On Sunday I attended a panel at the Toronto Alternative Art Fair International that addressed the question "Is there an avant garde?" Both Watkins and Monk chose to address the topic as a history lesson, and as such their presentations were quite enjoyable. Watkins told tales of Greenburg in Australia, Marxists, Punk and the "heady days of early postmodernism." Monk, maybe because he was burnt out with manning the AGYU exhibit all weekend, was uncharacteristically lucid and direct (noteworthy!) saying, "Nobody, I hope, believes we can reconstitute the avant garde in Greenburgian terms." Gopnik gave a feisty off-the-cuff rant that rejected teleology while claiming that a "robust notion of the avant garde exists" in the minds of "the people" whether we accept the term itself as relevant or not. Barber talked about generational turnover as represented in artist-run centres such as Diverse Works in Houston where she is Visual Arts Director, and was inspiring in her definition of avant garde artists as "untested, taking risks, challenging convention and putting themselves out there to do things that don't have an assured result."
The most notable aspect of the event, in my opinion, was Monk's assertion that in the unlikely event that there were to be a reconstitution of the avant garde we ("we" meaning he, and the rest of us who are entrenched in our own art paradigms) quite likely could not recognise it. It may develop "in other places, by other means, by people who are not called artists." During the question and answer period both Gopnik and Watkins made similar assertions, agreeing that our cultural source for "creativity" might move to some other domain besides art. I found these statements startling, as I did not really expect a group of pundits with careers embedded in fine art and it's discourse to dismiss the field with such an apparent lack of anxiety. I guess it is my own fuddy-duddy-ness showing that I figured the loss of relevance of the term "art" was somehow a radical idea, at least within art circles. I believe it sincerely, but articulating the fact still gives me sweaty palms. Guess that just makes me a nervous nelly!
"I did not really expect a group of pundits with careers embedded in fine art and it's discourse to dismiss the field with such an apparent lack of anxiety."
So bored were they by their work in the arts, the gala soirees and seminars of their art fairs ... so bored is Mr. Monk with his basically cultural civil servant position and salary, he doesn't think he could recognize the avant garde - how tragic to be so dissapointed in one's life work. Either that or he just likes walking around blindfolded. Pin the tail on the Donkey or play ball!
I agree with him. But I didn't go to any gala's or such. And also I'm not bored.
I think I could indentify the avant garde.
If it bit you on the ass!
Due to room bookings, they cut the panel off too soon. I wanted to know why Blake, while rarely using the term avant garde in his various writings and talks, constantly uses the adjective: radical, and always uses it with admiration. (it never fails to make me chuckle - You Go Oxford Boy!) Of course the next question would be: Radical to what end?
Seriously...Tom may be unusual in that he has been around the art block a few times but remains remarkably un-entrenched. Normally though, you might think that if the older generations are to say "my my, what nice avant garde confrontation these kids are dishing up these days. Art is progressing swimmingly," then perhaps the attack is not really meeting its target. I took Monk's comments as an honest and maybe even somewhat humble statement of his position as one of the pylons people might try to knock down.
Another thing missing...it is just occurring to me as I clean the cat litter box, was any discussion of what avant garde meant in light of it's military reference. Almost all the panelists described the term's source, but did not remark further on the metaphor. (speaking of attack and targets...Sal, what do you mean?)
What is it with these general topics? Is there an avant garde? What happened to art criticism? Whither artist run centers? A favorite from a few years back was Whatever Happened to Beauty? Is it to avoid admitting that everyone thinks everyone else's taste sucks?
