To follow up with a few points on how this discussion on aesthetic
judgment and criteria for selecting works is connected to other
issues, like gender, institutions, West / East divide, history of art,
etc:
- I discussed "the tyranny of the possible" in contemporary and new
media art in my editorial in Leonardo (Vol. 38,No. 1, February 2005,
P. 1) - as a problem of "choice" in art, especially in relation to the
medium. The link to that text is here (reprinted in LEA):
http://leoalmanac.org/journal/Vol_13/lea_v13_n02.txt
- In my recent research on Varvara Stepanova, who was a member of
Russian/Soviet avant-garde and a 'multi-media' artist herself, I found
a couple of curious citations in her diary that I think would be
relevant for our discussion on how choices are made what to buy /
exhibit, and what art departments are left to exist:
Stepanova writes: "I receive a lot of opposition [from established
artists and critics] for my new left art, and was asked to resign from
the new art organizations. Of course, it is difficult to start
something new, especially so new. Only Vasilich [Vassilii Kandinsky]
tells everyone (though he might think otherwise) that we are talented,
and to leave us alone. I am very surprised that he defends works that
he can poorly understand, obviously, cannot like and that are so
opposite to his own 'intuitive' art principle." (from Stepanova's
diary, March 11, 1920).
"We had Americans over. One was boring, dry, wearing specs, professor
Alfred Barr; another one - young and happy, Jere Abbott... Barr was
interested only in painting and drawing, though we [Stepanova and her
husband Rodchenko] showed them everything we had." (January 10, 1928).
Alfred Barr was the first director of Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in
New York, and famously not very interested in Soviet experiments in
'art and technology' for his new MOMA collection. Ironically, when
Guggenheim decided to profile women-artists prominent in Russian /
Soviet avant-garde (in a 2001 exhibition), curators also chose only
paintings, though Stepanova, for example, or Exter, are more known for
multi-media, textile and experimental performance / graphic design
work:
http://www.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/past_exhibitions/amazons_of_the_avant_garde/
Opportunities to make and to show, generosity with such opportunities,
politics of funding, larger politics of art practice in a given
society, respect and reputation from peers-artists, theorists and
curators, this is what Stepanova documents as major factors in making
or breaking an artist, or an art movement. She documents brutality
with which she was personally attacked both as a woman artist and as a
"left" artist, long before the so-called Russian constructivism was
attacked as an art movement. These attacks would not mean as much, if
they did not lead to people losing their jobs and sometimes their
lives. It was more difficult for her as she did not make a distinction
between her art making and what was happening in society (she worked
in a factory, in a design studio, was also an educator and a
researcher). Stepanova also had no illusions about difficulties of
being a 'woman' who is trying to re-think and re-make entire art
history in the early 1920s, not from the point of view of 'individual
hero artist' (she documented how her better known male colleagues had
problems with collective, anonymous and socially-aware art practice,
as well as with changing position of women in early Soviet life). And
it was Kandunsky in 1920 who supported her employment and art making,
together with Lunacharsky and few others. At that time this support
often meant not to go hungry and continue practicing. May be, in
today's financial crisis it is not about going hungry, but it still
seems to be about continuing one's artistic and curatorial practice.
Do we have enough "Kandinskys and Lunacharskys" today, to support
something that does not look like their own practice or even values in
art?
Warm regards,
Irina
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Caroline LANGILL
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Although there seem to be several threads to this conversation they can be
> connected through broader discussions of exclusion over the course of the
> 20thC. What worked for Twombly may have worked against early new media
> artists. Although curators were willing to accept the monumental and what we
> might perceive as "male" characteristics in his art they were unwilling to
> accept in artists working with technology, which is ironic. The criticism of
> 9 Evenings is a good example of this. The conflation of the machine with the
> "man" in the late 60s did not help artists who were incorporating technology
> into their art.
