This is our first response to Theodore Hoppe's opinion piece, posted on May 2. We encourage readers to think about it, do a bit of writing, and send us YOUR perspective!
By Stephen Orloske
I don't apprehend what you'd like to discuss about Beauty. I'll assume we can forgo diatribes about the Golden ratio and comparing our Top 10. If it's a definition you're fishing for then I provide this:
The Anatomy of Melancholy states, "Beauty is the common object of all love," and that's the most concise definition I know of. Beauty is not an inherent quality but rather a result of love. It might be helpful to think of beauty's vulgar cousin money. Money is a result of economy and when we try to envision the "monetary value" of anyone we shudder because, well, it is rather disgusting, yet attempt to envision Beauty in anyone and then you are in a noble pursuit, because that is really an attempt to find love and if you succeed then you actually make Beauty.
The book also recounts an anecdote of a queen who saw "one of the king's chaplains, a silly, old, hard-favored man, fast asleep in a bower, and kissed him sweetly; when the young ladies laughed at her for it, she replied, that it was not his person that she did embrace and reverence, but, with a Platonic love, the divine beauty of his soul." It is a mistake when you say "perhaps in most cases, the fantasy we are chasing is Beauty.” Because it is never, in fact, the case that an artist's fantasy chases Beauty (those are the fantasies of marketers), rather an artist is like the queen, attempting to make contact with the “soul,” with a loving relationship for the totality of a subject, with the reality within it that eludes human comprehension, rather than the appearance (which is oh so comprehendible), and Beauty is a result of that attempt.
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
OPINION: Beauty in Art
Frequent contributor Theo Hoppe had raised the question of Beauty in Art, a big topic! If you have something to say about this question that you'd like to submit for publication, send your thoughts to one of the editors -- email addresses in the right-hand column.
By Theodore Hoppe
The recent April snowfall gave me an excuse to take a break from my computer, so I picked up my camera and headed outdoors to explore the contrast in seasons. Someone once explained the artistic process to me this way: An artist has a fantasy, and then tries to create a reality that will allow the viewer to share the fantasy. Often, and perhaps in most cases, the fantasy we are chasing is Beauty.
Back at my computer, I was doing some research about a psychology topic and I came across these comments by Chris McManus. They seem to capture of essence of what I was searching for with my camera.
It is from the British Psychological Society, Research Digest, 10/5/09:
By Theodore Hoppe
The recent April snowfall gave me an excuse to take a break from my computer, so I picked up my camera and headed outdoors to explore the contrast in seasons. Someone once explained the artistic process to me this way: An artist has a fantasy, and then tries to create a reality that will allow the viewer to share the fantasy. Often, and perhaps in most cases, the fantasy we are chasing is Beauty.
Back at my computer, I was doing some research about a psychology topic and I came across these comments by Chris McManus. They seem to capture of essence of what I was searching for with my camera.
It is from the British Psychological Society, Research Digest, 10/5/09:
Chris McManus is Professor of Psychology and Medical Education at UCL. His 2002 book Right Hand, Left Hand won the Wellcome Trust Book Prize, the Aventis Prize for popular science writing, and was a finalist for the Descartes Prize in 2004.BeautyWhat is this thing I call beauty? Not "art" as a social phenomenon based on status or display, or beautiful faces seen merely as biological fitness markers. Rather, the sheer, drawing-in-of-breath beauty of a Handel aria, a Rothko painting, TS Eliot’s poems, or those everyday moments of sun shining through wet, autumn leaves, or even a Powerpoint layout seeming just right. Content itself doesn’t matter – Cezanne’s paintings of apples are not beautiful because one likes apples, and there are beautiful photographs of horrible things. Somewhere there must be something formal, structural, compositional, involving the arrangement of light and shade, of sounds, of words best ordered to say old ideas in new ways. When I see beauty I know it, and others must also see it, or they wouldn’t make the paintings I like or have them hung in galleries. But why then doesn’t everyone see it in the same way?
Sunday, April 18, 2010
OPINION: Children’s Art
Readers are invited to respond to this opinion piece with reflections of their own about children’s art and what values it holds for the viewer and the community. Send your writing to one of the editors, listed at the top of the right-hand column of this blog. – Ed.
By Theodore A. Hoppe
Announcing the beginning of spring, construction paper cut-out tulips are sprouting in the stairwell leading to the children's library at the Kellogg-Hubbard Library in Montpelier, some two dozen or so, lining the winding steps.
They made me wonder if others that saw them would consider this an art display, or merely as a form of children's art. Certainly, Matisse's simple paper cutouts are among the most admired and influential works of Matisse's entire career.
As a critic of art I question whether we have a certain attitude toward the art work of children; do we miss the simplicity and interpretive beauty it holds? More importantly, do we focus on the value of the finished product, and overlook the value of the process?
In "The Art of Teaching Art to Children," Nancy Beal, who has taught art to children at the Village Community School in New York for over 25 years, focuses in part on how to speak to children about their artwork to encourage their creative expression. Adults need to respect
children's ideas and honor their creativity. What can children do when they have the support of a caring adult? I think the answer is "more", they can create more, express themselves more, do more, with art and in life.
This also leads me to reflect about the differences in ways that we view the performing arts as opposed to the visual arts when it comes to children. We frequently hear of a child that can successfully perform a classical piece on the violin or piano and we are eager to use the word prodigy. What word comes to mind when a young artist performs Van Gogh's, "Starry Night"?
The artist, Avery, is four years old.
By Theodore A. Hoppe
Announcing the beginning of spring, construction paper cut-out tulips are sprouting in the stairwell leading to the children's library at the Kellogg-Hubbard Library in Montpelier, some two dozen or so, lining the winding steps.
They made me wonder if others that saw them would consider this an art display, or merely as a form of children's art. Certainly, Matisse's simple paper cutouts are among the most admired and influential works of Matisse's entire career.
As a critic of art I question whether we have a certain attitude toward the art work of children; do we miss the simplicity and interpretive beauty it holds? More importantly, do we focus on the value of the finished product, and overlook the value of the process?
In "The Art of Teaching Art to Children," Nancy Beal, who has taught art to children at the Village Community School in New York for over 25 years, focuses in part on how to speak to children about their artwork to encourage their creative expression. Adults need to respect
children's ideas and honor their creativity. What can children do when they have the support of a caring adult? I think the answer is "more", they can create more, express themselves more, do more, with art and in life.