Most of the people who were there echoed your sentiments. What the hell, I enjoy the occasion for conversation, but the panel format doesn't seem to allow for much changing of the subject. (and don't get me started on that long lonely trek to the microphone that questioning audience member must approach like a supplicant.) In my perfect world, we all get microphones. (unless I think yours should be taken away, from which we may conclude that my perfect world is subject to abuse)
LM says: "speaking of targets and attacks, Sal, what do you mean?" ....sorry that needed context: a friend and I last night were talking about the idea that avant garde comes with a suggestion of confrontation. Says my friend: "being avant garde was of primary importance in the 20th century. In the 21st century its one of many things art can be. In the 20th century, being confrontational, or rebellious, was part of being avant garde, in the 21st century that's just one of the many things avant garde can be." Or something like that. Anyhow. I think part of the idea is to overturn the status quo, and if you are identified with that status quo, as I think Philip Monk is, then you are subject to attack (as, for example, you could interpret desolee's comments above. )
Yeah, it was kind of a stupid question, but I am a sucker for these panel things. I love abstract discussions and have a high tolerance for bullshit. I also really like the formalized conversation of a panel, where people have to take turns, and are forced into false polarities. It's a bit like sports. P. Monk's theory was that the question "is there an avant garde" was conceived by the fair's organisers out of an anxiety about art in Toronto having "plateaued" and being "in a trench." That's getting more specific! Funny that nobody seemed to want to take up the topic.
I vaguely remember thinking: huh?
Did that statement fall quickly on the heels of his other declaration about lacking the arrogance for some such task, because I distinctly remember at that point thinking: huh? whaa? huh? whaaaaaaaa?
Hi Sally,
How ' bout if we use the rigour of the historical term ' avant garde ' and apply it to the task of grappling with the art of our own time? Apply it to the persistance of our activities in the arts, however strange or indeterminate their outcomes might be...in whatever states we cognize them.
I am sad to hear it but I can see what Philip Monk must have been saying, AND why you agree... but it's an ironic position that I personally find a bit lazy. It seems like the height of arrogance to acquiesce - the "we" that can't recognize the so-called 'avant garde' is the same one that suspects art has plateaued or burrowed into the trenches - yet won't leave the safety of known circles or venture over into the ampitheatre to see what may or may not be happening there all the while presiding over an Alternative Art Fair.
I missed th talk but I'm not sad about it. I'm with Tom Moody on this one.
I don't know why I find myself in this strange position of defending Philip Monk ...but why exactly do you say that he "won't leave the safety of know circles?" Maybe he won't. I dunno, he seems to attend a lot of stuff. Also he wasn't saying that "art" has plateaued, but that art in Toronto has plateaued. It was a pretty direct criticism of the local scene. Perhaps warranted, perhaps not, but he certainly wasn't hedging nor hiding, and was, I'd venture, inviting response from the "practitioners" (yeah yeah, gross term) in the audience.
See to me, that's backwards. Curators are supposed to respond to artworks - not the other way around.
I mean a dialectic is always preferable, but it's kind of insulting to suggest an art world flat line. Don't you think?
oh yes! I certainly think it was insulting. I also think it was shit disturbing. Can we contemporary art-invested types in Toronto answer to PM's suggestion that art here is in a trench? I'd suggest that running off in a huff shows a certain weakness of position. I don't have an answer at the moment. But I am thinking about it.
It didn't bother me a bit. (never did pay much attention to him.) I just know too many brilliant artists, living here, to worry about a statement like that.
Question?
If the avant garde is stuck in a trench, what are they doing in there?
There always seems to be this presumption of perpetual progression when it comes to contemporary art. Naturally our language and thinking is geared to this - avant garde does reference the front line troops does it not? And we live in pretty much a linear trajectory. But what if there is simply enough for people to chew on as far as theory and reasons for making art goes? What if the language and ideology of the "avant garde", the "vanguard" etc. has lost relevance because it requires or implies a universality in movement, binary opposition of ideas (us/them, this/that, new/old, forward/backward) and most of all, uses military analogies to describe the act of creating objects, relations, networks... maybe the avant garde has become too limiting and exclusive to be effective. Maybe, maybe not???
"... what if there is simply enough for people to chew on" ... this pretty much verbatim a thought that constantly spins around in my head. At least, I notice it when I am not busily, slowly chewing through everything else.
