On art.blogging.la there is a text about how to make art more accessible to the general public. I specifically like the great discussion below the post.
One issue is being sort of left out - and it shouldn't. The psychology of the art world. I think it could go as far back as the impressionists (so, the beginning of what some call "modernism"). It goes something along these lines: the artists create works that the general public refuses to accept. Since other artists create similar works, they encourage each other. What is being created is a "Us vs. Them" situation. We know the truth, we see it, and they are too short-sighted to understand it. This attitude translates to an even stronger rejection, and then a total ignoring, on the part of the public. As for the people supposed to make the connection between the art and the public - the critics, the owners, museums, they opt for one side. They either stick with the artists and justify them (some more, some less), or they agree with the non-specialized public, and move closer to "entertainment". In the latter case, they refuse to accept the "new", radical art, and demand "accessible" art. There is only scarce dialogue between the two camps: as ever so often, the negotiators are seen as traitors. And we're left with an art world where it's extremely difficult to justify a work of art in front of both milieus. It seems as if all the "elite" are afraid to be considered as traitors, entertainers, low artists. That's why a simple gesture like Banksy's can be seen with so much sympathy - it challenges this division. It says: look, I'm also an artist. Remember the Little People. Smile. Say a joke. Play with me. Stop being so goddamn high-fetched and isolated. Or you'll bore us all to death.
PS: How to engage the general public? How about: think about them. Don't think you're oh-so-good you only need to think about your work, your art, your idea. Make at least one work your parents would like. (Or your children. Or anyone that couldn't possibly make it.)
2 comments:
The problem is interesting and similar problems occur in all fields of art.
The reason the division occurs makes sense. Museums are interested in gaining more visitors so to some degree they have to try to appeal to the masses. Many people believe that appealing to the masses means dumbing down and resorting to pure entertainment.
The same thing occurs in music. Major record labels prefer to stick with the safe formula over innovation because they know they can attract those interested only in the entertainment value. Meanwhile there are the various indie and underground movements that reject anything mainstream whether it has artistic merit or not because they feel art should be made purely for the artist and not made to appeal to the fans. Granted few of the artists actually follow this philosophy, but many preach it.
Movie producers (and theatres) and publishers do the same thing and there is always a counter philosophy to try and block it.
I think that it is something that is caused by the combination of capitalism and art. When art becomes a way to make a living one has to make something that will appeal to a wide enough audience. When people take this to extremes you get terrible cliché formulaic art. People see the extremes and reject art as a business completely and instead attempt their "art for the sake of art" and often it creates decent art but it can also lead to artwork that is completely unapproachable.
As in most philosophies there is an ideal middle ground, and most people refuse to see it. Those who do, get less attention because they are dwarfed by the radicals on both sides.
Thank you all for such interesting input!
I really like the different points of view (and yours, josephus, seems slightly different than brandon's).
Fred, I also had this problem with art.blogging.la - the comments are suspended there probably because of unpleasant remarks someone made (not the first time, I imagine) to one of the posts. This "General Public" issue is really a hot potato - it's not easy dealing with and "the middle ground" sounds more like a dream, or a post factum (post mortem?) judgement more than a possible criterion... Then again, the middle ground for Aristotle was not an in-between, but rather - the right thing to do, the reasonable action. In that sense, we all certainly should try.
(Oh, and Fred! I'm making a work about Ukrainians here in Lisbon!)
Post a Comment