“isn’t art, after all”..... no I don’t think so

from ‘thread of a doubt’ in under-main http://www.under-main.com/thread-of-a-doubt/

“Isn’t art, after all, simply a construction of our discourse about it?” so ended a recent review in a local online publication and it’s a much more interesting question than the subject of the review -- ‘does craft drag art down or does art elevate craft,’ the deadest of horses. So, is art, after all, just the physical manifestation of scintillating conversation or is it really something?

Now that’s a subject worth considering. If a work of art, or the work of an artist, never gets talked about or seen does it exist? Not according to the above, and it’s the same as the argument really as about that falling tree. Art happens in the space between what the artist makes and what the viewer sees, and at its best art is an attempt at communion at the deepest, most intimate, most human level possible. I guess I get to say that but if no one is listening, or looking, might as well be mute. Anyway art’s basic equation requires the participation of both parties, but I still think the art, not the discourse, comes first.

What we have here is a closed conversation about just the artists who work in the sanctioned form, but not every citizen can find the time, or really gives a rat’s ass, for these arcane distinctions with an advanced degree. I’ll speak for the left out, and I’m not talking about the artists who realized the situation soon enough and went ahead anyway. They do get to be artists whatever the cost. It’s the citizens who ‘have an interest’ who are left out, because they don’t feel in conflict about what it’s called -- high art or craft. Such a lofty parsing just won’t seem particularly pertinent to them on a burning planet, what with taxes and politics and other real issues.

Maybe the art critic could consider accomplishment as the other critics do. Tunis is big on musicianship and Copley maintains credibility by giving polite but objective assessments of how well local performers sing and act, and any interested person who has gone out to at least some of the events can generally understand their intent. They even get to measure what these critics have said against their own experience when they do attend, and will become more knowledgable and appreciate more as they go along. Critics can and do provide a service to these artists and the community as well.

This ‘art discourse’ about ‘found industrial repurposed’ or ‘intentional moves toward de-skilling’ does give rise to a brand of art but it’s a rarified art, insular and shy about the public and generally disdainful of its interests. Is that all there is? Is that all the discourse you got? Can’t you talk about something else -- originality and vision and the ability to create intentional images would be suggestions. This piddling about cascading derivations just keeps the public at bay so they won’t notice you haven’t done much but confer blessings on your friends without saying anything about art that helps. Worse than that. 

As for the exhibit itself, see the show if you can. Everyone with an interest in learning about art should see as much original art as possible and visit museums when they get to the city, because that’s how genuine discernment arises. Consider what the critic said about this show against what you saw when you get home.