From what I've seen (I just moved to Toronto from Edmonton) Avant Gardism seems to be a bit of a trap for some artists. The problem I see is that with a field so steeped in the tradition of the avant garde, is that experimentation is to seen as an end to itself (with what Gopnik refered to as teleology); to that extent of which it's virtually unassaible (and often not much fun).
Maybe in a field which has had over 100 years of a tradition of the avant garde, it's getting harder to find new boundaries to transgress (why else would local curators publicly defend people who skin cats alive in the name of art?). I can think of two separate artists that have exhibited an empty room, an artist which shot himself in the legs and arms, and others that package, paint with, or bronze their own shit.
Monk is probably right, if anything will sneak up under our noses as new and avant garde, it will probably be a cross breed with some other activity in life, like a new sport that has some arts element or something (I'm just wildly guessing).
The problem with arts, especially where I'm from in Alberta, is remaining relevant to the population at large. The challenge with visual arts is to be as succinct and influential as a good novel, or even a TV show, or at least relevant to the artist and the world he lives in. This is where a lot of young artists struggle, I think.
I dunno, perhaps wondering where avant gardism is heading is kind of like wondering what the next experimental free jazz movement is going to be when everyone's dying for a pop song. Am I wrong?
"Can we contemporary art-invested types in Toronto answer to PM's suggestion that art here is in a trench?"
I'm sorry, I clearly have misunderstood your description of events. I thought you said the organisers of the Fair chose the issue of the continued existence of the "avant garde" because they were anxious about the Toronto Art Scene having plateaued etc. And the way I understood it, PM answered this question by saying the visual arts avant garde is no more. And if it could ressurrect itself it would be beyond the scope of our recognition. I didn't realize he was asking if art here was in a trench. I apologize.
not anonymous
ah... my fault for not making it clear.
I think what you are saying is interesting Mike W., and also right on the money. I think there are lots of artists who decide not to take on an aspect of spectacle, or do not strive for popular influence, but nonetheless these pressures are factors to be reckoned with. And at the moment, the question "is it avant garde?" is incidental to the question "is it meaningful work?"
Damn you all for making me interested in this topic again!
First in response to marco b, I'll vote for a big Maybe to his clear observations (I'm being coy, that means Yes)
In response to Monk's proposition that the new will sneak up on us as a possible hybrid with other activities (I paraphrase, obviously), it struck me at an early age that art had the potential to encompass everything. That was not to say that my art would encompass everything or that any one artist could make THE ART that would encompass everything and put it all to rest, for the time being, until another artist made the GREATEST GROUNDBREAKING ART of all time, at the next possible moment, for the time being. (I just thought that was an adorable function of art markets)
Sally, your remark about spectacle reminded me that the spectacular is commonly seen as an important aspect of an avant garde. I seem to remember Peter Schjeldahl making an observation about that in an essay about what he called "festival art".
Many interesting artists do not begin with ambitions towards a spectacle, but rather accumulate deceptively small gestures. And some artists (I mention this partly in response to Mike W) use a popular image as an entry point to their meanings. One very good example is Lisa Neighbour's Incredible Hulk made out of crocheted electrical wire. One writer, in her genuine dislike of the imagery, would go no further than the entry point Lisa provided, and declared the work meaningless. (I found the work to be brave, because in pop currency, nobody actually likes the Hulk, and a lesser artist would appropriate something more appealing to get the viewer on side.)
But I digress...
Well put, LM
That last bit might be a digression but it's a nice illustration that calls to question the way people are looking at art. Could it be that the way art is apprehended here in Toronto (with it's attendant statements and requisite justifications) is the thing that's entrenched/plateaued and perhaps art at all?
last sentence shoulden perhaps NOT art at all?
Am I the typo queen or what? Sorry Sally. This is how the post should read
Well put, LM
That last bit might be a digression but it's a nice illustration that calls to question the way people are looking at art. Could it be that the way art is apprehended here in Toronto (with it's attendant statements and requisite justifications) is the thing that's entrenched/plateaued and perhaps NOT art at all?
