(found by L.M.)
Notes on Blogging
I really like the recent bubble of talk at simpleposie about AGYU's advocacy work. I'm in favour of the project, myself, and I also think the discussion around it is really valuable. It's not just good in the specific instance, but it's good in general, that any art issue, at any time, can now be taken up and debated in public.
I was really influenced in the 90s by an essay that Kevin Dowler wrote for YYZ book Theory Rules. Dowler talked about the very poor way in which art professionals tried to defend the National Gallery's exhibition of Vanitas by Jana Sterbak (better known as 'the meat dress'), and their acquisition of Barnet Newman's Voice of Fire by claiming that decisions on the value of art were best left to art experts.
Until recently, the uselessness of art, its pure negativity, ensured its freedom to function as critique, since it rested beyond (and therefore was incapable of infecting) the horizon of everyday life. However, with the erosion of the autonomy of aesthetic practices and the broadening of the scope of reception (once encouraged by the avant-garde), art can no longer hold the privileged position that was the sign of both its freedom from constraint and its lack of utility.
Kevin Dowler, "In Defence of the Realm: Public Controversy and the Apologetics of Art", in Theory Rules (Toronto: YYZ Books, 1996) p.82
In other words, the way I understood it, contemporary art's value in society was diminished by expert claims that the criteria for judging art were only inherent to the art world itself.
One of the motivations for starting Lola magazine was to emphasise the vitality of contemporary art by demonstrating that it indeed had meaning and impact beyond the select realm of art experts. The project was not welcomed by everyone. I recently received an email from a Lola reader saying "...I bitched a lot about Lola way back ... because it seemed too lowbrow and scene-y..." Those were the days before blogs, when art discourse was pretty much restricted to print media. The dearth of arts coverage was bemoaned by people who naturally wanted reviews, but it also created a weird sense of security. Artists were public figures and art was a public experience, but you could pretty much guarantee that nobody would ever publicly challenge your work unless you were super famous.
With blogs, the public nature of all art practice is more healthy and functional. It still feels like early days. There is a sense of surprise on the part of the artist when all of a sudden their project is being heatedly discussed online. And it's not pleasant to be criticized, especially if you don't think the critic has put any rigorous thought into their comments. But unlike a Globe and Mail review by John Bentley Mays which the artist must passively receive as if a judgement from on high, these threads are discussions with multiple points of view, and the artist can join in and defend themselves. Not only that, but any and all art projects, including those that might never register on the radar of print media critics, could be up for discussion at any moment. The artist is denied the security and mystique of silence, but in return we get the understanding that art does matter deeply to lots of people. And that's better.
I agree, Sally. I remember in my undergrad studying with Serge Guilbaut, he would complain all the time that Canada is too polite a society for real debate, that we lacked the cafe culture where peers would freely attack one another for differing views and in so doing produce lively discourse. I think the blogs might be the closest we're going to such a culture, and I'm ambivalent about that. On the one hand, I say better here than nowhere-- it really is refreshing to see people speaking freely as opposed to most sitting in silence while the loudest people pat each other on the back (this is my experience at most public talks in Canada-- even more so in Toronto than Vancouver). But I also get really irritated at what people will say from the comfort of their homes but not own up to in public (this is perhaps another extension of our Canadian "friendliness" that is really more like passive aggression). Don't get me wrong, I've commented on other blogs about the value of anonymity in posting (here: http://viewoncanadianart.com/2008/01/29/disgruntled-voices-in-vancouver/). More than anything, I'm happy to see people all over the board speaking up, even if (and especially because) I don't agree with them.
Hey Sally,
Thanks for posting on this. I really think Lola was a great enterprise and was sorry it didn't go on longer. Still, I, like you, am glad blogging has stepped up to increase the amount of debate.
Still, you know, I'm a bit interested in how these are little "bubbles" of talk... I feel like we are still building a culture of debate, and that many are still scared to participate in airing their views for some reason. Part of it, I can appreciate, is the intertwined nature of many lives in the art world, and the fear of burning any bridges. But this debate is very needed. It's another reason that spate of emails around RM's article a few years back was so great, and so needed, even if I think the article itself was pretty great.
Don't know exactly where to go from here, personally except to say I am glad the blog presence exists and I do hope to see more commenting (and less anonymity) in the future.
