“In The End of Art Donald Kuspit argues that art is over because it has lost its aesthetic import. Art has been replaced by "postart," a term invented by Alan Kaprow, as a new visual category that elevates the banal over the enigmatic, the scatological over the sacred, cleverness over creativity. Tracing the demise of aesthetic experience to the works and theory of Marcel Duchamp and Barnett Newman, Kuspit argues that devaluation is inseparable from the entropic character of modern art, and that anti-aesthetic postmodern art is its final state. In contrast to modern art, which expressed the universal human unconscious, postmodern art degenerates into an expression of narrow ideological interests. In reaction to the emptiness and stagnancy of postart, Kuspit signals the aesthetic and human future that lies with the New Old Masters. A sweeping and incisive overview of the development of art throughout the twentieth century, The End of Art points the way to the future for the visual arts.” In the book, “The End of Art” by Donald Kuspit
On Friday, I posted about choosing your medium. I have another word for it. I call it “craft”. I use the word in the context of marrying CONCEPT and CRAFT. Allow me to try to explain what I mean.
Plate #104 - A Whole Plate bleached Cyanotype from a Wet Collodion negative.
The concept is WHAT the story or work is about, and the craft is HOW it is made, or what materials are used and why. If I’ve learned anything over the years making (art) pictures, it’s this: You must have a strong, coherent narrative. You must marry or join the craft or medium with the narrative. And you must have context and intention supporting all of it. Give context to what the work relates to, intention, why was it made, and explain why you chose the materials that you did. How is it all connected and how does it relate to you, the creator/maker/storyteller? In other words, what is it that you want the viewer to think about or understand after seeing the work? In one sentence, “My work is about ___________ (fill in the blank).
This is a heavy lift. It’s very difficult to do. That’s why few people do it. I always hear the counter-argument that art shouldn’t need any of this. That it should stand on its own, without explanation. In part, I understand this argument, however, I don’t agree with the premise. Most of the time, I hear this from people who have nothing to say about their work. I’ll write more about this in the future.
“Splitting Aspen” Plate #118 - A Whole Plate bleached and toned (tannic acid) Cyanotype from a Wet Collodion negative.
So few other mediums get away with that kind of argument. In the photography world, we get away with a lot. If you make a pretty picture or a “chocolate box” picture, you’ll get praised and plenty of accolades for it. You might even win an award! It doesn’t have to have any narrative, context, or intention, and it wouldn’t matter if it were a digital snap or an ultra-large format historic process image. If it’s based on technical merit, you’ll be in the same boat. It’s big, it’s this process or that process, etc. The technical folks will love it. If it’s pretty and “knowable” or a technical feat, the masses or the techies will like it. And if you’re making work that the masses or techies like, it might be that influence driving you (I make pictures that people like or that are technically difficult) rather than making pictures based on a personal, authentic narrative. I call these types of photographers, “commercial photographers” and “process photographers”. A lot of times, they call themselves artists.
That’s the superficial part of making photographs. Let’s talk about the other end of the spectrum. I just read Donald Kuspit’s book, “The End of Art” (see quote above). I don’t agree with all of it, but I certainly understand where his head is at when it comes to postmodern and post-post-modern art. He rails on Damien Hirst and other artists that work in such a conceptual way it seems ridiculous to a large part of the population. Their commentary on suburbia, and the mundane can be confusing if you don’t know the context of the work. A lot of it is ridiculous hyperbole. Made up to make money and draw attention.
It upsets me that the art world creates these kinds of environments. It doesn’t need to. It alienates so many people who would, otherwise, understand art and appreciate it. It would enrich their lives and could even make them better people. I’ve heard people say, “Oh, I don’t go to art galleries, I don’t understand art”. That statement always makes me sad. It’s the out-of-touch elitists that has put that in the mind of the average person. Every human being can understand art. It’s up to the artist to make that happen (the point of this post). Whether the people like the work or not is a different question. But they should be able to understand the intention behind the work.
A Whole Plate Cyanotype from a Calotype (Paper) negative.
I always ask people why filmmakers have to tell stories in their work - you know, beginning, middle, end? Character development, plot, etc. Or why do musicians have to follow certain rules to make music? You know, notes, scales, timing, etc. Why do writers have to use proper grammar and construct a sentence in a certain way? You know, subject, verb, noun. There are “rules” to follow in these mediums so that the audience can understand the story or the narrative. I’m not a “rule” follower per se, I think it can be really good and really creative to break rules, but not just for the sake of breaking them or the inability to construct a narrative.
Connecting ideas and concepts to life experiences is what art can do really well. It can draw people in, tell a story, and leave them questioning their beliefs, opinions, etc. Art can make the world a better place, or a more interesting place, but it needs to be understood in order to do that.
I’m not preaching about beating people over the head with didactics or statements. But there needs to be context and intention behind the work - and it needs to be accessible to the viewer. I’m simply stating that pretty pictures or chocolate box pictures won’t stick with you, or make you think very much. Art should provoke, it should make people question and think. You can accomplish that through authentic and connected narratives.
Think about what you have questions about. What are you concerned about? What are you most connected to? What do you love? What do you dislike? Like Socrates said, “examine yourself” and find out what your art is about. Then share those ideas with the world. There will be other human beings that connect with the work. They will find it important and meaningful. It may only be 10 people or it could be 10,000 people. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that it gave you meaning and significance.