In suggesting that the new avante garde will emerge as a hybrid with some other discipline implies that those other disciplines are not also desperately seeking their own version of an avante garde. They have their own panel discussions - “will wake-board surfing be the new snowboarding?” I guess I’m assuming that for an avante garde to emerge it needs to escape the glare of Madison avenue but get the glare of critics and the art public, a tricky proposition because there are spies everywhere. There was probably a time when the Blue Man Group was considered avante garde theatre (perhaps for about 25 minutes after their first performance ever), now they sell Pentium chips.
There is a serious rift in the skateboarding community between people who skate for money and those who don’t – the best skaters don’t always sell Vans and turn pro, but the best can and there’s lots of money waiting for them if they do. I think the problem in the Toronto art world is that selling out is really hard (it’s hard everywhere but perhaps particularly so in Toronto). Making money in the art world has become so difficult that “selling out” has become moving to New York, not making money. And making art in opposition (or perhaps more fairly, in dialogue) with people who have gone to New York is problematic because, well, they’re in New York and don’t give a shit. [besides all the really cool people are out west now]
The only thing more painful than driving a nail through your testicle is driving a nail through your testicle and nobody cares.
good metaphor joe - they used to call it "soul surfing." those guys would never consider competing in a contest for prize money.
(As I mentioned) Avant-Gardism is very much a 20th century phenomenon.
Throughout history innovation has always presumed a departure or critique of previous methods. But when I was growing up in the late 20th century, it was very strongly implied that any contemporary art-practice which did not in some way directly confront or provoke previous art movements was inherently invalid.
For me, this rebellious presumption was destabilized by the rise of post-modernism in the 1990's. PoMo was originally presented as a sceptical critique of all art which preceded it, and one of its stylistic features was the collage-like appropriation of various historical styles and techniques, as part of an ironic commentary on them. It seemed like this gambit often tended to backfire, as it also made possible a new appreciation the intrinsic value of the classic efforts it was intending to mock.
(Around the same time, new sampling technology in popular music made it possiple for kids to spice up their beats with snippets of old funk/soul hooks: the resulting justaxpositions were invariably mere reminders of the inferiority of contemporary recording artists compared to their ancestors.)
I find PoMo vastly amusing, especially in the cute way in which its bittersweet critical ironic gaze so easily (and often intentionally) turns upon itself. Conceived as a clever rebellion against that which came before, it simultaneously defuses the ignition of pure rebellion in itself.
In the 21st century (so far) many artists are realizing that pure confrontation is not the only game. Certainly, the quickest, easiest, cheapest way to create an emotional contact between an artifact and an audience is by provocation, but now we begin to understand that there are other methods as well.
Avant-gardism is not dead and will never go away, as long as human beings exist and inevitably continue to think up new provocations. But we can say that it is no longer the law of the land in the art-wurld, instead remaining as always merely a significant element in our arsenal of creative devices and options.
|
On Sunday I attended a panel at the Toronto Alternative Art Fair International that addressed the question "Is there an avant garde?" Both Watkins and Monk chose to address the topic as a history lesson, and as such their presentations were quite enjoyable. Watkins told tales of Greenburg in Australia, Marxists, Punk and the "heady days of early postmodernism." Monk, maybe because he was burnt out with manning the AGYU exhibit all weekend, was uncharacteristically lucid and direct (noteworthy!) saying, "Nobody, I hope, believes we can reconstitute the avant garde in Greenburgian terms." Gopnik gave a feisty off-the-cuff rant that rejected teleology while claiming that a "robust notion of the avant garde exists" in the minds of "the people" whether we accept the term itself as relevant or not. Barber talked about generational turnover as represented in artist-run centres such as Diverse Works in Houston where she is Visual Arts Director, and was inspiring in her definition of avant garde artists as "untested, taking risks, challenging convention and putting themselves out there to do things that don't have an assured result."
