The End of Art?
The End of Art? Surely a gross generalization. Everything comes to an end, of this we know; but in this case for what or whom? The artist - the muse - the patron - the institution - society?
Steven Rhude
Paintbrush - oil, hog bristle, metal and wood (collection of the artist)
Sweeping generalizations such as this have been common in the past. Back in the ninteen seventies the battle cry to put an end to painting at the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design was heard throughout the hallways - throw away your brushes, painting is dead still echos to this day. I always tended to laugh at such absurdities. But when Donald Kuspit, Distinguished Professor of Art History and Philosophy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, proclaimed the end of art, I considered it with a fresh view. His book The End of Art was published in 2004 and brings to light the notion of post art and the search for a contemporary aesthetic.
Kuspit has written extensively on the malaise of post modern art, the art institutions which have developed a relationship with post modern charachteristics, and what Kuspit refers to as "exhibition value". He often cites American artist Jeff Koons as an example of capitalist art strictly about Capitalism. By putting a familiar object like a vacum cleaner "... in a vitrine and exhibiting it as art he [Koons] gives it this exhibition value, which is the only art value now. What he is doing is highlighting something that is meant to be exhibited, initially, to get you to buy it - and then it has a certain use value."
Steven Rhude
Shoes of the artist - paint, synthetics, leather (collection of the artist)
Indeed, Koons, the archpriest of de-skilling (out sourcing artistic labour) has very little to do with the actual creation of the work which he leaves up to technicans to execute. Once an institution procurs a work by Koons it is then deemed also to have what is refered to as public use. It becomes an institutional commodity. From there the work assumes a personality with charachteristics that mock the past and the history of art which has been bequethed to us. It elevates the banal (ie. urinal) to the status of the enigmatic (ie. anti-art), and the profane to the status of sacred. As Kuspit believes, post modern art has a predisposition for the poverty of mind shrouded by much conceptual expression.
An interesting example of this was the exhibition For the Love of God, by Damien Hirst which took place in 2008 at the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam. Kuspit reflects on the show: "... they had Damien Hirst's diamond skull on display. Not only did they have the diamond skull, but also at the beginning of every room - and it's no exageration - they had a little plaque that said something like "if you keep on going you will get to the Damien Hirst skull." I didn't ever see anything that read "if you keep on going you will get to Rembrandt's Night Watch." So then you got to a room that was roped off like a movie marquee with a velvet rope which you stand behind. This is not the end of it. The signs lead through a circuit because there was part of the museum that was cut off. There was one last room where they had arranged a nice selection of master works, relatively small, with a little text explaining provenance etc. discreetly next to each. Above each of these works and in bigger lettering and in a different colouring (I think it was pink) was a commentary by Hirst on each of these works. The most insipid banal crap I have ever heard as comments: so he gets the voice over these old master art and then people read it. When you exited following the circuit, you noticed on the side there was this big black Damien Hirst tent and if you liked you go in there to purchase catalogs or write your comments."
Apparently there was a new director who wanted to bring in more people.
"But that's what it is about. He told me Hirst had a contract - something like a hundred page contract - that everything had to be done just so. The assumption is that the museum got a lot of money for this, and they just followed the contract to the letter allowing the artist to control. The artist took control just like he did with the auction. What are we interested in here? We are interested in the demonstration of power. We are interested in the spectacle and what he has done is degrade the other art with his insipid comments. It is not historical interpretation of any kind or critical consciousness. There is a skull with diamonds in it worth twenty million dollars; everybody is looking at the money."
One has to wonder if this kind of spectacle has accelerated the end of art. Perhaps it can have the reverse effect and inspire more emphasis on local content and the return of skill and emotional aestethics still being practiced by artists with an appreciation for painting and art history. Leah Sandal's recent article in Canadian Art Magazine reveals some interesting observations for todays institutional gallery patron.
http://www.canadianart.ca/online/features/2011/12/22/leah_sandals_top_3/
Essentially the Art Gallery of Ontario has rededicated itself to the regional portion of it's mandate. Recently offering large marquee spaces to such realist artists like Canadians Jack Chambers and David Blackwood. If, as Kuspit suggests, we are witnessing the end of art, regional shows like this may be offering a new beginning.
With the reframing of our Canadian art institutions, pressure to reduce or eliminate addmission fees, and budget cut backs, what will this mean for local content and regionalism in general? Will the public see more dedication to Canadian art from its institutions? Will we see a renewed interest in substance and technique? Or, will we see a return to the same old reliance on the post modern spectacle which has lost its lustre?
