; the endless proliferation of contemporary art and artists, bringing with it a new definition of the contemporary (since it can never be domesticated by history, the contemporary has a self-imposed ephemerality, suggesting that it is an ever-changing communication construction); and, perhaps more speculatively, the increasing speciousness of art — confirmed by the pseudo-philosophical notion that whatever anyone calls art is art, that is, "anything goes," the postmodern motto — in a commercial crowd culture.

Sidebar on that last point: some would argue that only what an artist calls art is art, not what "anyone" calls art is art. Being deemed an "artist" is simple. You just declare it. But if you’re a "bad" artist, then by extension, anything you call your "art" is also bad, and as such dismissible.

But before I slip into that vortex, let me get to my point about why this is important. It’s having an effect on museums, even the concept of what they are there for.

The radical pluralism that prevails in the museum without walls has made a mockery of the belief that there is one art that is more "historical" than any other.

This is problematic because deciding what is more "historical" than other options is what museums do.

In a New York Times article titled "Outside In: Non-Western Art Moves Into the Main Gallery" (no longer available without a fee), critic Holland Cotter described the way major museums have started opening up their galleries to non-Western art in response to this new sense of pluralism, placing work by those who would have been "outsiders" very recently next to kings of the Canon. Despite the trend in expanding museums, however, this new non-limiting approach will result in much larger inventories for those institutions who pride themselves on having "deep" contemporary collections, and even still, they’ll—by definition—be forever hopelessly incomplete. Moreover, as "records of history" they’ll be downright ludicrous. For, as Kuspit noted:

Writing history, as distinct from interpreting contemporaneity, involves narrowing one’s sights, indeed, keeping certain things out of sight.

66 thoughts on “The End of Art History and the Last Contemporary Museum”

  1. This is a case of the rubber meeting the road in a conflict between two aspects of cultural narrative. Namely, that it is a) unjust and arbitrary and b) necessary for the contextualization of daily life. Antitraditionalists tend to focus on the first point, that there’s no coherent principle which argues for any particular interpretation of history or status. Traditionalists tend to focus on the latter, arguing that without some arbitrary constraints, there is no society. Rarely does either side acknowledge the other argument. This obviously comes up frequently in the culture wars.
    I think the art world is particularly susceptible because the art world is so schizophrenic about whether or not you need a domain expert to interpret art. There’s a sort of modern consensus that the definition of art is subjective, but when a massive number of people say that e.g. Mapplethorpe’s art is not, in fact, art, but is simply irritating, the pushback is that everyone who thinks that is just a bumpkin who doesn’t understand art, contra subjectivity. The upshot of which seems to me: art is in the eye of a vaguely defined set of blessed beholders. Since nobody is confident whether they’re in that set or not, you end up with a circle of people all looking at each other to find out what art is.

  2. Since nobody is confident whether they’re in that set or not, you end up with a circle of people all looking at each other to find out what art is.
    I have a friend who’s making a go of it as a painter. He’s had a limited amount of success (enough to keep him fed and clothed and etc), much of it coming after joining a salon of sorts. The group shared gallery contacts, secured money from the local municipal arts council, found a patron in a downtown property owner interested in using artists and art gallery visitors to revitalize a downtown neighborhood, marketed and promoted each other, etc. Watching this process unfold has been instructive. In a situation where people are unwilling or unable to make authoritative pronouncements about the nature of things, those who are willing to step up and pronounce the narrative themselves stand a good chance of making that story the narrative that others accept.
    I don’t think this phenomenon is limited to the art world.

  3. In my naive little way, I really think that what has to happen is for people to regain confidence in their judgment, and create/buy/display art that they really love, instead of waiting for a narrative to emerge.

  4. “and create/buy/display art that they really love, instead of waiting for a narrative to emerge.”
    This is fine for private collections, but if you’re collecting as an investment or as a business you need to care about the narrative because it will dictate the worth of your investment. And if you’re the curator of a museum, you have an even harder task . . your personal tastes should theoretically not enter into it at all. Personally I think it started to go bad when museums communally decided that they were in the business of ‘challenging’ people.

  5. sidereal: I think it went bad earlier: at the time when the idea that the truly great painters were scorned at first gained currency, and the false conclusion ‘so this painter, who is scorned, will no doubt be recognized as a genius eventually’ was drawn.

  6. art is in the eye of a vaguely defined set of blessed beholders. Since nobody is confident whether they’re in that set or not, you end up with a circle of people all looking at each other to find out what art is.
    This risks revealing too much and perhaps even confirming some stereotypes, but there’s definitely a set of us confident we know what “art” is. Actually, that’s not true. There’s a set of us confident we know what “art” isn’t (or, rather, what isn’t “art”). I have to make that decision daily, actually. It’s my job. My criteria for making such decisions include the following: is it a) conceptually sound, b) well resolved, c) well made (or rather consistent with intent…this includes “beautiful” if that’s the intent), d) non-derivative, and e) last, but not least, innovative. Of course, making those judgements requires that I look at a LOT of art, but that’s the same in any field. There’s another important criterion—“transcendent”—but to be honest, that’s so rare as to be a silly standard criterion.
    In a situation where people are unwilling or unable to make authoritative pronouncements about the nature of things, those who are willing to step up and pronounce the narrative themselves stand a good chance of making that story the narrative that others accept.
    It works that way sometimes, but sometimes that self-pronounced narrative has a very limited audience of just those in it and a select patronage. I don’t know what group you’re talking about, and they may indeed be making very good art, but I’ve not seen any movement, per se, stand up to the brutal critique of the main art press. I expect one to emerge any time now that can, and I hope your friends are it, but there’s an expectation that until a movement does, it’s still just a collective or a clique.
    Personally I think it started to go bad when museums communally decided that they were in the business of ‘challenging’ people.
    I don’t think museums made that decision, if anyone did, it was artists. There are indeed far too many artists who rely on transgression (most just suck at it, but if you want to be “shocked” may I suggest the work of Robert Melee…”challenging” is putting it lightly…although, I should note, Robert is a total prince of a person), but part of why that is has more to do with the criteria I noted above (innovation and conceptual soundness) and sophistication of the critique (if you haven’t accounted for previous ideas [all of them, even the transgressive ones] and at least rejected them, you’re not advancing the dialog, but rather treading over well-worn territory).