The most notable aspect of the event, in my opinion, was Monk's assertion that in the unlikely event that there were to be a reconstitution of the avant garde we ("we" meaning he, and the rest of us who are entrenched in our own art paradigms) quite likely could not recognise it. It may develop "in other places, by other means, by people who are not called artists." During the question and answer period both Gopnik and Watkins made similar assertions, agreeing that our cultural source for "creativity" might move to some other domain besides art. I found these statements startling, as I did not really expect a group of pundits with careers embedded in fine art and it's discourse to dismiss the field with such an apparent lack of anxiety. I guess it is my own fuddy-duddy-ness showing that I figured the loss of relevance of the term "art" was somehow a radical idea, at least within art circles. I believe it sincerely, but articulating the fact still gives me sweaty palms. Guess that just makes me a nervous nelly!
- sally mckay 10-05-2004 6:32 am
"I did not really expect a group of pundits with careers embedded in fine art and it's discourse to dismiss the field with such an apparent lack of anxiety."
So bored were they by their work in the arts, the gala soirees and seminars of their art fairs ... so bored is Mr. Monk with his basically cultural civil servant position and salary, he doesn't think he could recognize the avant garde - how tragic to be so dissapointed in one's life work. Either that or he just likes walking around blindfolded. Pin the tail on the Donkey or play ball!
- desolee (guest) 10-05-2004 5:21 pm
I agree with him. But I didn't go to any gala's or such. And also I'm not bored.
- sally mckay 10-05-2004 5:30 pm
I think I could indentify the avant garde.
- tom moody 10-05-2004 5:33 pm
If it bit you on the ass!
- sally mckay 10-05-2004 5:42 pm
Due to room bookings, they cut the panel off too soon. I wanted to know why Blake, while rarely using the term avant garde in his various writings and talks, constantly uses the adjective: radical, and always uses it with admiration. (it never fails to make me chuckle - You Go Oxford Boy!) Of course the next question would be: Radical to what end?
- LM (guest) 10-05-2004 8:56 pm
Seriously...Tom may be unusual in that he has been around the art block a few times but remains remarkably un-entrenched. Normally though, you might think that if the older generations are to say "my my, what nice avant garde confrontation these kids are dishing up these days. Art is progressing swimmingly," then perhaps the attack is not really meeting its target. I took Monk's comments as an honest and maybe even somewhat humble statement of his position as one of the pylons people might try to knock down.
- sally mckay 10-05-2004 8:56 pm
Another thing missing...it is just occurring to me as I clean the cat litter box, was any discussion of what avant garde meant in light of it's military reference. Almost all the panelists described the term's source, but did not remark further on the metaphor. (speaking of attack and targets...Sal, what do you mean?)
- LM (guest) 10-05-2004 10:03 pm
What is it with these general topics? Is there an avant garde? What happened to art criticism? Whither artist run centers? A favorite from a few years back was Whatever Happened to Beauty? Is it to avoid admitting that everyone thinks everyone else's taste sucks?
- tom moody 10-05-2004 10:13 pm
Most of the people who were there echoed your sentiments. What the hell, I enjoy the occasion for conversation, but the panel format doesn't seem to allow for much changing of the subject. (and don't get me started on that long lonely trek to the microphone that questioning audience member must approach like a supplicant.) In my perfect world, we all get microphones. (unless I think yours should be taken away, from which we may conclude that my perfect world is subject to abuse)
- LM (guest) 10-05-2004 10:43 pm
LM says: "speaking of targets and attacks, Sal, what do you mean?" ....sorry that needed context: a friend and I last night were talking about the idea that avant garde comes with a suggestion of confrontation. Says my friend: "being avant garde was of primary importance in the 20th century. In the 21st century its one of many things art can be. In the 20th century, being confrontational, or rebellious, was part of being avant garde, in the 21st century that's just one of the many things avant garde can be." Or something like that. Anyhow. I think part of the idea is to overturn the status quo, and if you are identified with that status quo, as I think Philip Monk is, then you are subject to attack (as, for example, you could interpret desolee's comments above. )
Yeah, it was kind of a stupid question, but I am a sucker for these panel things. I love abstract discussions and have a high tolerance for bullshit. I also really like the formalized conversation of a panel, where people have to take turns, and are forced into false polarities. It's a bit like sports. P. Monk's theory was that the question "is there an avant garde" was conceived by the fair's organisers out of an anxiety about art in Toronto having "plateaued" and being "in a trench." That's getting more specific! Funny that nobody seemed to want to take up the topic.
