Comments on edward_ winkleman: Darwinism as Applied to Art : Open Thread

Thank you anon 7/31. I knew there was something ab...

2009-08-01T08:36:17.440-04:00

Thank you anon 7/31. I knew there was something about the Spellman quote that bothered me when I read it in the Times but I didn't give it much thought . She's looking down her nose at us, isn't she? The sub-text implies that one needs to be wiser, more cunning, harder working (like her). She doesn't mention that trust-fund-ier, like her, can be the the real world survival factor that is the difference between trying to sell your artists work out of a cardboard box in Central park, like me, and holding onto your space. I doubt that even her uber-safe/trendy program (I mean really, Edie Sedgwick?) would survive now without her trust fund to back it up. Random factors play a role in evolution as well- my seed fell on solid rock while others fell on humus-rich Galapagos topsoil. Maybe I'll have better luck in the next evolutionary cycle when my seed lands on the nutrient rich rotting carcasses of- nevermind.

The Spellman quote from the Times article is speci...

2009-07-31T09:20:17.943-04:00

The Spellman quote from the Times article is specifically about galleries. Ed sort of muddies the waters by saying "The recession will weed out the weaker artists, galleries, institutions, etc" expanding the scope of her reference to include art and artists. Actually she says that "she doesn't believe that recessions are Darwininan systems"-which doesn't make sense because recessions aren't systems at all- but anyway galleries surely are subject to Darwinian law. The making of art is a human behavior, and although it is the human that must yield to Mr Darwin, not the behavior, the behavior would not survive if the human's survival were threatened by this behavior. Bottom line, only the strongest institutions will survive, be they supported by trust funds, Broads, concerned citizens or art sales. What gives them their strength is not important, only that they are stronger.
As to the art and artists, I think we are a long way from the act of making art becoming a threat to our survival. This is a small meteor, the art (behavior) will evolve accordingly.

Survival of the fittest, in art, what a great post...

2009-07-16T19:30:48.867-04:00

Survival of the fittest, in art, what a great post! When I paint, I have no thoughts of what I need to do to survive. I paint to paint, to express myself through my work. There are other, simpler ways, to survive then in your art. And the fact of thinking that way, to survive, places to much pressure, at least for me, on the ability to create art on the path that I truly want to take.

When it comes to an institution, gallery or dealer the question of survival and growth is different and a critical part of any business operation and plans. I think today, survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean the strongest. We were in the early stages of an industrial revolution when many of the strongest got crushed.

The question to me is not really about the current recession, but the changes occurring in this still young century. The way in which galleries have been able to operate, walk in business and a few collectors, will not be the way to thrive and drive their way into the next few decades.

Over time the model of who is the strongest to survive changes, just like the Dinosaurs who became extinct. And even the idea of strongest, to me only means you are given a greater chance of success. After all, Lou Gehrig was always considered the Ironman, was he not?

Boy, by going up North for four days (Michigan's u...

2009-07-15T20:08:04.886-04:00

Boy, by going up North for four days (Michigan's upper peninsula), I missed one heck of a conversation.

Cathy, don't worry about the future of art. It will be whatever it will be - and it will prove all of us (including me) to have been wrong about the future.

You have your medium(s), your style and your vision. So just keep putting your work out there. That's all any artist can do. Worries about the state of the art world can be the death of an individual's pursuit of art.

Cedric, ok, I think we're on the same wavelength h...

2009-07-13T17:45:17.821-04:00

Cedric, ok, I think we're on the same wavelength here. There is always the problem with 'technology' (extended definition) slipping into being mere novelty. A look back at the history for the last 50 years or so will bear this out.

When I was a grad student many years ago, I went into the Library and looked through all the art magazines since about 1900. It's always an eye opener to do this.

The one review I remember was on Rothko which finished with "Another ho-hum show."

It's not a "singular" avant-garde, George, because...

2009-07-13T17:08:35.231-04:00

It's not a "singular" avant-garde, George, because they are as many
different things happening with technological art than anywhere else. You can't really pigeonhole such a thing as "technological art"
or it would be a mistake (indeed it IS a mistake, fully happening).
But the fact that an artist use new technology to me is likely to be the only way to be "avant garde" these days, or I might be wrong.

Technology doesn't just mean interactive cynetic art or computer art, it can just mean using new materials that technology can provide, so the notion is very broad.

Cedric Caspesy

Check.

2009-07-13T09:56:07.302-04:00

Check.

Though banal perhaps, it was offered in the spirit...

2009-07-13T09:22:32.709-04:00

Though banal perhaps, it was offered in the spirit of generosity.