  7. I have a number of students writing papers on the collapse of the ideal of the avant-garde. I agree with Edward that the decision that art was to challenge people was made by artists, rather than by museums (and those museums that ended up embracing the idea have done so, I think, rather recently).
    (Warning: unmediated subjective judgment follows!)One of the lamer strands of post-modern art is the “recontextualization” movement, in which artists take some piece of whatever and chuck it into a museum, thereby trying to force people to destablize their ideas of what art is and what museums do. Since the artworks depend on people’s having a stable notion of what art is and what museums do, in the contemporary viewing context these “interventions” are just pointless. (/unmediated subjective judgment)
    Edward, doesn’t it seem likely that museums, like galleries, will tend toward more specialized collections? that particular currents of art-production will produce divergeant (and perhaps interestingly quarrelsome) narratives? Installations tend to bore me (with the exception of Sarah Sze), but they’re evolving as the form proliferates. The late uptick in drawing has shown that there’s been a somewhat submerged narrative of drawing techniques and applications–and many of the otherwise good artists whose drawings are being feted right now aren’t particularly into that narrative and their drawings often suck.
    The cadre of specialists who know, at a glance, what isn’t art is real. I like to think of myself as having a decent eye for the few media I’ve really studied, but thank God I haven’t had to wager much money on my picks. And I decided a long time ago that if I ever had any real money to invest in art, I’d go with a long-term strategy: the short-term returns on art, especially contemporary art, depend so much on the instincts of the herd that having a “good eye” might not be that valuable in the rapid resale game.
    But again, these “good eyes” for the long-term game are increasingly specialized: talk to any serious comics fan, and they’ll have an arcana of comic-book art and artists, technique and genre, that blows out of the water the dominant 20th-century narrative of the unified art narrative.
    So, in some ways, as a child of postmodernism, I can’t help thinking that the fact that art history is finally facing up to the explosion of the idea of a singular narrative of art is A Good Thing. While I love the new New York MoMa, and think they’ve managed to represent diversity within a kind of tradition in an exciting and responsable way for a Big Public Museum, I do think that the trend of the future will be towards a decentralization of artistic media and genres–and narratives.
    Did you notice that annnouncement today in the NYT that the New York Public Library was selling a number of its valuable paintings? Their rationale was that paintings were nice to have, but that their mission was to collect books and diffuse bookish-type knowledge. Maybe that’s just a justification for a need to generate cash-flow, but I saw it also as the NYPL’s decision to concentrate its focus as an institution devoted to paper–and digital media. Other museums do painting; let them do it.
    A number of other examples are joustling at the corners of my mind, but I’ll leave it there, with the most recent.

  8. Tangential or not? As you might know, my main interest is in downloading art, mostly pre-WWI, and hang out at the Art Renewal Center. Fred Ross keeps us apprised of Sotheby auctions of his 19th century classicists & academics, and was pleased to tell us that (my numbers may be off a little) a Bouguereau that sold for $15k in 1975 he bought for $150k in 1990 and is now selling for $1.5m. There is a similar story for JS Sargeants.
    If the historical narrative is failing, perhaps the art between the old masters and post-impressionists will be re-evaluated.

  9. maybe I have this all wrong — but my understanding of how museums got to be the way they are and how great art is moved into those museums goes something like this….
    Artists work. Rich people come to their bohemian hovels and salons and whatever to mix with the avant garde and to make them feel all hip and such. They buy some artists work because they actually do have good taste for the most part and eventually those paintings are put in a public collection years after that artist has stood the test of time and is probably dead.
    Earlier on, I think rich people just sponsored artists who showed some talent and probably a fair amount of chutzpah and could hustle their way into a cushy gig to some king or land baron painting portraits or ceilings. Eventually, these artists got gigs to paint churches and again, proving that for the most part the cream does rise to the top, those artists are still big on the museum wall hit parade.
    What I’m getting at here is that maybe museums shouldn’t be trying to be the avatar of what’s the newest and bestest. Maybe the rush to find what’s important at this moment is still a part of modernity in that a real postmodernism might turn away from an E! Channel type need to know just what’s “now” and who’s “hot”. Remember the year Oliver won the academy award for best picture was the year of Kubrick’s 2001 (and Buck Henry’s Candy). You need a little time to really pick the best film of a particular year.
    The thing about age is that the longer you are around, the much deeper a sense of context within the continuum of history you develop and thus have a stronger sense of what really was important 10 or 20 years ago and what was just fluff (for example, bubblegum music actually had a more lasting influence on popular music than its perceived importance when it was being made or shortly thereafter).
    Maybe we just go back to not being in such a rush to figure out what is art and what isn’t. Whether artists refuse to contextualize their art or not is moot. The point is you can accept that there is an historical context which defintely can, as noted by its track record, determine what is a good and important work (i.e., represent its present, succeed in getting across its message, and tickles the brain) or you can pretend there is none. But you need not to forget you’re only pretending.

  10. Edward: “…Being deemed an “artist” is simple. You just declare it.”
    I had to laugh when I read that, because it is painfully true. I’ve not yet been in a conversation on the subject and found any two artists who could agree on a definition for ‘art’ or ‘artist.’
    “…My criteria for making such decisions include the following: is it a) conceptually sound, b) well resolved, c) well made (or rather consistent with intent…this includes “beautiful” if that’s the intent), d) non-derivative, and e) last, but not least, innovative. Of course, making those judgements requires that I look at a LOT of art, but that’s the same in any field. There’s another important criterion—“transcendent”—but to be honest, that’s so rare as to be a silly standard criterion.”
    As an artist (sorry), I’m relieved to hear ‘transcendent’ is a flexible criterion.
    More seriously, if Kuspit is correct and it is not possible to write a definitive narrative, I would have to agree with Jackmormon that it seems likely museums will move to specialize in their collections. If that is the case, is it likely those specialized collections will be perceived as the definitive narratives that define contemporary art?

