Today’s Art Rebel is Yesterday’s Conformist - Part 1

The Contemporary Art world is chock-a-block with artists reinventing the meaning of art, so that art can be anything simply because an artist declares it to be so. Unfortunately, this is not as cutting edge as it appears, since Duchamp (R. Mutt) and Man Ray and other Dadaists proclaimed this during their era of 1916-23.

Most of what is being currently heralded in the art world as new, is so 20 th century. It may seem new because it is being created by a younger group of artists and the packaging (style) seems different but the theory the work rests on is not new. It's like Coke or Pepsi when they change the label, same product, different packaging.

The art world is following the Hollywood moguls who want something that is,” Just like the last big box office hit, but different.” Gimmick is mistaken for originality; style is mistaken for meaning and depth.

This situation is compounded for painters by the fact that photography is quickly taking over (or has taken over) art's historical place as recorder and reporter of events. If John Audubon lived in this century his work would not be as revered since a photographer from National Geographic would have a flashy feature article of all the newly discovered flora and fauna before Audubon's paint finished drying. That's still photographer's work would be gorgeous but beaten to the punch by videographers for the daily TV and Internet news.

The original function of the artist was not as a recorder of events, but as a visionary, the one who brought down the “fire from the mountain” and displayed it for the tribe. Before writing or written music was developed, narratives and music were passed down person to person. Of course, that method allows for misunderstandings and changes. The most certain link from generation to generation were images carved and/or painted in caves, on rocks and designs on pottery or metals that survived. In fact when Man began to develop writing is was largely a pictograph one, with images as words and most modern alphabets that are phonetic have a basis in letters that were images or symbols originally. [Note: the Hebrew letters that I paint with, although phonetic, as simultaneously still considered to be symbols.]

Art as a communication of the visionary, of the holy, of turning the intangible into tangible visual form remains as the foremost purpose of art today.

Since the Renaissance, the overwhelming majority of religious artists in the Judeo-Christian traditions have been narrative artists. That means they illustrated Bible and religious stories in a similar way that artists recorded history. For instance, Rembrandt's painting of the crucifixion is considered to be religious art whereas his self and other contemporary portraits are secular and histories of his time.

Photographers, including videographers and filmmakers have brought us riveting and often seemingly accurate images of the Holy land, have reconstructed via special effects the Exodus, Jesus' life and death, the Flood, etc. What need is there for painters to bring this visual information?

November 28, 2006

continued : TodaysArtRebel2.php

 

revered and familiar. So now it is easy – unthreatening – for us to look upon their works. But, in their time these were groundbreaking artists who were not readily accepted or in fashion. Their work was strange.

Major corporations spend great amounts of money introducing new products to the market, such as toothpaste, energy drinks or products with cutting-edge technology. Huge sums are spent for product launches, because we humans tend to shy away from the unfamiliar or strange.

“Household name” is the term that every manufacturer wants for each of their products, although most happily settle for “brand recognition.” What we recognize is familiar and usually safe. It gets really interesting if it is also controversial. Andy Warhol was a master at being recognized and using brand recognition to his advantage. Who didn't recognize a Campbell 's Soup can, and what art enthusiast can ever see a painting of one now and not think of Andy Warhol? Yet, Andy's first exhibit of the cans was a bust.

Warhol himself became a brand. And so are Rembrandt, Monet, van Gogh and Pollack work's now. We see images of their works on umbrellas, calendars, key chains and all kinds of stuff. People want to identify and be identified with the products they use and like, including the work of favorite artists.

Controversy, especially when it seems safe (such as a debate between political members of the same party) is often mistaken for being innovative.

What is truly innovative and ground breaking always overthrows the established norm and consequently is controversial. Impressionism was innovative and ground breaking in its day, and very controversial. By the time Picasso and Braque developed Cubism, Impressionism was established and no longer considered controversial. Plenty of artists were painting in the style but none would ever achieve the reputation of fame of the original Impressionists. But the new Cubists did.

Real or pumped up conflict sells strories in newspapers, magazines, news and talk shows, Internet sites, etc. It is the basis for all fictional dramatic work (film, theatre), which includes comedy. Most of the controversy in the news, whatever section of the news, comes from stories that skillfully play up the level of conflict to make something appear new or different. Is a young starlet abusing drugs or alcohol really something new or controversial? What about the weather? Somehow, the news will find a slant to make it appear controversial.

The first thing we humans do when we are presented with anything new is to compare it to what we already know. It is a way of gaining familiarity (safety) and mastery, since being able to categorize information is one of the ways we master it for use.

The problem comes when something is so new and innovative that we have little experience to create a comparison. This problem of lack of easy comparison has dogged the founders of every art movement. It has also been problematical for all true innovators as few people truly believed that cars, PCs, cell phones or TV sets would ever have wide markets and catch on.

People want to appear fashionable, and this is especially so for many of the people who are a part of the art world. Unfortunately, what is really innovative (revolutionary, but not politically) is never fashionable, since what is fashionable is already accepted. This year's fashion is always only slightly new. What is truly innovative is radically new. Ironically, art that was originally fully innovative once recognized becomes great art and never goes out of style.

Business has a term for people who are the first to try new products and ideas. They are called "Early Adopters". They exist in every field and walk of life. It is not a question of being the first one on the block to own something, early adopters are the people who are the first one in the whole neighborhood to purchase and/or use a product or idea.. These are the people who are the real trend and fashion setters, they are more than just fashionable, they are pioneers who help make history.

Art history has a habit of playing a cruel joke on those who are in positions of power in the art establishment but fail to recognize a truly innovative artist. It distains them, or worse, it ignores them.

History remembers Ambroise Vollard. He was the art dealer who the Met recently held a show about because he launched the careers of many unknown artists. He showed, promoted and sold the works of artists such as Paul Cezanne, Maillol, Picasso, Rouault, Gauguin and Vincent van Gogh. He helped sustain his living artists, was a collector and although the works of his artists have been sold and traded by many dealers since, it is Vollard and the collectors who bought from him, such as Albert C. Barnes and Henry Osborne Havemeyer , who are remembered.

As a dealer Vollard was an innovator. Perhaps it takes one to know one. There seems to be an ongoing historical and contemporary connection between innovative artists, dealers and collectors. History remembers them, but not the more cautious who held to a second wave of artists following now accepted innovations.

Historically fame and fortune seems to rub off from truly innovative artists, but it especially rubs off on those who recognized and supported the artist at the onset of a not yet renowned career. That takes vision and courage, as much as taste. It involves risk. No one who ever made history was looking in the rear view mirror of life or culture- their focus was straight ahead.