I have toyed with the notion of having a blog for a while now, but only yesterday did i actually find something worth discussing online...namely Artbollocks, and how it pertains to the video industry.
If its a term you are not famiiar with let me explain....It refers to the way "artists" justify what they do by means of pretentious, overly complex and fanciful descriptions validating whatever creative decision they have finally chosen to take.
I was reminded of this just yesterday, when visiting a major exhibition of works by an internationally renowned (and for the sake of this blog - un-named) artist. I have long been a fan of his work, and i can honestly say that some of his newest installations (don't you just detest that description?) are spectacular, and i for one am really glad to have seen them. Unfortunately, however, even this person has succombed to the Artbollocks phenomenon. Its one i always used to atribute to the untalented desperately seeking adulation, but i now realise is a much bigger problem.
Amongst the works were many early pieces where the artist has been learning their craft, developing techniques and exploring possibilities. A noble pursuit, and one that should not require justification. But it was there...all the way through...everywhere you turned! A series of photos of the artist spitting was actually exploring the idea of expelling internal human energy (???). Does that mean when i brush my teeth and clear my throat on a morning, that i am being a creative artist? I think not.
There was another piece (which i admit to not having time to see) which according to the description was a glass window smeared cow manure, which although blocking the view forces the viewer to question the impact livestock farming has had on the landscape.....Bollocks!! Its cow shit smeared on glass. Full stop. If he wants to smear shit on glass and call it art, fine. Thats his perogative. But please don't try to justify it with political/moral/ethical subtexts and descriptive nonsense.
And that brings me to our industry - video production, which itself has various arty offshoots. How often have we made creative decisions purely because, in your experienced opinion, it was the right thing to do? It looked and felt right, so it must be right? - only to succomb to the temptation of Artbollocks when you present the finished piece to your client? You find yourself explaining how the effect you added works because it juxtaposes the existing material in such a way that the underlying message is being subconciously enhanced. I know i am occasionally guilty of such a crime.
I have come to the conclusion it is something that affects all creative types. A fear (however small or unfounded) of having their creativity brought into question, their integrity as an artist being doubted, or simply the self knowledge that what they have done is not really that good, causes Artbollocks to rear its ugly head and make us all look like pretentious fools pandering to the intellectual snobbery that seem to pervade every area of creative pursuit. In essence, its the creative trying to gain the acceptance of the untalented by forcing an un-natural explanation onto something that should be appreciated merely for its own merits.
I would be interested to hear anyone elses thoughts on this subject, or any particularly good examples of this artistic subgenre.
I'll post my own favourite later on...
adam
Digg it
i think it takes an awful
I think it takes an awful lot of pretention for some of us to think that our vision is worthy of a national or international audience. The difference between someone who gets work and not is often their confidence, narcissism, and/or delusion that THEIR interpretation is what the world needs to see...But that's the nature of the beast.
Edited to add...You mentioned "client". At that point you are out of the "fine art" zone and your job is usually to create some result. So the proof of the pudding then is, did you attract X amount of viewers or clicks-throughs? X $ of sales or advertising? No one wants your bullocks unless you did. Your job, in my opinion at that time is to get results set by your managing editor, producer, production coordinator, marketing department, etc. Not feed your ego. But, if you do get those results, you can write your name on it with purple ostrich piss and they'll frame it.
Curators?
I wonder, Adam, if the art analysis was written by a curator or the artist. I am sometimes astonished by the interpretations curators come up with. These would fall under the catagory of Artbullock. I went to a uninspiring retrospective of Ansel Adams' work at SF MOMA a few years ago. The curatorial analysis - putting words and thoughts into the artist's mouth and mind gave full meaning to Artbullock. It was especially apparent on one picture - Moonrise, Hernandez. Tucked away was a multimedia component of the exhibit. It contained a video of Ansel Adams himself describing the moment and tumult of capturing that image. The curator's artbullock of the same was a world apart from the experience of the artist.
Jackie - i agree that work
Jackie - i agree that work often goes to those who can shout most convincingly about themselves. Whereas most would rather the work spoke for itself, the loudest DO seem to get the plaudits whether or not its deserved.
You gotta wonder sometimes
You gotta wonder sometimes if certain segments of the artistic population have lost the ability to make meaningful art, so they just make up something in order to give it credence. And I also wonder - what makes art art? Is my 2 year old's scribblings considered art? She means something definite when she draws. Is something art just because it has many viewers? Is it funding? I don't know...I'm begininng to think the phrase "work of art" is a meaningless statement. Anything is art if we choose to designate it as such.
