|
A GROWING INDIFFERENCE TO ART
There is a growing indifference toward art today. My very good
friend talked to me about a similar thing happening in music. After
a whole lot of really great music in the late 1960's and early
1970's, he said, came disco music, which was the kind of music that
led to indifference... and elevator music, he pointed out, has
reproduced that same great music in a boring, mediocre, nondescript
way. The objective of elevator music is that one definitely does not
listen to it at all.
So the question is, " What causes indifference in art? "
Answering the question, is a large part of the reason I decided to
write this book, and I think I have answered the question in many of
the essays. But it is perhaps helpful to list a few of the major
reasons here.
A lack of integrity on the artist's part is definitely one cause.
The artist quite often promotes the myths and misconceptions because
he feels, misguidedly, that it is in his best interests. He wears a
beret, or more often today, a uniform of black. He does things like
repeat the same type of painting over and over, refusing to change
because he has a fear of remaining unknown. He allows others to
dictate what he should paint. He lets dealers sell reproductions of
his paintings as over-valued prints. And most discouraging of all,
he paints the black stripe on the yellow background, pretends that
it is great art, and allows a dealer to sell it for thirty five
thousand dollars. The result is that we shake our heads in dismay,
and say, "I could do that!" And that's absolutely right. With a few
instructions, from a craftsman house painter, and a little practice,
anyone could.
To apply paint to a wall, fence, or house, does require knowledge of
how to mix paint, how to prepare a surface for paint, and how to
layer the paint so that it covers well and doesn't `run'. This is
valuable experience for any would-be fine artist, and I have done a
lot of it on the farm myself. But a house painter would soon be out
of business if he charged those kind of prices for his craft. So
when an artist tries to pass something off as art that is an insult
to his viewer, the result is not surprisingly, a growing lack of
respect.
Then there are dealers who promote art as a commodity, a prestigious
consumer item not unlike a BMW or a Mercedes. They play into the
power games associated with owning a `valuable' piece of art, and
participate in the business of it like a stockbroker or real estate
agent. There is the dealer who promotes the young artists right out
of art school, holding them up as the next up-and-coming batch of
Van Goghs. The real idea of course is for the dealer to become
known, to establish the reputation for having skyrocketed these
young talents to stardom (regardless of how long the hyp lasts), for
having an insight that itself verges on genius. So again the reasons
are self serving. Experience, hard work, and dedication are not
recognized as necessary qualities of a good artist, by such a
dealer. Then there is the gallery owner who will unashamedly take
artists works on consignment without feeling any obligation to pay,
display, or market. What other retail business do you know of that
gets their stock for nothing, and doesn't even have to pay for
shipping? It is demoralizing for the artist. If economics were
involved, perhaps there would be greater responsibility by all
parties.
Finally there is the public, who along with the dealers, buy into
the idea that not unlike designer clothes and BMW's, the more
expensive it is the better it must be. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Then there is the public that values the laboured art
that has taken hours and hours but has nothing to say and has no
content. Much of the public is as tired, bored, and jaded, as a lot
of the art and artists are. Therefore the public often acts as a
crowd, preferring fad, fashion and conformity to individuality and
creativity. As well they clamour after the sensationalist and
outrageous to escape boredom, or to become one of the beautiful
people.
"A certain official solicitude for art and artists and the
publicity attendant upon sensational auction sales, are despite
appearances to the contrary, indications of growing
indifference to true artistic value." (233)
"The casual audience for `art' in the 1970's is indifferent or
antipathetic to the image of `avant-gardism'.
The new crowds are made up of people who identify largely with `the
counterculture' - with a do-it-yourself, crafts-oriented,
life-is-art, everyone-an-artist attitude. Yet, like Chicago, they
are not content to remain without recognition from the `established'
art world. And they seem as indifferent as Warhol's trendy followers
to THE RIGOROUS, LONELY AND QUITE UNPUBLIC PROCESS BY WHICH AN
ARTIST DIGS DEEPER AND DEEPER TO CREATE HIM (OR HER) SELF, AND OUT
OF WHICH A REAL WORK OF ART EVENTUALLY MAY GROW." (234)
Thomas Albright
It is interesting to note that in the latter 1980's and early
1990's, ` avant-gardism ' has been embraced by the galleries and
upwardly mobile, a sure indication that art and artists are on to
new and different things. The viewpoint that everyone is an artist,
or could be an artist, is still commonly held.
233. P.H. Huisman, M.G. Dortu, ed. and translated by Corinne Bellow,
Lautrec by Lautrec, (New, York City, Galahad Books)
234. Thomas Albright, On Art and Artists, (U.S.A., The Chronicle
Publishing Co., 1989), p. 123
|
