 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| The New York Optimist December 2008 |
2008 Chelsea Art World Recap
by
Stephan Fowlkes
Well after eight months and hundreds of gallery openings with work from probably a thousand
some-odd artists, I have come to several conclusions: painting definitely is NOT dead,
ANYTHING CAN BE ART, the mean age of exhibiting artists continues to decline as the
galleries continue to seek the “new, next, sensational”, intellect seems to continue to replace
emotion, aesthetics and the sublime in the work, as MFA programs seem to continue to
promote ideology-based work where the object is but mere referent to concept and motivation
thus justifying a lack of craftsmanship and aesthetic beauty in the work in many cases, and yet
creativity is still thriving though its face may continuously change.
Creativity has existed almost as long as we’ve been on two legs. The desire to make marks, or
to put things together has essentially always been part of our complex beings. The role of these
urges have changed over the centuries and throughout the various cultures, yet it is truly
universal and unbiased. The urge has always existed and has largely adapted itself to all
available materials and technologies. Although the function of the creative spirit in society has
evolved and adapted various roles in different eras and cultures, this unnameable drive still
continues to redefine itself. We still manage to be shocked at what is being called art, even in
this anything-goes climate. A hundred years ago we were shocked by Picasso’s Cubist style,
then Duchamp’s urinal--I mean “Fountain”, then by the monochromatic paintings of the
Russian Suprematists, then by Pollock’s splatter paintings, Warhol’s Brillo Boxes,
Manzoni’s artist’s-shit-in-a-can, Hirst’s shark in formaldehyde, Serrano’s “Piss
Christ.” We love to be shocked but even more so, the creative drive continually seeks to find
that uncharted territory, and by default to define the society and culture and times in which we
live.
Over the past century, being an artist has swung from fringe society to the mainstream, where
you can now even get a master’s degree in art. The numbers of people who call themselves
artists has only ever grown. Possibly because the rules have become far more lax. Back in the
day, say in the time of the illuminated religious paintings, there were pretty rigid standards as to
what art could and should be, and a deliberate process with particular desired end-results. The
art served a purpose and the artist’s freedom was somewhat limited, and the artist was often a
hired-hand, merely fulfilling a role, as any other laborer; think Michelangelo and the Sistine
Chapel ceiling. He certainly didn’t have the freedom to splatter some paint any old higgley-
piggley way all over the ceiling. Today, theoretically, I can screw a simple brass hook on the
wall and call it done. Presto! Art. Or I can put a ton of garbage in the corner of a gallery and
Presto! More art. With such rules--or lack thereof--truly anybody can be an artist today...skill
has become such a small part of the equation, that anyone with any imagination whatsoever can
call themselves an artist. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but at the same time, this has made
it ridiculously difficult to define what makes a work of art “good” or “bad”. We live in a time
of no standards, where the only directive is that it hasn’t been done before, though even this
rule is regularly broken. Furthermore, thanks to Conceptualism, even the mere idea of
something is enough to be called art; you don’t even need to make anything and still you can be
an artist. A typed page of your intentions, framed and hung on the wall can be art; a gallery
with absolutely nothing in it can be art.
In college, there was a common saying in the art department: “If you don’t know what to
make, make it big, and if you can’t make it big, paint it red.” That is about all you really need to
know in this day and age to make it in the art world. Formal technique is no longer a necessary
element in the curriculum, ultimately eliminating talent and skill from the criteria necessary to be
an artist. I’ve always said you need to learn the rules to break the rules, but what happens when
there are no more rules? And I’m not saying this cynically, I’m merely pointing out the greater
freedom that we experience today in the art world and the creative realm than at any time in the
past, ever. But even if the standards have declined or vanished altogether, the competition for
representation and recognition has only grown, even with the growing profusion of galleries
worldwide.
Just think, a century ago, being an artist meant poverty for just about all artists, and today that
still holds true for most. Yet, today, we also have artists making literally millions of dollars, as
young as in their forties, and even their thirties in some cases. I’m delighted that there is so
much money in the arts, and such interest to warrant such prices. But to play devil’s advocate,
no matter how sublime a painting is, can it truly be worth one hundred million dollars?
Apparently there are a few people in this world who think so, and that just blows me away...a)
that there are people even with that much disposable cash, and b) that those people think
something that hangs in your living room is worth that much. But again, thanks to such
collectors and patrons, more artists are managing to make a comfortable living by selling their
work. But have we gone overboard, have we gone too far? Van we continue on this
trajectory? I leave that up to you to decide.
