previously: constipation and fraternal death, reasons you will hate me, monologue for robots, another scar, the zen garden myth, man in a box, where the bloody hell are you?, comments, smile glue, eric fischl,

So, now twice it has been brought to my attention that I "have issues with my attitude to art." More specifically, my opinion that art is useless makes people wonder why I am pursuing art.

My knee-jerk response is "because I like useless things." Actually, I revere them, and while I don't think I'll ever shake my blue-collar sentiment that in any real sense art is useful to the degree that it can be used in self defense or as kindling, I do value art over most practically useful things in the world.

I remember reading in a National Geographic that the Egyptians built those monstrous pyramids because they believed that stuff had "power and utility in the after life in direct proportion to its uselessness in the real world." (Roberts, 1995)

Perhaps it is that notion of uselessness as a purity unsullied by the everyday grime of efficiency and purpose that I find so attractive in art. Plato's forms are perfect archetypes, yet only their imperfect derivatives have any real use here on earth. Without the pure, the tangible don't function. Yet without the tangible, we have no experience of the pure.

On an experiential level, I cherish the innane as ungraspable yet tangible. Now, I have come to accept that the nonsensical is not neccesarily the divine, and I hope that my love of art stems from more than a love of the innane, of the (god forbid) wacky.

So, why do I love art?

Because it:

So, there are a collection of attributes that art can sometimes achieve, and it is this set of attributes that define why I love art. Other things with these attributes also garner my love.

But this doesn't explain why I feel art is useless, or why I do not feel comfortable using an Art Object as an instrument of serious inquiry action. I think we have it there. I see the art object as a useful tool for inquiry, as well as a wonderfully useless and indefinable entity, but I do not see it as a tool for action. We can address serious issues with art objects, but we can't hope to do anything about them.

Hence, jackhammering 70% of a gallery to represent Nauru's destruction is beautiful and evocative and destructive and fun and ridiculous, but it still leaves Nauru soil-less. And while raising awareness is a vital goal for any action, I guess I see it as a desired side-effect rather than a project in and of itself. Whenever I had to chalk a project's results up to "awareness raising," I felt I was euphamising failure.

Which brings me to the crux of my insecurities about art and my current non-solution. I love the inane and ephemeral, but respect and need the tangible. I appease my blue-collar art sensibilities by creating art objects that are functional but useless. In this way, they are pure useless forms while still proving my worth through evidence of craft and skill. Hence, the useless hand-cranked wooden electron microscope, the useless cybernetic plant, the failed inventions of misunderstanding.

So, I have answered the question "why am I pursuing art when I believe the art object to be fundamentally useless" by saying "because I see uselessness as purity, and am too insecure about the value of the intagible to abandon the art object." Is this just protective self-effacement: I cannot fail because I have aimed to achieve nothing? Can I make an Art Object that is an action, or does purpose make it not-art?

In response, I have to say "I will make an Art Object as Action. I will destroy 70% of things I love." And quickly I counter, "Well, I won't destroy 70% of my guitar because it was Alyssa's, and I won't destroy 70% of my computer because I need it, and I won't destroy 70% of my woodworking because I love them too much, but I will destroy 70% of a gallery and 70% of a cereal box" and it will be graphic and obvious and impersonal and empty.

And there is the real answer, I guess. The Art Object is not necessarily useless as an action. I am just too scared to really commit to creating a useful one.

Well, that was a useful little conversation with myself. Now, back to purposefully useless busy-work...

comments:
in your list of why you love art, it seems like you take a very 'outside of it' perspective.

maurizio cattelan like many many other artists, says that he only makes work for himself. art can be therapy and it can take you to a place experientially that you haven't been before in your own consciousness. not as an experience in a gallery but as the maker. if you can make things that make you feel outside of your personality or who you are as a person, or even question if you actually are a person. that's good. or at least scary.

p
 
Wow. Yeah, I've never approached art-making like that. I'm pretty much stuck in my anticipation of other people's reception. Probably why I am never quite certain that I am an artist. Although I am curious how Cattelan can claim his public art is only for himself, I am definitely inspired by this idea of art-making as experience. Craft and process as experience I understand, but approaching the art with the goal that the creation of it be the experiencial end-goal -- not *thats* revolutionary for me.

I'll have to lodge that in my noggin for a while.
 
While a few works of art may ultimately be found to have some redeeming quality, my opinion is that most art is crap and most artists are incapable of producing anything else.
They are, however, great at deluding themselves into believing that their creations add any value to society. We would all be better off if they all got jobs at McDonald's, at least they would really be contributing to society. Then again, who wants to wait 20 minutes for a Big Mac while the "artist" contemplates the pretty swirls of mustard and ketchup, or new and creative ways to distribute pickle slices, or how it would really make a powerful statement if the bun were put on upside-down. Get a grip and just make my lunch quickly and efficiently, if you can, I've got real work to do.
 
Ohhhh, Jim: what strange fantasy image of an artist are you basing this ridiculous diatribe on? Agreed, artists can be clueless pompous gits, but as far as being incapable at producing anything else: I am an artist, and I can code websites and edit video and build a home out of wood or mud, and I could wire it up to, and I can build simple robots and I can dig deep holes and I can run faster than you and I can also write really pompous meaningless shit about what my art supposedly does for society.
 
art dont care about money
 
Post a Comment

previously: constipation and fraternal death, reasons you will hate me, monologue for robots, another scar, the zen garden myth, man in a box, where the bloody hell are you?, comments, smile glue, eric fischl,

Wednesday, April 05, 2006 many people prefer to use my rss feed or my podcast