This also leads me to reflect about the differences in ways that we view the performing arts as opposed to the visual arts when it comes to children. We frequently hear of a child that can successfully perform a classical piece on the violin or piano and we are eager to use the word prodigy. What word comes to mind when a young artist performs Van Gogh's, "Starry Night"?
The artist, Avery, is four years old.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
OPINION, Response: What do you think about the Art of Action project?
This is in response to a question posted on November 14, 2009: Have you seen one of the Art of Action exhibits? What do you think of the project itself, the work produced, and the idea of "shaping Vermont's future through art"? Further responses will be posted as they are received.by Edward Swoszowski
In a review of the "art of action" program appearing on the Vermont Art Zine site Mr. Theodore Hoppe comments on the failure of the AofA program to achieve it's target - meaningful art expressing the 'vision' for a future Vermont. It is a fine commentary, but Mr.Hoppe doesn't go far enough in exposing the weakness and shortcomings of that expression, or more importantly the current 'art community' mindset.
Mr. Hoppe is correct in observing that the art of the AofA program fails. In actuality, neither do the actions and /or attitudes of the art community in Vermont. The AofAart is staid and self-centered, mirroring a politically correct , tourist- middle class (or better), 'Vermont as a never changing, quaint tourist destination' art community attitude. Where is the social conscience? Where is the continuation /expression of values and feelings that have held Vermont together for centuries? Where is the recognition of respect for generations of Vermonters, their hard work and the way they live their lives? Where is the sensitivity and caring? Where is the notion that we all need to contribute in order to help fellow Vermonters be safe today, and even better tomorrow?
This past weekend the Catamount Arts in St. J. held their annual auction. $20.00 per person to get in. More to bid on the items donated for the auction. It raised approximately $50,000.00 for an organization that really misses the mark in understanding what the purpose of art in a community is. Sure, they rent DVD's, show trendy and foreign films, and display art that probably wouldn't make it outside of Vt. But how does that serve the community ? Can the average St. J resident (or typical blue collar /logger 'Vermonter' of neighboring towns) afford $20.00 for wine and crackers (vs. feeding a meal, or two to their families)? It is important for the average Vermonter to rent obscure DVD's or see mediocre art? Probably not, which is why the community of St. J. at large rejected the Catamount's request for funds this past Town Meeting Day. The money could simply be better used elsewhere. But that's not the message the attendees of the this past weekend's auction seem to have understood.
Why is it that 'artists' and the 'art community' fall over themselves to make a social appearance at Cat Art auction (which raises $50,000.00) - but those same artists and community members cannot seem to rally around meaningful efforts (like the Vermont Arts Council - Auction to Benefit
the Vermont Food Bank - which despite their wonderful efforts, only raised about $10,000.00 last year).? Why is it more important to 'see and be seen' than taking the critical responsibility for making the present and future Vermont a safe and meaningful home for all Vermonters? The AofAproject failed because it painted an idealistic fantasy land of Vermont today and tomorrow. Misguided efforts like the Cat Arts auction - and others which only perpetuate a closed /cliquish /politically correct approach to art in Vermont - do not do justice to the character, nature , commitments and willingness to help one's neighbor - which has made Vermont great.
Art in Vermont should be more than 'tourist art' or things that are 'cute'*** Art in Vermont should define the realities ofnot only foliage and cows, but the hardships /needs / achievements /hopes and desires of the people who live here... either by mirroring those actions in art and/or forcing the public to recognize the 'needs/reality' by evoking documentation and emotion. 'Cute' just doesn't cut it. Art in Vermont should not be limited to people over thirty with nebulous /snobbish 'art school' training and connections. Art comes from the heart. Art is meant to document, motivate, inform and inspire. Anyone can do art. 'Art in Vermont' needs to involve everyone in art projects. Allow everyone to participate, importantly making them aware that their creations and expressions are just as valid ( and valued) as the clique /art-school want-be-be artists that seem to thuggishly dominate too many art community efforts. As for myself, I find more 'art' in some of the young artists efforts / the art of one handicapped artist hidden away on the wall of a local rural store - than anything I've seen the majority of Vermont's 'art's' centers. And that's more than sad. Where is the motivation? inspiration? energy? It's what made past art and artists memorable and admired. It's what will make future art and artists great. It's very noticeable lack will not only relegate most current Vermont 'post card' art to the dustbin, but wastes the innate talents and expression of many artists of all ages who are currently excluded or ignored.
*** Windolf, J. "Addicted to Cute" Vanity Fair. No. 952- December 2009. 168-183.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
OPINION: What do you think about the Art of Action project?
Ed. Note: For some time we haven't had an OPINION question offered on Vermont Art Zine, but recently someone (whose opinion appears below) came to us with a strong perspective about the Art of Action project. Three different tours of this work are appearing all over the state, so it seems like a good topic for our readers to weigh in on, as the Art of Action exhibits appear in different communities over the next seven months. Have you seen one of the exhibits? What do you think of the project itself, the work produced, and the idea of "shaping Vermont's future through art"? Send your thoughtful responses to one of the editors.Let's be honest, is "The Art of Action" project a success? Did the art meet the objective: "SHAPING VERMONT'S FUTURE THROUGH ART"? No, is my reply. Lyman Orton said in a Seven Days interview back in 2008, that the project should aim to "raise awareness and inspire a vision that will shape Vermont’s social, political, environmental and/or economic future." If the piece can "catalyze action and affect change on a statewide level, so much the better. The work they produce will inspire the rest of us." I saw little vision, I was not inspired, my awareness was not raised.
I expected a revolution, what I got was some very nice paintings.
While all of the work included in The Art of Action project is skillfully executed, some paintings were dark, bleak, almost apocalyptic, maybe unconsciously so. (A MacDonald's playground yellow plastic tube slide being labeled a "cancerous colon") For others, there was little in them that said, "Vermont." They could have been a road or bridge or person in Ohio. When artists did capture images that are uniquely Vermont they were very contemporary works.
Gail Boyajian and Annemie Curlin came the closest to the objective, but still miss the target. Boyajian's paintings are future primitives with a storytelling quality. Curlin's unique perspective captures the designs of an evolving landscape.
I shared these thoughts with Alex Aldrich, the director of the Vermont Arts Council, at the reception in Montpelier. I think he was stunned and shocked. I also shared an idea with him as to what I would have created: a visual wall sculpture that merged technology, design, and landscape. He responded that I should have submitted something, to which I replied, "I didn't think my idea," which was more creative than what I was seeing, "was good enough". That's how high my expectations were. If I remember correctly some 300 artists applied for this project.
