 |
IMAGES | REVIEWS | WRITINGS | RÉSUMÉ | CONTACT |
WRITINGS
|
|||
|
|
If you’re flying solo on a friday night, attending a panel discussion on art is not the activity of first choice. Especially, if you’re looking to expand your mind. Nevertheless a dose of corruption and mediocrity can be utilized as a springboard for finer thoughts. I’m talking about the ole ricochet effect. Something corrupt provides us with a clearer understanding of something uncorrupt and vice versa. In light of this reasoning, let’s gripe about the panel discussion sponsored by Phaidon Press and The Fine Arts Department of Parsons School of Design entitled, "Vitamin P: New Perspectives in Painting." For the record, our panel of esteemed professionals consisted of moderator, Nancy Spector, curator of Contemporary Art at the Guggenheim Museum, two painters, Brian Alfred of Max Protetch Gallery and James Siena of Gorney, Bravin and Lee, curator, Dominic Molon of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, and art historian and critic, Katy Siegel of Hunter College and Art Forum magazine. As soon as the auditorium gathered a decent crowd and the dealers, artists, and collectors finished their rounds of ignoring the unknowns and networking with the knowns, our moderator for the evening, Nancy Spector, set the mood with a lovely monotone voice bursting with passion. It was explained that the "P" in Vitamin P stands for painting. We, the audience, quickly put on our zombie faces and prepared to zone out. Thank God, the painters were invited to speak first before the anointed intellectuals had a hand at striking us dead. The angels of interest ferried their way back into our brains. First off we had Brian Alfred, an artistic combination of media imagery and imagination all taped up into one. What was most endearing, and I dare say important, was Alfred’s predilection for the word "connection" peppered throughout his presentation, repeatedly, like a chant. His was a seeking of unity, a looking for coherence in the unrelated, a searching for relevance in the midst of discordance. Somewhere there, right there, where two positions meet is where painting existed for him. Alfred told us he wanted to bring it all together and make a connection. Next we were blessed with the presence of James Siena. Jay Gorney puffed up, proud as hell. As he ought to have been. Siena was a true blue. The primary system involving this painter’s mind was to meld the stroke of the hand with the desire to unscramble a riddle. And we’re not talking about just any riddle, mind you, more like The Riddle. Whatever that may be. His was a pathway in which to revel in the pleasure of paint and to absorb the complexity of a puzzle. To find the point at which visual overload and high density concentration are one. To connect the "hooks," as he said. It’s amazing how many different paths, by so many different artists, from so many different lands, attitudes and perceptions relate. Relate big time. Once again we encountered a case in point here with Alfred and Siena, both of whom, although separate entities, experienced similar drives. In the book Why Duchamp, Henry Martin wrote, "Art is an entirely mysterious way in which some people manage to find themselves in much the same place at much the same time, which is less a definition of communication than of communion." That sounds about right and answers the question, in a nutshell, as to what’s up with painting today. The same as what was up with painting yesterday. The search for connections, communions, the places that balance between them, the places of self navigation, and the mystery of it all. Styles change, as they should, but the core impulses remain the same regardless of the mediums or the stages in history. Really, the primary question we should be asking is not so much what is painting today but how can we do it better? Scratch the needle across the record of singing monks, because after the artist’s presentations the panelists representing the roles of curator, historian and critic succumbed to Beelzebub brain fever. What remaining free spirit was left wafting around in the auditorium was sucked out into the atmosphere of 12th street. The young man in front of me made a hand gesture signifying, "blah, blah, blah" to the gentleman next to him. One could hardly disagree. However, besides the bland points made about why painting continues even when it has been pronounced dead and alive several times, two startling (or not so startling) comments were made without so much as a peep of protest from anyone. Our historian and critic, Katy Siegel, stated that painters paint to escape. Let me say that again, painters paint to escape. Escape? Heavens! If this is so, then let’s all go buy cameras and shoot ourselves to death because painting must indeed be a dead endeavor. Furthermore, she explained, painters use painting as a way to get away from technology. Technology, big evil technology. Hideth us, Oh Redeemer, sendeth down our paint sets. Verily, verily, artists spend their entire lives looking at the world, concentrating on ideas, seeking to translate and even honor them for the sole purpose of hiding out. Hellfire, if this is true then the saying that painters are dumb is correct because drugs could achieve this goal better than paint. Alas, let it be said loudly, the majority of painters are not dumb. A predominate number of historians, curators and critics, however, can be. Had we not heard plainly Mr. Alfred and Mr. Siena describe their practice of painting as a desire to connect? And did not Mr. Alfred use "technology" as a means to his ends? Siena said if technological advances could assist him he would gladly make use of them. This does not sound like denial. In fact, it doesn’t sound like an issue at all. Technology in art is a medium not a philosophy. Science does not discount intuition or the random exactitude of the hand. Perhaps, art and science may argue but it doesn’t necessarily follow that they attempt to escape from one another. Nothing in the artist’s discussion remotely hinted at a desire to escape the world and its multitude of problems and they certainly didn’t exhibit any fearful paranoia of cameras or computers. On the contrary the vocabulary they used pointed to quite the opposite. As painters, they were all about confronting new quandaries, new mediums, new puzzles not running away from them. They were solution oriented. The second brilliant point expressed was just as perceptive. The reason abstraction is less frequently addressed by curators and critics today is because abstraction is too hard to put into words. Too hard? Oh, now that’s a good reason to stay away from abstraction. Digging themselves further into a ditch, it was said that abstraction is too hard to deal with because there’s no narrative involved. Help me Jesus, what have we come to? Isn’t a narrative painting, or video for that matter, made up of the same aesthetic principles as abstraction? Yes, indeedy they are. So, what’s the problem? If our scholars cannot verbalize on the significance of the aesthetic realms of abstraction then they cannot do so for representational modes either. When Dominic Molon was asked if the reason for the avoidance of abstraction among his colleagues might possibly be intellectual laziness the reply was no. Molon said curators have other agendas they would rather fulfill. Other agendas that are easier? Or other agendas having to do with preserving their jobs? Other agendas like being radars for the hip and entertaining? I don’t know but the whole thing pisses me off. The art world is looking more and more like a distorted church full of good intentions and more hypocrisies. I think the curators should start wearing robes. Closing the meeting, Spector sternly invited questions from the audience but prohibited comments as an option. The implication being that to have a comment, even a short-winded one, was to be rude. And there mustn’t be any rudeness (free thought) during the service. And no talking out of turn. There were no opportunities for disagreement because that would be too threatening. Why? Because there were careers to consider. People to make nice to. Powers to maintain. A woman nearby me said to her companion, "They just did this to sell books." Oh, I forgot to tell you. The reason for the panel discussion wasn’t solely to discuss issues of painting today but to advertise the launching of Phaidon Press’s new book, Vitamin P: New Perspectives in Painting. On the promotional card it said, "Vitamin P ...combines visual stimulation with vital information in one dose that is easily absorbed and utilized." Hallelujah, painting made easy for only $69.95, now that’s scholarship!
Jennifer Reeves, NY Arts Magazine, December 2002
|