  11. Sorry, haven’t had coffee yet – should read, ‘is it likely those specialized collections will eventually be perceived as the definitive narratives that define contemporary art.’

  12. Edward, doesn’t it seem likely that museums, like galleries, will tend toward more specialized collections?
    It would seem they have to, yes. Even MoMA, with their humungous new space (the 6th floor is like an airplane hangar), or Dia:Beacon, or Mass(ive) MoCA, all have to narrow their sights or risk failing in their mission. Even now, I walk through those spaces and at the end think “is that all there is?”
    What else is happening here that’s interesting though, is the museumification of private contemporary collections while they’re still in formation. The Rubell Family collection in Miami is a good example of this. They’ll argue that they’re not ever selling any of their work (and, so argue the collection is “resolved”), but the emphasis of what they highlight seems to shift with fashion. This would be fine if they didn’t weild so much power in determining what’s important. The fact that they charge to visit their collection (as opposed to Martin Margulies, for example) puts a higher expecation on them that they offer Museum-quality curating. Methinks they’ve got a ways to go (Dear God, I hope they don’t read blogs).
    Did you notice that annnouncement today in the NYT that the New York Public Library was selling a number of its valuable paintings?
    Yeah saw that, and had more or less the same reaction to it.
    If the historical narrative is failing, perhaps the art between the old masters and post-impressionists will be re-evaluated.
    Interesting food for thought (although prices do fluctuate from generation to generation as old masters go in and out of style). For the overall market, though, there probably will not a significant re-evaluation as there’s a finite number of them. They’re still rare objects, and specific collections will still need them. If those collections depend on public interest to maintain them, though, perhaps you’re right…it’s all so up in the air right now.
    Rich people come to their bohemian hovels and salons and whatever to mix with the avant garde and to make them feel all hip and such.
    LOL
    This is so true. We joke that the entire art world is one large ongoing episode of “Revenge of the Nerds.”
    You need a little time to really pick the best film of a particular year.
    This is one of the subtexts of Kuspit’s argument, yes.
    Maybe we just go back to not being in such a rush to figure out what is art and what isn’t.
    It’s only getting worse though. Grad students are being offered solo exhibitions before they’ve even received their MFA. They’ll be grabbing ’em out of Junior High School at this rate.

  14. I know this doesn’t belong here…
    But a couple of months ago there was a thread touting how bad Bush’s SS reforms would be and many at this site used a calculator to project how awful the results would be…
    You will be relieved to know… maybe we can start another thread so everyone can recalculate the results.
    A Rigged “Calculator”
    Democrats harness false assumptions to generate projections that individual Social Security accounts would be losers.
    http://www.factcheck.org/article319.html

  15. That’s excellent cleek. This guys is 100% right IMO about this:

    Art is what the artist decides it is, and, to a lesser degree, what the art community accepts.

    Famous examples of other artists pulling stunts like this include Rauschenberg’s insistence that a telegram was a portrait of Iris Clert if he said it was and, my very favorite, Stanley Brouwn’s announcement in 1960 that all the shoe shops in Amsterdam constituted an exhibition of his work.
    For me, these ideas are as wonderful and eye-opening as anything put on canvas, so why not value them?

  19. Art is what the artist decides it is
    Well, maybe in some trivial sense. But when one asks “what is art”, I think it really means something more like “what is good art”? I notice that no one has bid yet on those class notes.

  20. I notice that no one has bid yet on those class notes.
    $25K is a little steep. maybe if he’d started a little lower people could actually afford to play the game.

  21. Well, maybe in some trivial sense. But when one asks “what is art”, I think it really means something more like “what is good art”?
    Ahhh…my favorite art debate. And my birthday’s not even for 10 days yet….(shameless, I know).
    Those are two very distinct questions, in my mind.
    But backing up: It’s not at all trivial to me that “art” is what an artist decides it is. The windows opened up when Duchamp initiated that concept let a much needed breath of fresh air into the stuffy salons of yore. We’d have to run through the various media to discuss this in detail, but it’s a celebration of the idea over craft that technical proficiency had made artists all but beg for. How many photorealistic paintings of a chrome fender can one stomach?
    So, the question about “good” versus “bad” art includes whether you’re challenged to view the world in a new way when confronted with R Mutt’s urinal on a pedestal or you yawn and move on. Of course, feigning boredom, in order to avoid having to reject it on conceptually sound grounds doesn’t count. If you can destroy it via critique, go for it…otherwise, insisting that the delicately painted portrait next to it is “better” art suggests you’re lazy, or worse, dim.
    I notice that no one has bid yet on those class notes.
    Nor should they…they’re not worth it. Rauschenberg had a name when he tried this. His worth as a “good” artist had been well demonstrated. Our friend John Jordan has demonstrated a propensity for cheekiness, but little else.

  23. Ah, but an artist can’t place a urinal in a museum himself (or herself) — the curator has to be convinced as well. We can’t experience “found art” or “recontextualized art” as art until a decision to treat the item as art has already been made by someone other than the artist.

  24. Ah, but an artist can’t place a urinal in a museum himself (or herself) — the curator has to be convinced as well. We can’t experience “found art” or “recontextualized art” as art until a decision to treat the item as art has already been made by someone other than the artist.
    True to a point. There is a team of people included in the decisions about art: artist, critic, curator, collector, and to some degree gallerist.
    Jackmormon mentioned Sarah Sze. A curator or even a collector (and I know one who did this) agrees to let Sarah install one of her installations based on her track record. If she chooses matches or if she chooses disgarded tampon dispensers as an item in her installation, that choice is hers after that decision to let her work. Whatever she chooses will be insightful and look great, we’ve come to trust that, but the decision is not made on a “per item” basis by the others involved.