I realize that a great deal of time and energy was spent on this project, but I don't think Orton got his money's worth. He could have invested it in our youth. Given a share of the money, I would create 20 framed photos from a B & W essay taken 30 years ago of an abandoned Vermont farm, and displayed the photos in schools around Vermont, "The Disappearing Landscape of Vermont." I would give kids from the hosting schools digital cameras, letting them create photos of things that are rapidly disappearing from their landscape, preserving it, nurturing it and reshaping it. They could have presented their art in a follow up show at the school and other venues. This is the future of art in Vermont, this is inspiring a vision, and increases awareness.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
OPINION: Vandalism
Back in February, we posted an OPINION question about vandalism, asking readers to let us know their perspective on vandalism of art, and especially their thoughts about what may motivate people to vandalize art. We are still open to printing artists' experiences with vandalism.
Recently a sculpture by Leila Bandar at the Vermont Arts Council's Sculpture Garden in Montpelier was vandalized. All the standing loops you see in the image at the left were pushed over. Bandar has since restored the piece on the same site, and we asked her to give us her thoughts about this experience.
-- the editors
It's such a personal thing, really, when a piece gets tampered with. I find my imagination begins to picture the events that would lead up to it. I don’t feel offended, exactly - annoyed, yes, - but not offended. I kind of feel like it's a natural thing to want to play with a sculpture. NOT that I would actually do it - but that the kind of person who WOULD tamper with it, to me, actually has some mis-directed sculptural/artistic/creative energy. I feel a kind of kinship with them.
I want to say - "There's enough cake for everyone. If you're moved to make a statement, move materials, make a point, make yourself visible... GREAT... just don't be so bold as to assume someone else's work is yours for the playing with.” That's kind of the tricky part... taking a kind of "ownership" of someone else’s effort, you know. Like someone drawing on your drawing... and feeling like they are "helping".
But the important thing is that I don't feel like a "victim" and wouldn't want to be portrayed as one because my piece got tampered with.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
QUOTATION: Words by Miro
by Sam Thurston- Joan Miro from 1939
Here is a quote I ran across and liked. Perhaps other Zine readers have quotes they like, or we could comment about ideas the quotes contain, or oppose one quote with another.
Miro: “The play of lines and colors, if it does not lay bare the drama of the creator, is nothing more than a bourgeois pastime. The forms expressed by an individual attached to society should disclose the activity of a mind wishing to escape from present reality, which today is particularly ignoble, and seek out new realities, offering other men a possibility of elevation.
If we do not attempt to discover the religious essence and magic meaning of things, we will do nothing but add but new sources of brutishness to those which are offered today to countless people.”
The title [of the painting above] makes me wonder if Miro was thinking about the quote from Joyce's Ulysses "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake." Stephen Dedalus's famous complaint. 1939 was certainly a more difficult time than now. There are certainly other places being an artist (or just living) is more stressful than here right now. Perhaps I noticed the quote because it is so rooted in a historical moment- and it made me think of our historical moment- and the way our times push us into being serious or frivolous. Any thoughts?
Thursday, April 9, 2009
OPINION: Donating to Art auctions - love 'em? hate 'em? depends on the cause?
This is in response to a question submitted by Marc Awodey and posted on April 6, 2009. Further responses will be posted as they are received
by Bethany Farrell
As an artist, I am in support of the auction concept. Every year I donate to 5-6 different auctions that support causes I believe in. I will concur that artists are frequently solicited for donations. However, I know that a lot of other folks are as well. Why do I donate? It is another way that I can contribute. It is a way for me to help a cause that will make a difference in the lives of others or for the good of the community. I cannot give to every cause that solicits from artists, nor would I want to. Furthermore, I feel that every artist needs to find his/her own way through this sea of auctions and causes. But I do think it is a cynical view to think that the people that organize these events intend to demean the artist or his/her work. When you do give, you hope that your contribution will raise some dollars. Perhaps you will even get a little publicity and yes it helps if you get a bit of the percentage to cover your costs. The bottom line, though, is that when artists give their work, they are giving a little piece of themselves, and that is good for the soul.
above: "Scars" by Bethany Ferrell
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
OPINION: Donating to Art auctions - love 'em? hate 'em? depends on the cause?
This is in response to a question submitted by Marc Awodey and posted on April 6, 2009. Further responses will be posted as they are received.
by Stuart Chenkin
As a fundraiser for a non-profit ( www.belmontchildcare.org ) I believe that artists, or anyone, who donate items or services to our benefit auction are doing a service for those less fortunate than them. True, many artists are "starving" and the donation isn't going to make them any richer financially. However, they will benefit knowing that they are helping someone improve their life. This does not include art institutions as I cannot comment on their intentions. I can, however, comment on the "percentage of auction sale" for the artist (donor). We are asked that when soliciting donations and will not accept any donations with that caveat, or "on consignment." Why? Most people who attend benefit auctions will spend a specific amount of money. Suppose someone makes $5,000 his or her limit. They bid $5,000 on a painting of which the artist gets $2,500 and the charity $2,500. Now, if the attendee bid a total of $5,000 on, say, ten items and/or services, the charity gets the full $5,000. And in these turbulent financial times $5,000 is a lot better than $2,500. Incidentally, artists are not the only people who ask for a split of the funds, and we turn those "donors" down also.
by Stuart Chenkin
As a fundraiser for a non-profit ( www.belmontchildcare.org ) I believe that artists, or anyone, who donate items or services to our benefit auction are doing a service for those less fortunate than them. True, many artists are "starving" and the donation isn't going to make them any richer financially. However, they will benefit knowing that they are helping someone improve their life. This does not include art institutions as I cannot comment on their intentions. I can, however, comment on the "percentage of auction sale" for the artist (donor). We are asked that when soliciting donations and will not accept any donations with that caveat, or "on consignment." Why? Most people who attend benefit auctions will spend a specific amount of money. Suppose someone makes $5,000 his or her limit. They bid $5,000 on a painting of which the artist gets $2,500 and the charity $2,500. Now, if the attendee bid a total of $5,000 on, say, ten items and/or services, the charity gets the full $5,000. And in these turbulent financial times $5,000 is a lot better than $2,500. Incidentally, artists are not the only people who ask for a split of the funds, and we turn those "donors" down also.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
OPINION: Donating to Art auctions - love 'em? hate 'em? depends on the cause?