- sally mckay 10-06-2004 4:08 am
I vaguely remember thinking: huh?
Did that statement fall quickly on the heels of his other declaration about lacking the arrogance for some such task, because I distinctly remember at that point thinking: huh? whaa? huh? whaaaaaaaa?
- LM (guest) 10-06-2004 5:38 am
Hi Sally,
How ' bout if we use the rigour of the historical term ' avant garde ' and apply it to the task of grappling with the art of our own time? Apply it to the persistance of our activities in the arts, however strange or indeterminate their outcomes might be...in whatever states we cognize them.
I am sad to hear it but I can see what Philip Monk must have been saying, AND why you agree... but it's an ironic position that I personally find a bit lazy. It seems like the height of arrogance to acquiesce - the "we" that can't recognize the so-called 'avant garde' is the same one that suspects art has plateaued or burrowed into the trenches - yet won't leave the safety of known circles or venture over into the ampitheatre to see what may or may not be happening there all the while presiding over an Alternative Art Fair.
I missed th talk but I'm not sad about it. I'm with Tom Moody on this one.
- Jennifer McMackon (guest) 10-06-2004 10:12 pm
I don't know why I find myself in this strange position of defending Philip Monk ...but why exactly do you say that he "won't leave the safety of know circles?" Maybe he won't. I dunno, he seems to attend a lot of stuff. Also he wasn't saying that "art" has plateaued, but that art in Toronto has plateaued. It was a pretty direct criticism of the local scene. Perhaps warranted, perhaps not, but he certainly wasn't hedging nor hiding, and was, I'd venture, inviting response from the "practitioners" (yeah yeah, gross term) in the audience.
- sally mckay 10-06-2004 10:49 pm
See to me, that's backwards. Curators are supposed to respond to artworks - not the other way around.
- Jennifer McMackon (guest) 10-06-2004 11:37 pm
I mean a dialectic is always preferable, but it's kind of insulting to suggest an art world flat line. Don't you think?
- Jennifer McMackon (guest) 10-06-2004 11:47 pm
oh yes! I certainly think it was insulting. I also think it was shit disturbing. Can we contemporary art-invested types in Toronto answer to PM's suggestion that art here is in a trench? I'd suggest that running off in a huff shows a certain weakness of position. I don't have an answer at the moment. But I am thinking about it.
- sally mckay 10-07-2004 2:05 am
It didn't bother me a bit. (never did pay much attention to him.) I just know too many brilliant artists, living here, to worry about a statement like that.
- LM (guest) 10-07-2004 5:12 am
Question?
If the avant garde is stuck in a trench, what are they doing in there?
There always seems to be this presumption of perpetual progression when it comes to contemporary art. Naturally our language and thinking is geared to this - avant garde does reference the front line troops does it not? And we live in pretty much a linear trajectory. But what if there is simply enough for people to chew on as far as theory and reasons for making art goes? What if the language and ideology of the "avant garde", the "vanguard" etc. has lost relevance because it requires or implies a universality in movement, binary opposition of ideas (us/them, this/that, new/old, forward/backward) and most of all, uses military analogies to describe the act of creating objects, relations, networks... maybe the avant garde has become too limiting and exclusive to be effective. Maybe, maybe not???