That got mixed in with my taking your central point, as initially stated, offensive. You seem passionate and very bright, and as such are a welcome voice here. Let's write it off as miscommunication and let it drop, OK?

Deal. But might I clarify that my reference as to...

2009-07-13T09:03:30.281-04:00

Deal. But might I clarify that my reference as to where I live was mentioned simply to further demonstrate (because of the distance on so many levels) my gratitude for the pleasures found here? Though banal perhaps, it was offered in the spirit of generosity. Your suggestion that it was self serving quite bothered me.

Cedric, Your falling into the trap of visualizing ...

2009-07-12T20:32:57.933-04:00

Cedric, Your falling into the trap of visualizing a singular avant garde, I just don't believe this is the case any more. "Technological art" is not avant garde just because it exists. Even it now is developing its own history and critical relationships.

The danger always exists with a new medium, that it falls into the trap of becoming irrelevant in the way that say paintings which exploit technique become irrelevant.

It's not that technology or technique are bad, but they do not guarantee that one will end up with good art. Various forms of technologically influenced art have been around for at least a half century. While much of it seemed interesting at the time, once the novelty wears of a lot of it is forgotten.

Sometimes it's good to "believe you're among the avant-garde"

I wouldn't quarrel with that, whatever works eh?

Your words imply that I am disingenuous and fawnin...

2009-07-12T20:14:27.232-04:00

Your words imply that I am disingenuous and fawning. I wish you'd take that back.

Fawning never occurred to me, but disingenuous, yes that had occurred to me.

I will retract the word 'antidote' and replace it with another that reflects the evolution of my thinking, 'Counterbalance'. Though new technology causes me some psychic discomfort,

Fair enough, and a valid point to raise in any context.

Let's call a truce and move forward, understanding each other a little better. Deal?

Your words imply that I am disingenuous and fawnin...

2009-07-12T20:04:08.684-04:00

Your words imply that I am disingenuous and fawning. I wish you'd take that back. My notions are very far from air tight though.

Upon reflection I understand why you find some of what I said offensive. And silly - though it just seems fair to make allowances for silliness when discussing the future of art. That you are enthralled with ideas about the future has been repeatedly made evident. So offering my contrary perspective in your space was inconsiderate? I now believe it was.

I will retract the word 'antidote' and replace it with another that reflects the evolution of my thinking, 'Counterbalance'. Though new technology causes me some psychic discomfort, it also awes me. It's tough competition that I worry will crowd out other forms of expression that tap into other facets of being. I never put painting and sculpture on a pedestal, in my mind they're not. My guess is that my reference to Stuckism put me in that camp. Now drawing...

Sufficient?

I think Cathy haven't tried the Wii yet... But ye...

2009-07-12T18:00:53.263-04:00

I think Cathy haven't tried the Wii yet...

But yes, talking about "antidotes" and "pricks" sound like south religious people trying to cure homosexuality. Some of the best sculptors today use computers
before they can build the thing for real. Wanting to go back before technology sounds retrograde to me. In fact a big problem I see these days is people
refusing to adapt to technology and how it can make everybody's life easier.

George, I kind of accept some forms of technological art as being avant-garde but it doesn't seem to be moving out of its margin, so I accept it as my own interpretation. Sometimes it's good to "believe you're among the avant-garde" even though it isn't true, because it keeps you moving
nonetheless. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but, the knowledge that I'm not doing anything new demotivates the hell out of me,
and I think I'd rather die trying, and because it seems impossible (or rather, pointless) now to be avant-garde by style and narrative, I see technology as the only option left (or, going elsewhere than Fine Art).

Cheers,

Cedric Casp

The responses to this post reek of anxiety and I s...

2009-07-12T17:03:22.725-04:00

The responses to this post reek of anxiety and I suppose this fits the historical moment.

In Ed's final paragraph he says "The implication being, art of "quality" will survive regardless of the economy. ... Quality seemingly always survives. Isn't that Darwinism at its essence?"

So, let's edge our way into this. First, I think most must agree now that Darwinism only suggests that body, in this case art, artists and the artworld, adapt to the environment.

If the environmental stress is the economy, in our case a recession, then it will affect, stress both the artists and the art world (galleries etc) which will will have to adapt in order to survive.

"Adapt" can have several meanings here, galleries and artists who can find outside financing (trust-funds, private investors etc) will be better able to survive in the current climate regardless of what kind of art they make or exhibit. Those who can't will end up having to make a decision about whether or not to continue.

