Week Three: Ten Thousand Artists ... In One Lifeboat?

Hilton Kramer, you are one conservative man. Much like my father, but for different, and slightly more intriguing reasons. Kramer seems to value the quality of art over the quantity of art produced, and strives to preserve the meaning/value of what art and an artist truly is. To him, there's a real "dysfunctionality" in the art world, which is directly proportionate to the size of the art world. That's to say, there are so many damn people these days that claim themselves as artists, yet many lack the skills to produce quality pieces of art work. This is Kramer's perspective. He sees art as an aesthetically pleasing object, nothing more. A non-interactive and non-confrontational manifestation of an artist's ability to create pretty pictures.  Don't get me wrong, traditional art does perhaps serve as a confrontational guise in the ego/i/self sense, meaning it provokes one to think, and may cause you to confront things within, but does it really challenge us to think outside of ourselves? Does it cause us to think on a grander scale, as a way of being one with the world? I don't think it encompasses this concept entirely, like art today does. And you know what I think is missing with this idea that traditional art is the "best" or of the highest quality? The concept of a dialogue between the art/artist and the world. We know what Kramer would say: traditional art is the most meaningful and of most value when it is serving no other purpose than itself; in other words, art should be pretty to look at for the sake of being pretty to look at. Now, granted, I'm glossing over the details, but that's the general idea. But I think, traditional art that's pretty is always going to be just that- pretty- and lacking in dialogue. And isn't sharing and conversing and collaborating with the world what makes all of us go 'round and 'round? I'd like to think so. I think that's what many artists today are striving for, that inherent need to create something of value not only for themselves but to satiate their need to be heard through whichever art medium they choose. Art is the voice, of the world, the individual, all wrapped up into a-sometimes pretty, sometimes uncomfortable, sometimes incredibly abstractly conceptual package. I think modern art holds much more value and is much more functional than Kramer gives it credit for.

With this idea of art functioning as dialogue, comes the abstract ideas of artist Jack Ryan. His "Moonrise" piece (one of the components of his "Scriabin's Mustache") is eerily striking to me. It kinda creeps me out. In the best way possible. But still, it's really really really creepy. The alien-esque noises simultaneously coinciding with shots of the waxing and waning of the moon totally freak me. The noises, which are space and solar wind recordings, are exceedingly challenging for me to listen to without thinking "ET--Phone Home" yet at the same time generate such an emotional response. For me, it's almost as if time is standing still as I watch this video, yet at the same time I find such rhythm and continuity in it's noises and images. It's much like the fluidity and continuity I find in Ryan's work. With Ryan, it seems everything is left up for our own interpretations, or shall we say, open for an interactive and intentional dialogue, be it with ourselves or others. It seems, also, that Ryan likes it this way, and much prefers that art, in general, be left undefined. He wants us to use the work he's created in whichever way we need to in order to define art the way we see fit for ourselves. This concept is all encompassing in the sense that it's a very ambiguous and slightly objective stance that he's taking on art, yet in turn that's eliciting such a strong response and emotion for the viewer to create a definition of art in a somewhat subjective manner. I'm jumbling a lot of my thoughts, but suffice to say that Ryan presents art in a way that's objective, so that we in turn can take that art and use it as objectively or subjectively as we choose. I think that's magical, and very, very powerful.

Unlike Ryan, Kramer seems to want to put art and artists in a teeny tiny little box. They just won't fit, nor do they want to. There's no right or wrong way to view art, subjectively, objectively, one eye-closed, upside down.  Kramer mentions that art is "best" when it is created and appreciated as art and not as something else. But hold the phone! Aren't some of today's artists, such as Ryan, striving for the complete opposite? Aren't they striving to create art- yes, something aesthetically beautiful AND functional at the same time- as to serve as a jumping off point, encouragement for an open dialogue among people, and an invitation to share our own truths, whatever those may be? I think those are the intentions among many artists in today's world. Not so much to create something beautiful to look at, although a lot of art created with such intentions certainly is. But I think there's a larger, more expansive objective on the forefront; the concept of an open dialogue between artists of all kinds, all skill levels, all conceptualizations; there's no kind of right or wrong artist, best or worst, in my opinion. It all depends on the message, the intentions trying to be conveyed. Certainly artists can fail in their attempts to convey a message they so adamantly tried to express through an art piece or installation, but to call them a "bad artist" for it seems entirely wrong. I think, oftentimes, they're better for trying and failing.

There seems to be this emerging of "ten thousand" artists, if you will, due to the heightened awareness of  such critical socio-economic, environmental, and political issues, and because of what's at stake (our beautiful, incredible, dynamic planet!) more and more people are emerging as artists and expressing their messages because they feel the inherent need to spread their own truths. Kramer, however doesn't see the condition of the planet as a sinking ship, like many artists these days seem to. Maybe that's the difference- people such as Kramer don't view the world as collapsing around them, don't feel the walls crumbling, and thus with this he only needs art to function for him in an aesthetically pleasing way. He doesn't need art to explore/question/defend his world. But for other artists, the walls are crumbling, and thus with their view of the world as a sinking ship comes manifestations of art that will no doubt be different. That's what it all comes down to. As more and more people become aware, seeing the light so to speak, the need to create just pours from their being. They've gotta get it out. And so they do. Sure, the quantity of artists has probably increased, but guess what? So, too, has the quality of intentions. The quality hasn't gone anywhere. In fact, I think the quality of art is richer in awareness and more incredibly dynamic than ever. And that should be the measure of great art. I guess it's just a matter of how you look at it.

So, here's the ultimate question: Can we save them all? Do we need to save them all? Do we want to save them all? How do we determine who stays afloat and who sinks into the great blue abyss? Who determines it? See, this question of "good art versus bad art", "wrong versus right" , "quality versus quantity" is really just a circular and entirely subjective or objective matter, depending on how you look at it, and will perpetually propagate itself. There's really no two ways about it. Art is art. Whatever that means is up to you. So I say, ten thousand artists in one lifeboat!  Hop aboard! There's plenty of room! And perhaps the sea that we call life will be infinitely better for it. One thing's for sure, though- they'll be plenty of dialogue along the way.