- marco b (guest) 10-07-2004 5:22 am
"... what if there is simply enough for people to chew on" ... this pretty much verbatim a thought that constantly spins around in my head. At least, I notice it when I am not busily, slowly chewing through everything else.
- sally mckay 10-07-2004 6:00 am
From what I've seen (I just moved to Toronto from Edmonton) Avant Gardism seems to be a bit of a trap for some artists. The problem I see is that with a field so steeped in the tradition of the avant garde, is that experimentation is to seen as an end to itself (with what Gopnik refered to as teleology); to that extent of which it's virtually unassaible (and often not much fun).
Maybe in a field which has had over 100 years of a tradition of the avant garde, it's getting harder to find new boundaries to transgress (why else would local curators publicly defend people who skin cats alive in the name of art?). I can think of two separate artists that have exhibited an empty room, an artist which shot himself in the legs and arms, and others that package, paint with, or bronze their own shit.
Monk is probably right, if anything will sneak up under our noses as new and avant garde, it will probably be a cross breed with some other activity in life, like a new sport that has some arts element or something (I'm just wildly guessing).
The problem with arts, especially where I'm from in Alberta, is remaining relevant to the population at large. The challenge with visual arts is to be as succinct and influential as a good novel, or even a TV show, or at least relevant to the artist and the world he lives in. This is where a lot of young artists struggle, I think.
I dunno, perhaps wondering where avant gardism is heading is kind of like wondering what the next experimental free jazz movement is going to be when everyone's dying for a pop song. Am I wrong?
- Mike W (guest) 10-07-2004 6:35 am
"Can we contemporary art-invested types in Toronto answer to PM's suggestion that art here is in a trench?"
I'm sorry, I clearly have misunderstood your description of events. I thought you said the organisers of the Fair chose the issue of the continued existence of the "avant garde" because they were anxious about the Toronto Art Scene having plateaued etc. And the way I understood it, PM answered this question by saying the visual arts avant garde is no more. And if it could ressurrect itself it would be beyond the scope of our recognition. I didn't realize he was asking if art here was in a trench. I apologize.
- anonymous (guest) 10-07-2004 10:40 am
not anonymous
- Jennifer McMackon (guest) 10-07-2004 10:41 am
ah... my fault for not making it clear.
- sally mckay 10-07-2004 4:37 pm
I think what you are saying is interesting Mike W., and also right on the money. I think there are lots of artists who decide not to take on an aspect of spectacle, or do not strive for popular influence, but nonetheless these pressures are factors to be reckoned with. And at the moment, the question "is it avant garde?" is incidental to the question "is it meaningful work?"
- sally mckay 10-07-2004 4:52 pm
Damn you all for making me interested in this topic again!
First in response to marco b, I'll vote for a big Maybe to his clear observations (I'm being coy, that means Yes)
In response to Monk's proposition that the new will sneak up on us as a possible hybrid with other activities (I paraphrase, obviously), it struck me at an early age that art had the potential to encompass everything. That was not to say that my art would encompass everything or that any one artist could make THE ART that would encompass everything and put it all to rest, for the time being, until another artist made the GREATEST GROUNDBREAKING ART of all time, at the next possible moment, for the time being. (I just thought that was an adorable function of art markets)
Sally, your remark about spectacle reminded me that the spectacular is commonly seen as an important aspect of an avant garde. I seem to remember Peter Schjeldahl making an observation about that in an essay about what he called "festival art".
Many interesting artists do not begin with ambitions towards a spectacle, but rather accumulate deceptively small gestures. And some artists (I mention this partly in response to Mike W) use a popular image as an entry point to their meanings. One very good example is Lisa Neighbour's Incredible Hulk made out of crocheted electrical wire. One writer, in her genuine dislike of the imagery, would go no further than the entry point Lisa provided, and declared the work meaningless. (I found the work to be brave, because in pop currency, nobody actually likes the Hulk, and a lesser artist would appropriate something more appealing to get the viewer on side.)
