"What is the deal with the fine visual arts?"
It is not my imagination that there is something strange going on in the world of painting, sculpture, and the more modern applications of the fine visual arts, and has been, for all of my adult life, and even before. I remember growing up in an environment where the great majority of kids, self included, made horrible fun of Modern art, and caricatures of the people who painted it. I grew up an a working class environment that never accepted much of the modern, non-representational art, and to this very day, still looks down upon it. I vaguely remember around the third grade, a few teachers trying desperately to explain to a bunch of us school kids, the theories of Modern art, while we leered knowingly at them, knowing full well in our as yet unpolluted child-brains, that the grownups were full of bull, and that this stuff was just stupid gobs of paint whipped onto a canvas by some goofball, and that only a dope would ever actually pay money for it. I vaguely remember school children chanting 'artsy-fartsy, artsy-fartsy, artsy-fartsy, as we ran out into the schoolyard, to get on with the business of growing up. Shortly thereafter, art classes were cancelled... permanently.
I arrived late to the profession, and was 48 years old when I resumed my art education, and began painting. During the intervening years, I had not been much interested in art per-se, with a few exceptions. When I married, my wife turned out to be a Monet lover, and we began to visit the Art Institute (Chicago) regularly. Monet was Ok, and I began to develop a taste for some of the other painters as well, mostly the realist stuff from the 19th century and before. When I visited the Modern galleries, I could only shake my head in amazement at what I saw on display. I could not fathom how people could see any value in most of the stuff. Shades of 'artsy-fartsy', for sure. Still, I had no objection to other people liking it, if they wanted to, and I eventually developed a liking for some of Picasso's stuff, and a few other selected works of selected Modern painters. I also wound up going into the furniture refinishing business, which eventually led me into the practice of faux and decorative painting.
When I finally began painting in a 'fine arts' way, in January 1996, the question of 'what the deal was', in the fine visual arts, moved from the back burner of my existence, to the fore, and demanded an answer.
Music is a very democratic art form. It allows for all sorts of freedom of expression, and classical, jazz, swing, rock, punk, new age... all coexist very peaceably. This is beneficial for everyone. Dance has evolved along the same lines, with modern and classical forms coexisting... sometimes even within the same performance. Literature and poetry also seem to have managed the 20th century pretty gracefully, with various schools of thought thriving peacefully with one another. The visual arts present a different situation entirely. Modern art has evolved over the century from something new and unheard of, and not accepted even in the arts community, to the dominant force within that community, and also with some broad (but nowhere near total) acceptance from the public at large. This is fine, but the story doesn't end there. Gradually, visual arts curricula in universities and fine arts colleges began to stress modern art courses and theory, and the expense of more traditional forms, and the gallery and curatorial scenes followed suit. In the 1960's, at about the same time that I was chanting artsy-fartsy, the grammar and high schools, instead of following suit, almost completely discontinued visual arts education. Musical education continued, both in and out of school. There was tremendous excitement for the new musical art forms, and at the same time, there was a disconnection between most of what was happening in the visual arts community (except where Warhol and Pop arts were concerned), and what was happening in the general public. The Moderns underwent a split somewhere in the 1970's, between academic and pop poster art. Academic art, which included the gallery, curatorial and educational institutions, became even less connected with the general public, than they had been previously. They became an 'elite' sort of establishment, catering in rarified artistic concepts, that appealed less and less to the general public.
Beginning in the 1980's, this art establishment has generally come to be known as 'ArtWorld', which is definitely meant in a derogatory sense. Their offerings have included 'conceptual art', shock art', 'strident feminist art', 'victim art', 'body secretions art', and a host of other 'problematic' art forms, intended to shock, offend, and make fun of the viewer, the buyer, the painter, and the idea of art itself... in effect, poking the general public with a pointy intellectual stick, and then chiding them for not 'getting it'. By the 1990's, the 'Contemporary Fine Visual Arts Industry', which is the most vocal and visible part of the fine visual arts community, had publicly embraced the concept of Commodification, the ethics of Irony and Cynicism, and the politics of Deconstruction.
What this means, essentially, is that:
1) Nothing that art (or anything else, for that matter) can have to offer is better than anything else. (deconstruction) Any work offered is so weighted with the artist's personal prejudices, that it cannot contain anything of intrinsic value. In fact, intrinsic value itself does not exist. In three words... All Is Shit.
