|
New York Times Op Ed Page Readers of the NYT are likely to assume that every
categorical complaint that could be made has been made, and that at this
late point in history we are just being updated on the breaking subcategorical
squabbles. If you think this, pay
attention, because you are about to be apprised of a rare bit of news. The news is that a living artist, who may be
famous within your lifetime (if you are, say, five years old, and if you live
to be, say, 140), has recently learned to read and write, and he is ready to
speak. This has not happened since
around 1870—when James Whistler took up a pen and gave the critics the thorough
dressing-down they deserved. This
may interest you for two reasons. One,
because you love art and you have just been waiting for this moment. Two, because your favorite spectator sport
is bear-baiting, where an overconfident lump of fur and muscle is lowered into
a pit of snarling vicious wolves and slowly converted to mush. No
seriously, I know you are an intellectual and therefore above both of these
things. You are more likely thinking, This
is not news. In America, any loudmouth
can say whatever he wants. Big deal. Yes, but when was the last time you actually
read anything important by a living artist about art? Artists may sometimes write blurbs to explain their work; or, if
they are realists, they may occasionally write about technique; or, if they are
PoMos, they may agree to a relaxed, very cool interview—one where they may not
even be wearing a shirt. But art theory
is out of their hands. When you read
about art in books and magazines and newspapers, you are reading the opinions
and the theories of non-artists. All
your information is from critics and scholars and pundits and curators and
dealers.
Another example: for many years MOMA has been giving lectures to
aspiring artists. Who are the
lecturers? Great artists? No.
Curators and Art Historians. Who
taught the Curators and Art Historians about art? Great artists? No. Other Curators and Art Historians. Try
for a moment to conceive exactly how absurd this is. Is there any other field that is defined so completely by people
who do not practice it? Of
course I know the standard reply: art has always been like that. Michelangelo had to answer to the Popes,
and so on. But the standard reply is
from people who do not care to make distinctions. The fact is that artists have never been as disenfranchised from
art as they are now. The kings and
popes were less tyrannical than the current art market. In this market it is not just the client
that must be consulted. If an artist
has any ambition beyond the decorative markets, he must also subsume his
creativity within the expectations and careers of the critics, curators,
galleries owners, editors, and scholars of art. Michelangelo had to fight with one man to paint the Sistine
Ceiling as he wanted it. He had to consult
with one committee (that of the Signory) to sculpt David as he wanted him. And Michelangelo won his battles. When was the last time an artist won an
argument with Theory? We don't
know. We have never seen an artist have
an argument with Theory. The artists we
know of were chosen by Theory.
That is why we know of them. Well, you may say, why don't the
artists say something. It's a free
country. The well-known artists
don't say anything because they don't need to.
They are rich and famous. They
got rich and famous by doing the visual work of Theory and keeping quiet. Less well-known artists keep quiet for the
same reason: if they are ever to get rich and famous it will be thanks to
Theory, thanks to the priests of PoMo, thanks to the kingmakers in NYC and
London. The other artists, those
completely outside Theory, do not speak out because they are afraid of being
browbeaten by the "experts."
They are silenced by the realization that they can never compete in
intellectual debate with those who have made a career of it. Artists not interested in postmodernism are
usually not interested in art as a debating skill, and so they are
understandably print-shy. You
may think you already know all the important battle-lines: the cries of censorship
and free-speech, and multi-culti, and Guiliani v. obscenity, and Helms v.
Finley, and so on. But all that is just
a side-show for the aesthetically impaired.
A diversion. A thrilling
political spectacle, no doubt, but it has nought to do with art. No, the real fight is between artists and
"art experts", and it has been waged for over a century. Whistler wrote, in 1877, "The war, of
which the opening skirmish was fought the other day in Westminster [when he
sued the art critic Ruskin for libel], is really one between the brush and the
pen." Notice that Whistler was
well aware that things would only get worse.
And they have. We have reached
the point now where art is a closed meeting, and all the officers are
non-artists. A production run by the
suits. Art has been redefined to meet
the needs of administration: it would be unrecognizable to any artist from
Praxiteles to Van Gogh. Art no longer
generates artifacts; it generates words. Books, articles, reports, catalogues, inventories, receipts.
Robert Rosenblum, an administrator at the Guggenheim, was quoted
recently that "by now the idea of defining art is so remote I don't think
anyone would dare to do it." The
meaning of this is very clear to artists.
Rosenblum says that it means art can be anything. Total creative freedom. Artists know that it means just the
opposite. It means that art has long
since been defined (by Theory) and that there is no reason to argue about it
anymore. It means that the critics and
curators and other administrators of art are satisfied with the status quo (and
why should they not?), and that any continued discussion by artists will be
considered insubordinate.
Well, Mr. Rosenblum, at the risk of seeming a Berserker, I demur. Your very presence at the debate mystifies
me. The definition of their own field
is for artists to decide. All
other opinion is finally an intrusion.
Whistler said, "A life passed among pictures makes not a painter—else
the policeman at the National Gallery might assert himself. As well allege that he who lives in a
library must needs die a poet." My
Dear Reader, you will never again see an artistic renaissance until artists are
free of this pernicious and illogical
influence. Until you realize
that art has been coopted, like everything else, by profiteers of one sort or
another. Until you understand that the
only way around this is to defrock the priests. Think of this like the Protestant Reformation (I get to be Luther—O
joy). You do not need "critical
distance" to speak to art or the artist any more than you need
intercession in order to pray. You only need eyes. If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction. |