But I digress...
- LM (guest) 10-07-2004 9:34 pm
Well put, LM
That last bit might be a digression but it's a nice illustration that calls to question the way people are looking at art. Could it be that the way art is apprehended here in Toronto (with it's attendant statements and requisite justifications) is the thing that's entrenched/plateaued and perhaps art at all?
- Jennifer McMackon (guest) 10-08-2004 1:45 am
last sentence shoulden perhaps NOT art at all?
- Jennifer McMackon (guest) 10-08-2004 1:47 am
Am I the typo queen or what? Sorry Sally. This is how the post should read
Well put, LM
That last bit might be a digression but it's a nice illustration that calls to question the way people are looking at art. Could it be that the way art is apprehended here in Toronto (with it's attendant statements and requisite justifications) is the thing that's entrenched/plateaued and perhaps NOT art at all?
- Jennifer McMackon (guest) 10-08-2004 1:49 am
In suggesting that the new avante garde will emerge as a hybrid with some other discipline implies that those other disciplines are not also desperately seeking their own version of an avante garde. They have their own panel discussions - “will wake-board surfing be the new snowboarding?” I guess I’m assuming that for an avante garde to emerge it needs to escape the glare of Madison avenue but get the glare of critics and the art public, a tricky proposition because there are spies everywhere. There was probably a time when the Blue Man Group was considered avante garde theatre (perhaps for about 25 minutes after their first performance ever), now they sell Pentium chips.
There is a serious rift in the skateboarding community between people who skate for money and those who don’t – the best skaters don’t always sell Vans and turn pro, but the best can and there’s lots of money waiting for them if they do. I think the problem in the Toronto art world is that selling out is really hard (it’s hard everywhere but perhaps particularly so in Toronto). Making money in the art world has become so difficult that “selling out” has become moving to New York, not making money. And making art in opposition (or perhaps more fairly, in dialogue) with people who have gone to New York is problematic because, well, they’re in New York and don’t give a shit. [besides all the really cool people are out west now]
The only thing more painful than driving a nail through your testicle is driving a nail through your testicle and nobody cares.
- joester 10-08-2004 1:58 am
good metaphor joe - they used to call it "soul surfing." those guys would never consider competing in a contest for prize money.
- bill 10-08-2004 2:07 am
(As I mentioned) Avant-Gardism is very much a 20th century phenomenon.
Throughout history innovation has always presumed a departure or critique of previous methods. But when I was growing up in the late 20th century, it was very strongly implied that any contemporary art-practice which did not in some way directly confront or provoke previous art movements was inherently invalid.
For me, this rebellious presumption was destabilized by the rise of post-modernism in the 1990's. PoMo was originally presented as a sceptical critique of all art which preceded it, and one of its stylistic features was the collage-like appropriation of various historical styles and techniques, as part of an ironic commentary on them. It seemed like this gambit often tended to backfire, as it also made possible a new appreciation the intrinsic value of the classic efforts it was intending to mock.
(Around the same time, new sampling technology in popular music made it possiple for kids to spice up their beats with snippets of old funk/soul hooks: the resulting justaxpositions were invariably mere reminders of the inferiority of contemporary recording artists compared to their ancestors.)
I find PoMo vastly amusing, especially in the cute way in which its bittersweet critical ironic gaze so easily (and often intentionally) turns upon itself. Conceived as a clever rebellion against that which came before, it simultaneously defuses the ignition of pure rebellion in itself.
In the 21st century (so far) many artists are realizing that pure confrontation is not the only game. Certainly, the quickest, easiest, cheapest way to create an emotional contact between an artifact and an audience is by provocation, but now we begin to understand that there are other methods as well.
Avant-gardism is not dead and will never go away, as long as human beings exist and inevitably continue to think up new provocations. But we can say that it is no longer the law of the land in the art-wurld, instead remaining as always merely a significant element in our arsenal of creative devices and options.
- Von Bark 10-11-2004 6:11 am