This is in response to a question submitted by Marc Awodey and posted on April 6, 2009. Further responses will be posted as they are received.
I'm in the 'auctions are okay if you have a passion for that cause' but personally I think it trains the public to devalue artists AND their works. Who else gets asked to donate their livelihood so consistently...practically expected to, and yet artists are usually the least financially stable of all!
I think art institutes especially deserve a slap on the wrist for asking artists to hand over the goods, especially if they never exhibit that artists works in non-auction shows, its like saying your work isn't good enough for us to exhibit so give it away for free. Art Institutes also would have an artist believe that they will get more 'exposure' blah blah. I say do it for the right reason, if you have work you don't like and want to get rid
of I guess that's cool, I'd personally rather deconstruct or re-do something I'm not liking or wanting. Do artists ever donate something they cherish and love, their most expensive piece? Probably only the wealthiest of artists do or the rare saint. My point being look at what artists donate and that will tell you how they really feel about it.
That said, if auctions were to give the artist a 40-50% commission it would feel healthier. And I'm sure there are plenty of artists, art and groups that have great intentions and everyone is feeling the love.
by Paula McCullough
I'm in the 'auctions are okay if you have a passion for that cause' but personally I think it trains the public to devalue artists AND their works. Who else gets asked to donate their livelihood so consistently...practically expected to, and yet artists are usually the least financially stable of all!
I think art institutes especially deserve a slap on the wrist for asking artists to hand over the goods, especially if they never exhibit that artists works in non-auction shows, its like saying your work isn't good enough for us to exhibit so give it away for free. Art Institutes also would have an artist believe that they will get more 'exposure' blah blah. I say do it for the right reason, if you have work you don't like and want to get rid
of I guess that's cool, I'd personally rather deconstruct or re-do something I'm not liking or wanting. Do artists ever donate something they cherish and love, their most expensive piece? Probably only the wealthiest of artists do or the rare saint. My point being look at what artists donate and that will tell you how they really feel about it.That said, if auctions were to give the artist a 40-50% commission it would feel healthier. And I'm sure there are plenty of artists, art and groups that have great intentions and everyone is feeling the love.
above: "Evolution" by Paula McCullough
Monday, April 6, 2009
OPINION: Donating to Art auctions - love 'em? hate 'em? depends on the cause?
by Marc Awodey
This is the first of our two OPINION questions for April. Considering it's IRS month and art donations used to be worth some sort of tax write off, this seems like an aprapos time to ask: Art auctions - love 'em? hate 'em? Depends on the cause? I've donated to four auctions so far this year, and my main reason has been to just get work out of my studio! But I liked the causes too. One is for a hospice in Addison county. Another was the "Fool's Gold" fund in which artists are raising money to make small grants to other artists in need. One was for the Democratic party, and another was for Helen Day Art Center. It's usually depressing to know how badly pieces fare in auctions - but a couple who already owned a piece by me attended the HDAC auction, so the pieces I donated did rather well - raising $400 for the art center. And a tidy sum for me since the HDAC was giving artists a percentage of the take, if requested. So I'm in the "auctions are ok" camp now... where are you?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
ESSAY: The Spell of the Sensuous
by Riki Moss
One of the high points of this year arrived when the NY Times declared – finally! - the death of the Art World, Capital A, spewing its thousand or so now homeless inhabitants back into all those lower case art worlds that have all along been quietly, humbly, spinning everywhere outside of lower Manhattan. The fantasy is over, the offices are closed, the furniture sold. For me, it’s deeply liberating, for there’s no longer any point yearning - always unconsciously, of course - for a Chelsea gallery to validate my work and to make me as rich as Julian Schnabel. In this new cultural implosion, it’s OK to be a player in your own back yard once again; with so little to reach for, you might as well stay home. For me, that means Vermont, in the landscape, in community with what is human and what is not human.
Which brings me to "The Spell of the Sensuous", by David Abram, published in 1996. The book speaks to a quality of being in the landscape, the loss of which has moved our culture out of the natural world into one defined only by the particularly human considerations of exploitation, consumerism, conquest, commodity as represented, for my purposes here, by the "A"rt World. In Abrams' terms, we're no longer under the sensory "spell" of the landscape and non-humans; we can’t feel the water moving under the soil, or imagine our feathers beating through air or look an animal in the eye and feel the thrill of its unfathomable lucidity. The result of participating only with other humans and with our human-made technologies is a sensing body seen as a closed system; incapable, uninterested in participating with what is not us.
But the boundaries of the sensing body are not closed, we are porous, open and receptive, making endless adjustments to a constantly shifting world outside us. So it’s all about perception, about how we see.
One of the high points of this year arrived when the NY Times declared – finally! - the death of the Art World, Capital A, spewing its thousand or so now homeless inhabitants back into all those lower case art worlds that have all along been quietly, humbly, spinning everywhere outside of lower Manhattan. The fantasy is over, the offices are closed, the furniture sold. For me, it’s deeply liberating, for there’s no longer any point yearning - always unconsciously, of course - for a Chelsea gallery to validate my work and to make me as rich as Julian Schnabel. In this new cultural implosion, it’s OK to be a player in your own back yard once again; with so little to reach for, you might as well stay home. For me, that means Vermont, in the landscape, in community with what is human and what is not human.
Which brings me to "The Spell of the Sensuous", by David Abram, published in 1996. The book speaks to a quality of being in the landscape, the loss of which has moved our culture out of the natural world into one defined only by the particularly human considerations of exploitation, consumerism, conquest, commodity as represented, for my purposes here, by the "A"rt World. In Abrams' terms, we're no longer under the sensory "spell" of the landscape and non-humans; we can’t feel the water moving under the soil, or imagine our feathers beating through air or look an animal in the eye and feel the thrill of its unfathomable lucidity. The result of participating only with other humans and with our human-made technologies is a sensing body seen as a closed system; incapable, uninterested in participating with what is not us.
But the boundaries of the sensing body are not closed, we are porous, open and receptive, making endless adjustments to a constantly shifting world outside us. So it’s all about perception, about how we see.
As a teacher, I've always led with the "seeing" card. I would say, there's no way to draw "right." We need to learn how to see. Yeah, awesome, my students would answer, text messaging in their pockets, and I'd be left holding the empty leash, having to admit that very possibly I had no idea what I was talking about. But now, David Abram suggests that when I’m seeing as an artist, my pores are wide open to the klaidoscopic shape shifting of the world around me. It beckons, I wake up, it calls, I yell back and with skill, I can call forth an appropriate response. I can't define the quality; it resists codificatin - but you always know when you come across it. While many wonderful Vermont artists come to mind, I'm going to play it safe and offer Vincent Van Gogh:
Friday, March 20, 2009
OPINION: Are non-traditional venues a help or hindrance to the fine arts?