  26. Wow, that’s very interesting… is there no possibility of a veto of her decision? It seems to lead to the result that the artistic value of something depends on who created it, no?
    So then I should restate — either the item has to be seen as art by some other party, or the artist him/herself has to be seen as an artist by some other party. If I point to the pile of crap on my desk and call it art, or if Sarah Sze does the same thing, is that pile of crap “art” in both cases? Either case?

  27. If I point to the pile of crap on my desk and call it art, or if Sarah Sze does the same thing, is that pile of crap “art” in both cases? Either case?
    Either of you could do that (i.e., call it “art”), but both of you would then be opening yourselves up to the critque, Ken. That’s the pudding in which the proof lies.
    When Rauschenberg declared a telegram was a portrait of Iris Clert, he knew how to withstand the critique that followed (in fact he knew how to defeat the critique, hence the infamy of the claim).
    the artist him/herself has to be seen as an artist by some other party.
    Yes. That’s it in a nutshell. But the question moves then to not just is this person an “artist”…but is this person a good artist. Any fool can (and several have) declare in obscurity that they are “the best artist” in the world. Only if the world agrees does it really matter in the context we’re having this discussion.

  28. So, the question about “good” versus “bad” art includes whether you’re challenged to view the world in a new way when confronted with R Mutt’s urinal on a pedestal or you yawn and move on.
    first off, i admit, i’m not a student of art. i know what i like and don’t get much into Why.
    but, i’m a little confused about this whole idea of “challenge”. does it have a special meaning in art theorist circles, or is it the same old word ? because, i honestly don’t see why art needs to be confrontational or even why it should force anyone to see the world in a different way (note i’m saying art can’t do those things, just that i don’t see why it must).
    if i look at Michaelangelo’s David (for an example exveryone knows), i don’t feel challenged – rather, i see that the person who carved it had an exceptional abilities to a) manipulate marble and b) recognize and render aspects of human appearance that communicate certain emotions. i don’t feel like Michaelangelo is standing in the corner daring me to do anything.

  29. because, i honestly don’t see why art needs to be confrontational or even why it should force anyone to see the world in a different way (note i’m saying art can’t do those things, just that i don’t see why it must).
    Good distinction.
    Art does not need to do anything more than what the artist intends it to do. As I noted in the list of criteria I use to determine what’s “art,” it is important that the work is well made [or in the case of a readymade, well chosen/presented] to accomplish the artist’s INTENT. That is critical.
    Art does not need to be confrontational. Art that is made/chosen with the intent of making you view the world in a new way, however, fails or succeeds on whether, given a fair consideration, it does make you view the world in a new way.
    Art that is made to be beautiful and nothing more also fails or succeeds on how it accomplishes that intent.
    And since no one work of art could ever succeed in communicating everything, we have nothing more than the artist’s intent on which to judge its success or failure in that respect, so intent is, again, critical. There are “happy accidents” as artists like to call them. A piece intended to be confrontational that turns out to be exceptionally beautiful as well, but if that beauty was not the intent and the confrontational aspect of it is a failure, the artist might just want to rework/destroy it (or lie and present it as an attempt at beauty…his/her damnation, not ours).

  30. “Ah, but an artist can’t place a urinal in a museum himself (or herself)”
    Close. The exhibition Fountain was intended for (I forget the name) was specifically for ‘avant garde’ artists and had no juried panels. The fact that it was judged the most influential modern art work by a poll of 500 ‘art experts’ merely reconfirms my suspicions that art experts are more or less a coterie of jackasses (no offense, Edward).
    Duchamp fascinates me. He is easily one of my favorite artists (particularly his Cubist work and Etant donnés), but I think of him as the quantum mechanic of art. In order to understand art he had to dissect it, and in observing it he destroyed it, or at least damaged it for a long time. Even worse are the hordes of imitators. Imitating a painter is harmless enough. . you just make mediocre paintings. But if you’re imitating the guy who dissected art, you’re slicing the corpse open over and over again.

  31. I am largely staying out of this discussion, as my opinion of modern art is that it is little more than a well run psych experiment. However, to that end: “As I noted in the list of criteria I use to determine what’s “art,” it is important that the work is well made [or in the case of a readymade, well chosen/presented] to accomplish the artist’s INTENT”
    Much of my problem with modern art (especially the more abstract varities) is that there is little to no way to determine the artisit’s intent without a lenghthy chat with the artist. Viewing a gallery filled with “Untitled No 547″‘s which do not depict anything I have ever seen creates no way for the viewer to determine intent.

  32. must respectfully disagree, sidereal…they chose what they considered the most “influential” modern art work of all time. If you disagree, you should at the very least suggest what materpiece they overlooked or underestimated. I don’t disagree that many readymades since Duchamp were poor imitations, but I don’t agree that such efforts are any worse than poor imitations of paintings. That entails an unsavory reslicing corpses as well.

  33. Much of my problem with modern art (especially the more abstract varities) is that there is little to no way to determine the artisit’s intent without a lenghthy chat with the artist.
    Almost agreee, although I’d change the last bit
    There is little to no way to determine the artisit’s intent without a strong familiarity with art history.
    What slays me about many people’s belief about art is their assumption that the artist’s intent should be apparent to them without any work on their part. We’d never assume that of a scientist or engineer or philosopher, but with visual art we do. Now there’s nothing wrong with layers of accessibility (one can enjoy “Arrangement in Grey and Black” without understanding Whistler was more concerned with art for art’s sake than he was with depicting his mother) but that in no way argues for Whistler to draw out for the audience his grander intentions, to do so would have compromised his overall intent.
    I recalled a collector who bought a Barnett Newman and placed it where he faced it every morning while eating breakfast. That enigmatic stripe down the center of that canvas appealed to him, he knew that, but he wasn’t sure why. Then one day, 15 years after he had bought it, it suddenly became clear what Newman was saying. His epiphany was joyous, as he recalls it, and after 15 years, I’d certainly hope so. But consider the exhileration he must have felt and the satisfaction of finally understanding what that genius Newman was trying to say.

