It’s
difficult to extricate the art world from its current context as it is tied so
intricately into the way things presently exist. Envisioning something new,
proposing a different structure to the way art is made and consumed (though
these ideas also fall within the staked out territory of the question),
involves restructuring a lot of how we view the role of society in our lives
and how we participate in it.
A
simple way to start may be to list a few things I desire, what I think art
should accomplish (and I do think that it should accomplish something, as in
affect the world around it): Connection, participation, and growth.
Connection
I
don’t think art should be exclusive. The way we approach establishing spaces,
demarcating boundaries, within which a certain activity occurs, is in itself
exclusive. I greatly value transparency and openness. Secluding art inside a
gallery space automatically prohibits many from viewing it. It’s a container
wherein certain values and norms can be upheld. It protects and maintains the
cultural standards that have accrued through history around art.
To
me, one of the rudimentary elements of human life is change, and to try to
maintain standards is a futile task. There is, of course, a balance to be
struck between change and permanence, but I think that our habit of demarcation
and wall-building, good insofar as it protects our fragile bodies from the
elements and the projectiles of open space, leans too heavily on the side of
security at the expense of community, fluidity, and transparency. Art, to me,
ought to be connected to the environment it exists within. I also think art
ought to be for people. People exist in an environment which is constantly
changing around them, whether that be on the micro-scale of the body or the
macro-scale of the city, nation, or planet. Separating art within a timeless
eternal white cube is to remove art from reality and create a fictional space
which serves no function for people. These barriers must be recognized for what
they are and modified accordingly.
Not
only do the rigid, concrete walls which hold our established spaces in
continence, they also rebuff anything foreign or unknown. The present art world
maintains itself as an isolated body, not actively engaged with the “plebeian”
world outside the gallery space. Its contents trickle down, so to speak, but
only in distilled form. For the most part, this is a one-way communication, a
monological dissertation intended to maintain the distinction of classes, even
in supposedly democratic societies.
Participation
As
the art world exists in disconnected space, it resists engagement with the
culture. Participation in the art world is restricted to those who meet a set
of prerequisites. The artist must generally be white, male, upper-middle class,
educated to the level of a master’s degree, etc. Art which sells is that art
which speaks to the privileged viewpoint, which doesn’t challenge the
established norm. These norms are upheld by the exclusive spaces in which art
is presented and its relegated status of commodity. As existing within a
capitalist economy, art must cater to buyer and market. This contributes to the
view that art has a specific and limited function: to be hung on a wall and
passively observed. To consume art is to look at it. This precludes the
possibility of active participation and limits what qualifies as art. Minimalism
and abstraction pushed so far within the standard definition it became almost
irrelevant to life. Art should not just engage a viewer, but should evoke
something within them, should offer a counterpoint to the ubiquitous screen which
pins people to their seats rather than stir them to active living, to inspire
them to create or to affect their environment.
Growth
I
want art to stimulate people, to make them aware that they are in a body which
is a cell in a larger body, expanding infinitely. I want people to affect how
and what art is made. Too often art is simply imposed. There is no conversation
involved. I have immense admiration for someone like Rodin or Durer who makes
truly beautiful, entrancing work, but such things are becoming less and less
relevant. An isolated act in a world of so many people quickly meets a wall.
Art can be beautiful and entrancing, but also inspiring, involving, and
empowering. The viewer who only views only pushes us farther along the line
toward ecological devastation. Change is needed, as enacted by people en masse.
Toward this alternative end, art must invite participation and activity for the
sake of collective growth. Art must not only instigate change, but must also be
receptive to change according to the larger body.
I
agree with much of what Suzi Gablik had to say in The Reenchantment of Art. The art world must don a new worldview
and take on a new purpose if we, as artists, are to approach our work
responsibly. Science has demonstrated that our behavior is leading us toward
destruction. Art, on the other end of things, must demonstrate what effect our present
behavior is having within an unrestricted context, not just on our isolated
minds. It must connect us to one another, concretely in terms of space. We
should create more fluid environments which invite instead of repel outside
influence and let ideas move freely. We must be more actively engaged with our natural
environment and invite the destruction of unnecessary walls. Our art-making and
presentation should invite participation and interaction from others. Art
should not push isolated viewpoints into the world, but should be receptive to
the unique perspectives which lie outside the bounds of established conventions.
These guidelines are intentionally vague – necessarily, for consistency with
their content – in order to invite each person to interpret these words
individually and carry them forward in their own particular way.
No comments:
Post a Comment