Well, one thing experience with publishing in print media teaches you is how to have a thick skin. View-airing is not for everyone, and some people quite reasonably aren't comfortable setting down an opinion on the public record unless they are so confident of their position that they think they'll never change their mind. The fleeting, short-term aspect of blog posts and comments is a pretty good antidote for this anxiety, and I think the option of anonymity, or the quasi-anonymity of 'handles' also helps a lot. I'm idealistic enough to think that the arguments themselves matter more than who is making them.
Amen! It's funny, I meet people fairly regularly that express wonder that I dare use my real name when commenting online. The way I see it, unless I'm going to go all out Artfag style, I can't justify anonymity.
Sally, I hope we can talk about things like this at our talk on the 23rd. I think problems like the one Leah identifies here ("the intertwined nature of many lives in the art world, and the fear of burning any bridges") are quite salient to the situation of art students/graduates in our fair city.
good idea, Nick. For anyone wondering, Nick and I will be joining Gabrielle Moser on a panel discussion on August 23rd at the exhibition Gabby is curating for XPACE.
TERM PROJECTS
Deadline-driven installations by multi-tasking artists
Dear Toronto, (Petrina Ng and Shannon Phair), Zeesy Powers, Fedora Romita and Jennifer Sciarrino
Curated by Gabby Moser
XPACE
58 Ossington Ave.
Opening Reception: Thursday, August 14, 7-10 pm
Featuring the Zeesy Powers Grant Awards Ceremony at 8:30 pm and music by DJ WMD
August 14 to August 23 2008
Panel discussion:
Saturday August 23 4 pm
With a screening of Jennifer Sciarrino's new animation
I'm definitely glad that blogs have taken on some of the work of arts criticism (I guess that's sort of obvious since I wouldn't participate if I didn't think it was valuable/worthwhile), but I've been struggling to get my head around what I think about anonymous blogging and still haven't completely reconciled myself with it. I understand the impulse behind it, especially given the interrelated, sometimes incestuous, network of relationships that support and sustain the art community and the fear of losing those connections. But whenever someone anonymously makes a really salient argument or point on a blog, I desperately what to know who they are, what's at stake for them, and how they're implicated in the situation. I'm not sure why that is - maybe just pure curiosity? - but I guess I still feel there's value in being brave enough to voice an opinion/view publicly and risk being perceived as "wrong" or changing your mind later.
That said, I often avoid the debates I find a little too heated. I guess I haven't developed a thick enough skin just yet.
And Sally and Nick, you should totally bring this up at the panel. Part of what I wanted to look at in the show was the role of experimentation and failure in art, so taking risks by voicing your opinions could definitely be a sub-theme of that.
Hey Sally, I'm pretty confused by your paraphrasing of the Dowler bit you're quoting. How do you take this:
In other words, the way I understood it, contemporary art's value in society was diminished by expert claims that the criteria for judging art were only inherent to the art world itself.
out of this:
Until recently, the uselessness of art, its pure negativity, ensured its freedom to function as critique, since it rested beyond (and therefore was incapable of infecting) the horizon of everyday life. However, with the erosion of the autonomy of aesthetic practices and the broadening of the scope of reception (once encouraged by the avant-garde), art can no longer hold the privileged position that was the sign of both its freedom from constraint and its lack of utility.
Kevin Dowler, "In Defence of the Realm: Public Controversy and the Apologetics of Art", in Theory Rules (Toronto: YYZ Books, 1996) p.82
?
The whole essay is pretty detailed, and tracks the back-and-forth between outraged members of the public and art professionals around both scandals. The ins and outs of Dowler's critique don't really boil down to any blog-appropriate sound bites. The quote is part of Dowler's contextual set-up. Given the postmodern scenario he describes here, expert claims that non-experts aren't qualified to judge art are a throw-back to an art-for-art's-sake paradigm that relies on art being isolated from life. The paradigm is a trade-off. By characterizing art as belonging to the sphere of privilege, you evoke a historic mystique that implies art should be "free from constraint" and thereby gain power for the decision makers in the institutions. But, by implying that people without an art education will not be able to relate to the work, you lose the contemporary notion that art is "capable of infecting the horizon of everyday life." In other words, the way I understood it, contemporary art's value in society was diminished by expert claims that the criteria for judging art were only inherent to the art world itself.