By Colleen McLaughlin
I , too, would define “non-traditional art venues” to be any space other than galleries or museums, i.e. restaurants, bookstores, shops, places of business, etc. I also believe that Mr. Kline is quite correct in stating, “These are not easy questions to answer” relative to the definition of “fine art.”
I completely understand the exclusivity that those who define themselves as “fine artists” must surely feel. Kline defines “fine artist” as “someone who primarily devotes his or her life to the creation of art,” or as “someone whose central struggle in their life is to answer the hard questions of our existence through their art.” That may well be true. However, under this definition, the single-mother of four kids with two jobs who only has time to paint every other weekend could certainly meet this definition of “fine artist.” Which leads me back to the initial pondering: Who is a “fine artist?” Perhaps it IS only those with BFA or MFA following their name. After all, they have earned the title of “fine artist” through years of hard work and study. One can not claim the title “Doctor” or “Nurse” simply by knowing how to change a bandage or treat the flu. Yes, an individual may be “artistic,” but not necessarily an “artist.”
But now to the heart of those difficult-to-answer questions: What is fine art??” Is it only art created by those with a BFA/MFA? If the role that fine art plays in our culture is to “expand our way of seeing and understanding the world around us,” then many an untrained “outsider” or folk artist could certainly be defined as a creator of “fine art.”
Does the display of fine art in non-traditional venues trivialize and demean it to the status of commonplace? In my completely biased and unscientific reasoning, I would have to say “No.” I think of the French Impressionists, who were considered radicals, were laughed at, and initially disdained by the art critics of t
.jpg)
he time. Today, their paintings are “works of fine art.” So, what becomes of the brilliant visionary, who masterfully defines the beauty, mystery, tragedy or comedy of life through artwork, yet does not have BFA or MFA following his/her name? Perhaps in his/her “undiscovered” state, Healthy Living Food Store or the local library is the only venue for potential discovery. Personally, I PREFER art in common places! While I understand the desire of those who have devoted their lives to the study of art to have exclusive rights to the title “Fine Artist,” I am not convinced that they deserve exclusive rights to be seen in galleries and museums. I also appreciate those “non-traditional venues” that recognize and value the role of art in society, and give voice to “the masses.” In fact, rather than “demeaning” fine art, I see those non-traditional venues as elevating themselves to status of “art gallery!” Today’s “belittled art” is tomorrow’s “masterpiece!” And yes, those who TRULY devote their lives to the study and practice of their art will be the ones who are lasting… and with a dash of luck, elevated to the status of “fine art” in posterity… and shown in the world’s finest art museums and galleries…Thank you, Mr. Kline, for this very thought-provoking and fascinating post…
Above right: "A Granite Plant" by Gayleen Aiken. From the collection of Marc Awodey.
Above left: "Impressionism- Sunrise" by Claude Monet 1872.
OPINION: Thoughts on Vandalism
This is in response to a question submitted by Janet Van Fleet and posted on February 23, 2009. Further responses will be posted as they are received.
By Nicholas Buckalew
There are no grand reasons for the vandalism of artwork. Rather, the explanation for wanton destruction of public displays comes down to a very basic principle: people have a great ability for being foul.
Perhaps artists that have had their works violated want to believe that there is a reason for their piece's deaths grand enough to parallel the eminence of their creation's life. However, as someone that has destroyed public artwork in my formative years, I can tell you that the reasons are lamentably basic: inebriation, greed, boredom, apathy. These are the feelings that I have seen most frequently guiding the hands that are laid violently upon works of art. I have seen it in myself, I have seen it in my companions.
Art is not destroyed because people envy beauty, or because the aggressors see it as a way of expressing themselves, or any other such romantic idea. Art is destroyed because people are often selfish and destructive in nature. As long as people are intrinsically themselves, art will continue to be vandalized. So there.
Above: Michelangelo's Pieta was brutally attacked in 1972, by demented Australian geologist Laszlo Toth yelling "I am God!"
Thursday, March 19, 2009
OPINION: Are non-traditional venues a help or hindrance to the fine arts?
This is in response to a question submitted by Andrew Kline and posted on March 17, 2009. Further responses will be posted as they are received.
by James Vogler
In response to the question of whether non traditional gallery spaces are good or bad for the artist, I would first think that the artist needs to accept that Vermont has few gallery opportunities, and any exposure to the public should be welcome. Having lived in Vermont for 18 years after being part of the New York art world, and recently returning to painting, I had similar misgivings about showing work in anything but a gallery. But reality sets in that Vermont does not have an art district full of galleries to choose from, so I think any chance to show your work is valid. And the artist certainly can choose when and where. Lately I've participated in art projects run by the Art House Coop in Atlanta Ga. www.arthousecoop.com Their mission is to engage anyone from professional to amateur in some form of art and to show the results of the projects in as many venues as possible from museums to galleries or any space that will have them. Art appreciation for the public can only benefit from this sort of exposure and promotion. A friend of mine living in Belgium recently mentioned a book she read on the global art market, that singled out America as a leader in the art world for its use of art in more public spaces than any other country, which specifically included offices, restaurants,etc. I think we just have to work with what we have at hand.
by James Vogler
In response to the question of whether non traditional gallery spaces are good or bad for the artist, I would first think that the artist needs to accept that Vermont has few gallery opportunities, and any exposure to the public should be welcome. Having lived in Vermont for 18 years after being part of the New York art world, and recently returning to painting, I had similar misgivings about showing work in anything but a gallery. But reality sets in that Vermont does not have an art district full of galleries to choose from, so I think any chance to show your work is valid. And the artist certainly can choose when and where. Lately I've participated in art projects run by the Art House Coop in Atlanta Ga. www.arthousecoop.com Their mission is to engage anyone from professional to amateur in some form of art and to show the results of the projects in as many venues as possible from museums to galleries or any space that will have them. Art appreciation for the public can only benefit from this sort of exposure and promotion. A friend of mine living in Belgium recently mentioned a book she read on the global art market, that singled out America as a leader in the art world for its use of art in more public spaces than any other country, which specifically included offices, restaurants,etc. I think we just have to work with what we have at hand.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
OPINION: Are non-traditional venues a help or hindrance to the fine arts?