Steven Rhude
Paintbrush - oil, hog bristle, metal and wood (collection of the artist)
Sweeping generalizations such as this have been common in the past. Back in the ninteen seventies the battle cry to put an end to painting at the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design was heard throughout the hallways - throw away your brushes, painting is dead still echos to this day. I always tended to laugh at such absurdities. But when Donald Kuspit, Distinguished Professor of Art History and Philosophy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, proclaimed the end of art, I considered it with a fresh view. His book The End of Art was published in 2004 and brings to light the notion of post art and the search for a contemporary aesthetic.
Kuspit has written extensively on the malaise of post modern art, the art institutions which have developed a relationship with post modern charachteristics, and what Kuspit refers to as "exhibition value". He often cites American artist Jeff Koons as an example of capitalist art strictly about Capitalism. By putting a familiar object like a vacum cleaner "... in a vitrine and exhibiting it as art he [Koons] gives it this exhibition value, which is the only art value now. What he is doing is highlighting something that is meant to be exhibited, initially, to get you to buy it - and then it has a certain use value."
Steven Rhude
Shoes of the artist - paint, synthetics, leather (collection of the artist)
Indeed, Koons, the archpriest of de-skilling (out sourcing artistic labour) has very little to do with the actual creation of the work which he leaves up to technicans to execute. Once an institution procurs a work by Koons it is then deemed also to have what is refered to as public use. It becomes an institutional commodity. From there the work assumes a personality with charachteristics that mock the past and the history of art which has been bequethed to us. It elevates the banal (ie. urinal) to the status of the enigmatic (ie. anti-art), and the profane to the status of sacred. As Kuspit believes, post modern art has a predisposition for the poverty of mind shrouded by much conceptual expression.
An interesting example of this was the exhibition For the Love of God, by Damien Hirst which took place in 2008 at the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam. Kuspit reflects on the show: "... they had Damien Hirst's diamond skull on display. Not only did they have the diamond skull, but also at the beginning of every room - and it's no exageration - they had a little plaque that said something like "if you keep on going you will get to the Damien Hirst skull." I didn't ever see anything that read "if you keep on going you will get to Rembrandt's Night Watch." So then you got to a room that was roped off like a movie marquee with a velvet rope which you stand behind. This is not the end of it. The signs lead through a circuit because there was part of the museum that was cut off. There was one last room where they had arranged a nice selection of master works, relatively small, with a little text explaining provenance etc. discreetly next to each. Above each of these works and in bigger lettering and in a different colouring (I think it was pink) was a commentary by Hirst on each of these works. The most insipid banal crap I have ever heard as comments: so he gets the voice over these old master art and then people read it. When you exited following the circuit, you noticed on the side there was this big black Damien Hirst tent and if you liked you go in there to purchase catalogs or write your comments."
Apparently there was a new director who wanted to bring in more people.
"But that's what it is about. He told me Hirst had a contract - something like a hundred page contract - that everything had to be done just so. The assumption is that the museum got a lot of money for this, and they just followed the contract to the letter allowing the artist to control. The artist took control just like he did with the auction. What are we interested in here? We are interested in the demonstration of power. We are interested in the spectacle and what he has done is degrade the other art with his insipid comments. It is not historical interpretation of any kind or critical consciousness. There is a skull with diamonds in it worth twenty million dollars; everybody is looking at the money."
One has to wonder if this kind of spectacle has accelerated the end of art. Perhaps it can have the reverse effect and inspire more emphasis on local content and the return of skill and emotional aestethics still being practiced by artists with an appreciation for painting and art history. Leah Sandal's recent article in Canadian Art Magazine reveals some interesting observations for todays institutional gallery patron.
http://www.canadianart.ca/online/features/2011/12/22/leah_sandals_top_3/
Essentially the Art Gallery of Ontario has rededicated itself to the regional portion of it's mandate. Recently offering large marquee spaces to such realist artists like Canadians Jack Chambers and David Blackwood. If, as Kuspit suggests, we are witnessing the end of art, regional shows like this may be offering a new beginning.
With the reframing of our Canadian art institutions, pressure to reduce or eliminate addmission fees, and budget cut backs, what will this mean for local content and regionalism in general? Will the public see more dedication to Canadian art from its institutions? Will we see a renewed interest in substance and technique? Or, will we see a return to the same old reliance on the post modern spectacle which has lost its lustre?