Have you read the essay, J? If you have a different take it'd be great to hear it.
I'm responding only to what you've written and the excerpt you quoted. I haven't read the essay. That is why I asked what I asked.
|
(found by L.M.)
Notes on Blogging
I really like the recent bubble of talk at simpleposie about AGYU's advocacy work. I'm in favour of the project, myself, and I also think the discussion around it is really valuable. It's not just good in the specific instance, but it's good in general, that any art issue, at any time, can now be taken up and debated in public.
I was really influenced in the 90s by an essay that Kevin Dowler wrote for YYZ book Theory Rules. Dowler talked about the very poor way in which art professionals tried to defend the National Gallery's exhibition of Vanitas by Jana Sterbak (better known as 'the meat dress'), and their acquisition of Barnet Newman's Voice of Fire by claiming that decisions on the value of art were best left to art experts. In other words, the way I understood it, contemporary art's value in society was diminished by expert claims that the criteria for judging art were only inherent to the art world itself.
One of the motivations for starting Lola magazine was to emphasise the vitality of contemporary art by demonstrating that it indeed had meaning and impact beyond the select realm of art experts. The project was not welcomed by everyone. I recently received an email from a Lola reader saying "...I bitched a lot about Lola way back ... because it seemed too lowbrow and scene-y..." Those were the days before blogs, when art discourse was pretty much restricted to print media. The dearth of arts coverage was bemoaned by people who naturally wanted reviews, but it also created a weird sense of security. Artists were public figures and art was a public experience, but you could pretty much guarantee that nobody would ever publicly challenge your work unless you were super famous.
With blogs, the public nature of all art practice is more healthy and functional. It still feels like early days. There is a sense of surprise on the part of the artist when all of a sudden their project is being heatedly discussed online. And it's not pleasant to be criticized, especially if you don't think the critic has put any rigorous thought into their comments. But unlike a Globe and Mail review by John Bentley Mays which the artist must passively receive as if a judgement from on high, these threads are discussions with multiple points of view, and the artist can join in and defend themselves. Not only that, but any and all art projects, including those that might never register on the radar of print media critics, could be up for discussion at any moment. The artist is denied the security and mystique of silence, but in return we get the understanding that art does matter deeply to lots of people. And that's better.
- sally mckay 8-09-2008 3:30 pm
I agree, Sally. I remember in my undergrad studying with Serge Guilbaut, he would complain all the time that Canada is too polite a society for real debate, that we lacked the cafe culture where peers would freely attack one another for differing views and in so doing produce lively discourse. I think the blogs might be the closest we're going to such a culture, and I'm ambivalent about that. On the one hand, I say better here than nowhere-- it really is refreshing to see people speaking freely as opposed to most sitting in silence while the loudest people pat each other on the back (this is my experience at most public talks in Canada-- even more so in Toronto than Vancouver). But I also get really irritated at what people will say from the comfort of their homes but not own up to in public (this is perhaps another extension of our Canadian "friendliness" that is really more like passive aggression). Don't get me wrong, I've commented on other blogs about the value of anonymity in posting (here: http://viewoncanadianart.com/2008/01/29/disgruntled-voices-in-vancouver/). More than anything, I'm happy to see people all over the board speaking up, even if (and especially because) I don't agree with them.
- Nicholas Brown (guest) 8-09-2008 6:08 pm
Hey Sally,
Thanks for posting on this. I really think Lola was a great enterprise and was sorry it didn't go on longer. Still, I, like you, am glad blogging has stepped up to increase the amount of debate.
Still, you know, I'm a bit interested in how these are little "bubbles" of talk... I feel like we are still building a culture of debate, and that many are still scared to participate in airing their views for some reason. Part of it, I can appreciate, is the intertwined nature of many lives in the art world, and the fear of burning any bridges. But this debate is very needed. It's another reason that spate of emails around RM's article a few years back was so great, and so needed, even if I think the article itself was pretty great.
Don't know exactly where to go from here, personally except to say I am glad the blog presence exists and I do hope to see more commenting (and less anonymity) in the future.