I believe it was Marcel
I believe it was Marcel Duschamp who said in 1917 that a Urinal (which he had mounted in a gallery) was Art, because he, the artist, said it was!
Art Bullocks and Criticism
Great post. It caused me to examine my use of critial language.
I've certainly been guilty in the past of propping up inadequate work with kind words, or of tearing down something that intimidated or frightened me.
However, trying to make sense of why something works or doesn't and putting those ideas into words, is an important part of my creative process.
Can critical analysis techniques be perverted into a form of marketing, masquerading as education? Yes.
Does this discount this language as a tool for improving our own work, and understanding others work? I don't think so.
Be well.
Tom Meegan
Creative Director
Woven Pixels Productions, LLC
www.wovenpixels.com
Hi Tom, language is a
Hi Tom, language is a fascinating tool regardless of where its used. My personal gripe is when its perverted simply to infer a level of perceived (and usually false) intellectual achievement. I prefer straight talking honesty any day.
I've been a victim, too ...
Having recently graduated from art school (technically, a Fine Arts degree from a liberal arts school), I was subjected to infinite piles of crap (some of it I had made) from the current educational system. What I noticed was that a lot of people expect this "Is this art or not?" stuff from artists as a form of self-expression. From what I've heard, the curators of the modern art museums go through phases of what they think is going to be the next great phase in art (like expressionism and pop art were).
What's really sad though is when you have a Master's in Fine Arts candidate glue a bunch of pieces of pink foam insulation together and attack it with a chainsaw for his annual show. According to his extremely long-winded "Artist's Statement", the piece was commenting on how landfills are changing our environment and there's nothing we can do to stop it ... blah, blah, blah. It took the guy almost two pages of single spaced type to explain his intent on the three works he had on display. This was supposed to be a "look what I've been working on for the last year" show, but he didn't really have anything to show for it. Personally, I truly disliked the guy, but I digress.
This individual was also one of my drawing teachers. He was big on people trying to pull as many references to society, history, culture, and art movements during critiques. When you have 15 people trying to critique everybody else's work in 2 1/2 hours, there isn't much time to spend debating on whether an 18 year old, fresh out of high school, actually knows what it feels like to be trapped in a car underwater and compare it's relevance to the Sistine Chapel. I call that technique "getting art-philosophical." Most of the time, the person who made the work wasn't allowed to make any comments beforehand on the work; it was up to the viewers to come up with their own interpretation.
When viewing anything claiming to be artistic, I prefer to judge it on a cool factor. I hate shopping. Going to an art gallery or museum is just like shopping: you wander around and look for something you like and hope you find it. The Art Institute in Chicago wore me out the most; it's comparable to the Mall of America, but with more stuff. If something (in my opinion) is cool, I'll look at it a bit more than something I think is lame. There is that occasional piece that catches my eye for some reason and will force me to examine it for an extended period of time for me to figure out what is so interesting.
Don't worry, this is getting somewhere ...
In the current Western culture that most members of the COW are a part of, we are surrounded by art, to some degree, on a daily basis. Signs, logos, cars, chairs, televisions, DVD menus ... all have somebody behind the scenes whose job it is to get the most people to like it, which is through aesthetics. There is only a small percentage of people that truly admire modern art. There are a lot more that can appreciate it. But, if modern art, somehow, sets the trend for the way things will be in the future, I should see more Jackson Pollock-inspired paint jobs on the newest supercars that only James Bond can afford to drive.
Thanks to wonderful products like iMovie and Windows Movie Maker and services like YouTube, it's easier than ever for anybody to try to be the next Spielberg and have people actually see it. However, you can only make the next David out of a chunk of granite with a crowbar to a certain level. Yeah, it has the overall form, but it's missing something.
That's where the true artists actually shine. They know that it's an impressive feat to whack away at a block of granite for weeks on end with a crowbar and have it resemble something. But, they also know that if they had a good mallet and good set of chisels, they could make it better. A really good artist knows when to pull out the jack hammer and Dremel tool and just claim it was all done by hand.
As far as the notion of "if you have clients, then it's not really your own art" statement made earlier, just remember that almost no art before the Renaissance was made that wasn't on commission. If the client asks how you did it, say it was by hand as you cleverly kick the Dremel back into your bag.
Lastly, if your two year old drew you a picture and you hang it on the refridgerator door for all to see, it's art (somebody made it and it's displayed to the public). It might not be MOMA quality, but the worst thing you could do is to throw it away.
good points well made.
good points well made. Thanks Sterling.