National Youth Self Portrait Prize at the National Portrait Gallery by Umi
Posted: September 7th, 2009 | Author: eliza | Filed under: The Main Course | 9 Comments »Let’s face it, Western cultural thoughts and preformances get filed by building: Museum, gallery, Craft gallery. But that same object can be in all, just looked at and exhibited differently.
Here’s a quote from one of the judges of the National Youth Self Portrait Prize at the National Portrait Gallery (to 13 Sept). He also teaches part time at Sydney College of the Arts;
‘ ” ‘We were really won over by works that drew you into the artist’s world. Works with a strong concept behind them are engaging, but ultimately it was the works that seamlessly combine imagery, process and concept into a moving experience that really stood out.” ‘
Stuart Bailey
Can’t something that is made thoughtfully and has some thing to say, be put any where?
If the issue is what type of positive criticism should be offered in crits, Wouldn’t that just come from the comparison of what the maker wants from their work and what the viewers get.
Brooks defines art as ‘ a cultural Gell summarises current definitions of Western art is into the 1. aesthetic 2. interpretive (able to be analysed in terms of content, context and historic precedents) or 3. institutional.( the art world decides). However Brooks suggest something is art if it contains a neme
‘… a [sometimes new] purposeful action [or performance] undertaken in a culturally recognised context.”
Gell, Alfred Vogel’s Net:Traps as Artworks and Art works as Traps, in Alfred Gell The Art of Anthropology: Essays and Diagrams Hirsch (ed) (London ; New Brunswick, NJ : Athlone Press, 1999) pp187-188
Donald Brooks The Awful Truth about Art (Ausralia: Artlink Australia, 2008) pp 28
Glass doesn’t have to reflect on any thing, it could be aethetique and a similie. ie this glss bol is like a shell ref: Gell theory no 1. Chihuly is in plenty of art gallery’s, Clare Belfrage in the NGA. Just depends what you want your mode of communication to do when you express your life and times.
‘The deeper the awareness the deeper the message will be and the more profound the essence is. So also, the more subtle the philosophy and the more complex the theoretical aspects behind the art work, that much more spiritual awareness and conscious self-awareness must be respectively present in order to realize that work of art.’
http://blog.absolutearts.com/blogs/archives/00000516.html
That quote was from the site Admin suggested below.
Some one said the artist’ the spiritual pinacle of the cultural triangle. (I think it was Kuhn or Hegel). Sounds like that blogger swallowed this one whole. Surely everone has some thing to say. the cleared you way it with your design, control of medium and focused thought, the easier it is for insitutions and buyers to like it and everyone to enjoy it.
Admin would like to note that for some reason this is being listed as posted by Eliza. Well it is not. It is by Umi.
Thanks for posting Umi! A new voice. Yea!
Umi’s idea that “art” objects can be displayed anywhere seems to be in contradiction to the quote that Umi posted by Stuart Bailey “‘We were really won over by works that drew you into the artist’s world. Works with a strong concept behind them are engaging, but ultimately it was the works that seamlessly combine imagery, process and concept into a moving experience that really stood out.” The work is on display in a museum, the reason it is on display in a museum are the reasons that he sites. What Bailey describes is a distillation process and not the dilution that commonly occurs when things are created for the market place. Since Duchamp when anything can be art, the one thing that artists can offer that is truely unique is their specific relationship to the world and the medium that they work with: a specific precise expression. Work that is created for commercial reasons is created as a compromise between the artist’s vision and the demands of the market place. In the boardroom it is often said that a good compromise is when no one is happy.
Many an experienced artist will tell you of working with galleries that have said things like “Oh these blue paintings are great, but people really want red paintings, could you paint these in red, and in oil paint and 6m x 3m?” The artist is faced with a choice at that point. Dilute their vision or get dropped. If you have financial considerations, like you need to eat, these are tough choices. If not, or if you are a naif, you will walk away from the situation and stay true to your ideas, at least for the time being. After all is it not the artist who has spent the time studying art history, theory, process, vision, application, technique etc. and not the used car seller dressed up in a fancy italian suit that is selling the work? Yes the dealer knows more of the markets demand, but shouldn’t the artist know more about what work is significant in the contemporary world and will take art forward, rather than stagnate it? Many artists who made successful contributions to the history of modern art have been independently wealthy. Why? Because they were not harnessed by the demands of popular culture. I am not saying this is good, it isn’t. The exclusivity that is created by that kind of a reality, has to some extent been counter balanced by the current interest in Art Brut and Outsider Art and other art from this outsider position, but it remains that most of those who end up in our art history books, have a cushion to land on when they jump screaming out the window of their Sydney gallery dealer’s 6th story window.
