|
|
This
issue...
Michael
Branthwaite: 'Us and Them'
Mark
Ramsden: 'Critical Culture':
Response to 'The Glory of the Garden' Matt Price. (essay)
Peter
Kerrigan: Response to Michael
Branthwaite's analysis of Them and Us/Artist and Viewer.
Michael
Branthwaite: In
Response to Peter Kerrigan: Us/Artist and viewer.
Date/Time
of Posting Jul 31 2003 / 08:46:00
'Us and Them'
The question 'us and them' regularly features in artist's work,
maybe even when the artist is unaware of it. I say this because
art as a practice that externalises thoughts must have, at some
point, an audience for which the artists 'self' has been externalised.
This calls into question the motives of the artist- has the artist
selfishly made a parody of their own willing or is it, as many
artists claim, an attempt to communicate the, at least difficult
or uncommunicatable, world of the artist. If this is the case
then the artist must be striving for a new
language capable of carrying and successfully communicating what
the artist wishes to communicate. It is worth noting that during
this process artists are commonly misunderstood, hence the question
of whom the work is being made for.
If an artist is willing to be misunderstood then his work could
become incredibly hard to analyse or judge because of the distance
the artist has created for themselves through a lack of communication
with the other (Hypothetically-Them). In contrast if an artist
does indeed set out to create work for the sole purpose of communicating
a multidimensional world of their own to others then is it not
still to the artists benefit that it is their personal view of
the whole that is being presented?
A case in mind.
I recently visited the Baltic Contemporary arts centre in Gateshead,
Tyne-and-Wear, the event was a talk by artist Chad McCail, Chad's
work is about the experiences of life, how we, possibly from Chad's
perspective, deal with our lives, our relationships, our economic
statue and so forth. However that
is not what I am writing about on this occasion. My point is,
is this work a result of Chad testing his own philosophies by
externalising them in a physical and dialectical medium, or is
it Chad trying to tell us, the viewers, what he thinks of the
world and its injustices? Both cases seem to be equally strong
and in fact I've just been through the same process writing this
letter- by externalising my thoughts through the medium of text
I've resolved my own viewpoint. If an issue is important enough
to
externalise and become a medium of communication then both the
artist and viewer benefit: the artist by the clarifying of their
own ideas and theviewer from the artists insight. I am talking
about art as a general subject and not about success or quality.
To conclude 'Us and Them' is an interesting topic for any creative
work, more so artists as their audience is not waiting for art
but looking for it. Artists should have the skill to make a resolved
attempt at bringing their own views into the sphere of the viewers.
Failing this art is not absolutely
pointless; in fact the biggest failures often lead to the most
enlightening conclusion.
Michael
Branthwaite: Independent Art School, Hull.
Date/Time
of Posting Aug 05 2003 / 23:10:00
Critical Culture
In his essay, "The Glory of the Garden", Matt Price
investigates the development of galleries and a commercial art
market in the regions of Britain, giving interesting examples
of Birmingham based artists who successfully make a living by
selling their work. But, do these artists represent success beyond
providing the artists with a living? What wider impact do these
artists have on art, never mind society? It would be interesting
to know the motives of art buyers. Do they buy art to decorate
their house? Is it an investment? I’m not against consumerism
in itself (after all, it is one of the good things capitalism
has to offer) but I do think there must be more to art than this.
So after reading about artists in Birmingham, "B&B and
the Art of Survival" (reviewed by Becky Shaw) comes as a
welcome relief. Shaw’s criticism of the current climate of
"opposition chic" is welcome but thankfully there are
artists who do want to communicate beyond an individual buyer,
who are critical of the commodification of art and seek to inject
some criticism of the current art circuit.
Perhaps the reason for a lack of critical infrastructure that
Price points to is that there is little to respond to in the kind
of art that Price uses as examples – it serves the purpose
admirably by providing artists with an income, and hopefully the
buyers get what they want. I’m not sure its possible to draw
up a blueprint for a critical culture or design policy to facilitate
it. A critical culture comes from dissatisfaction with the way
things are, a recognition that something is wrong. Dissatisfaction
is a better starting point for a critical culture. However there
is the danger, as Shaw writes, that being critical becomes an
end in itself. To be useful, criticism must come from a desire
to change things and to build a better world, and a belief that
it is possible.