This is in response to a question submitted by Andrew Kline and posted on March 17, 2009. Further responses will be posted as they are received.
by Caroline Tavelli-Abar
Thank you for posting!!
“The role that “fine art“ plays in our culture is to expand our way of seeing and understanding the world around us. Artists through their study and perseverance develop a sensitivity and insight to our world”
...Yes, I find this to be true for myself as well
“that the layman does not have."
...There is a wonderful honesty in the vision of a person not used to looking at art that can help artists of any caliber further understand the world around them, and sometimes even clear up blind spots we all have.
“The work they produce deserves more care and reverence than the work of the part-time artists."
...Any art work deserves care and reverence, for some art work is seed for future growth, and just as enlightenment can be reached in the blink of an eye or never despite years of study, so can it be for the artist.
“Displaying “fine art” in nontraditional venues trivializes and demeans it.” ...Another way of looking at this could be that to bring 'fine art' into 
common places can bring a new awareness to the people who live, work, inhabit, and use our common places, and inspire change. The Rochester Vermont Post Office 05767 for example has put on one show a month since December and is still looking for artists to share their vision - and the sheer delight those shows have brought deserves our reverence, just as the work does. They were not perfect and yet they filled an institutional space with a glimpse of imagination, and the art transformed the space, not by trivializing the space but by bringing a glimmer of understanding into the void. Art and understanding like a weed creeping up everywhere no longer contained might be in need of curators!
“By its very nature it is not meant to be seen as commonplace. To experience the work in its fullest it needs to be shown in a place that has been set aside solely for that purpose.”
...Sometimes to see oneself in the best possible light, with the right dress, hair and makeup, can inspire others to dream of glamour. However, a gilded cage may not always be the best place for our wild and vibrant nature.
by Caroline Tavelli-Abar
Thank you for posting!!
“The role that “fine art“ plays in our culture is to expand our way of seeing and understanding the world around us. Artists through their study and perseverance develop a sensitivity and insight to our world”
...Yes, I find this to be true for myself as well
“that the layman does not have."
...There is a wonderful honesty in the vision of a person not used to looking at art that can help artists of any caliber further understand the world around them, and sometimes even clear up blind spots we all have.
“The work they produce deserves more care and reverence than the work of the part-time artists."
...Any art work deserves care and reverence, for some art work is seed for future growth, and just as enlightenment can be reached in the blink of an eye or never despite years of study, so can it be for the artist.
“Displaying “fine art” in nontraditional venues trivializes and demeans it.”
...Sometimes to see oneself in the best possible light, with the right dress, hair and makeup, can inspire others to dream of glamour. However, a gilded cage may not always be the best place for our wild and vibrant nature.
Above right: Caroline Tavelli-Abar's painting The Pink House, 2008, 22 1/2 x 30", mixed media (silver leaf, ink wash, charcoal), from a private collection, exhibited in the Rochester Post Office
OPINION: Are non-traditional venues a help or hindrance to the fine arts?
This is in response to a question submitted by Andrew Kline and posted on March 17, 2009. Further responses will be posted as they are received.
By Eva Schectman
When I use the term "non-traditional venue" I am referring to restaurants and other types of compatible, but not necessarily related businesses/organizations/institutions, such as bookstores, the lobbies of banks and indoor malls, government offices, and the occasional upscale shoe store or designer clothing boutique.So, having established where, in my inquiry, fine art is exhibited outside galleries and museums, I will now focus on possibilities of "help" and "hindrance".
If we are looking purely at helping the fine arts, then I have my doubts that non-traditional venues help them, assuming that fine art is defined as something created by "a 'fine artist', someone who primarily devotes his or her life to the creation of art. Someone whose central struggle in their life (is) to answer the hard questions of our existence through their art." (a definition Andrew Kline offered in his post), then I really wonder if placing the products of this struggle in venues that co-exist with eating a meal, trying on shoes, or, perhaps, glimpsing on the way to the lavatory, is at all helpful.
But rarely is it possible to set aside the needs of an art form, in this case the fine arts, from the needs of fine artists. Artists have needs beyond the struggle to answer the above mentioned existential hard questions. We also have to answer the more mundane questions, such as "How am I going pay the rent this month?" and "Do I have enough money to pay for my annual check-up AND groceries in the next two weeks?"
Non-traditional venues have fewer hoops to jump through (applying, curating, advertising, and selling) in order for an artist's work to be seen by the public, than traditional venues. So although one wants to show ones work where it will look the best as well as be seen by the people who will appreciate it the most (an aim one hopes to achieve at a traditional venue), it's not always possible or practical to do so.
So non-traditional venues offer a service that traditional venues aren't, usually, able to offer - a simple, accessible, inexpensive way of having one's work seen. The sacrifice one makes by having one's work shown cheek to jowl with other products/services often looks like a fair trade-off.
Ultimately I don't see non-traditional venues as the primary instrument of the diminution of fine art, but only a symptom, and entrepreneurial effect, of our larger society's denial of the importance of fine art. So although I believe non-traditional venues don't necessarily help the fine arts, they aren't any more of a hindrance than society at large.
By Eva Schectman
When I use the term "non-traditional venue" I am referring to restaurants and other types of compatible, but not necessarily related businesses/organizations/institutions, such as bookstores, the lobbies of banks and indoor malls, government offices, and the occasional upscale shoe store or designer clothing boutique.So, having established where, in my inquiry, fine art is exhibited outside galleries and museums, I will now focus on possibilities of "help" and "hindrance".
If we are looking purely at helping the fine arts, then I have my doubts that non-traditional venues help them, assuming that fine art is defined as something created by "a 'fine artist', someone who primarily devotes his or her life to the creation of art. Someone whose central struggle in their life (is) to answer the hard questions of our existence through their art." (a definition Andrew Kline offered in his post), then I really wonder if placing the products of this struggle in venues that co-exist with eating a meal, trying on shoes, or, perhaps, glimpsing on the way to the lavatory, is at all helpful.
But rarely is it possible to set aside the needs of an art form, in this case the fine arts, from the needs of fine artists. Artists have needs beyond the struggle to answer the above mentioned existential hard questions. We also have to answer the more mundane questions, such as "How am I going pay the rent this month?" and "Do I have enough money to pay for my annual check-up AND groceries in the next two weeks?"