>
> In my research around early new media in Canada, and in discussions I had
> with curators working in the 70s and 80s, I discovered a perception of new
> media being reduced to "boys with their toys." So, with the rise of feminist
> work this perception was brought into high relief. Thus, the resistance to
> exhibition of the work was doubly manifest. How did women making work with
> technology fare in all this? I would suggest they found themselves caught
> between two opposing forces, which made it difficult for women artists to
> make the decision to enter into the fray. Those who did were rewarded when
> women began to theorize the field and provide some of the most astute
> writing regarding technology and its effects (Haraway, Hayles...). At least
> they found a reflection of themselves in emerging theory.
>
> All this is to say that we need to consider the various actors who were
> involved in exclusions or inclusions, not just the artists but the curators,
> writers, etc. Remember women were working in the museum as curators and
> directors long before they were on the walls (or floors...).
>
> Another quick point - Eric Brown, the first director of the National Gallery
> of Canada (1920s...we are a very young country!), used his Christian
> Scientist beliefs to intentionally exclude any work that related in any way
> to technology - no Futurist or dada work was purchased. This policy was
> upheld by his successor and was more or less the case until the 1960s when
> the policy against buying any American art was also lifted.
>
> Caroline
>
>
>> From: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] "the art form lacks ...depth and
>> cultural agency"
>> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:41:05 +0100
>>
>> I donıt think Charlie was offering unconditional support for all media
>> art.
>> I know he has his likes and dislikes, just like anybody. He also has the
>> right to dish Twombly. Personally I think Twombly is one of the most
>> compelling of post-war artists but such preferences are a matter of
>> taste
>> as much as anything else. Some people think Duchamp was just a poseur. I
>> am
>> not sure what I think of him but he was clearly very clever, whatever he
>> was. I am in the same quandry about Beuys, even though I know that in the
>> contemporary neo-conceptual artworld these two guys are held in extremely
>> high esteem.
>>
>> No artist deserves the sort of attention that some artists receive and
>> very
>> few are so bad they should be treated as poorly as they are. I am acutely
>> aware of all the young artists I knew when I was young and how few of them
>> are left standing. I am cogniscant that some of the most talented are no
>> longer working whilst those who often that had the least talent (but
>> perhaps
>> more attitude) are. Some of those that have achieved the greatest fame and
>> fortune are (in my opinion, but the opinion of somebody who knows the
>> people
>> involved) amongst those of the least talent (in fact some know they have
>> no
>> talent and think itıs a hoot they are now so successful). This isnıt fair
>>
>> but who expects life to be fair? It is a reflection of how preferences are
>> a
>> matter of taste (and therefore fashion) and being in the right place at
>> the
>> right time (and knowing the right people) is more important than whether
>> you
>> are a half decent artist or not.
>>
>> Before we note that this is off theme we could turn this line of thinking
>> to
>> why men have traditionally had a higher profile in the visual arts than
>> women? Twombly is a good example here, as his work belongs to the American
>> heroic tradition that is associated with big things big buildings, big
>> men, big beards, Hemmingway, big fish and Pollock, etc. However, Twombly
>> is
>> gay so that sort of throws a spanner in the works. Sexuality and gender
>> are
>> not so black and white. Nevertheless, amongst many of those young artists
>> I
>> knew (many years ago) there was roughly a 50/50 male/female gender split.
>> Amongst those continuing to practise I doubt that would be the case even
>> though I belong to that generation that saw far more women succeed than
>> was
>> previously the case. The artworld, the media artworld and the world
>> generally does have a case to answer on this.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> On 23/10/08 14:08, "Josephine Bosma" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >
>> > Talking about perplexing...
>> >
>> > Are we going to bash each others heads in with artworks we don't
>> > like, in order to humiliate this or that art world now? Hope not.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> > of the 'whatever art' and the 'whatever subject'. When I
>> >> > contemplate this particular piece of new media art - http://
>> >> > dogsears.ica.org.uk/ - I find your unconditional championing of new
>> >> > media art even more perplexing, and even begin to sympathise with
>> >> > Eshun's decision.
>> >> >
>> >> > J
>> >> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Simon Biggs
>> Research Professor
>> edinburgh college of art
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.eca.ac.uk
>> www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.littlepig.org.uk
>> AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
>>
>>
>> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number
>> SC009201
>
|
