Richard Whittaker on sun 20 apr 03
Once, almost twenty years ago, I decided to go out and ask people, friends
as well as strangers, a couple of questions. I. What is art? 2. Is it
valuable?
I knew these two questions were impossible "to answer" but I was curious to
see what people would say.
What really surprised me was that after awhile it was impossible not to
notice that there was a kind of faith in "art" among people. People spoke
about "the truth" "the good" etc. The language used verged on the
religious. Certainly the language could easily have been employed for
"spiritual" matters.
The persistent notion so widespread in the artworld that "if it upsets
people, it will be good for them" interests me. I've heard the corrolary
intoned, that "if it doesn't disturb, it's not art", also. It's a curious
belief, as far as I'm concerned-that "upsetting" people is automatically a
good thing. I, or some other holder of superior wisdom, can feel pretty
good about doing good work then, I guess, so long as there are sufficient
numbers of folks who are outraged. Pretty easy thing to do, too, which is
kind of nice.
Of course, this shock thing, kind of like the armaments race-requires a
constant ratcheting up. Used to be, just shooting yourself in a performance
piece, like Chris Burden(I believe) did, was enough. Or getting naked and
rolling around in stuff. Or masturbating under a table in the gallery. See
the same principle in TV. Got to keep upping the ante. People get used to
stuff. Jerry Springer an example. etc.
There's a related item of faith, most often invoked about music, "it will
sound good in twenty years."
Was listening to an interview with the well-respected composer, John Adams,
a few years ago. Somehow the topic of the "avante-garde" came up. The whole
concept, in Adam's opinion, was already over the hill. He mentioned the
twelve-tone scale. "Think the jury's in on that one," he said. Never going
to sound good.
I enjoyed hearing him say that.
At the same time, how are people going to move in the direction of growth?
Sometimes maybe a shock helps. 'Course, art isn't our only source there.
In any case, I don't find myself much interested in the "artshock protocol"
in the art world, though I'd be happy to expand the concept to include
being touched by something more along the lines of "the sublime."
That's a different kind of shock, one that's a lot more difficult to find
or to produce in one's own work.
Richard Whittaker
| |
|