Mark
Ramsden: Cambridge
Date/Time
of Posting Aug 06 2003 / 14:56:04
I
was interested in Michael Branthwaite's analysis of Them and Us/Artist
and Viewer but find his account portrays the viewer as a very
passive animal (hard to reconcile with his upbeat conclusion that
the 'audience is not waiting for art but looking for it'). I think
the artist should perhaps expect more of the viewer - but rather
than simply accept my assertion other artists are in a good position
to come to their own conclusions. They have remarkable super-powers
of becoming viewers themselves when they look at other people's
art.
This only helps to a degree though when it comes to the artist
clarifying their own ideas and with the artist normally absent
when the art is viewed it is easy to think of being misunderstood
as something that either happens or doesn't. But some artists
attempt to find a way round this problem by changing the rules
of engagement. Artists are increasingly playing a larger role
in the curating of their work trying to see their work not as
a continent entity but as something that happens in exhibition
space that the viewer temporarily shares. Instead of an absent
artist attempting to second-guess what their audience will understand
some artists work closely with particular groups or in particular
areas - and if other people can relate to what comes out of the
encounter that's fine too - part of the plan.
Other strategies seem more suspect and if artists want their work
to relate to society (which not all do) it can be tempting for
studio-bound artists to work with a generic viewer in mind. A
solution up to a point but I'm reminded of Calvino's phrase about
something 'too probable to be real'. The artist can become convinced
that art can and should only carry ideas that are 'big pieces
for tiny hands' or that the generic viewer is 'the average Cultural
Studies anorak in the street'.
I think Michael Branthwaite is right to find value in honest failure
but I feel that the relationship between the artist and the viewer
is more negotiable than he allows for..
Peter
Kerrigan: Liverpool
Date/Time
of Posting Aug
10 2003 / 09:37:21
In Response to
Peter Kerrigan: Us/Artist and viewer
I am interested in this notion of Artists clarifying their own
ideas and their absence during an exhibition, its actually manifesting
itself in my own work. If we could take Anthony Gormely’s
show at the Baltic as an example.(www.balticmill.com then click
arts programme). I have the advantage of having seen the exhibition
but there are pictures and text to describe the show. When visiting
this show with a friend, we took note that the show could be viewed
from two different perspectives, firstly on the same level as
the show and secondly from a viewing platform above the show looking
down. My friend was most impressed by the show when viewing it
from above, I was less impressed and felt that Gormley had avoided
using the space in any artistic or dynamic sense; this is purely
my own opinion. On reaching the lower level my friend was not
impressed at all and decided not to go to far into the space because
it was all pretty much the same from each perspective. This was
the point
I tried to make from the higher viewing platform. So here we have
two different people reaching the same conclusion about the same
exhibition but from different viewing scenarios. I would not say
that viewers are passive, just different, with different levels
of engagement. I agree that the viewers share something with in
the exhibition space but what is it exactly they are sharing?
Certainly the finished ‘piece’ but is it really a true
dialogue with the artist or just a projection of the information
available to the viewer. When artists externalise their thoughts/concepts
through the use of a medium are they interpreting their own understanding
of their theories/ philosophies for the viewers benefit, something
I would hope to be true, or simply resolving things for them selves?
As for the viewer being a passive animal, they very well could
be if the art was not engaging enough! Or does the viewer actively
search and hunt for a deeper understanding with in the work. I
know I’ve visited galleys when I have not been ‘in the
mood’ and found it difficult to engage with the work, this
however has no reflection on the ability of the artists, perhaps
that’s why I like surprises, you don’t have to be in
the mood for them. It could be like you pointed out that working
with a group of people or a particular space enhances the level
of engagement, but is that not restricted to those who shared
the experience? Is it not still possible that the group could
produce a misunderstanding, certainly I would expect this to be
less likely, but in principal it could be possible.
Finally I would like to say that yes you are right there is more
room for artists and viewers to negotiate but how this negotiation
happens and the results of it can still not be a perfect result
of communication. There will still be misunderstanding, I feel
that acceptance of this misunderstanding is actually a positive
way of keeping debate afloat and following it through to a resolved
conclusion, by doing this artists can be interpreted from a Varity
of perspectives, giving their work extra layers of meaning and
possibilities in the viewers mind. This then becomes a dialogue
and prevents art from becoming a dogmatic lesson of higher truths.
Michael
Branthwaite: Independent Art School, Hull.
|
|
