I’ve been thinking about this subject for some time, it is a dynamic which has been criticised in my own work in the past, and I would like to get a bit of discussion going. I was prompted into writing this today after going to Cast from Nature, an exhibition by Christine Borland at the Glasgow Sculpture Studios. It was the most confused I’ve ever been at a contemporary art exhibition, and, although this is not necessarily a bad thing, despite my best efforts the only meaning I gleaned was from the commissioned texts which accompanied the show. Going to a visual art exhibition, in a sculpture studio, you expect certain things: something to look at, probably in a visibly three-dimensional form. I was surprised to find an empty gallery space, with only two live video feeds in a side room, showing the casting of an anatomical model, which sits in the studios in the back of the building. Although there was ostensibly nothing happening, of course Borland holds a deep meaning. Purportedly the work “reflects on the historical aspects of the anatomical process, the relationship between the early anatomist, his subject, and his ‘audience’ bearing witness to a process presented as ‘educational’.” Don’t misunderstand me here, I do think Borland is an interesting artist, and I know that this was merely one point in a changing exhibition – and it got me thinking…
What I ask is, as artists how do we mediate between accessibility and meaning? Of course all encounters are dictated by relative levels of knowledge and awareness, so is there any point thinking about how many audience members will understand you? Or should we compromise our intention in order to facilitate and lubricate general comprehension? We all draw that line somewhere, but where and why?
Michael
I don't know the answer, not by a long shot, but this is something that troubles me too. When I make work that is seen as accessable I often feel that it was too simplistic, lacking depth and then i'll swing too far the other way and make work that is overly cryptic, relying on in-jokes or too closely mirrors one of my own 4am insomniac trains of thought and association.
ReplyDeleteI actually think that this balancing act is one of the most difficult facing us as artists.
Fuck it maybe i'll just paint a cloud, everyone understands clouds (or do they.... do they really look.... LOOK UP)
shit that was another in joke, I still don't know
To [be] mean, or not to [be] mean? That is the question - of course, as an artist I can't fully explain what that question is really saying, but hopefully someone else will... anyway, I'll try to write a proper response at another time. It's certainly food for thought but right now I'm quite full up and it's getting late - I fear having a bite will give me unpleasant dreams.
ReplyDeleteHere's a crumb I've just found on my desk - should art have opening times?
I first encountered this problem in Year 0 with the "Mind The Gap" project, when I was doing pretty drawings of famous people with captions relative to each person's hidden life; and yes it was shit.
ReplyDeleteMy REAL work (year2-) has focused on my personal life. Naturally that's a subject that only those close to me can properly understand. My attempts to making my work accessible is to apply frameworks that people DO understand. Working with video I have an advantage in that people recognise and understand frameworks and genres(surely anyone in an art gallery can understand a variety of film). Thus, utilising a specific direction, I can play upon the audiences expectations to best deliver my point. This as you say is obviously "dictated by relative levels of knowledge and awareness". I wonder if we NEED to follow a thread familiar to everyone to best convey the point of the work?
I think it's essentail we attach ourselves to a familiar understanding and work from there. From old comes new.
I am still struggling to identify if people understand or can acknowledge my intentions within my work. Though I would assume the most personal point (the inspiration for the work)goes unnoticed. I think it is a matter of subtly layering the work - though as Sam says this can become overly cryptic.
I have begun writing accompanying text of a few sentences for the audience to take or leave. Though the difficulties with that is giving too much away
It's definately a delicate balancing act. I would argue that we NEED to consider the audience to be paid attention to. So yes, as unknown artists we have to apply to existing knowledge before evolving and creating something new. It is my belief that only once we have familiarised ourselves to the public can we then create something new that the audience will (or maybe not) embrace.
Look at Peter Gabriel's outfits in Genesis. If they started out in ridiculous costumes they would surely have recieved little attention. Same principle to Andy Warhol recording The Empire State building for hours and hours. The best example is probably be Captain Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica.
Had Beefheart started his career with Trout Mask Replica I feel his career would have ended there. The point (I think) I am trying to make is of reputation. Without reputation, and by trying something daring (as a project with little or no concern to public awareness) very few people will be unwilling to listen to you.
"so is there any point thinking about how many audience members will understand you?"
I think once the reputation is established, the reputation can then be played with.
Nathan
(Apologies for any errors/inconsistencies, I wrotes this under the projection of Lion King in a darkened room - I intend to return to this but for now my head and eyes hurt. And apologies for thinking on such a grand scale with regards to reputation.)
Interesting point about reputation, very similar to the conversation I had with Kit at the Royal Academy Sculpture show last week,
ReplyDeleteGustav Metzger had a collection of page 3 girls pinned to the wall, added to each day during the duration of the show.
Our conversation went along the lines of, "wouldn't it be amazing to get to that point in your career that you could propose something like that to teh R.A and not get laughed out of the building!"
It could also be that artists reach a certain point when they've run out of ideas or at least exhausted all the good ones that made them famous (for example, the mainstream media has decided your work is now fashionable and now appropriates your artistic style), by which point they're established, have a good critical following and people want to see more - where do you go from there? That's probably a simplistic way of thinking about things but hey, we all have our artistic lulls and we can't keep doing the same things forever...
ReplyDeleteHere's a good excerpt from Victor Bockris' biography of Andy Warhol, page 386:
"In the first half of 1969, Andy appeared to be searching for a new direction. He was always thinking up new projects, many of which didn't really go anywhere. He was insisting, for example, that he wanted to do a television show called 'Nothing Special', consisting of six hours of people walking past a hidden camera, like that which had been installed at the Factory, a film called Orgy — a large-cast version of Blue Movie — and a film shot during a journey around the world in Japan, India and Paris. Artistically, he seemed mainly interested — at Brigid Polk's instigation — in taking Polaroid pictures of the penises of any Factory visitor he could persuade to take his pants off. During this period, he recalled, 'whenever somebody came up to the Factory, no matter how straight-looking he was, I'd ask him to take his pants off so I could photograph his cock and balls. It was surprising who'd let me and who wouldn't.' Andy later estimated that he had taken thousands of Polaroids of genitals. Warhol's other nutty projects included 'figuring out a way to make a ten-foot mural that will turn brown in three days, like a Polaroid print', asking a bewildered Jasper Johns if he could play with his cock 'as a work of art', and a Systems art take-off called Rent-a-Friend (in which Andy would rent out his superstars, who would do anything for $1,000 a day or $5,000 a week)."
Oh, Andy!
Oh andy indeed! I think we all have a soft spot for him.
ReplyDeleteIt is a difficult balance, but I think it'll be a while before I just... LOOK UP!
The trouble with communication is that it relies on being understood at some point. I really hate when people come up to you, after only a cursory glance at your work, and say, "so whats it about?" - why don't you fuck off and think about it before you ask me! You don't come to an art exhibition to be spoon fed (unless it’s by Rirkrit Tirivanija!) That kind of compromise is not an option. If you simply explain your work in words, then what was the point of making it in any other form?
But then your in danger of disappearing up your own arse. Its a fragile balance between obscurity and nonsense. John, I know you were joking about not explaining that sentence, but its a fair point, a lot of art is consciously left 'open-ended,' and frankly, how’s that gonna help anyone?
Perhaps it's a question of accountability - the need for verifiable knowledge that it isn't all just paintings of clouds. And, I guess, that comes as standard with reputation. But if any art is to avoid solipsism, it must have a definitive, well argued, point - whether you make that immediately available or not is really up to you, and who you want to talk to.
...am I being reductive?