Non-traditional venues have fewer hoops to jump through (applying, curating, advertising, and selling) in order for an artist's work to be seen by the public, than traditional venues. So although one wants to show ones work where it will look the best as well as be seen by the people who will appreciate it the most (an aim one hopes to achieve at a traditional venue), it's not always possible or practical to do so.
So non-traditional venues offer a service that traditional venues aren't, usually, able to offer - a simple, accessible, inexpensive way of having one's work seen. The sacrifice one makes by having one's work shown cheek to jowl with other products/services often looks like a fair trade-off.
Ultimately I don't see non-traditional venues as the primary instrument of the diminution of fine art, but only a symptom, and entrepreneurial effect, of our larger society's denial of the importance of fine art. So although I believe non-traditional venues don't necessarily help the fine arts, they aren't any more of a hindrance than society at large.
OPINION: Are non-traditional venues a help or hindrance to the fine arts?
This is our second March question, submitted by Andrew Kline
Thanks for this opportunity to have an exchange of ideas on the subject of Art. The question of the day is: “Are nontraditional art venues a help or a hindrance to the fine arts? First of all what do we call nontraditional art venues? Do we mean any exhibition space other than a museum or gallery? I would further assume that what is meant by "non-traditional venue" is some kind of business location like a restaurant or book store. And then there is of course the question of what is “fine art”. These are not easy questions to answer. To me they go straight to the heart of what art is and what role it has to play in our culture.
We live in an egalitarian age where the making of art is supposed to be available to everyone. Any body with a camera, paint brush
or a word processor is suddenly considered an artist just by trying to produce an image or a poem. And that is all well and good. Everyone has a creative side that they should be allowed to develop. But that in and of itself does not make them artists. Let alone “fine artists”. A “fine artist” is someone who primarily devotes his or her life to the creation of art. Someone whose central struggle in their life is to answer the hard questions of our existence through their art. Their work deserves better presentation and more respect than the other “masses produced art”. So if we mean “fine art” being enhanced or hindered by it being exhibited in nontraditional venues I would say “Hindered”. If we mean “non-fine art work”, art of the masses, I would say “Helped”.
The role that “fine art“ plays in our culture is to expand our way of seeing and understanding the world around us. Artists through their study and perseverance develop a sensitivity and insight to our world that the layman does not have. The work they produce deserves more care
and reverence than the work of the part-time artists. Displaying “fine art” in nontraditional venues trivializes and demeans it. By its very nature it is not meant to be seen as commonplace. To experience the work in its fullest it needs to be shown in a place that has been set aside solely for that purpose.
Photo of City Market by Marc Awodey
Thanks for this opportunity to have an exchange of ideas on the subject of Art. The question of the day is: “Are nontraditional art venues a help or a hindrance to the fine arts? First of all what do we call nontraditional art venues? Do we mean any exhibition space other than a museum or gallery? I would further assume that what is meant by "non-traditional venue" is some kind of business location like a restaurant or book store. And then there is of course the question of what is “fine art”. These are not easy questions to answer. To me they go straight to the heart of what art is and what role it has to play in our culture.
We live in an egalitarian age where the making of art is supposed to be available to everyone. Any body with a camera, paint brush
or a word processor is suddenly considered an artist just by trying to produce an image or a poem. And that is all well and good. Everyone has a creative side that they should be allowed to develop. But that in and of itself does not make them artists. Let alone “fine artists”. A “fine artist” is someone who primarily devotes his or her life to the creation of art. Someone whose central struggle in their life is to answer the hard questions of our existence through their art. Their work deserves better presentation and more respect than the other “masses produced art”. So if we mean “fine art” being enhanced or hindered by it being exhibited in nontraditional venues I would say “Hindered”. If we mean “non-fine art work”, art of the masses, I would say “Helped”.The role that “fine art“ plays in our culture is to expand our way of seeing and understanding the world around us. Artists through their study and perseverance develop a sensitivity and insight to our world that the layman does not have. The work they produce deserves more care
and reverence than the work of the part-time artists. Displaying “fine art” in nontraditional venues trivializes and demeans it. By its very nature it is not meant to be seen as commonplace. To experience the work in its fullest it needs to be shown in a place that has been set aside solely for that purpose.
Photo of City Market by Marc Awodey
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
OPINION: Is there a Vermont style or styles?
This is in response to a question submitted by Sam Thurston and posted on February 12, 2009. Further responses will be posted as they are received.
By Theodore A. Hoppe
When one considers the notion of a Vermont style perhaps the question should be, "Does Vermont Art represent a 'school' of painting and art in general?” "School" in this sense, refers to a group of people whose outlook, inspiration, output, or style demonstrates a common thread, rather than a learning institution.
In Europe, the Barbizon School (circa 1830–1870) of painters was named after the village of Barbizon near Fountainbleau Forest, France, where the artists gathered. The Barbizon painters were part of a movement towards realism in art which arose in the context of the dominant Romantic movement of the time.
Wikipedia tells us the term "Hudson River School" is thought to have originated with the New York Tribune art critic Clarence Cook. "The Hudson River school was a mid-19th century American art movement by a group of Landscape painters, whose aesthetic vision was influenced by romanticism. Their paintings depict the Hudson River Valley and the surrounding area, as well as the Catskill and Adirondack Mountains of New York and White Mountains of New Hampshire. Hudson River School paintings reflect three themes of America in the 19th century: discovery, exploration, and settlement. The paintings also depict the American landscape as a pastoral setting, where human beings and nature coexist peacefully."
The Pennsylvania Impressionists were also a turn of the century school of painting. Taking their easels out-of-doors to paint on the spot rather than working in their studios from sketches, this core group of impressionist artists painted the natural beauty at sites along or near the Delaware River and around Bucks County at the turn of the century. Bucks County, with its proximity to New York and Philadelphia, and the binding educational traditions of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts and the National Academy of Design, created an artistic atmosphere conducive to a unique, yet purely American interpretation of Impressionism.
Vermont is a special place where imposing mountain peaks tower over prosperous valley farms. "How many hay fields, barns, gravel roads and village general stores (might) vanish before we would be living somewhere that is no longer recognizable as the rural state we love?" asks the local artist. Mountains, forests, fields, rivers and roads, the heart and soul of Vermont, are captured in the eye and by the hand of the artists that experience the Vermont that has come to stand for the ideal of unspoiled rural life. There is a vibrant and unique community of artists whose outlook, inspiration, output and style demonstrates a common thread. There is more than just a Vermont School of Painting here. In addition to an abundance of paintings, in oil and watercolors, there are pastels, photographs, prints, sculptures, pottery, and other media.