The survival of quality is the point which causes anxiety. In terms of the marketplace, one affect we see during recessionary periods is a shift in focus towards art which is less speculative, towards artworks which have already been established and vetted by time, the critical community and the marketplace.

The discussions surrounding the questions and ideas about the survival of quality all fail to ever address what quality actually is and it is this disagreement or incomplete knowledge which is the cause of the anxiety. Why should it matter if it takes only 40 years, or 60, or 100 years to vet an artist, anoint the art works as "quality?" On the collecting-exhibiting end of the spectrum it really doesn't matter all that much, the related events are transient and changeable.

For artists it seems to matter a lot. Every artist makes a commitment, an internal alliance, a match-up of their personal beliefs and part of the thread of history which they see as validating them. If these threads of history re called into question it becomes a source of great anxiety. Case in point is the Stuckists backlash at a "you're stuck, stuck, stuck!" remark in a domestic quarrel. What may have started of as a humorous response as "the Stuckists" found a broad support among other artists who were also feeling threatened by art they did not like or understand.

The Stuckists are just one example of the polarization which can occur within the artworld, typically between the old garde and the avant garde. The old garde wants to maintain the status quo, the set of structures and aesthetics they understand and seek to demonize the avant garde, to the point of calling them names (hence "prick")

One function of the avant garde is to propagate quality into the future, without it art stands still, repeating its old mantras while we fall asleep. The rear garde raise their hands in protest, declaring the new advanced art crap (scat for "lacking in quality") and this is the underlying tone of much of this discussion. However, time shift backwards a generation or two, the same tired arguments against the then avant garde were being made, with the same chorus of cheers from the peanut gallery. Yet it is just this art, this critical stance and aesthetic that the current rear garde is using \for its "quality" argument. Sorry but this cannot be the case.

The recession is a stress event and the artists here will have to decide where their commitment lies. Regardless of their decision art will continue on, it always has and always will

The medium does breed misunderstanding, but your o...

2009-07-12T15:41:44.227-04:00

The medium does breed misunderstanding, but your original statement that lead to my objection remains

The Stuckists struck against conceptual art 10 years ago but the antidote for virtual art will need to be potent.

and we have

antidote: n. a substance which can counteract a form of poisoning

So no matter how you try to parse the use of "pricks" now, you're still left defending that you've implied media other than painting and sculpture are "poison," which isn't a matter of your brain's wiring but rather your bias.

Suggesting that you shouldn't be taken to task for this bias because you're from Oklahoma (really, what does that have to do with anything?) doesn't sway me in slightest either. If you read here enough to appreciate the connection, you read here enough to know my gallery represents artists working a wide range of media and therefore your assertions are a direct challenge.

Your personal preference is one thing. Your assertion that others' preference is poison is something altogether different.

All I'm asking is that you defend it or take it back. Dancing around it won't do.

"Kicking against the pricks" as I understand it is...

2009-07-12T14:56:49.993-04:00

"Kicking against the pricks" as I understand it is an expression that means to rebel against authority. I picked it up from Nick Cave who picked it up from the bible. So I believe my statement was accurate. I suppose the word 'prick' helped me access the expression but I don't think I need to defend my brain's wiring.

But why would you post something silly? It's not e...

2009-07-12T14:37:42.278-04:00

But why would you post something silly? It's not expected.

Alright then, I'll forgo any attempt at levity and speak clearly: you can't go calling people "pricks" and not defend it or take it back. Why are they pricks? If they're not, then amend your statement please.

I have nothing against painting and sculpture (I love them both), but I won't stand by as people suggest artists working in newer media are any less balanced or offering anything less meaningful via their work.

Painting and sculpture: It's not superior, but sin...

2009-07-12T14:23:41.014-04:00

Painting and sculpture: It's not superior, but since it's what I do, it's what I champion. I do worry about its future. Hence my musings. But why would you post something silly? It's not expected.

And this Oklahoman is grateful to you for sharing your insight. And helped by the connection.

Cathy

The Stuckists haven't accomplished much but they k...

2009-07-12T13:35:46.905-04:00

The Stuckists haven't accomplished much but they kicked against the pricks so joyfully.

The "pricks"? Really?

What makes those against whom the Stuckists have kicked so impotently "pricks"? What, indeed, makes the Stuckists any less prick-ish themselves?

In the context of the unplugged artist making things with their hands, the purpose might be shamanistic, corrective

What "things" are these unplugged artists making with their own hands, pray tell? Are they grinding pigments and weaving canvas? Are they plucking horse hairs to fashion their own brushes? Are they in the foundry crafting their own chisels and hammers? Where does this superiority of the "handmade" art begin and end in other words?

