aesthetic of normal
This morning I feel more "normal" than I have since the beginning of my running hiatus. I did my allowed 4 miles this morning except I nudged up the incline just a tad. I was tempted to go all out: to throw caution to the wind and run my heart out, but my stiff leg reminded me to go easy. But still, I feel like some progress is being made.
While running, I started to realize that I have missed painting. I noticed that I had been visualizing a new painting in the back of my mind, behind closed-captioned ESPN that I had been watching; behind my mental sing-a-longs to Patti Smith. This hasn't happened in awhile. In the past few years any painting that has happened has been eeked out of a sense of obligation. Not that that my recent painting have been forced, torturous efforts, but they haven't been made for the sake of being but rather to prove that my life isn't actually a waste. Part of it has to do with the fact that we are now more or less (leaning on the less side) settled into our new space. And there's a lot of it so far, considering we are short on bookshelves and haven’t moved most of the art material in yet. Regardless, that is what the space is for and it feels awkward (not to mention boring) to be in there and not work.
Last night I read an article by _____ (can't remember who.....someone British) in the most recent ArtForum about community based, interactive art projects that have been going on for the past few years. I was relieved that the author didn't buy the whole "movement" or perhaps I should say tendency towards communal art making. One of her main criticisms was that this type of work seemed exempt to critique - that as long as its' intentions were 'pure' and the process as representative and egalitarian as possible, the aesthetic considerations were rendered not only banal, but an insult to the original intent. Her argument was right on. If part of the impulse of socially minded community involved work is to make art be something more than a commodity, one can't argue with that. Yet, wrapped together in this idea should be the expectation that the work be engaging on aesthetic level (and when I use the word aesthetic, I use it in all its high falooting conceptual glory). After all that is how we engage with visual art: through a sensibility more acutely abstract than that we use interact in everyday life. Because art is not, nor should it be, a normalized part of daily life. Its in this sense that the art snob in me takes the mic: the artists are the experts and no matter how much we want to believe that art is for the masses, it's not. It is for those that have been exposed to it and that see some kind of tenuous relevance in it to their own world. To render it a socialist exercise in community involvement is to shortchange the power and effectiveness of art.
The other thing that this article did for me is reminded me that I care about this. As much as I have complained about the superfluousness and affect of the art world, the truth is I feel compelled to protect her from the defrocking it suffers at the hands of bad artists and righteous agenda seekers.
We'll see what happens during tommorow's four miles.
While running, I started to realize that I have missed painting. I noticed that I had been visualizing a new painting in the back of my mind, behind closed-captioned ESPN that I had been watching; behind my mental sing-a-longs to Patti Smith. This hasn't happened in awhile. In the past few years any painting that has happened has been eeked out of a sense of obligation. Not that that my recent painting have been forced, torturous efforts, but they haven't been made for the sake of being but rather to prove that my life isn't actually a waste. Part of it has to do with the fact that we are now more or less (leaning on the less side) settled into our new space. And there's a lot of it so far, considering we are short on bookshelves and haven’t moved most of the art material in yet. Regardless, that is what the space is for and it feels awkward (not to mention boring) to be in there and not work.
Last night I read an article by _____ (can't remember who.....someone British) in the most recent ArtForum about community based, interactive art projects that have been going on for the past few years. I was relieved that the author didn't buy the whole "movement" or perhaps I should say tendency towards communal art making. One of her main criticisms was that this type of work seemed exempt to critique - that as long as its' intentions were 'pure' and the process as representative and egalitarian as possible, the aesthetic considerations were rendered not only banal, but an insult to the original intent. Her argument was right on. If part of the impulse of socially minded community involved work is to make art be something more than a commodity, one can't argue with that. Yet, wrapped together in this idea should be the expectation that the work be engaging on aesthetic level (and when I use the word aesthetic, I use it in all its high falooting conceptual glory). After all that is how we engage with visual art: through a sensibility more acutely abstract than that we use interact in everyday life. Because art is not, nor should it be, a normalized part of daily life. Its in this sense that the art snob in me takes the mic: the artists are the experts and no matter how much we want to believe that art is for the masses, it's not. It is for those that have been exposed to it and that see some kind of tenuous relevance in it to their own world. To render it a socialist exercise in community involvement is to shortchange the power and effectiveness of art.
The other thing that this article did for me is reminded me that I care about this. As much as I have complained about the superfluousness and affect of the art world, the truth is I feel compelled to protect her from the defrocking it suffers at the hands of bad artists and righteous agenda seekers.
We'll see what happens during tommorow's four miles.
posted by beef at 8:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home