- Leah Sandals (guest) 8-11-2008 9:14 pm
Well, one thing experience with publishing in print media teaches you is how to have a thick skin. View-airing is not for everyone, and some people quite reasonably aren't comfortable setting down an opinion on the public record unless they are so confident of their position that they think they'll never change their mind. The fleeting, short-term aspect of blog posts and comments is a pretty good antidote for this anxiety, and I think the option of anonymity, or the quasi-anonymity of 'handles' also helps a lot. I'm idealistic enough to think that the arguments themselves matter more than who is making them.
- sally mckay 8-11-2008 9:46 pm
Amen! It's funny, I meet people fairly regularly that express wonder that I dare use my real name when commenting online. The way I see it, unless I'm going to go all out Artfag style, I can't justify anonymity.
Sally, I hope we can talk about things like this at our talk on the 23rd. I think problems like the one Leah identifies here ("the intertwined nature of many lives in the art world, and the fear of burning any bridges") are quite salient to the situation of art students/graduates in our fair city.
- Nicholas Brown (guest) 8-11-2008 9:47 pm
good idea, Nick. For anyone wondering, Nick and I will be joining Gabrielle Moser on a panel discussion on August 23rd at the exhibition Gabby is curating for XPACE.
- sally mckay 8-11-2008 10:02 pm
I'm definitely glad that blogs have taken on some of the work of arts criticism (I guess that's sort of obvious since I wouldn't participate if I didn't think it was valuable/worthwhile), but I've been struggling to get my head around what I think about anonymous blogging and still haven't completely reconciled myself with it. I understand the impulse behind it, especially given the interrelated, sometimes incestuous, network of relationships that support and sustain the art community and the fear of losing those connections. But whenever someone anonymously makes a really salient argument or point on a blog, I desperately what to know who they are, what's at stake for them, and how they're implicated in the situation. I'm not sure why that is - maybe just pure curiosity? - but I guess I still feel there's value in being brave enough to voice an opinion/view publicly and risk being perceived as "wrong" or changing your mind later.
That said, I often avoid the debates I find a little too heated. I guess I haven't developed a thick enough skin just yet.
And Sally and Nick, you should totally bring this up at the panel. Part of what I wanted to look at in the show was the role of experimentation and failure in art, so taking risks by voicing your opinions could definitely be a sub-theme of that.
- Gabby (guest) 8-12-2008 12:48 pm
Hey Sally, I'm pretty confused by your paraphrasing of the Dowler bit you're quoting. How do you take this:
In other words, the way I understood it, contemporary art's value in society was diminished by expert claims that the criteria for judging art were only inherent to the art world itself.
out of this:
Until recently, the uselessness of art, its pure negativity, ensured its freedom to function as critique, since it rested beyond (and therefore was incapable of infecting) the horizon of everyday life. However, with the erosion of the autonomy of aesthetic practices and the broadening of the scope of reception (once encouraged by the avant-garde), art can no longer hold the privileged position that was the sign of both its freedom from constraint and its lack of utility.
Kevin Dowler, "In Defence of the Realm: Public Controversy and the Apologetics of Art", in Theory Rules (Toronto: YYZ Books, 1996) p.82
?
- J@simpleposie (guest) 8-12-2008 3:04 pm
The whole essay is pretty detailed, and tracks the back-and-forth between outraged members of the public and art professionals around both scandals. The ins and outs of Dowler's critique don't really boil down to any blog-appropriate sound bites. The quote is part of Dowler's contextual set-up. Given the postmodern scenario he describes here, expert claims that non-experts aren't qualified to judge art are a throw-back to an art-for-art's-sake paradigm that relies on art being isolated from life. The paradigm is a trade-off. By characterizing art as belonging to the sphere of privilege, you evoke a historic mystique that implies art should be "free from constraint" and thereby gain power for the decision makers in the institutions. But, by implying that people without an art education will not be able to relate to the work, you lose the contemporary notion that art is "capable of infecting the horizon of everyday life." In other words, the way I understood it, contemporary art's value in society was diminished by expert claims that the criteria for judging art were only inherent to the art world itself.
Have you read the essay, J? If you have a different take it'd be great to hear it.
- sally mckay 8-12-2008 3:57 pm
I'm responding only to what you've written and the excerpt you quoted. I haven't read the essay. That is why I asked what I asked.
- J@simpleposie (guest) 8-12-2008 4:26 pm