Above: Thomas Cole, View from Mount Holyoke, Norhampton, Massachusetts, after a Thunderstorm (The Oxbow), 1836, oil on canvas, at the Metropolitcan Museum of Art, New York.
By Theodore A. Hoppe
When one considers the notion of a Vermont style perhaps the question should be, "Does Vermont Art represent a 'school' of painting and art in general?” "School" in this sense, refers to a group of people whose outlook, inspiration, output, or style demonstrates a common thread, rather than a learning institution.
In Europe, the Barbizon School (circa 1830–1870) of painters was named after the village of Barbizon near Fountainbleau Forest, France, where the artists gathered. The Barbizon painters were part of a movement towards realism in art which arose in the context of the dominant Romantic movement of the time.
Wikipedia tells us the term "Hudson River School" is thought to have originated with the New York Tribune art critic Clarence Cook. "The Hudson River school was a mid-19th century American art movement by a group of Landscape painters, whose aesthetic vision was influenced by romanticism. Their paintings depict the Hudson River Valley and the surrounding area, as well as the Catskill and Adirondack Mountains of New York and White Mountains of New Hampshire. Hudson River School paintings reflect three themes of America in the 19th century: discovery, exploration, and settlement. The paintings also depict the American landscape as a pastoral setting, where human beings and nature coexist peacefully."
The Pennsylvania Impressionists were also a turn of the century school of painting. Taking their easels out-of-doors to paint on the spot rather than working in their studios from sketches, this core group of impressionist artists painted the natural beauty at sites along or near the Delaware River and around Bucks County at the turn of the century. Bucks County, with its proximity to New York and Philadelphia, and the binding educational traditions of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts and the National Academy of Design, created an artistic atmosphere conducive to a unique, yet purely American interpretation of Impressionism.
Vermont is a special place where imposing mountain peaks tower over prosperous valley farms. "How many hay fields, barns, gravel roads and village general stores (might) vanish before we would be living somewhere that is no longer recognizable as the rural state we love?" asks the local artist. Mountains, forests, fields, rivers and roads, the heart and soul of Vermont, are captured in the eye and by the hand of the artists that experience the Vermont that has come to stand for the ideal of unspoiled rural life. There is a vibrant and unique community of artists whose outlook, inspiration, output and style demonstrates a common thread. There is more than just a Vermont School of Painting here. In addition to an abundance of paintings, in oil and watercolors, there are pastels, photographs, prints, sculptures, pottery, and other media.
Above: Thomas Cole, View from Mount Holyoke, Norhampton, Massachusetts, after a Thunderstorm (The Oxbow), 1836, oil on canvas, at the Metropolitcan Museum of Art, New York.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
OPINION: What constitutes a conflict of interest in the visual arts?
This is in response to a question submitted by Marc Awodey and posted on February 28, 2009. Further responses will be posted as they are received by the editors, and may be lightly edited.
by Janet Van Fleet
Plugged In at SPA, 2005
It may be a hassle to question whether we might have a conflict of interest in some activity that we are undertaking, but I think it keeps us honest, and is worth the irritation. We’ve recently become intensely aware of what bad things happen to the economy when people relax into feathering their own nests at the expense of others. Maybe the consequences aren’t quite as dire in the art world (mostly, perhaps, because there is less at stake in cold, hard cash!), but they are still worth thinking about.
What is a conflict of interest? It is an act that does (or might) create a benefit to you at the expense of the interest of others. Marc said, for example, that he avoided reviewing exhibits at galleries where his work was displayed. Why? Because it might be seen as an effort to get people to go to the gallery to see the show he praised and, while they were there, have an opportunity to see (and possibly buy) his work. There might be a perception that he reviewed that show (instead of another, more “worthy” show) because of that self-interest.
Far Out at SPA, 2004
For me the issue arises more in the context of curating shows. I mostly put together thematic shows on topics that I am really interested in – which means I probably have some work of my own that relates to the concept I’m building an exhibit around. But, I have a policy of NOT putting my own work in an exhibit that I curate. Why? Well, I’m already the arbiter, the decider, about what the show is about and what work is selected for the show. If my own work is fair game, then I can a) structure the concept for the show in a way that makes my work a shoe-in, b) select my own work over someone else’s, whose work might have been selected by a more objective judge, and c) foreground my work in a prominent spot and in promotion of the exhibit. Even if I don’t do any of those things, there is still the opportunity to do them, and the perception that I might have done them. As my grandmother used to say, “Avoid the appearance of evil.”
When I put together a show that I feel is really first-rate, I sometimes regret that my work isn’t in the mix, but I am content to feel that I have acted ethically by my own lights.
by Janet Van Fleet
Plugged In at SPA, 2005
It may be a hassle to question whether we might have a conflict of interest in some activity that we are undertaking, but I think it keeps us honest, and is worth the irritation. We’ve recently become intensely aware of what bad things happen to the economy when people relax into feathering their own nests at the expense of others. Maybe the consequences aren’t quite as dire in the art world (mostly, perhaps, because there is less at stake in cold, hard cash!), but they are still worth thinking about.What is a conflict of interest? It is an act that does (or might) create a benefit to you at the expense of the interest of others. Marc said, for example, that he avoided reviewing exhibits at galleries where his work was displayed. Why? Because it might be seen as an effort to get people to go to the gallery to see the show he praised and, while they were there, have an opportunity to see (and possibly buy) his work. There might be a perception that he reviewed that show (instead of another, more “worthy” show) because of that self-interest.
Far Out at SPA, 2004
For me the issue arises more in the context of curating shows. I mostly put together thematic shows on topics that I am really interested in – which means I probably have some work of my own that relates to the concept I’m building an exhibit around. But, I have a policy of NOT putting my own work in an exhibit that I curate. Why? Well, I’m already the arbiter, the decider, about what the show is about and what work is selected for the show. If my own work is fair game, then I can a) structure the concept for the show in a way that makes my work a shoe-in, b) select my own work over someone else’s, whose work might have been selected by a more objective judge, and c) foreground my work in a prominent spot and in promotion of the exhibit. Even if I don’t do any of those things, there is still the opportunity to do them, and the perception that I might have done them. As my grandmother used to say, “Avoid the appearance of evil.”When I put together a show that I feel is really first-rate, I sometimes regret that my work isn’t in the mix, but I am content to feel that I have acted ethically by my own lights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
