Monday, October 27, 2008
A follow up on Art. Nuit Blanche and contemporary questions of art
So inspired by the last post and similar recent argument I feel like I want to add another perspective to this thing we call art.
Ever year toronto is swarmed by drunken mobs of art appreciators. I think...
...Ah nuit Blanche, a night of open air and "art", having recently passed I feel it is a good time to speak out against it. Being an artist myself and part of loosely affiliated group of artists Nuit Blanche has always appeared to me as something of an egotistical exercise for the self righteous (my apologies if you enjoy this night of nights). It seems to me a place where our notions of art are being calmly stripped away. That is to say that most of the installations appear to me to be for their own sake and sake of 1 million torontonians who maybe didn't realize that artists show year round in a number of galleries all over the city.
It almost seems like a free ticket where we can throw the word art around like a dirty dish towel. And claim some sort of prestige and intellectual ownership over this mythical notion of art. This upsets me as I find the majority of pieces presented are maybe kind of "neat"but lack any real substance. It seems with Nuit Blanche there is some aspiration towards "high culture"and the prestige surrounding making and appreciating art. But what are we really appreciating? It seems to me that it is Art for Arts sake alone. It is simply the abstract notion of art. Not the importance or political contextualization of one particular piece of art.
So brings me to an interesting anecdote from the evening. Remember I mentioned that loosely affiliated group of artists? Well our shared repulsion for the event manifested in a guerrilla art event. Maybe you saw it? We sat down, near OCAD with xerox paper, markers and drawing boards, and a sign that advertised our "hideous caricatures". We then proceeded to "perform"said caricatures for the public, free of charge. The response was enormous and circus like. You see, some of us weren't even drawing the people in front of us. The myth was maintained though that we were, in the end many people simply received a picture of say a banana with their name, or the lamp post behind them with a question mark representing the person, or a scribble entitled: abstract. We felt that we were effectively challenging the lack of "meaning and reason". How maybe you're asking? Well in our opinion by taking caricature illustrations something that itself is lowest on the totem pole 0f image making and placing it into the context of what the powers at be had deemed an event of unfortold artistic expression we were at once elevating the action and detracting from the event. Something as everyday and meaningless apparently as street caricatures was brought into a manufacture high culture context, somewhat like that campbells soup can by the infamous warhol.
Now I can appreciate that some of the artists felt they had created a grand meaning with their works, but I would still argue that do to context and the actual result of Nuit Blanche they simply created meaning for the sake of meaning at the whim of their patron scotia bank.
In short, Nuit Blanche has about the same effect as that magnificent corporate "art" found all over the downtown. And as my colleague pointed out it is the duty of the artist to maintain that sense of reason, context and social engagement that Walter Benjamin was so concerned about.
Ever year toronto is swarmed by drunken mobs of art appreciators. I think...
...Ah nuit Blanche, a night of open air and "art", having recently passed I feel it is a good time to speak out against it. Being an artist myself and part of loosely affiliated group of artists Nuit Blanche has always appeared to me as something of an egotistical exercise for the self righteous (my apologies if you enjoy this night of nights). It seems to me a place where our notions of art are being calmly stripped away. That is to say that most of the installations appear to me to be for their own sake and sake of 1 million torontonians who maybe didn't realize that artists show year round in a number of galleries all over the city.
It almost seems like a free ticket where we can throw the word art around like a dirty dish towel. And claim some sort of prestige and intellectual ownership over this mythical notion of art. This upsets me as I find the majority of pieces presented are maybe kind of "neat"but lack any real substance. It seems with Nuit Blanche there is some aspiration towards "high culture"and the prestige surrounding making and appreciating art. But what are we really appreciating? It seems to me that it is Art for Arts sake alone. It is simply the abstract notion of art. Not the importance or political contextualization of one particular piece of art.
So brings me to an interesting anecdote from the evening. Remember I mentioned that loosely affiliated group of artists? Well our shared repulsion for the event manifested in a guerrilla art event. Maybe you saw it? We sat down, near OCAD with xerox paper, markers and drawing boards, and a sign that advertised our "hideous caricatures". We then proceeded to "perform"said caricatures for the public, free of charge. The response was enormous and circus like. You see, some of us weren't even drawing the people in front of us. The myth was maintained though that we were, in the end many people simply received a picture of say a banana with their name, or the lamp post behind them with a question mark representing the person, or a scribble entitled: abstract. We felt that we were effectively challenging the lack of "meaning and reason". How maybe you're asking? Well in our opinion by taking caricature illustrations something that itself is lowest on the totem pole 0f image making and placing it into the context of what the powers at be had deemed an event of unfortold artistic expression we were at once elevating the action and detracting from the event. Something as everyday and meaningless apparently as street caricatures was brought into a manufacture high culture context, somewhat like that campbells soup can by the infamous warhol.
Now I can appreciate that some of the artists felt they had created a grand meaning with their works, but I would still argue that do to context and the actual result of Nuit Blanche they simply created meaning for the sake of meaning at the whim of their patron scotia bank.
