Massive Links! Weekend Events and More Edition

If good means picked up by galleries, then some Columbia MFAers are that. Still, us on the left coast would like to use a different measure for success. Yesterday the US Artist grants were announced, and fully half the awards went to current or former CalArts faculty and alumni.

Ha ha–”self loathing artists” indeed. Art about the art world inherently blows–Momenta should have better things to do with its time.

Michael: Spoken like a true CalArts grad;)

On the subject of art schools, you are wrong to suggest that only measure of success used to evaluate Columbia grads on this blog and the art world in general, is their gallery representation. Dana Schutz, Ryan Johnson, Guy Ben-Ner, Tammy Ben-tor, Noah Fischer, and Marc Handleman are all columbia grads whom I have written about over the last two years, and there is far more to their success the saleability of the objects they make. Noah Fischer may have gallery representation, but doesn’t make tons of gallery ready work. He’s currently traveling Europe performing. His performances are very political, and contribute much to the field of art making right now.

Tom: I think art about the art world is inherently limited, but not all of it is as bad as you say. Alex Bag is a great artist, and I’ve been known to like a few Andrea Fraser pieces in my time as well.

The issue with arts activism of course is that typically we like art to speak on more levels than just to the art world, and it’s hard for activism to do that when it’s directed at us. At some point an effort has to be made by to be a little more open minded about the purpose and shape of activism, so that it has the space to function effectively, (a comment not directed at you so much as everyone working within the field – I don’t have tons of interest in most of the forms activism takes, and end up supporting some stuff I feel is a little hokey because I think the end goal is important)

“Self loathing artists and outspoken activists make art about working in a world they hold in low regard.”

Having lived thru the Nixon regime, this may offer some relief to the loathing of the Bush dictatorship. Nixon was elected admist the wake of the Summer of Love and Woodstock. Brutal authoritarianism meets acid/nature communes; the proverbial photo of the guy putting a flower in a National Guardsmen’s M-16. The politics of the left became a disorganized passing trend. Similar to today’s global warming and Iraq, the time period had pollution/Vietnam on its mind. In the art world, Carl Andre’s/Donald Judd’s industrialized structuralisms seemingly ‘progressed’ to the overly anal dictums of Kosuth and Art & Language, both of whom in hindsight misinterpreted Duchamp, missing totally his gendering. You couldn’t ask for a more conservative, absolutist profile, which shut out alternative forms of work via the formalist hegemony of Krauss/Fried, both epigones of Greenberg. To hear Andre lecture how Smithson had Marxistically seized the means of production made one’s eyes roll, as if he were a throwback to the Harold Rosenbergs, Pollocks who actually belonged to the Communist Party at one time.

All that has melted away into retro shows attempting to drum up business, or Sotheby sales. Today, unquestionably, you have Nixon II (Chaney/Rumsfeld et alia were all Nixon appointees) yet I don’t think u could argue that the art world is as bad as it was in the Nixon era. Certainly, u have your corporatization and excesses of capitalism, yet the species of players have vastly multiplied beyond even the tepid standards of 70′s, 80′s pluralism. Although the Internet has quickly gone from its populist status to ad driven profit, the representation of all kinds of artists cannot be denied as a change that has its benefits. The fact that Charlie Finch on MartNet had to take time to attack art bloggers, should tell u something. At least, there are more options now, if not a shitload of websites, myspaces, etc.

tom’s blog is often about the artworld, and i was under the impression that he considered the blog to be art.

confused fan of tom moody.

I disagree with this reasoning:

1. Because some artists have made art about the art world, one must think they blow if one thinks art about the art world blows. (e.g. Alex Bag–she has other personae besides art-specific personae.)

2. If a blog was presented as a performance work for a month, the remaining years of its existence and all content subsumable under the heading of that URL are presumptively art.

I’ve kvetched repeatedly on my blog and elsewhere that it’s often a sign that an artist has jumped the shark when s/he starts making art about art. (E.g, Lichtenstein’s awful Leger quotations, Jim Dine’s Greek statues… Sherrie Levine was an exception because a philosophical point about authorship was being made–at least until she started doing gold urinals. Similarly A. Fraser’s museum tours were kind of interesting but fucking the collector was just belaboring the point.)

That was my complaint about the Cory Arcangel screen burning piece–the subject was the mechanics of art display and the types of screens “A” list artists get to destroy as opposed to overlooked wharf rats. The last thing I want to see is an extended whine about how horrible/capitalistic/phony the art world is–as content. There are just more pressing issues from the life world that artists could be addressing.

Re: the art about art. I think it happens in works w/o even thinking. Can’t believe this is still a topic, get over it.

The topic was a show called “Air Kissing: An Exhibition of Contemporary Art about the Art World.”

“The last thing I want to see is an extended whine about how horrible/capitalistic/phony the art world is–as content. There are just more pressing issues from the life world that artists could be addressing.” Yeah Tom, like circles, gif animations and electro. Way to hold us up to your higher standards for art.

On another note, the show is great.

More circles, gif animations, and electro, less whiny art about other people’s art and what a dreadful place the art world is, I say. Thanks for drawing the poles so clearly, m.river.

Moody: “Art about the art world inherently blows”

I can never understand why some folks think certain subjects are inherently bad. It’s obvious to me that no subject is inherently bad — even the art world.

If a certain piece is naval-gazing bullshit, fine. If you think a certain subject is being over-explored (like skulls perhaps?), then say it.

But, to declare one subject off-limits because it “inherently blows” makes no sense.

Actually, good art about the art world is perhaps even harder to pull off because of the risks of a) naval-gazing and b) subject over-exposure.

Subject matter isn’t always the same as content. How about desperation, despair, ambition, mania, narrative, hypothetical worlds that don’t exist, desire, greed, love…

…but then again, it’s always easier to generalize, makes the world easier navigate by keeping things simple.

twhid, this is a classic straw man argument. I gave several reasons why “art about the art world” might blow–rather than respond to those you say I’ve declared the subject off limits and put all your energy into refuting that.

hi Tom,

I’m glad you agree that all subjects should be open to artists.

re: straw man, your reasons were a bit hidden. I’m a skimmer.

First: there are more pressing subjects. Perhaps, but if one prejudges a subject before seeing the work one will never know.

Second: it’s whiny. Obviously a gross generalization.

Re: my energy, I’ve devoted well below all my energy.

Hi Tom,
Did you actually see the show?
I agree that there are incredibly pressing issues to deal with right now, however the artworld is fueled by the richest people in the world. Many of whom are responsible for these “other” pressing issues you speak of. The absurdity of the artmarket and the sick power games that occur are symptomatic of something much larger. Understanding our relationship to it as arts workers is worthy of examination.
XX
Laura Parnes

PS m.river We are all Toni Burlap

On Topic – I keep thinking about David Hammons work in the show. Perfect. Off Topic – I <3 Toni Burlap XO

yeah, Tom. It really is a good show. See it and you too will believe.

EH

PS Beware of Toni

More thoughts here.

More thoughts here.