I am underinformed. Underexposed. Underperforming. Under a rock. No, seriously! There is so little to make art about that I just dont. its not I dont want to - but what about? How? If I can do anything, why do anything? But this is unacceptable. Im a capable professional in other aspects and I cant even coach my own painting? Ok. ok. Maybe if I start reading..
My first move is to pick up the exhibition catalog from Eye Infection, featuring artists Robert Crumb, Jim Nutt, Peter Saul, H.C. Westerman, and Mike Kelley; five men without permission or collaboration successfully deconstructing perception same as the rules of conceptual and fine art. Or at least now thats what they are known for, without the whole rogue aspect: they are all monumentally celebrated now for breaking a tradition that was redefined as such along the same lineage. Its a surprise to myself that I havent looked at this book in years despite schlepping it around and admiring its spine whenever I enter my studio. Its also a surprise, but not entirely, that I had never read the text, only gazed at the pictures, until Wednesday night. Then I did read it. It was time for studio, and I had the never before feeling of wanting to read a book. There was a funny break in the moment I picked it up - the feeling was somewhere along the lines of instant bolstering. (There is probably a better word.)
I was surprised to read that each of these artists was linked to Jackson Pollock in some way, even though most of them have never met him. It was just this lineage that justified their work that was either gratuitous, coincidental, or just because he is the best known Abstract Expressionist and they are subsequent to him. The eye-opener here is that art holds up better if the artist is linked to a pioneer in some way, even if the artist never really connects with the pioneer - the slightest visual clues that could file the art under the category of some major pre-existing movement give the art context and the critics something to write about.
I would have never linked any of these artists to anyone - which is apparently a measure of my informedness or else neglect of industry obviousities. This is also, however, why I liked them so much. Their messages are authentic, pictorial, and crafted from passion and skill- and while most of the same can be said about Pollock, few of us have addressed our remaining doubts on the whole skill thing. The text by Robert Storr begins with linking all participants to the Cannon (not just Pollock, but Calder, Magritte) and addresses how these artists are in their time playing the same necessary reflective and definitive roles. Then, one by one, each artist is introduced by history and motive. Essentially their common thread is activism through art. Their choices of topic, permutation, and their thread of challenge are all independent of others, contemporary and historical, but their applied activism in their apparent disgust of their topics is commonly grotesque, monumental, and funny. Its also as expressive as written language in a visual colloquial grammar.
So.. as into this as I am, my next step is to find my activism. But I still feel belittled by the task. Bits and pieces of memory accuse me of not being up to it, and not mattering. I toss those aside, though inside I have heard them out. These are the parts of me that need overwriting, erasing, repositioning. And this is how Im going to do it.. so anyway..
The next piece of fortune for this investigation comes in a visit to the Whitney Biennial, which is always mind-blowing, but this year I had a mission: to find my commonality by my contemporaries, all there. Where is my voice, in all of these carefully crafted varieties of apples, oranges, grapes, and starfruit? Seems like the biennial is good for choosing by topic, and the aesthetic or inspiration is less important as object than the communication of the total package - each piece is essentially a universal mastermind of a message. In the end, there were some pieces that were almost inconceivably awesome, but others I just plain understood or felt a kinship with: Aurel Schmidt, Ari Marcopoulos, and especially Jim Lutes. Their works told me what art needed; it was the same as the Eye Infection: Passion in a cause.
Apart from the narrative, I learned something: the internet isn't the only place where all you have to do is look for the answers you need to your questions: art also has this. When without constant influx of inspiration its important to make the self serve the art. Dedication in this department can find the lost, focus the scattered, tame the wild. Its just what needs to be done if you are that artist, and you don't know what's next.
I am afraid to say what it is so shortly, but I have identified my first cause. In the whole Biennial, I saw nobody address this, yet it keeps me down frequently and is a perception that is tied to my own insecurities with such congruency that inspires confidence in myself to develop the allegory, messages, multiple pieces year after year to sustain its growth. On the other hand, it is a dangerous topic. Its one line description will force judgement of my intent with fury that Im not quite ready to take without some development and defense of the effort. It will also require research - and staying in tune with Politics.
Comments
Most recent comments
I enjoyed this post. Very insightful.
The paintings were truly a work of art. You were gifted with so much talent. Really, really excellent work.
