Let's talk about the future of art
 

Yesterday I read this very cool article on the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/ar...gn/15cott.html

It sort of argues that art does better when the art market is fucked. And that artists need to meet the world rather than staring up their own assholes.

Pretty fucking inspiring, I'd say.

Read+Discuss. But don't argue with my silly post-- argue with the article instead. Pretty good shit I'd say.

I wish I had spectacles.

So I could dawn them as I read this article.

Absolutely. That isn't to say that there haven't been people making great art in the past 5 yrs or next 5.. History generally says that the best art is often not sellable near its time of creation. Talented artists do work for money, and for commission. If they can't do that because of ecconomic reasons, they are still going to create for themselves, and probably do something much more wonderful.

There is a lot of bullshit pop art around, and I loathe the narcissim and commercialism of everything Hirst&co.
You do need to take into account though that right now there are more artists on this planet than there ever have been, with better acccess to money and media than what they've ever had before. It's going to take time for the good to filter from the bad.. It'll only get worse too, imho.

I havent picked up artforum for myself since mid to late last year but, have noticed this when looking through the periodicals at the library. It is the same for 90% of art magazines. (design excluded because they are always 90% filler) It is interesting to watch the ebb and flow of gallery and marketing content through the years.

In their slight defense, it's mostly just leftover confusion from the postmodern movement and all that Warhol/Duchamp theory--which had merit. But these guys now are totally missing the point.

Sorry I was more talking about the endless list of illustrative/fine art morphed exhibitions that have existed since the late 90's.

I find it very hard to imagine where art will go in the future. It seems at times that everything has been done already and usually done a lot better by predecessors

I just finished reading the article. It'll be interesting to see if art really is able to negotiate its way through the recession and manages to inspire (albeit out of necessity) artists to re-think their position.

The great thing about a time when all conventional ideas seem inadequate is that unconventional ones have to start coming into play. Comfort zones, by their very nature, never inspire change and art has, for too long I think, been operating within such a zone. As such I really do hope that the arts follow the lead of those leading economists who are now starting to examine new (and often previously ridiculed) ideas. Not (as seems to be the case with the economists) to eventually return things to a status quo similar to the one we were used to, but rather in the hope of finding a new, better and more dynamic way for the arts to function within society.

Exciting times indeed.

Radio 4 said that the art market enjoys relative stability throughout financial recessions. Apparently because the art market is fairly seperate from the global economic market, people invest in art because of it's inherent worth, much like you'd invest in gold and silver for the same reason. Good art will always be good art I suppose. I dunno, I'm just regurgitating what Radio 4 said, I know very little about the finances behind art.

I think it's true that it can sustain itself during quite short term recessions (such as we've had in the past few decades) but a long term one (like this one is predicted to be) will prove far harder. Art is often funded by massive corporations who will be under enormous pressure from shareholders and banks to prioritise spending. It's also sure to force collectors to start selling off works at slashed prices as creditors start demanding some of their money back. It's going to affect every area of the art world if the recession really does get as nasty as economists are predicting.

I think it depends on the scale..

of course monumental things like architecture, sculpture, huge murals, large performances, etc will fall into decline because these things require $$$ and in many respects are public works projects.

much of the "art" of the western tradition are in fact these things, and this is why during economic problems people fear the "arts" will fall into decline..

however, smaller scale art.. street art.. and the art of individuals such as writing, painting, and music will definitely thrive in this increasingly humanistic environment. This kind of art depends upon sincerity and authenticity, thinks which impoverished conditions tend to foster. Further poverty creates an audience for this kind of art.

The argument against that of course, at least in part, is found in the crash of the 1930s, when people didn't turn to culture that reflected their situation but rather that which offered them an escape from it: hence the lavish cinema spectacles churned out by Hollywood during that period.

That's cinema of course, which operates by a different set of rules to some of the other arts. Even so, the idea that impoverished conditions might lead to a more 'sincere' art strikes me as being hopeful at best.

On a slightly separate note, I found this passage in that article interesting:

Why not make studio training an interdisciplinary experience, crossing over into sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, poetry and theology?

