Two of the important changes that
occurred in the past few decades are the intense decentralization and
democratization of the art field, with the immediate consequence of
bypassing to a certain extent the instance of the art critic. If it is
possible to become a viral video prodigy, or to enjoy immediate and
rewarding youtube fame, why should artists be restricted to the
traditional white cube manner of displaying their art or reaching their
audiences, without taking full advantage of the possibility of reaching
a global audience because they stumbled upon an institution disagreeing
with their approach? Art and art transactions have always been (and
still are, to a certain extent) perceived as the domain of the
initiated, maybe because critical discourse is purposely obscure and
often addressed to a very small and selected audience, and does not
cater to the general taste; also, there is little to no attempt to
provide a set of axiological tools that would enable a ‘commoner’ to
pass a better informed judgment. In the same time, it all becomes very
relative, since it is often a matter of individual taste and the
diversity of the field prevents anyone from issuing a generally valid
set of rules. If a certain critic, let’s say, does not appreciate
digital art, automatically this will be reflected in the judgments of
value that person produces, with the immediate result of creating a
certain type of axiology with the pretension of general value, some sort
of ‘one size fits all’ approach. Sometimes, the curator / critic world
becomes strangely detached from the general public taste. For instance,
a survey of current museum exhibitions in institutions focused on
contemporary art can only lead to the conclusion that they aggressively
promote new media, but the number of collectors ready to step up and
collect, for example, video art, or robotic installation, is
surprisingly quite reduced worldwide. Massive video projects might be
great for museums, but few are these who can live with them every day,
the way they do with a painting.
It is also true though that the diversity of the contemporary artistic
phenomenon and the current trends that are shaping up lend themselves to
such an approach and do not make the task any easier. The paradigm of
interpreting art as an opening towards a unique and coherent
perspective, defined by the artist and perceived with relative
uniformity by the art consumer, has often created during time the
equivalation of personal identity with the artistic vision. The
certitude of the existence of a firm point of view, no matter how
difficult to understand that might be, reassured in time the public both
of the fact that the artist has an important part in the process of
generating a message, and that the one who experiences art can decide to
accept or reject this unique artistic perspective based on a personal
set of opinions. In other words, a confirmation of the equation could be
based on the perception and the expectations of the audience, as well as
on the auctorial intent which played an equally decisive part.
|
-
The result is
that the role of the art institutions, even though still important, has
changed to a certain extent, and the playing field has been leveled by
eliminating the role of the jury who decides whether a certain artist is
worthy to be exhibited or not. Instead, the gap was filled by a
different, more equal-opportunity institution, that attempts to abandon
prejudice and provide that which is wanted, or, at a different level, to
describe what is occurring when it is occurring, in its synchronicity.
Even though the mere act of selection might be regarded as a type of
implicit judgment, the current publication is hardly an attempt to judge
individual artistic pursuits, and more an attempt to catalogue what is
going on right now, and not wait for the institutional confirmation of
value, which might occur or not, depending on curatorial policies,
funding and many other obscure factors which the public might never
become aware of. A volume such as ‘Masters of Today” attempts to fill
this niche, and put together artists from all over the world, that are
practicing a variety of art forms, from digital to traditional painting,
and from monumental to table-top sculpture to video stills. As one can
easily notice, the artists of today though cannot limit themselves to
being good draftsmen, or having the sense of color and composition. A
thorough study of art history and apprenticeships are not enough if the
artist wants to become proficient. But what is certainly a must is
dedication to the chosen form, and an attempt to go beyond the surface,
to try to explore more of the intricacies that develop every day, which
is something all these artist share. Life in the 21st century is maybe
easier in some respects than life in the 15th century, but in others, it
is more complicated than ever, because the set of problems confronting
us has diversified to an extent where it can become confusing, and
create a loss of the sense of direction and meaning. Because of the
permanent informational influx and the need (and request) to always
surpass ourselves, what has become the common norm today may look
totally outdated tomorrow, and even though going with the flow and
absorbing all the information that comes from an endless array of
sources might look acceptable at a certain point, it can in fact prove
detrimental, because it dilutes the individual message. Even if we don’t
subscribe to the idea of the artist creating isolated, in an ivory
tower, there is something in the informational debris swamping every one
of us that is extremely disturbing. In such a context, a publication
such as ‘Masters of Today’ must be welcome, because it is a selection
based on aesthetic principles, and stems more from the legitimate desire
to capture a moment from the perpetual evolution of art, than from an
attempt to pass judgment.
© Dana Altman
New York, 2008
|