2) The artist herself (in addition to the works produced) is a commodity to be sold, just like any other commodity... nothing more, and nothing less. (commodification) Under this definition, galleries are just fancy shops that attract well-heeled clientele, to sell them meaningless product, that has no intrinsic value, beyond whatever 'Name Brand' status the dealer or gallery owner (read manufacturer) has been able to attach to the artist's name. MOMA's (Museums of Modern Art), curators and critics become no more than advertisers, promoting a commodity (product) for a cut of the profits, one way or another. Art and artist have little significance in this process, beyond brand name value, and whatever 'spokesperson' status they might possess. The artists must be able to look and act the role that the dealer has devised for them, in order to sell their product (themselves).
and...
3) Art should engage in irony, pretence, shock, political agenda, and little else, most especially, no 'higher' motive. Art is a joke, the very idea of art is a joke, that art could have something of value to contribute to the human condition is a joke, that ANYTHING could have something of value to contribute to the human condition is a joke, the human condition is a joke, humanity is a joke... so let's at least get a good laugh out of it, at everyone's expense.
This was 'The State of the Visual Arts' as far as ArtWorld was concerned when I arrived at the door in January 1996, and since then, there has only been a hardening (if such a thing is possible) of this pose.
I don't believe any of it, not for a minute.
What these beliefs and practices have accomplished within the ArtWorld community has been to transform it into an overwhelmingly political environment, where value and worth are measured by considerations of wealth and power, and little else. Imagine for a moment, that science was conducted this way, within a similar underlying belief system. We would be living in caves.
Science addresses the fact that there is no 'absolute truth' by saying, "Well, no, there is no 'absolute' truth that we know of yet, but there are some versions that we can see are more accurate truths than their predecessors, because they work better in practice. Therefore, let us use the existing 'truth' as best we can, and keep our minds open, as we search for a better and more sound version of the 'truth', and when one comes along, we will adopt that, until an even better version comes along."
The fine visual arts addresses the fact that there is no 'absolute truth' by saying, "Well, then, everything is just garbage, and no-one's vision is any better or truer than anyone else's, and therefore the only thing left to do is package and promote this crap as if it were a very costly version of the 'Pocket Fisherman', or the latest handy-dandy kitchen appliance, i.e., a 'status toy' for rich people.
The invention of this ethic has resulted in a devaluation of one of the highest disciplines of human mind, emotion and culture, and has stunted our intellectual-emotional development. Art is not optional to the human psyche.
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, there are two kinds of visual artists... those that join ArtWorld, and those who either do not, or are rejected by ArtWorld. Those who join ArtWorld practice politics according to the rules and customs of ArtWorld. Those who do not join, or are rejected by ArtWorld, are free to think and to practice art as they please.
In ArtWorld, the rules are unspoken (and the fact that such rules exist will be angrily denied), many, and subject to arbitrary change, at the whim of the 'power elite'. The power elite are those who hold the purse strings, and also, those who hold the ability to decide whose work will be seen, and criticised favourably, and whose work will not be seen, or will be criticised unfavourably. The only criterion for an artist's work is whether or not it pleases those who have power, at any particular moment. This is an inescapable conclusion, in an environment that follows the tenets of deconstruction, which denies any intrinsic worth, to any artistic endeavour. In the topsy-turvy ArtWorld environment, the work and the artist are on the bottom, the dealers, gallery owners, curators and critics are in the middle, and the wealthy patron is at the top. Money, power and recognition are the only rewards, and can only be doled out by those who have them to disburse, and are willing to disburse them... the wealthy patrons (customers). The VARP's (various-art-related-persons, i.e., dealers, gallery owners, curators, critics, etc.) are in the middle, pretending to 'add value' to the commodity, by ascertaining which work/ artist (commodity) has what value (I guess the rich are unable to manage this for themselves), and taking a cut (50%+) for their trouble, while the artist remains at the bottom, taking whatever is given, and being grateful for that. Suck up to the 'right' people, make sure that you dress, look, think, and paint the way those 'right' people want you to, and maybe... just maybe... you will get a show.