  34. “they chose what they considered the most “influential” modern art work of all time”
    Oh, I don’t think they were lying. I think they’re helpless in the face of their own consensus that an ironic statement about art (or in the words of Duchamp, “I threw the urinal in their faces and now they admire it for its aesthetic beauty”) is art. A consensus that has heralded in an era of art that is overwhelmingly about itself.
    ” you should at the very least suggest what materpiece they overlooked or underestimated”
    Well, I’m no art expert. Kandinsky’s Composition VII? Honestly, any of the works that came 2nd through 4th in that survey sound fine to me. If they had to pick a Duchamp work, I wish The Bride Stripped Bare… were more influential.

  35. sidereal,
    for my money, the problem with choosing Kadinsky, was that his influence was limited mostly to abstract painting. Picasso’s “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” is a better choice among paintings in that it influenced abstract and representational painting, as well as sculpture (and arguably other mediums, but that’s a stretch).
    The reason “Fountain” is a better choice is independent of Duchamp’s joke (which was more about the reaction than his intent). It was a triumph of concept over craft. That notion has been influential in painting, sculpture, photography, installation, etc. etc. etc. In fact nearly everything post 1960 (including Warhol’s work, which will be in the running for most influential in this century as well, mark my work) owes its validity (as it were) to that ironic gesture.
    You’re right though, contemporary art is overwhelmingly about itself. Conceptually, that’s what all of art from the Renaissance up to the death of Modernism was leading to. The challenge now is to see if there’s anything beyond that.
    Film is probably the medium that will answer that question.

  36. Edward,
    “What slays me about many people’s belief about art is their assumption that the artist’s intent should be apparent to them without any work on their part. We’d never assume that of a scientist or engineer or philosopher, but with visual art we do.”
    That’s largely because:
    1. other art does not require this level of understanding of intent to be appreciated on at least some level. For example, music and theatre can generally be appreciated without this. Abstract art generally cannot.
    2. high art historically did not require this. When art became less representational, it lost the ability to be at least minimally appreciated by the causal viewer. While many artists I have spoken to think this is a good thing, it creates a steep learning curve which turns off potential new viewers.
    3. artists seem to prefer to obscure their intent. Untitled No. 547, ’nuff said.
    4. generally speaking, scientists and engineers (and to some extent philosophers) have an intended audience limited to their own field. However, art is a form of communication, and many artists seem uninterested in doing so.

  37. artists seem to prefer to obscure their intent… [and] … art is a form of communication, and many artists seem uninterested in doing so
    we could just assume the only person the artist is trying to communicate with is the artist h/im/er/self. or, that the artist is communicating to us, but only to say “i don’t care what you think of this, only that you think of it (or me) at all”
    and now i’m thinking of Squarepusher

  38. cleek,
    We could, and many people I know do. If so, why should we even care to view the piece of art?

  39. For example, music and theatre can generally be appreciated without this.
    depends on where you listen to music or watch theatre. Nobel Prize winning playwright Samuel Beckett had a few plays that were all but incomprehensible, and John Cage’s music is hardly a foot-tapping good time.
    high art historically did not require this.
    This is a misnomer. Again, see Whistler’s mother. The “high art” there has nothing to do with the stern looking woman sitting in the chair. The same is true for artists stretching back to Masaccio. Often times folks think because they can judge how well the artist has rendered a figure that they understand the artist’s intent. That’s nowhere near true. And it’s a misnomer that modern art and its frustrating abstraction is an attempt to fool people. Consider Turner, long before Kadinsky or Dove, he was mucking about with incredible abstractions…maybe you can see the ships in those things, but I can’t.
    artists seem to prefer to obscure their intent. Untitled No. 547, ’nuff said.
    Another misnomer IMO. Visual artists are working in a medium that transcends language. Many artists for whom that is important feel they’re being truer to their intent by not labeling their work with a title that doesn’t (because it can’t) really explain what they’re saying. Others consider that a minor issue and wish to keep titles as guideposts for viewers (or nomenclatures for themselves). It’s not automatically an attempt to obscure anything. Ask an artist who doesn’t title their work and they’ll most likely tell you they want you to look at the painting/sculpture, etc., not its name. This is a fair position, in my book.
    However, art is a form of communication, and many artists seem uninterested in doing so.
    Illustration is a form of communication. Art is more than that. Art is also a science. There are scientists whose daily rountine is mostly limited to re-conducting relatively simple experiments that an industrious 12-year-old with a chemistry set could reproduce, and there are scientists who imagine the breakthroughs that lead to space travel or nanotechnology. Not all scientists (nor artists) are equal. But just as we go to a science museum to marvel at the robotics or wind tunnels or whatever, we go to an art museum to marvel at the paintings or photographs. If we care enough about that robot to go home and research what makes it tick, God bless us. We’ll get more out of that museum experience. The same applies to art.

  40. Edward,
    I’ll leave it here, other than to note I disagree with nearly everything you’ve just said, except that John Cage is equally adept at creating psych experiments as most modern artists.

  41. ther than to note I disagree with nearly everything you’ve just said,
    That’s what makes this so interesting, Dantheman…thanks for sharing your thoughts.

  42. If so, why should we even care to view the piece of art?
    beats me.
    but, then i’m not really into trying to know or figure out what an artist’s intent was. if a piece doesn’t grab in some way, regardless of what the artist intended, then i don’t spend much time on it. and, if something does grab me, i still don’t worry much about the artist’s intent. the idea that i can’t truly appreciate something until i know what the artist was trying to accomplish makes me feel like i’ll never truly appreciate anything, but i’ll spend my whole life reading artists’ biographies trying.
    i like to take a piece of art (be it a novel, a painting, a song or whatever) as it’s own object. once it’s out in the world, it’s no longer part of the artist, and whatever he intended it to be is irrelevant unless he wants to come by my house and argue with me about it.

