[Previous entry: "Famous Schmamous!"] [Next entry: "Hi sculptor...I mean you!!!"]

06/22/2005: "The state of Art in the modern world"

Do the virtues that have, in the past, shown an artistís greatness - talent, expressive force and original artistic research - still count, even when it seems that they are no longer fashionable? If we consider Italy today, my homeland, which has always been so profoundly divided (about everything, not only politics) into black and white, or red and blue, I am surprised to find that there seems to be apparent agreement in the world of art: above all, those artists who cannot agree to conduct their artistic research at the command of others, and who are unwilling to operate within the limited scope of commonly accepted norms and regulations, have been entirely excluded (from the
national and international scene).


When I read newspapers containing contradictory or widely differing views, interests and opinions and compare them, I realise that, from the economy to war, from the internal problems of society to the free market, the points of view expressed are totally irreconcilable. We have to get to the current events and gossip pages in order to find any news that is less prone to heated debate, and, finally, to the Arts pages, where any differences of opinion disappear altogether.

It is often said that Art cannot belong to anyone; being universal, it is, by definition, for the common good, and cannot be exploited to serve the interests of any particular group. Thank goodness: finally we have found a shared value, even more than the flag or the concept of patriotism. But is this really true?

In fact, behind so many fine words, we find that numbers and statistics have been creeping in, and so the value of art is based only the quantities that they provide. In fact, the same statement, according to which art belongs to everyone, expresses an intrinsic simplification in its rhetoric, and is ambiguous. A work of art, the pure creation of an artist, belongs to those able to evoke it, recognise it, imagine it and appreciate it: it is alive and necessary as long as it produces debate and reflection, helping people to compare their own convictions with other peopleís ideas. It becomes useless and inert whenever, in order to recognise its value, we base ourselves on auction prices, or on the sort of market survey, which is the number of visitors to a well-sponsored exhibition.

In election times, and in the Bel Paese (as we continue to call our country) these can be very frequent, the subject of ěpar condicioî (fair and balanced news coverage for all political parties) is considered the only condition required in order to compare diverse political opinions, in order to offer citizens the possibility of choosing between the various proposals.

However, in the field of figurative arts (today we prefer, rather ridiculously, to call them visual arts) are there any people, at an institutional level, responsible for checking that equal opportunities are given to the various trends in contemporary art? I very much doubt that this is the case. It seems to me that the same people are in the limelight everywhere, so much so, that it appears that the Italian artistic panorama consists of little more than a virtual puppet theatre. (But is it like this everywhere else? Does this also apply to other countries?)

We started, first in Naples at the Capodimonte museum, then in Rome at the Galleria Borghese, and finally at the Accademia in Florence (on the occasion of the opening ceremony for the restored statue of David by Michelangelo), to exhibit the works of these nuovi maestri (new masters) next to ancient masterpieces. This is certainly not to stimulate an impossible comparison, but rather in order to certify, beyond any reasonable doubt, making a famous and provocatory theory by Duchamp into a norm, the incontrovertible nature of the work of art in these works. (In fact, Duchamp theorises that if a chair were hung on the walls of a museum, it would lose its function as an object of daily use, and take on the form of a work of art; such is the power and influence of a Museum!)

Functionaries of the ministry, councillors responsible for cultural heritage, and all those who are responsible, in some way, for the delicate job of promoting modern art and culture, are certainly not required to be discerning (they often believe that they are art lovers without being capable of recognising art).
The task of those with institutional responsibility should principally be that of promoting the confrontation of new ideas and new trends, of supervision, so that those working in solitude are not penalised, and not always to trust in astute advisers and conformists, who are thoroughly familiar with the art of seduction, and who have, in their pockets, a tape measure full of numbers: those of the market forces.