Although university Art programmes, in the UK at least, have promoted this kind of interdisciplinary approach for some time now (usually under the name 'comparative studies') the idea has become slightly diluted of late into what might best be described simply as 'theory'. (Roughly translated as art theorists who've (mis)read some Deleuze writing about other art theorists who've (mis)read some Deleuze). I think art would benefit enormously from once again re-engaging with ideas from other disciplines (so long as the dialogue isn't just one way - sociologists looking at art would be nice too). I think it's this potential of looking for new paths and new methods in unexpected places that might ultimately see art becoming a beneficiary, rather than a victim, of the next few years.

As someone who goes to an Art school...

"Art schools can change too. The present goal of studio programs (and of ever more specialized art history programs) seems to be to narrow talent to a sharp point that can push its way aggressively into the competitive arena. But with markets uncertain, possibly nonexistent, why not relax this mode, open up education?"

I have to strongly disagree with this statement. Maybe its just Perpich, but when you walk into the visual arts gallery you see all different types of levels, ethics, and styles and don't see any narrowing of talent for the economic market. When you go to the media gallerys people may be inspired by mainstream concepts, but make them their own. When you go to Theatre shows there's lots of talent, but the people aren't judged on their beauty or how good they would look on screen or in a play, which seems to be a defining factor in box office/broadway hits. When you go to music shows the vibe the ensambles give off can range from 'oh, shit i'm in a garage listening to a really good band practice' to 'holy shit these people are amazing, why don't they have their own CD?'. As a literary arts student, I know for a fact that both readings we do on school grounds and outside of school are to have our voices heard. At this point in time we're still trying to find a stable writing voice, so our work is less for the audience and more for ourselves. Which, in my opinion, is fine. I can safely say that the group of kids I write with are intelligent human beings who can write for themselves about a topic, and if the audience is willing to grasp the meaning and subtext, it can really inspire and change the world in a positive light. The dance department is the only department that really prepares the kids for "real world" experiences, and I think thats okay because dance is a form of visual entertainment where rejection is much more personal and common. But its also important to mention that there are just as many 'fat' girls as their are stick thin ones. And the distribution of roles in the dances aren't based on weight or looks, and really don't matter at all because theyre such powerful dancers.

"Why not make studio training an interdisciplinary experience, crossing over into sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, poetry and theology?"

Thats why you take academic classes while you're at school. It's not strictly art based. Not to mention the fact that Art and the subconcious is so deeply intertwined, to say that sociologic, psychologic, and philosophic factors don't play a key role in the art that is being created is to suggest its strictly being created for the economy. Maybe thats what some artists are beginning to do, but what gets anyone into art is putting emotion or thought into an abstract form and benefiting from it emotionally and/or visually. Any artists who doesn't do this on a concious level is not much of an artist at all.

----

I understand that making a living off of your art is the main focus and goal for most beginning artists, but it's wrong. Which is what I saw the arguement in the article to be, but it was done cynically. Art is not dying and is under no danger of being made more commercial. Especially with the economy the way it is. After the great depression some of the greatest blues artists were born out of their financial trouble which lead to social trouble. Thats just one example.

Call me an optimist, but I think this is going to do nothing but good for art. Making an assembly line of pleasing shit because you need it to be bought is no way to go living. Or creating. Once people realize that this is unrealistic (even if it takes extreme financial hardship to do so) I truly believe that art is going to take a new curve for the BEST.

^^Exactly, regarding your last paragraph. As a musician (whatever, thats probably all of us here, honestly) I'm baffled by any artist who could be worried right now. It's like the universe saw how spoiled artists had become and was tired of hearing people bitch about the old days and decided to throw us right back in the old days. After all, don't forget the old expression "Your art starts to suck once you're not poor and you're happy". That may not be 100% true, there's nothing wrong with being happy, but true character is born thru suffering and it looks like alot of douchebags are going to have the real world and a whole lotta character shoved up their ass pretty soon. Or at least, enevitabley.

It's like the whole country is experiencing the Pilot of Arrested Developement. Let's see how THIS story unfolds.

anyways, lots of ideas and feelings floating around, lots of new realities being set in place in this country...good things for artists. Simplest answer? The future of art is bright.

yes, but literature and even hollywood also represented everyday realities, and this was especially true for music of the period.

I don't know about literature from the thirties and while you're right that some very popular films produced during that period did indeed reflect the hardship of the time (gangster movies like Public Enemy, Scarface and Little Ceasar, for example) the overwhelming tendency was towards escapism and optimism, usually in the form of either musicals, epic star vehicles or straight up fantasy. It was the success of these kinds of films during the thirties that led Hollywood to begin thinking of itself as being recession proof (an attitude it still holds to this day).