  43. And sometimes the artist him/her self doesn’t understand exactly why s/he did something a certain way, but a knowledgeable critic or historian can connect the dots and explain why that way made sense.
    Then one day, 15 years after he had bought it, it suddenly became clear what Newman was saying.
    But did he really get what Newman was saying, or was this more of a mystical enlightenment, like finally understanding the sound of one hand clapping?

  44. the idea that i can’t truly appreciate something until i know what the artist was trying to accomplish makes me feel like i’ll never truly appreciate anything,
    That’s not necessarily different what what I’m saying here.
    Intent is a good criterion for determining quality (but only one of many). If an artist is attempting to do X, but X is not accomplished, then that work is not successful. But that’s only one layer of quality and not the only avenue to accessibility.
    What I tell collectors all the time is: Bottomline, you’d better buy what you like. That way you’re more likely to be happy with it down the road. If years from now you have an epiphany about the work, God bless you. But if you buy something because you heard it was good, there’s no guarantee you’ll ever see why, and you’d make a mistake to buy it now.
    For collectors who have spent a lifetime buying art and know their art history, though, only work that opens new doors to them will be exciting enough to make them like it.
    I have a friend/collector who’s a lawyer, who doesn’t know art history that well yet, but she can spot a photographer who’s gonna be important a mile away. Something about a piece will haunt her and the only way she can make it stop haunting her is to buy it. She is building one of the most important young photography collections out there. She’ll be the first to admit she’s not always sure why she’s attracted to something, but she only buys what she likes. She can only afford to buy work by younger, emerging artists. What she likes, more often than not, however, tends to be deemed “important” before too long.
    So, again, there’s not necessarily a difference with regard to acquiring work. This collector doesn’t meet the artists or research what they’re doing. She’s merely open to the idea that these photographers can teach her something she doesn’t know already.

  45. But did he really get what Newman was saying, or was this more of a mystical enlightenment, like finally understanding the sound of one hand clapping?
    Does it matter?

  47. Hey, you’re the one who brought up the artist’s intent…
    Oh, I see…sorry, misunderstood your question.
    He believes he got what Newman was saying.
    My “does it matter” response was more to the point of the experience of having something strike you about a work after looking at it for 15 years. I find that nothing short of miraculous and, as such, something sent from God. So, I guess, the answer is possibly a “mystical enlightenment.” His explanation, as I recall it, seemed a solid appraisal of Newman’s intent (the onement of the object), but I’ve learn more about Newman since then, so to be fair to him, when retelling that story, I give him the benefit of the doubt.

  48. Intent is a good criterion for determining quality (but only one of many). If an artist is attempting to do X, but X is not accomplished, then that work is not successful. But that’s only one layer of quality and not the only avenue to accessibility.
    ah. i guess then, i’ve never put much conscious effort into assessing ‘success’. but then, i’m a programmer, not an art dealer 🙂

  49. Great thread e.
    My collecting has slowed a bit as we upgrade our space but I’ve still got the itch. Could you share with me who your lawyer friend is buying and from where (online presence I hope). I haven’t collected much photography, but my own attempts at 4×5 LF have increased my desire to look into it.
    Thanks.

  50. I quite enjoyed Edward’s carefully qualified valuing of artist’s intent, actually. The form might be longing to intend something, whether or not the artist quite recognizes it. And thanks for the Sarah Sze link–I’m borderline-foaming in my appreciation for her stuff.
    The nice thing about liking art, but not working in the business and not having any money to collect, is that I get to wander around holding out for the transcendent. It’s been really interesting to see how you value the merely “good” and “worthwhile.” Thanks keeping up the debate, Edward.

  52. This is a fascinating thread to read.
    Dantheman: “Much of my problem with modern art (especially the more abstract varities) is that there is little to no way to determine the artisit’s intent without a lenghthy chat with the artist. Viewing a gallery filled with “Untitled No 547″‘s which do not depict anything I have ever seen creates no way for the viewer to determine intent.”
    Edward: “What slays me about many people’s belief about art is their assumption that the artist’s intent should be apparent to them without any work on their part….Visual artists are working in a medium that transcends language.”
    FWIW, my view lies somewhere between those statements. I would say artists work in a visual language rather than artists work in a medium that transcends language, but I can’t deny that some artwork transcends. What I find surprising is how many people I’ve talked to who don’t believe they are capable of determining anything about a piece UNLESS an artists explains intent. To me, the horror known as the artists statement reinforces that perceived inability.
    I’ve no particular objection to explaining my intent if someone asks, but I don’t see the piece as a failure if the viewer doesn’t grasp my exact meaning. Art for me ‘works’ if a viewer responds to a piece in the context of their own visual language and experiences. I don’t see that as ‘deliberately obscuring intent’ I see it as dialogue. Does it require work on the part of the viewer? Sure. If, however, I’ve done anywhere near a competent job, I’ve given the viewer something to work with.
    Edward’s list of constancies overall holds true, I think, for what makes art ‘merely’ good: “(a) conceptually sound, b) well resolved, c) well made (or rather consistent with intent…this includes “beautiful” if that’s the intent), d) non-derivative, and e) last, but not least, innovative.” When you add transcendence, it becomes great art.

  53. I almost didn’t read this thread because I am so phobic of discussions of art.
    I want to respond to Edward’s comment about art being a science in the sense of innovation being part of the definition of quality.
    I disagree except in the sense of the innovation being internal. I don’t think it necessarily increases the quality of art to strive for something new in the art world. In fact I think the assumption that “good means “new and innovative” has produded a lot of really boring art, the psych game stuff, pretentious, sophomoric, ugh.
    the newness has to be inside the artist. I’m not being very articulate here, I expect. I’m trying to describe the internal process that is essential for my happiness and development as a human being. I’m an artist because I have to keep in touch with my Muse and keep producing stuff that is from the outer edge of my imagination or I get spiritually constipated. My stuff doesn’t have to brandnew, noone-ever-thought-of-that before to be good.. It has to be not-routine and not-on-auto-pilot for me.
    Some great artists, in my opinion, had one good idea nd coasted on it for years. De Kooning was cranking out De Koonings when he no longer had enough cognitive power to brush his own teeth.
    Art is experimental. But the experiment, the risk-taking is inside the artist, not in relation to what other artists are doing.