And how do you imagine artists not working in painting or sculpture create their videos or photographs or digital prints, with their toes?

This is becoming a truly silly argument Cathy.

Tom says: 'If Fine Art can't really be leading edg...

2009-07-12T13:14:24.806-04:00

Tom says: 'If Fine Art can't really be leading edge anymore - in its own right - then what will it's purpose in 21st Century culture be?'

In the context of the unplugged artist making things with their hands, the purpose might be shamanistic, corrective. So a more intuitive and custodial perspective that offers balance rather than a revelation of we're hurling towards. We'll be the knowing shadow. But the limits of my imagination could limit my optimism here.

The Stuckists haven't accomplished much but they kicked against the pricks so joyfully.
Cathy

"...Is it true that the art that survives the rece...

2009-07-11T23:15:20.056-04:00

"...Is it true that the art that survives the recession will be the strongest?"

Is anyone ever in any position to know what contemporary art will prove to be strongest over time? Is there a confusion between art as commodity and art with historical or aesthetic significance? They can overlap, but not necessarily. It would seem that the question really goes back to who has the bucks during the recession, and are they art buyers?
As someone who was trained in evolutionary science, I think Darwinism is best left to biology.

Wait a minute, I though Post-Conceptualism was alr...

2009-07-11T18:09:19.465-04:00

Wait a minute, I though Post-Conceptualism was already a synthesis between conceptual and the visual (physical) experience?? I mean: what are Jeff Koons and Anish Kapoor? It's very visceral to me.

Cedric Casp

(or is it that: oh nooo it's not painting?)

If we interpret Darwinism as meaning evolutionary ...

2009-07-11T13:42:53.069-04:00

If we interpret Darwinism as meaning evolutionary through adaption, rather than survival of the fittest, then I think it applies to the art world -- at every level.

I think it is incorrect to assume that the avant garde is missing in action or strictly an artifact of Modernism. What causes this misperception is an assumption that the avant garde is singular, the point of the spear of the dominant style which we know no longer can exist.

What does exist are a multiplicity of styles, mediums and conceptual approaches for making art and they exist in concert with one another. The avant garde is the irritation which causes art to evolve, it is that act which relocates boundaries, or reintroduces the forgotten into the process and revitalizes art.

The avant garde is by definition an irritant to the status quo, it is resisted by other artists and the public alike. In this poly-stylistic age it is even more elusive because advanced art, the avant garde may not be functioning on all fronts at once. Once the avant garde is accepted, it is assimilated into the body of art and the process must restart anew.

The avant garde is not, at least in principle, reactionary. That is, it doesn't exist as a reaction to prove something else wrong. While the argument may in fact be a result of the action, the avant garde is forward looking and does not try to preserve the past.

In my opinion Stuckism was purely reactionary, presented little forward alternative and aside from Billy Childish, was composed of mostly minor artists.

Except for the purest forms of conceptualism, "virtual art" cannot exist. The term "virtual" implies simulation, the reconstruction of something in the imagination and is thus not the primary stimulus. For example, a jpeg of a painting is not a painting just as Magrittes painting "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" is not a pipe. A jpeg is however, a jpeg, and treated as a jpeg, it is a thing in itself, not a simulation and therefore not virtual.

Cedric, painting is a form of conceptual art and thie has kept it alive in the culture for the last 40,000 years. Most painters don't deal with it on that level.

Ed, I'm suggesting that the more technology leads ...

2009-07-11T13:14:47.207-04:00

Ed, I'm suggesting that the more technology leads me away from my primal self, the self that needs the senses to survive(and I guess my unproven assumption is that technology does this), the more benefit I may gain in being re grounded in that self through art. I don't think my mind is closed to technology but I am wary of it, of its price. And I am hierarchy adverse. - Cathy

The Stuckists struck against conceptual art 10 yea...

2009-07-11T12:35:55.228-04:00

The Stuckists struck against conceptual art 10 years ago

And look how successful that was.

but the antidote for virtual art will need to be potent.

But you're prescribing an antidote for something that hasn't even come into being fully. The notion that you already know you'll dislike it suggests a closed mind in my opinion.

Moreover, how strong is the smell of oil on a 200-year-old painting? Would you suggest we chuck them out after they stop tingling your nostrils?

From Plato's cave to the fact that the body benefits equally from the chemical releases due to laughter whether it's forced or not, humans have long recognized that what we can perceive with our senses is hardly any indication of what's really happening, so to assert that "visceral art that simultaneously engages most, if not all, of the senses" is a priori more important is illogical.