I think it's true that music reflected the era's hardships far better than cinema did at the time. Even so, for every 'Stormy Weather' there were still a dozen 'Puttin' on the Ritz's.

Art is one of those things you can spit a million words at and say nothing.

If anything, art catches up and reflects what everyone already knows like an emotional newspaper. To predict future of art, one needs to predict the future of everything else first.

And everything else is confusion.

there's a lot of words in this thread.

Let me write a paragraph of what I think about that.

50 words or less

This opinion;


could to be the reason you struggle with this

artists will survive, it's just a matter of waiting it out. There is no difference between any type of employment when an economy is in recession. Less opportunity for everyone and less market growth means less money to go around and people will consume less because of it. Whether they buy less art or buy less ... anything. Government spending wont touch the arts and will pull massive dollars where they can, with budgets already blown out to extremes. The swing voters who are responsible for my own current government will not dig the idea of schools roads and medic losing out at the expense of arts funding, especially so when they don't have a job anymore.

With interdiscipline studies though I do believe there is a lot of opportunity now, especially for cross study and employment for visual arts mixed with applied science streams.

I was going to post a couple of relevant articles but there are so many. Google if it interests you. There is a lot in the way of genetics, mathematics, engineering, computer science... Both visual artists and scientists share a passion for innovation, explanation, and clarity of concept.

"He who writes for fools always finds a large public."

i agree with interdiscipline studies when it's something like this, or if you're sending art students out to do social work or something like that. proper philosophy classes wouldn't go amiss, but then that might show up the art tutors as charlatans when the students realise the tutors just talk out of their arses about deleuze & co.


and now i'm going to grind my axe:

i'm not really fond of state funding for artists, i think that funding for large galleries & collections that are open to the public is good and proper, what i don't agree with is setting aside public money to be used in grants which can be applied for by artists to fund their little performance piece or whatever, i don't think it's in the public's interest to fund some crappy little thing that nobody is ever going to see (or like)*. needless to say this opinion was not popular amongst my peer group at art school. i think the same people in favour of public money for artists are opposed to government bailing out the banks, but i'm not sure if i can see a difference, i.e. both are seemingly incapable of keeping themselves solvent without needing handouts, what do you all think?

*it would be nice if there was some kind of nationalised system for everyone to get free money to persue their hobby, but until then i don't think it's fair to give money to some and not to others when it could be spent on something more beneficial to the public at large (health care for example). something that really disgusts me is seeing people who've tried to get funding or grants behave ungraciously when they don't make the cut, as if they are entitled to swan about and indulge themselves at the expense of the taxpayer.

art,

I make art

no one wants to buy it

people look at it, do not instantly "get it" and move on.

People who I give my art to as gifts tell me how it takes time with uit, but one day, it HITS THEM. they see the shit I put in it.

It is hard to make art for sale. it creates cheap bullshit art. art for the moment and the living room couch, but not for ART.

the art worls right now is fucking tedious and horrible, and it will take a large shake-up to make a new splash.

Looking through artnews, and artforum, and art in america, and all those magazines, I see sterile dead modern work, lifeless bullshit with no joy
I see the old masters and the old classivc paintings and they revel in the joy of life, even insanity like dekooning is exuberant and defient.

art now seems to be just another product to sell, just another product to tailor to the tastest and whims of some fuck looking for status symbols.

while it has always been this way to some extent, it seems pervasive now.

it will all change though. the new breed will erasde the bukllsit of this time, and kill their idols.

you mean like, paintings and stuff?

i came across a good magazine recently, it's called hi-fructose. plus there's paul lafolley, who i think in years to come will be regarded in the same light as the old masters (maybe)

http://www.hifructose.com/
http://laffoley.com/

cool looking stuff.