  54. A story:
    One sunny day I decided to do a little gallery tour and soak up some art. Several galleries into this expidition, I entered a space that had about a dozen paintings on the wall. There were two things going on in each painting — an image of some kind, and some words written in foreign languages — each painting a different image and a different language.
    Also in the space was a coffee table, some chairs around it and a couch. Seated in the chair was this guy, reading a magazine. I paid him no attention. On the coffee table were a bunch of english translation dictionaries scattered. One for each of the languages in the paintings.
    I picked up the Russian-English one and spent about five minutes, turning pages to translate the words in one of the paintings. When I finally got to the last word, I realized that the sentence was an ironic pun of the image in the painting. I chuckled.
    The man seated in the chair got up and came over to me quite fervently. He said, “I just wanted to thank you.”
    “What for?” I said, unsure if this scruffy fellow was possibly some nut job.
    “I’m the artist of these,” he declared. “And I’ve been here all day and you’re the first person to come in and actually pick up one of the dictionaries and spend the time to figure out what the words meant.”
    “But isn’t that why you put the dictionaries here?” I replied.
    “Yes,” he said with some resignation. “But no one seemed to care enough to try.”
    He took my hand and shook it firmly. “Thank you.”
    “Well, I liked to read the Hardy Boys when I was a kid. I’ve got the soul of a detective.” I then turned and headed out onto the mean streets in search of the next gallery on my tour.
    I guess he spent the rest of the day just sitting there, waiting for the next person to come in, waiting to see if they’d figure out there was a game to be played here. All they’d have to do is try.

  55. Lily said:
    I disagree except in the sense of the innovation being internal. I don’t think it necessarily increases the quality of art to strive for something new in the art world. In fact I think the assumption that “good means “new and innovative” has produded a lot of really boring art, the psych game stuff, pretentious, sophomoric, ugh.
    Amen. The worst way in the world to create good art is to become obsessed with innovation for its own sake.
    This is why I generally only end up at art museums if everything I’m going to look at was made pre-1900, because past about then, the insane desire to innovate when one has nothing useful to say has increasingly dominated ‘high end’ art production.
    (Though I can ramble on about 20th century animation and comic book art trends until the cows come home and tell me to shut up.)

  56. Edward– Agree with your point about Beckett. Not sure why you feel film is/will be the next big test. Film seems caught in the same circumstances and new media cinema is just taking off.
    Lily and John– I think that there is a critical distinction between a drive for innovation and a fetishism of originality. Many artists and writers mistake the latter for the former. Innovation is about the limits of the medium and what can be done with it, not necessarily about doing something new. I can’t speak to a lot of what Edward talks about in visual studies, but some of Beckett’s nigh unreadable short fiction (like Imagination Dead Imagined) is amazing for what it does with language.

  57. Crionna,
    Could you share with me who your lawyer friend is buying and from where (online presence I hope).
    Short list of artists in her collection: (note some of these folks were much more affordable only two years ago):
    Shirin Neshat (next to impossible to get now)
    Roe Ethridge
    Elisa Sighicelli
    Gillian Wearing (US gallery just closed, will be picked up shortly I’m sure)
    Rineke Dijkstra (whose London gallery is now only open by appointment, but again, am sure will be picked up shortly)
    Mark Woods
    Jackmormon,
    great essay on your site (I’ll comment when I get a break today)
    Lily,
    I’m not arguing that innovation in and of itself makes for good art, simply that it’s one (and, again, only one) of several criteria at one’s disposal for making such judgements. I agree with you that it’s best when it’s innate in an artist and not something one searches for to be trendy or whatever.
    drdmbay
    thanks for that story. I understand folks who don’t want to invest the time to understand what an artist is doing, often, if you do, it turns out not to have been worth it. On those special rare occassions, however, it can be wonderous…for me, there’s far too little wonder in the day-to-day world, and so I invest the time.

  58. “This is why I generally only end up at art museums if everything I’m going to look at was made pre-1900″
    Current wallpaper:Jacques Patenier,”River Landscape” c1500
    Good grief. I am, if anything, over generous and too inclusive, but there is plenty of very great artmade after 1900. I don’t get this at all.
    Part of my perhaps overgenerosity is the presumption ov value. If an artist doesn’t immediately appeal, I assume the fault is with me, and some study, work, and contemplation will increase my appreciation. Current problem areas: Jules Pascin and over-busy Bruegels.
    Finally, there are many contemporary artists working in “old-fashioned” styles or idioms. I fault “historicism” in art. I see no reason a musician couldn’t write a classic piano sonata that sounded very much like Beethoven, but was entertaining and maybe used Motown themes. Progress and innovation are overrated.
    Go visit galleries online. There are impressionists and classicists and lots of abstract impressionist(tho they might choose to label themselves otherwise) creating beautiful and interesting art. They likely are not being bought by museums.
    Current wallpaper:Jan van Goyen:”View of Hague in Winter” 1645

  59. I meant “abstract expressionists” of course.
    Lyman-Eyer Gallery
    Two here I am crazy about are Nan Feldman and Pat Mattina. But if you can’t find something here to like, give up.
    I have so many galleries (Greg Kucera is also good) in my links I had trouble finding that Provincetown site.
    Maybe these people are hacks or Sunday amateurs or something; Edward and the rest of you can determine what is interesting or exciting or good vs mediocre. Most galleries list prices, and that can be some indication of quality. I use that information.

