Installation view of The Real Thing, an exhibition curated by VVork.
This week at The L Magazine I discuss Eight Fallacies about contemporary art. To the teaser below I add the Art Fag City bonus fallacy here:
I can get a sense of the work by viewing it online. In light of The Real Thing, an exhibition recently curated by the popular conceptual art bloggers at VVork, this position may seem old fashioned, but no amount of detail and installation shots replace the gallery experience. I can’t count the number of times my understanding of art has completely changed once viewing the work in the flesh. This position weights the value of the object equally with that of its conceit, and I think that’s really important.
At The L Magazine:
More than in any other field, misperceptions about contemporary art keep audiences from effectively engaging it. Even within the art world itself, I see people buying into myths that cloud the viewing experience. In an effort to give the gallery-goer a few more tools to make sense of what they see, this week's column compiles many common and useless contemporary art misnomers.
This work generated so much discussion, it must be good!
Everybody talks about Lindsay Lohan, but this doesn't lead people to conclude she is an excellent actor. The same rationale needs to be applied to art. Media starlets Damien Hirst, Banksy and Vanessa Beecroft generate media spectacle around their personality and art designed to elicit base response. Unfortunately, it works. None of them however, have made anything in recent memory worth the chatter their work produces.Anything can be art!
Duchamp didn't make every shovel art, just the one he labeled. In other words, while context and intentionality can earn a work the title of “art,” residual creative impulse does not.Value is completely subjective.
No it's not. There are methods of evaluating art, and just because viewers respond differently doesn't mean they don't exist. Unresolved aesthetic choices and lazy conceptual practice won't receive a pass from me.Anyone could do that.
A sentiment typically refuted with the argument, “But you didn't.” A more common version of the myth circulating art circles, “It's too easy” completes itself with “to take a compelling photograph,” or “to make a good collage.” In each case, the viewer's actually complaining that it's too hard to separate the good from the bad. There's no easy answer to this dilemma, except to look at enough art to develop a mature eye.
To read the full piece click here.
{ 22 comments }
world needed this – thank you, the reasonable one!
world needed this – thank you, the reasonable one!
Spot on — esp the fallacy of “not knowing enough to talk about art” in the full text. Thanks.
Spot on — esp the fallacy of “not knowing enough to talk about art” in the full text. Thanks.
Spot on — esp the fallacy of “not knowing enough to talk about art” in the full text. Thanks.
Spot on — esp the fallacy of “not knowing enough to talk about art” in the full text. Thanks.
I agree, with some exceptions:
– “Misnomer” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
– Elitism doesn’t rule all fields. Most fields involve measurable outcomes, and elites rule them, not elitists. Fields that produce elite practitioners – the military, sports, music, and so forth – often have markedly egalitarian cultures. You can’t threaten a meritocracy. You can easily threaten a fashionable in-group, which defends itself using elitism.
– Pioneering artists are not “ahead of their time” but genius is real. Some people have abilities all out of proportion to the training and practice that went into their development. Such people very much belong to their time, but they produce work that transcends it.
I agree, with some exceptions:
– “Misnomer” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
– Elitism doesn’t rule all fields. Most fields involve measurable outcomes, and elites rule them, not elitists. Fields that produce elite practitioners – the military, sports, music, and so forth – often have markedly egalitarian cultures. You can’t threaten a meritocracy. You can easily threaten a fashionable in-group, which defends itself using elitism.
– Pioneering artists are not “ahead of their time” but genius is real. Some people have abilities all out of proportion to the training and practice that went into their development. Such people very much belong to their time, but they produce work that transcends it.
I agree, with some exceptions:
– “Misnomer” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
– Elitism doesn’t rule all fields. Most fields involve measurable outcomes, and elites rule them, not elitists. Fields that produce elite practitioners – the military, sports, music, and so forth – often have markedly egalitarian cultures. You can’t threaten a meritocracy. You can easily threaten a fashionable in-group, which defends itself using elitism.
– Pioneering artists are not “ahead of their time” but genius is real. Some people have abilities all out of proportion to the training and practice that went into their development. Such people very much belong to their time, but they produce work that transcends it.
Very nice list! The ‘bonus’ fallacy jumped out at me though. I believe the documentation “pointer” allows for an experience as valuable as that of the referent. I don’t think many would claim a full replacement is the goal of the pointer. The two are connected, and so I think the documentation pointer CAN give a sense of the gallery art. Don’t like the word “conceit” here at all! I could almost begin to argue for the gallery art being the conceit in this relationship, but I don’t think I will today.
Very nice list! The ‘bonus’ fallacy jumped out at me though. I believe the documentation “pointer” allows for an experience as valuable as that of the referent. I don’t think many would claim a full replacement is the goal of the pointer. The two are connected, and so I think the documentation pointer CAN give a sense of the gallery art. Don’t like the word “conceit” here at all! I could almost begin to argue for the gallery art being the conceit in this relationship, but I don’t think I will today.
Very nice list! The ‘bonus’ fallacy jumped out at me though. I believe the documentation “pointer” allows for an experience as valuable as that of the referent. I don’t think many would claim a full replacement is the goal of the pointer. The two are connected, and so I think the documentation pointer CAN give a sense of the gallery art. Don’t like the word “conceit” here at all! I could almost begin to argue for the gallery art being the conceit in this relationship, but I don’t think I will today.
Very nice list! The ‘bonus’ fallacy jumped out at me though. I believe the documentation “pointer” allows for an experience as valuable as that of the referent. I don’t think many would claim a full replacement is the goal of the pointer. The two are connected, and so I think the documentation pointer CAN give a sense of the gallery art. Don’t like the word “conceit” here at all! I could almost begin to argue for the gallery art being the conceit in this relationship, but I don’t think I will today.
Paddy I can’t tell whether you think the bonus fallacy is supported by the vvork show or refuted by it? The vvork show seems to be concerned with the “authenticity” of pointers vs referents, with playful flip-floppings of the two (which I like). Authenticity seems like a weird thing to defend though. What about the intent and value of the exchange? All of this now makes me think the word “documentation” is loaded and meaningless.
Paddy I can’t tell whether you think the bonus fallacy is supported by the vvork show or refuted by it? The vvork show seems to be concerned with the “authenticity” of pointers vs referents, with playful flip-floppings of the two (which I like). Authenticity seems like a weird thing to defend though. What about the intent and value of the exchange? All of this now makes me think the word “documentation” is loaded and meaningless.
BALLS ON ACURATE
BALLS ON ACURATE
BALLS ON ACURATE
BALLS ON ACURATE
BALLS ON ACURATE
BALLS ON ACURATE
BALLS ON ACURATE
Comments on this entry are closed.