I wonder if the high insanity that pervades the underground art worls will ever cross over to the Fine Art world? It will take time.

exactly. the deep recession might actually help with that. i think having too much mone slushing around might encourage pandering to the corporate dog.


right-- as a matter of fact, government help might be a good things for artists at this point. during the great depression, roosevelt created the WPA (works progress administration) which gave artists work in public projects-- they helped paint murals, make furniture, and work in post offices, schools, courthouses, and all manner of public buildings. many great artists came out of that era-- they supported writers, they collected oral histories, they supported plays and public theatre, adult education, etc etc. a lot of great artists were helped by the wpa-- jackson pollok, dekooning, rothko, eugene o'neill, john cheever, eudora welty, saul bellow, etc. i don't know if the federal writer's project was a part of the wpa but yeah, there was a lot of government support.

this is also kind of in response to your posts and suchfriend's above.

by the way, the stimulus package kept a nice chunk of dough for the NEA (national endowment for the arts). hurray.


in the long term art tends to appreciate quite well, but i think the problem is that with too much real estate bubble cash looking for a place to be spent, the art world might have enjoyed a bit of a bubble itself in recent years, supporting artificially prosperous lifestyles for too many artists. that's going to change, and as the article says, a lot of people are going to have to find a day job.

maybe it's just perpich! i googled that, seems like a nice school.


i dont know that you take any more academic classes once you go into an mfa.
that;s why the quote follows thus:

Why not build into your graduate program a work-study semester that takes students out of the art world entirely and places them in hospitals, schools and prisons, sometimes in-extremis environments, i.e. real life? My guess is that if you did, American art would look very different than it does today.

----


well especially now, no it won't be more commercial-- cheeto's mortal enemy is probably shitting himself as we speak





yes, that's exactly what the writer of that article is saying though. i didn't read cynicism into it-- i read a sort of relief that the corporate hounddogs will keep their filthy paws off the art world for a while, and that having a salutary effect on the art world and art itself, with artist being forced our of the incestuous bubble of the corporate-supplied "art world"

i.e.-
Every year art schools across the country spit out thousands of groomed-for-success graduates, whose job it is to supply galleries and auction houses with desirable retail. They are backed up by cadres of public relations specialists — otherwise known as critics, curators, editors, publishers and career theorists — who provide timely updates on what desirable means.

Many of those specialists are, directly or indirectly, on the industry payroll, which is controlled by another set of personnel: the dealers, brokers, advisers, financiers, lawyers and — crucial in the era of art fairs — event planners who represent the industry’s marketing and sales division. They are the people who scan school rosters, pick off fresh talent, direct careers and, by some inscrutable calculus, determine what will sell for what.

That, he's saying, is ended, and we can hope for a return of "art that matters".

where will tracy emin find her dough now? hmmmm...

ha ha ha ha haaaa

yessss....

art schools, at least whe I was involved in them and studying, did very little to prepare artists for the business end of the art world. TRhey prepared you for critiques, in focusing what you want to do, and in experimentation, but nothing at all about how to sell your art, or even how to get it seen. I graduated 1997, so I guess the art school's focus has changed maybe.

bt there wa sso much BULLSHIT as well.

I'm in favour of a limited and highly rationalised funding of the arts but I absolutely agree with you about much of the art world's sheer level of expectancy when it comes to receiving such funding. I know a number of people who occupy the title of 'artist' but who spend considerably more time securing grants than they do actually creating something in the studio. And the tantrums I've witnessed when one of their claims has been rejected are quite unbelievable. A lot of these people really do need to be asked a very straightforward question: what exactly is it that you do?

scientists and artists and researchers and all sorts of people have to suck a lot of ass to get grants and to ensure fuinding for their art.

I am all for giovernmental funding of the arts, I just do not know how they make a determination. I am down with the suggestion above that government (the people) support arts organizations thereby allowing those organizations to make their own decisions as to whom to support in doling out money, BUT, this is the same process they used in the 80's and which the reactionary assholes used to nearly demolish th NEA, because they gave money to art musuems that then exhibited mapplethorpe images, and it all went to shit. stupid fuckers.

beauty lies in the eye.

why does the chick in your sig with the arrows pointed at her have a sweaty crotch?

Most of this board's opinions on art make me feel queasy. This is all.

Because your staring at it is arousing her?

I can't wait for the art world to fall apart. Only then we'll be able to tell the true charlatans from those who have the balls to stay. And it will be great when the (art) world will finally realise that Brian Sewell was right all along, wether one likes his personality or not. There has been so much money wasted on the 'arts', so much useless talk, that it will be refreshing to see something that is not an urgent necessity for so many people taking a step back and fight its corner. YAY!

maybe in the UK, but the US's National Endowment for the arts funding is around $0.35 per person per year. that is MININAL spending.

I wouldn't take things like that for granted in the current economical climate. It might be here today, there's no guarantee it will be there tomorrow, or for much longer.