Steven Rhude
Hi Steven!
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine how you find the time for this! I think it's great and congratulations to you!
I am compelled to respond to ‘The End of Art’ posting - I took my formal training in fine arts at NSCAD in the early 70's, so I'm an 'eye witness' to your opening remarks. You speak of 'sweeping generalizations' but quickly fall into one yourself regarding programming at NSCAD in the early 70's. In 1970 I investigated many excellent fine art programs in Canada, but NSCAD offered the only programming dedicated to fine art, craft and design combined. Having been brought up in Ontario, I recall being ridiculed for abandoning the 'centre of Canadian art' for the backwater of Atlantic Canada. Some generalities seem to persist.
I was the quintessential NSCAD art student majoring in 'studio' and I don't recall any battle cries to throw away paint brushes. All my studio instructors were painters. Many of the visiting Canadian and international artists I met were painters as well. The college offered an excellent art history programme in which painting in western art was of course a focus. And which student could possibly forget the great colour theory courses offered by painter John Asemakos(?). My recollection of NSCAD's programming premise was that painting no longer needed to be the 'entry point' for studio training in fine art. Essentially art was an idea and the language of art is common for dance/music, film/photography, paint/sculpture/print, design. pottery/textiles, wood & metal crafts and art education to boot!. We were taught a language in which we could communicate in all these possible choices. I would venture the short lived bloom of art education in our provincial elementary and secondary schools during the 1980's came in most part from NSCAD graduates.
I recall the programming as being democratic, that our ideas about art should be big enough to include the likes of Damien Hirst and Maude Lewis. I do remember the discussions in the art history lectures that the Modern Art Era, as defined by painting, was at an end and that the Post-Modern period would be more inclusionary than exclusionary; that western art would enter into a new great 'baroque period', where one form of art ended and another began would be diffused. I believe most of us studio students were personally excited to be participants. Some of my salient memories of NSCAD are wandering through the maze of student studios and looking at all the paintings being created. I don't recall any heaps of discarded brushes in the corners! More specifically I recall representationism/realism being very alive and well throughout the three printmaking studios.
During my student years at NSCAD my impression was that Maritime students were in a minority. I would venture that NSCAD's impact on art education in the province has tipped the scale in this matter over past few decades and the growth of local content and regionalism that you call for will be inevitable.
As a NSCAD student I embraced Conceptual Art as my form of creative expression from all the studio programmes I explored. I could not have guessed then, 40 years later, I would still be in Nova Scotia and my art would be recognized as realist painting. Forty years later my art doesn't look the same, but strangely the 'idea' is still the same.
Thanks Steven for the impetus to stir memories of my student days!
Kind regards from Ed Huner
Hi Ed,
Deletegood to hear from you!
the battle cry "throw away your brushes..." was typical of the late Gerald Ferguson back in the time when he was a a major motivator for moving NSCAD towards a university for international conceptualism.
The tone was set in October of 1970 with the Halifax conference presided over by Seth Sigelaub. The conference was attended by artists like Joseph Beuys.
For the next six years painting was generally assailed as an obsolete practice in favour of the dematerialization of the art object. The resulting exponents of this endevour are still taking up wall space at our provincial and national galleries to this day. Jeffery Spalding recently had a show in at StFX university where he painted one flat colour after another on one of the gallery walls claiming the previous layer of colour was a "secret".
I'm not saying painting was not practiced at the university. The reason it was being derided by the conceptualists was because it was being taught and practiced. Ferguson truely believed it was coming to an end.
But Ferguson and his collegues went so far they had to retreat from the edge when other colleges and programs moved along more cautiously. Even OCA eliminated life drawing for one year but that was quickly resolved when Ascott went on his merry way.
However, when the issue of painting did arise at NSCAD, one practice was to out source it as Ferguson did with fellow painter Gerald Collins. The practice of the instructors at NSCAD was openly promulgated through their classes.
To this day I think historically OCAD has maintained a more pluralistic and sound program compared with NSCAD. That is just my own opinion. But the relationship between NSCAD and the AGNS is also something you would never see in Ontario when it comes to the AGO and OCAD. Perhaps this is why the AGNS has real concerns for increasing their visitation numbers.
Being ridiculed for moving out east for your education is typical.