And with that, I wish you all a happy holiday season and a happy new year! See you in
2009! May the new year bring beauty to all!
by
Stephan Fowlkes
Well after eight months and hundreds of gallery openings with work from probably a thousand
some-odd artists, I have come to several conclusions: painting definitely is NOT dead,
ANYTHING CAN BE ART, the mean age of exhibiting artists continues to decline as the
galleries continue to seek the “new, next, sensational”, intellect seems to continue to replace
emotion, aesthetics and the sublime in the work, as MFA programs seem to continue to
promote ideology-based work where the object is but mere referent to concept and motivation
thus justifying a lack of craftsmanship and aesthetic beauty in the work in many cases, and yet
creativity is still thriving though its face may continuously change.
Creativity has existed almost as long as we’ve been on two legs. The desire to make marks, or
to put things together has essentially always been part of our complex beings. The role of these
urges have changed over the centuries and throughout the various cultures, yet it is truly
universal and unbiased. The urge has always existed and has largely adapted itself to all
available materials and technologies. Although the function of the creative spirit in society has
evolved and adapted various roles in different eras and cultures, this unnameable drive still
continues to redefine itself. We still manage to be shocked at what is being called art, even in
this anything-goes climate. A hundred years ago we were shocked by Picasso’s Cubist style,
then Duchamp’s urinal--I mean “Fountain”, then by the monochromatic paintings of the
Russian Suprematists, then by Pollock’s splatter paintings, Warhol’s Brillo Boxes,
Manzoni’s artist’s-shit-in-a-can, Hirst’s shark in formaldehyde, Serrano’s “Piss
Christ.” We love to be shocked but even more so, the creative drive continually seeks to find
that uncharted territory, and by default to define the society and culture and times in which we
live.
Over the past century, being an artist has swung from fringe society to the mainstream, where
you can now even get a master’s degree in art. The numbers of people who call themselves
artists has only ever grown. Possibly because the rules have become far more lax. Back in the
day, say in the time of the illuminated religious paintings, there were pretty rigid standards as to
what art could and should be, and a deliberate process with particular desired end-results. The
art served a purpose and the artist’s freedom was somewhat limited, and the artist was often a
hired-hand, merely fulfilling a role, as any other laborer; think Michelangelo and the Sistine
Chapel ceiling. He certainly didn’t have the freedom to splatter some paint any old higgley-
piggley way all over the ceiling. Today, theoretically, I can screw a simple brass hook on the
wall and call it done. Presto! Art. Or I can put a ton of garbage in the corner of a gallery and
Presto! More art. With such rules--or lack thereof--truly anybody can be an artist today...skill
has become such a small part of the equation, that anyone with any imagination whatsoever can
call themselves an artist. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but at the same time, this has made
it ridiculously difficult to define what makes a work of art “good” or “bad”. We live in a time
of no standards, where the only directive is that it hasn’t been done before, though even this
rule is regularly broken. Furthermore, thanks to Conceptualism, even the mere idea of
something is enough to be called art; you don’t even need to make anything and still you can be
an artist. A typed page of your intentions, framed and hung on the wall can be art; a gallery
with absolutely nothing in it can be art.
In college, there was a common saying in the art department: “If you don’t know what to
make, make it big, and if you can’t make it big, paint it red.” That is about all you really need to
know in this day and age to make it in the art world. Formal technique is no longer a necessary
element in the curriculum, ultimately eliminating talent and skill from the criteria necessary to be
an artist. I’ve always said you need to learn the rules to break the rules, but what happens when
there are no more rules? And I’m not saying this cynically, I’m merely pointing out the greater
freedom that we experience today in the art world and the creative realm than at any time in the
past, ever. But even if the standards have declined or vanished altogether, the competition for
representation and recognition has only grown, even with the growing profusion of galleries
worldwide.
Just think, a century ago, being an artist meant poverty for just about all artists, and today that
still holds true for most. Yet, today, we also have artists making literally millions of dollars, as
young as in their forties, and even their thirties in some cases. I’m delighted that there is so
much money in the arts, and such interest to warrant such prices. But to play devil’s advocate,
no matter how sublime a painting is, can it truly be worth one hundred million dollars?
Apparently there are a few people in this world who think so, and that just blows me away...a)
that there are people even with that much disposable cash, and b) that those people think
something that hangs in your living room is worth that much. But again, thanks to such
collectors and patrons, more artists are managing to make a comfortable living by selling their
work. But have we gone overboard, have we gone too far? Van we continue on this
trajectory? I leave that up to you to decide.
And with that, I wish you all a happy holiday season and a happy new year! See you in
2009! May the new year bring beauty to all!
| photo, courtesy of Aeric Meredith Goujon |
| Picasso’s Cubist style |
| © MMVIII, Parent Productions LLC. All Rights Reserved. The New York Optimist & www.thenewyorkoptimist.com is a registered trademark of Parent Productions LLC. The New York Optimist is a registered service mark of Thenewyorkoptimist.com. The New York Optimist logo and original photos are a registered trademark of Parent Production LLC. |