Replies: 9 Comments

on Monday, July 11th, elaniii said

Alberto, I've been trying to contact you about participating in an event I'm organizing in northern Tuscanny, in the area around Forte dei Marmi and Pietrasanta. I know you have similar feelings to my own about how art is presented to the public, and this event is an alternative with great potential for exposure and sales. Please contact me through this comment or through my portfolio at absolute arts.
This blog's a good one, and refers to what I call the McDonalds'ing of art.

on Tuesday, June 28th, Zolita Sverdlove said

I think Jennifer says a lot of what I agree with.
Right now instead of the Medeci's and the Church we have the academics and very rich collectors deciding the fashion.Many of the collectors are business people .In the past western countries have had individuals with a great eye for collecting that had nothing to do with academia Today I see much less of an individual personality buying because they have a sense of great art. I just returned from New York and I thought the Gallery scene was like a Master's Degree programs.There was one painting painted over and over again in a minor variation in most galleries.The original conception was poor so the variations were terrible.It got to be a joke that we could paint the show in 3 days.It seemed like disposable art.Deborah Solomon in the New York Times wrote a great column to the same effect several years ago and I notice she has been moved to other items,not art.
The critics in L.A. have a monopoly on choosing what to highlight and review and often select and their ideas are unbelieveable:A great Milton Avery show was panned,the Philips Collection was begrudingly reviewed and conceded that there were one or two good pictures,and now King Tut is getting hammered.
I think a lot of movements like minimalism have been created by the critics and museum curators.No one would look at them otherwise :they are so boring.

on Monday, June 27th, Andrew said

TC, you're all wrong. Art during the Medici period did not represent the financial opportunity that it does today through mass media promotion of easily produced junk.

on Thursday, June 23rd, ptah said

u r art that is in everything everywhere in what ever you do.

peace and love

ptah

on Thursday, June 23rd, Olga Dmytrenko said

Ok...now I am getting the point! I am not surprized that Austrian system promotes Austrian artist (I've spent in Austria about 1 year as visiting scientist. Beautiful country!). I am Ukrainian living in USA, I am scientist who got MS and PhD in Ukraine, I have similar problems as you, Frank. And this is an academic area, not art. Nevertheless, I would say that in USA there are much more chances to get LUCKY. Without solid connections in Europe you are lucky with ZERO probability, it's extremely hard to be SUCCESSFUL without roots and support. And this has nothing to do with "how good you are". So... what's left? "Fight" for a better life, hope and beleive that LUCK will come.

Frank, I hope to see your blog about your recent exhibition in Prague (with pictures!).

on Thursday, June 23rd, jennifer said

this way of "producing" art/artists is prevalent worldwide, i would imagine...it is very true here in the states. if you're not living in new york city to be "discovered" you are obviously wasting your time. i live in vermont and feel the only type of art that is acceptable to sell in galleries around here must contain a red barn and/or a birch tree. for all the rest of us who are making art that has nothing to do with any current trend in any market...well, good luck. i am constantly running into people who refuse to step outside their tiny little minds and accept anything that is not what the current trend is.

at the university i attended, i was once told by a professor to NEVER use purple in a painting because purple is not found in nature (?!?!?!?!)while all those around me doing abstract "landscapes" reminiscent of everything you've seen in the museums for the past 50 years are being awarded shows and scholarships and being told how brillliant their work is?!?!?!?! i find that very same attitude prevalent throughout the gallery world today.

what to do? continue to make art you want to make. after all didn't van gogh's doctors use his paintings for target practice and to line their chicken coops with? so, what do the "powers that be" really know about art, anyway? i think we should take back the power we have so ungraciously handed over to museums and galleries and empower our SELVES. only then can we truely change the future of art.

on Thursday, June 23rd, Frank Ettenberg said

I currently experience something related to what you state, Sr.
Sughi. I choose to live in Austria, having seen some very fine abstract art here, made by Austrian artists in the mid-1990's. I
slowly realize that the system is set up to promote Austrian artists, who have come through the local educational system.
A foreign-born artist who is not part of the balkans, or eastern europe, has little chance of being 'discovered' here, at this time.
In other words, there does seem to be a lack of impartial interest in certain kinds of art, whose creators do not bear socially approved passports. But in the end, I think it is a question of fate, as to who is recognized and honored. And fate is not fair.

on Wednesday, June 22nd, T.C. said

Being from Italy, it is surprising that you did not mention the Medici family, rulers of the art world long ago. Nothing has changed since, just different rulers.

.

on Wednesday, June 22nd, Olga Dmy said

Dear Alberto,
Did I understand you correctly? In your post, I see two lines of thoughts:
(1) art is a potential area where people can live in peace without confrontation;
(2) art is affected by society and all it's stuff (politics..economics..).
If this correct, then I do not see a point:
(1) is diminished immediately by (2); (2) is an obvious statement..