The work that Bailey juried into the show was specific. It was not created to sell. It was created to be a self-portrait. Ask any gallery director how likely they are to show self-portraits. The answer will be “not very.” Self-portraits don’t sell and like it or not, that is what commercial galleries are about.
Certainly comparing what a maker wants from their work and what the viewer gets is a good place to start in a critique. I believe that topic was brought up by Nic in our last one. Did he say “where do you see your work?” Answering that question will give the critic a place to begin. But my question is this: is it really appropriate to be asking students to give up the goal of aiming for the highest point they can achieve before they have to? Is ANU a trade school or a fine art department? There is a difference. Creating work for the marketplace implies a compromise between the artist’s aesthetic sense and what the artist believes can sell. I am not saying that in a certain course or context this can’t be educational, but I do think it is a dangerous philosophy to have as a departmental theme.
i think Stresstest, that your discussion is based on a logical fallacy created in your opening paragraph to suit your argument needs – as is the way with logical fallacies generally.
further, could it be argued that Bailey’s description actually encompasses what is required for a work to be successful commercially? a commercial recipe or package of sorts? to my mind he is talking about accessibility.
and why are museums not commercial places? they spend fortunes on collecting works, is the idea of investing in art not relevent to the operation of museums?
i am still thinking about how to respond to the question at the end of your discussion. i suspect it comes down to the desires and interests of individual students; it is hoped that in any endeavour people will follow the path that best suits them. this is a naive statement no doubt, wishful thinking, nonetheless it is an issue of freedom of choice. however one must have the wherewithal to make such a decision – to my mind the issue is one of a critical education.
Perhaps I have misread Umi’s idea. But my reading of Umi’s point was that any work could be anywhere. My reading of Stuart Bailey’s point is that those were the reasons that he selected works for a museum exhibit, which is a very specific venue. Yes I did use that relationship to make a point about education, and critique. Is that a logical fallacy? I don’t know. You will have to deconstruct it for me to understand why rather than simply throwing a label at it, and get off the easy way.
unfortunately Umi’s point or points are not clear to me at all. in reference to your discussion:
Bailey’s words and the fact that the work is displayed in a museum are not necessarily conclusive of anything other than that the competition was held in a museum. i suspect you have imbued his observation with greater significance or import beyond their context. but i could be wrong.
i am not sure it is possible to say all work created for the market place is diluted. is it possible to consider the opposite may also be true? consider the work of damien hirst – is he taming it down? no, his goal is notoriety as a means to sell and sell extraordinarily well he does. and this is not a new idea, controversy sells.
i am not sure you can say all gallery dealers are uneducated car sellers, no doubt some are. however many are highly educated curators who have decided to make a living out of their love of art. it would not surprise me in the least that most dealers/curators are more educated than the artists they represent.
i am wary of generalisations employed to make a specific arguments.
Baileys words directly relate the way in which a (the) museum exhibit was curated, to read it otherwise would be to take it out of context.
If I said that ALL work created for the market place is diluted, that is not what I meant. Certainly some work created for the market place is better, is more significant as you suggest with your (rare) example of Damien Hirst. But very few artists are going to be in the position to have this affect on the art world, and the reality for them remains that dealers consider sale-ability in choosing what to show. Even the best most educated dealers have to keep a roof over their head.
If I said that all gallery dealers are uneducated call sellers, I did not mean to. It is a common joke in the art world, that gallery dealers are like used car sales men, wheeler-dealers, so to speak. I am sorry that you did not get that I was referring to with this over used metaphor (probably not the right word for here but it will have to do for now.) in a, perhaps lame, attempt at humor. And surely some art dealers are more educated than the artists they represent. Yes all these things are possible.
Generalizations in this context, in an attempt to make a specific argument, are ways at pointing towards the things we are discussing without having to pour out specific personal examples of what is being discussed, in an effort to allow the discussion to move forward toward the larger argument. If you know of a better way of writing I would love to know, as my goal is to be as clear as possible and to learn from this experience.
Perhaps you would care to post something in the manner you suggest, although since you are wary of definitions of things I don’t see how this will be possible., but perhaps you can surprise me! Please do.
Что-то у меня личные сообщения не отправляются, ошибка…….
Here’s a quote from one of the judges of the National Youth Self Portrait Prize at the National Portrait Gallery (to 13 Sept). He also teaches […….
Жаль, что сейчас не могу высказаться – нет свободного времени. Но вернусь – обязательно напишу что я думаю по этому вопросу….
Let’s face it, Western cultural thoughts and preformances get filed by building: Museum, gallery, Craft gallery…..
Buy:Retin-A.Petcam (Metacam) Oral Suspension.Nexium.Valtrex.Prednisolone.Accutane.Zyban.Synthroid.Mega Hoodia.100% Pure Okinawan Coral Calcium.Lumigan.Actos.Arimidex.Human Growth Hormone.Prevacid.Zovirax….