What sort of 'value' can a VARP add, when they are committed to the practice of commodification? They are packaging a product for consumption as a 'status toy', and nothing more. They are lying every which way necessary, by definition. That is what commodification is... the same old advertisement scenario we have seen over and over again, each time outdoing itself in egregious abuse of truth. (which does not even exist, as far as deconstruction is concerned) This is the politics of ArtWorld. It is unlikely that the ArtWorld environment will attract a lot of serious artists. Independent thought and action do not lend themselves to environments that practice groupthink. ArtWorld is the followers, following the followers, following the followers.
The Politics of One
When I began painting in 1996, I drew my inspiration from the past, and from a very few contemporary painters, all of them 'outsiders'. The most significant of those contemporary outsiders (to me) is Andrew Wyeth. While he has had and continues to have an incredibly successful career, complete with very rich customers and an upscale New York dealer, he has never been accepted by the 'powers that be' in the Art World. I don't know the intimate details of his life, but from what I have been able to gather, Andrew just painted what he painted, and when it received all sorts of nasty criticism by the moderns, who were the Art World of his generation of painters, he just shrugged his shoulders, and went back to work. Good idea. The other people who inspired me include Winslow Homer, Pablo Picasso, and Rembrandt van Rijn... many of the old and not so old masters, whose names usually escape me, but whose work does not. Their personal politics matter to me not at all. Some of them may well have been nasty, anti-Semitic, racist, misogynistic, sexual perverts in person, I don't know. They're dead (for the most part), and their paintings do not reflect any such beliefs that I can see, and that is all that matters to me.
Outside the environs of the Art World, artists are free to practice their politics (and their other personal behaviours) independent of group censure. Therefore, it can be guaranteed that the range of ideas; personal, political and artistic, will be much broader, straying into even 'forbidden' zones. But... Art World has already attacked everything... broken down all the barriers... insulted everyone's taste and intelligence... so what can these 'forbidden' zones be?
Andrew Wyeth demonstrated it best. Do what you like, even if it isn't shocking, and doesn't please the pundits. Do what you like, even when the critics wail that its all been done before. Art is not now, nor has it ever been, about doing something that has never been done before (although all works of art are really as unique as the people who executed them), or that is shocking, outrageous, breaks down barriers, is cutting edge (oohh! I really like that one), or is new, different, exciting, titillating, kinky, kiki, or any of the other adjectives that are presently applied to it.
I can think of only one descriptor that good art must fulfill (my opinion), and that is 'honest'. I also think that it is a good idea that the artist do the very best and most skillful work that they are capable of, as well, because what good are your tools, if you never learn how to use them, and what good is your language, if you limit yourself to only ten words?
I chose realism (21st century style), or rather it chose me. I tried painting some abstract stuff, but my heart was not in it. My politics are the politics of one, rather than the politics of any group. I am not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican. I am not a Conservative, nor am I a Liberal, or middle-of-the-road. I just let my hands paint what my eyes see, to the best of both their abilities. I do not care for the abstract fields, but those painters are welcome to practice art as they see fit, and if I do not like the work, I will say "I do not like that work', not, 'that work is no good'. If the work was executed by an incompetent hand, or eye, that is another matter, and I will call it as I see it.
I entered the field at an extremely fortuitous time... the beginning of the age of the World Wide Web. This amazing new medium has allowed visual artists to present their work to the public without support from any artistic infrastructure. I may not be selling much of my work, but it is being widely seen... not necessarily by rich people, although nothing is stopping anyone from visiting the site. Eventually I might wind up earning enough to live and eat, from this work that has chosen me. I would rather remain poor, and have my work widely seen, where it might at least have the opportunity of influencing someone positively, if only for a moment's pleasurable viewing, than to have the work become a commodified status toy, and myself turned into a brand name.
I know it is an old fashioned notion, but I believe that just painting what I see, according to how I feel at the time, is enough, and will in the end, wind up 'serving mankind' (another naive, outmoded notion) better than anything I could consciously think up, as a plan. One thing, however, flies in the face of this being just an old fashioned, out-dated, naive notion. I am not exactly a starry-eyed do-gooder naïf, and may in fact be one of the more cynical people walking the planet.
I'm not cynical enough to have given up on humanity, though. If that were the case, there would be no reason to paint.