In short, Nuit Blanche has about the same effect as that magnificent corporate "art" found all over the downtown. And as my colleague pointed out it is the duty of the artist to maintain that sense of reason, context and social engagement that Walter Benjamin was so concerned about.
# posted by pete Thorne @ 10:58 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
How can you make so many blanket statements about such a diversity of installations? Especially regarding their 'meaning'? Especially especially when you were not engaged in the event as a whole but only in a very small corner of it, a corner of your own devising?
Don't you think that what you and your friends did in protest was actually an act of affirmation? Yet one more (tasteful, interesting) exhibit in an ocean of expression?
What art critic is so well versed that he or she may, in a couple of paragraphs, sum the collective labour of thousands of creative individuals, each working on their own, unique, project?
Don't you think that what you and your friends did in protest was actually an act of affirmation? Yet one more (tasteful, interesting) exhibit in an ocean of expression?
What art critic is so well versed that he or she may, in a couple of paragraphs, sum the collective labour of thousands of creative individuals, each working on their own, unique, project?
"I liked art before it was cool!"
No, but, I sympathize. I have some reservations about Nuit Blanche. It seems like it and its pieces tend to sound awesome in concept, but in actual implementation really aren't that impressive. You look at the object itself and go "Oh, huh..." or maybe "That's neat" and you're done.
The thing is, I'd lodge about the same complaint against the majority of modern art. You look at the next piece in the gallery and you go "Oh, huh" (or I do). If the little panel has a description to it, it usually waxes poetic about the incredible depths plumbed by the inscrutable thing you're looking at. I mean, if it is possible to "throw the word art around like a dirty dish towel", it's been done so thoroughly and deliberately already over the past century that I have a hard time seeing what you're bothered by.
I think this really may have something to do with the open air context. Taken out of the rarefied, high-culture context of the gallery, some of the halo to the art rubs off. The unwashed masses are free to come look at it and speculate about it, even those who aren't savvy enough to tour galleries like properly informed art admirers do. They're not the 'real fans', just tag-alongs. It doesn't even cost admission! And sure, this event is run by Scotiabank; but a gallery is a business too, and artists have always needed patrons, so that can't quite be it.
I think this very natural sort of reaction is about maintaining distinction in the face of popularization. I can never get Bourdieu's words out of my head: "Taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier."
The hideous caricatures sounded like fun, though.
- Also, Pete, if you're logged in as you were when you posted it, you should be able to just edit your post -- it's a little pencil icon beside the comments.
No, but, I sympathize. I have some reservations about Nuit Blanche. It seems like it and its pieces tend to sound awesome in concept, but in actual implementation really aren't that impressive. You look at the object itself and go "Oh, huh..." or maybe "That's neat" and you're done.
The thing is, I'd lodge about the same complaint against the majority of modern art. You look at the next piece in the gallery and you go "Oh, huh" (or I do). If the little panel has a description to it, it usually waxes poetic about the incredible depths plumbed by the inscrutable thing you're looking at. I mean, if it is possible to "throw the word art around like a dirty dish towel", it's been done so thoroughly and deliberately already over the past century that I have a hard time seeing what you're bothered by.
I think this really may have something to do with the open air context. Taken out of the rarefied, high-culture context of the gallery, some of the halo to the art rubs off. The unwashed masses are free to come look at it and speculate about it, even those who aren't savvy enough to tour galleries like properly informed art admirers do. They're not the 'real fans', just tag-alongs. It doesn't even cost admission! And sure, this event is run by Scotiabank; but a gallery is a business too, and artists have always needed patrons, so that can't quite be it.
I think this very natural sort of reaction is about maintaining distinction in the face of popularization. I can never get Bourdieu's words out of my head: "Taste classifies, and it classifies the classifier."
The hideous caricatures sounded like fun, though.
- Also, Pete, if you're logged in as you were when you posted it, you should be able to just edit your post -- it's a little pencil icon beside the comments.
well, Nuit Blanche was trying to tone down its image of institution by being all inclusive. that's why there were so many independent shows that were not part of the patronage of Scotia Bank, including your caricature critique of the event itself. Therefore it is impossible to make a critique on Nuit Blanche as a whole because it has is no collective characteristic or a fix dimension.
However, your critque makes sense in that you bring the awareness of the institution. those who got the lamb pole would re-think the whole event: maybe what is defined as high culture is just the context.
In the meantime, i agreed with ryan that what you were doing was actually affirming what you were against. Art has become so inclusive that practice of institutional critique has been incorporated as high art practice as well. So no matter what you do, you can not be an outsider.
My point is: art is a system working in a way like capitalism. You think you buy solar panels is a resistance but actually your purchase has affirmed the capitalist system. Art works the same way.
Post a Comment
However, your critque makes sense in that you bring the awareness of the institution. those who got the lamb pole would re-think the whole event: maybe what is defined as high culture is just the context.
In the meantime, i agreed with ryan that what you were doing was actually affirming what you were against. Art has become so inclusive that practice of institutional critique has been incorporated as high art practice as well. So no matter what you do, you can not be an outsider.
My point is: art is a system working in a way like capitalism. You think you buy solar panels is a resistance but actually your purchase has affirmed the capitalist system. Art works the same way.
<< Home