  60. Edward, I understood that innovation was just one aspect of good art. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear.
    I am glad that there is no current narrative. To me, that means artsts must feel free to do what they like without being bound to work within or counter to some trend or school.
    I think the emphasis on newness and innovation dominated the narrative in a positive way for many years but, starting in the fifties, it got stale, pretentious, and elitist, so I’m glad the cult of the new has finally played itself out.
    I’ve been thinking about the scientist analogy and the issue of assesibility. I probably would not have translated the works in the gallery described upthread. The artist created artificial barriers between himself and his audience and didn’t like it when the audience failed to climb the barriers. It seems to me he brought his isolation on himself. If he had really wanted to communicate, he could have explained the purpose of the books, or provided translation. Inst4ead he chose to sit there, in my interpetation, quietly sneering at all the Phillistines who failed to surmount his barriers so they could appreciate his art.
    Scientists frequently are incomprehensible to laypeople but they earn that inaccessibility by spending years educating themselves in their area of expertise. That’s why we, their audience, either have to educate ourselves, or take their word on faith since we can’t understand their ideas ourselves. Art doesn’t have to be that inassesible. A great deal of expertise in the use of materials or skill in producing work doesn’t mean the work is going to be beyond the ken of the average human. Art is sometimes hard to understand because it is personal–but the personal can be explained.
    Another aspect of the narrative over the last hundred years has been the if-they-can-understand-it,then-it-must-be-bad assumption. Perhaps our current lack of narrative means we are finally getting over that, too.
    Yes it can enhance the appreciation of art to understand the artist’s thinking and the historical background. My minor was art history. I value the background information. But i am not interested in the kind of art that is more about the artist’s thoughts than the work itself, and I think if an artist wants the viewer to get the background info, then the artist should provide it.

  61. Phillistines who failed to surmount his barriers so they could appreciate his art.
    Scientists frequently are incomprehensible to laypeople but they earn that inaccessibility by spending years educating themselves in their area of expertise.
    So do artists. Many of the artists I know are incredible intellectuals with multiple graduate degrees and incredibly well read. They write, they teach, they continue to learn their whole lives. They are definitely equals in intellect to scientists.
    That’s why we, their audience, either have to educate ourselves, or take their word on faith since we can’t understand their ideas ourselves. Art doesn’t have to be that inassesible.
    No, it doesn’t. When it is though, it’s not necessarily because the artist has disdain for the audience. It may simply be that what they are trying to communicate is very complicated.

  62. I see no reason a musician couldn’t write a classic piano sonata that sounded very much like Beethoven, but was entertaining and maybe used Motown themes.
    Hey, the last time someone tried that and got anything reasonably worthwhile, we got Gershwin (although it was more Stravinsky + Dixieland). Now when people try stuff like that, we end up with hipster Williamsburg nonsense like the Fiery Furnaces, who are enjoyable enough once or twice, but who nobody will remember in 80 years like they do “Rhapsody in Blue.
    As for art, I readily admit to being uninformed, boring, and pedestrian in my tastes. I tend to like paintings that look like stuff, with the possible exceptions of Dali (whose paintings look like stuff, just not real stuff), Kandinsky and Miro. Modern art (including but not limited to “Modern Art”) confounds me and I find it not worth my time to learn about and understand, since there are a million other things I am interested in that are worth it. A segmented shark, or a bunch of differently-colored two-liter bottles filled with water, or a single plum floating in perfume served in a man’s hat might have something interesting to say, but I am either too busy or too dumb to hear it.

  63. Actually, my saying 1900 is a big sloppy, as there is some early 20th century stuff that I like (Our house is full of impressionist art done by a distant relative). I chose it because I don’t know the precise timing of things well enough to set an exact date at which the avant-garde of art shot itself in the face and gouged its eyes out and began fumbling for innovation in the dark.
    In general, though, most 20th century art is garbage in my eyes. Especially the lousy giant art sculptures which universities end up blowing millions of dollars on that could have been spent on things actually needed.
    But I’m not bitter.

  64. Thanks Edward, Ethridge’s Junction and Neshat’s Three Arches are wonderful images.
    You know, something struck me today about this statement Something about a piece will haunt her and the only way she can make it stop haunting her is to buy it. today whilst riding by a group of motorcycles. I saw two (at least) that I wanted (a Ducati Monster like I used to own and a old Norton) and this is only on one little parking area. The urge to find a way to buy one like them (although I have no room and finances are a bit thin right now) is very powerful. I know I would enjoy them (the sound of a well-tuned Norton and the lightness of the Monster are wonderful things) but they would not be appreciably different in experience than my current ride. So why is the draw so powerful? Is it consumerism or is it appreciation for their beauty? I’d say the latter, but some might claim the former. Perhaps the more we know about a thing the less the draw is consumerism or marketing driven and the more it becomes part of us.
    Perhaps desiring these things is a way to put our lives in a bit of balance. For an art lover, that photo there, where I’ll see it while cooking, that painting here, where the window will allow in differing makeing the painting change throughout the day and seasons. For others, that couch here, this vase there.
    I don’t know, I guess we’re all striving for the perfect design and the most important design is how we eventually see ourselves, from what we wear, to what we say and do. Art has helped me with that.
    Oh yeah, I wanted to plug my fave gallery too. Thomas Reynolds has been great at helping me find what I like. Then again, maybe we just enjoy the same things. I particularly love Villierme, Veerakeat, Miura and Ulriksen

  65. argh, the differing LIGHT makes the painting change throughout the day and seasons.
    much like the advance of evening dulls my ability to type. Have a great weekedn all.

  66. Off on a bit of a tangent, but for any fellow Nooyawkers out there, I recomend a trip to the Guggenheim to see the Daniel Buren exhibition. The main work, Around The Corner is one of the more interesting installations that I’ve seen.
    I’ve got to hand it to the curator and board for the guts to mount this – the entire exhibition, which occupies the entire Rotunda, the Grand Gallery, and two levels of the small rotunda at the northwest end of the Thannhauser Collection wing, consists of 6 installations. Of course, you can still get your money’s worth quantity-wise with a spin through the Tannhauser Collection itself 🙂

Comments are closed.