Whew! I chose to explore current artistic trends and criticism regarding traditional forms of art and more controversial postmodern traditions. It was a good excuse to read current (within past 2 years) articles from Art in America, Artforum, Critical Review, etc., and to update my perception of the postmodern experience. The reading was everything I expected. Writing about those readings was another animal altogether.
One aspect of the reading was separating subject related articles from the unrelated flotsam, and some articles were just to hard to resist. For instance there was an interesting article in last month's Art in America describing how Seattle was booming as a cultural hub. This was a hard one to resist because I had just returned from there, visiting the museums, galleries, and famous Seattle artist, Fred Holcomb. It was fascinating to read another writer's description of what you've just experienced, though I think they wrongly omitted mentioning Fred's work in the article.
An article from last month's Artforum that did focus on criticism of Postmodern Art was about Michael Krebber's work. Here, three writers, Daniel Birnbaum, John Kelsey, and Jessica Morgan, wrote short essays responding to his recent exhibitions. According to these writers Krebber's recent work was not much more than stretched bed linens and scratched photographs, but they amazingly dug up background and comparisons that yielded three unique reactions. The article is a "must read" from a journalistic standpoint because they make interesting points about not- so-visually interesting work.
O.K. So what is harder than writing about not-so -interesting work? Writing about what people have written about not-so-interesting work. What was I thinking when I chose this topic for investigation? Writing about art is one thing. It can be described colorfully, it can be compared to other works of art, it can even be compared to other experiences such as eating pan seared scallops or a crunchy bag of Frittos. Writing about someone else's writing (about art) is really confusing. Does one write about the artwork based on what others have described? Does one criticize what the writers have written about the artist's artwork without having seen it? Or does one try to form an opinion backed up by what has been written? Self inflicted torture is the only way to describe the dilemma. After editing pages upon pages that combined all three strategies the final strategy emerged as the approved method.
It is enjoyable to read current articles reviewing current artwork. The difficulty in writing about what others have experienced, where you have little personal experience or research available, is like chewing on a flat inner tube.
One aspect of the reading was separating subject related articles from the unrelated flotsam, and some articles were just to hard to resist. For instance there was an interesting article in last month's Art in America describing how Seattle was booming as a cultural hub. This was a hard one to resist because I had just returned from there, visiting the museums, galleries, and famous Seattle artist, Fred Holcomb. It was fascinating to read another writer's description of what you've just experienced, though I think they wrongly omitted mentioning Fred's work in the article.
An article from last month's Artforum that did focus on criticism of Postmodern Art was about Michael Krebber's work. Here, three writers, Daniel Birnbaum, John Kelsey, and Jessica Morgan, wrote short essays responding to his recent exhibitions. According to these writers Krebber's recent work was not much more than stretched bed linens and scratched photographs, but they amazingly dug up background and comparisons that yielded three unique reactions. The article is a "must read" from a journalistic standpoint because they make interesting points about not- so-visually interesting work.
O.K. So what is harder than writing about not-so -interesting work? Writing about what people have written about not-so-interesting work. What was I thinking when I chose this topic for investigation? Writing about art is one thing. It can be described colorfully, it can be compared to other works of art, it can even be compared to other experiences such as eating pan seared scallops or a crunchy bag of Frittos. Writing about someone else's writing (about art) is really confusing. Does one write about the artwork based on what others have described? Does one criticize what the writers have written about the artist's artwork without having seen it? Or does one try to form an opinion backed up by what has been written? Self inflicted torture is the only way to describe the dilemma. After editing pages upon pages that combined all three strategies the final strategy emerged as the approved method.
It is enjoyable to read current articles reviewing current artwork. The difficulty in writing about what others have experienced, where you have little personal experience or research available, is like chewing on a flat inner tube.
3 comments:
Hi Chris, Based on the 215 Literary Festival that just passed through Philly,(the festival focuses mainly on literature, but it is intertwined with art and music.) I'm curious to read your paper. These days, we don't only blur lines between "fine art," "craft," and "design." It seems it is all under one giant heading...a big happy family, a bit disfunctional at times! I'd love to read what you wrote, it sounds like some things I'm interested in as well. If you want to share, my home mail is tmsaulin@gmail.com. Thanx! Terri
Chris-
Yipes! You make it sound really torturous (and I don't doubt that it is). Part of the thing I think is interesting about the enterprise you've undertaken is that it addresses the echochamber of contemporary art rather squarely - that place in which one will willingly write about "the discourse" - or about anything else fo that matter - so long as one doesn't have to write about the art itself. I have, for sometime, been casually working on an essay called "Why I am not a Critic" (which is punningly named for a poem by Frank O'Hara, "Why I am not a Painter"...ha ha) in which I've been trying to explain that it was becuase I was interested in artworks that I started doing criticism. However, I came to fear that my editors were more interested in the things I wrote as definitions of trends, artists tended to regard what I write as positive or negative publicity, and readers tended not to read them.
On the whole, kind of depressing, but I'm inspired by the Michael Kimmelman's new book, The Accidental Masterpiece in which he writes about art in what appears to be an engaging and accessible way. readers appear to be enjoying it, if the reviews on Amazon are any guide.
Hang in there and remember you're in the echo chamber for your own benefit, and we'll look forward to your reports.
I still think you can approach this by thinking of shows you've seen in NY or Philadelphia and then setting out to locate reviews of them, which you can then compare to your own observations and recollections. Of course you're ony talking about one thing you've seen, but you'll be able to see what the writers and publications in whom you're interested are noticing that you caught or missed.
Post a Comment