The Reenchantment of Art had me struggling throughout the bulk of it. I think Suzi Gablik had a clear agenda in writing this, and while I do not think that in itself is a problem, as she is a writer, I found myself having issues in agreeing with her point of view in relation to what makes an artwork important.
She speaks much about the negativity and cynicism that the modern art world has created and that in order to create a "reenchantment" of the art world artist must engage society and/or the "soul" or "spirit."
I agree with this basic idea, but the way that she goes about it is what leaves me perplexed. Most specifically in her glorification of Fern Schaffer's nine year performance work. Now, I never seek to belittle an artists' work, but I do not see how this is truly engaging. I find it hypercritical the way that she portrays Western culture's views on ritual, spirit, etc. in comparison to "the shaman" of other cultures. I guess this is because I do not personally feel disconnected from the world nor I do feel like I'm missing something from not having these "ritualistic" expirences, so I find it hard to relate to both that work and her elevation of it. Perhaps this makes me part of the problem of modernism she is presenting. I am not sure.
She cites David Bohm: "It is impossible to have true individuality except when not grounded in the whole. Anything which is not in the whole is not individuality but egocentrism."
It's quotes like this that I really struggle with. I think one of the beauties of art is that it can represent and question a variety of different things, or even nothing at all.
The work that I make seeks to engage an audience of course, I think this is one thing art really should do, but it is still very much focused on the self and I don't exactly find that egotistical in the way Gablik does. My artwork is focused on personal associations related to psychological and emotional trauma. I know it has personally impacted people beyond my personal circle as at an opening of work midway, a woman came up and spoke to me with tears in her eyes. I'm not seeking to solve all of the world's problems, but I think this example shows that work that is deeply rooted the self can be equally as important to work related to the masses/greater population.
She writes of David Salle's paintings and her dislike of them because they have no real concept behind them; they're just pretty images painted on a canvas. While I try to look at a piece of work objectively and find the meaning in it, I've found that after years in art school and critical practice, after awhile this analysis can become overbearing and exhausting, so I guess I don't really find an offense in work like his. Sometimes a thing is just a thing and that is the end. It may not be helping the world, but I do not think it is hurting it anyway either.
I would also like to discuss Dominique Mazeaud's work of cleaning up the river. Gablik writes, "In 1917, Duchamp exhibited a urinal and called it art, although at the time there wasn't any concept yet in place to explain such an act of transgression. Today Mazeaud's project is equally startling because it isn't based on a transgression of aesthetic codes at all. It comes from another integrating myth entirely: compassion."
While I do not disagree with her comparison between the experimental nature of what defines "Art,"what i do disagree with, it yet again, Gablik's analysis of it: "Mazeaud isn't competing in the patriarchal system at all, but stands true to her own feminine nature. By returning to the river every month on the same date to resume her task once again, she makes the ritual process into a redemptive act of healing."
Anytime Gablik brings up femininity, masculinity or the patriarchal system, I immediately become disinterested because I think her terms are out of date as her definition of the feminine is, at least to me, is the definition of a normal person with emotions and feelings. I also struggle with an artwork not having a physicality to it; what makes her different from anyone on the side of the road picking up trash on a regular basis?
This leads me to Vik Muniz's work as I wonder how Gablik would classify his work. The work within the documentary focuses both on the landscape and the people within it as they filter through the landfill.
I think his work had both negative and positive outcomes. This is both in relation to Gablik and my own assessments. He focused on the landscape and the not-so-great conditions of those who work at the dump. While I think it is commendable as issues of the environment are important, what I struggle with is the process of the film. I felt like at times he borderline exploited these people and his ego got in the way of their realities. By the end of the process, the workers do not want to back to working at the dump and while we assume a happy ending for them based on the film work, we really have no idea how their lives ended up. Once the film is over, we are no longer supposed to care as we did while they were on screen.
No comments:
Post a Comment