I’ve been contemplating some of the propositions put forth by proponents of post-modern art for some time; those who suggest that humanity and art are changing radically. Yet until now, until the life I have lived and my engagement with making art (for over two thirds of my life) was referred to as my ‘making antique art,’ I have kept my thoughts to myself.

The implication of this statement is that painting and sculpture (indeed all forms of making visual art) is passe’, compared to what is being done by the young with computers and associated media (video, music, etc.)

This is a variation of the old argument that ‘painting is dead’ that has plagued the arts for ages (and with every advance in style and or technology).
But, dare I say, that these arguments are put forth by the young and their supporters (galleries, critics) with vested interest in advancing their concerns. There’s no denying that some elements of the arguments against established forms eventually prove valid; but the basic proposition that the established forms have become obsolete is a false one.

I am not sure that many artists I know bothered to read the essay that accompanied the exhibition of Kojo Griffin’s “Radical Evolution” work at Artspace (Raleigh, NC) in June 2006. I read it to inform myself about Mr. Griffin and what he intended by proclaiming some sort of radical evolution. It seemed to me that Mr. Griffin's work itself had nothing original or radical about it. (His work in fact fit neatly within all the options of contemporary post modernist art, without contributing anything new to this idiom.)

The essay written by Charles Huntley Nelson (and dated 15 May 2006) made this proposition to advance Mr. Griffin and a view of contemporary art:

“Our minds are accustomed to major shifts actually requiring them in order to maintain our ever decreasing attention spans…More and more artists are turning away from the formulaic repetition of a single work over a life time and turning inward to produce work that represents their changing ideas of art’s ability to Communicate.

I suspect that he misunderstands the creative process and the human conditions that prevail for the mature artist and the viewer alike. These are the existential conditions for the human aspirations for serenity, happiness and fulfillment in living individual lives.

The basic premise that artists engage in formulaic repetition of a single work is in practice wrong, excepting those minor artists who engage in making art works to serve as decoration. What Huntley and his ilk take as repetition willfully ignores the premise that artists are first and foremost individuals with just a few major concerns in their lives.

The work of art is actually a signature, that represents the artist at varying times throughout their careers. And the signature changes as the artist learns more about themselves and life, just as every human being does. What is it that concerns us as humans: becoming aware of who we are, what we believe, and how we relate to the world. Before we become artist, we must have some sense (or one might say, a revelation with art) that art is a meaningful human experience. With art as an experience that is formative to who we are, to our awareness of something other than just ourselves; and it is from this base that we may make the decision to become an artist.

Everyone aspires to be happy, to have companions, and believe there are certain ideas and truths essential to their lives so that there is a meaning to living as they do. These are the very innate concerns of the artist and the art they make. Each one of us from our late teens on has begun to identify their own truths and validity of ethical positions they claim. The essence of self identity, these truths and claims will be tested and modified over a lifetime.

For the creative artists, the ideas, truths and or subjects that engage them over and over are few. Over a career, these things are re-examined and visited a new with greater or deeper or altered understanding in separate works. It is this process that Huntley wrongly refers to as repetition, when it is often a process of exploration of personal and creative growth.

Huntley’s suggestion that artist like Mr. Griffin are turning inward to create works that represent their understanding of art’s ability to communicate…is valid, because this is what every creative artist does.
Yet he errs: first in the attribution to the young only; secondly in his assertion of what is expected of art today.

Using three points he takes from the author of “Radical Evolution,” Joel Garreau, almost as an epigram, Huntley makes the following statement about the future of art.

1) We are riding a curve of exponential change
2) This change is unprecedented in human history
3)It is transforming no less than human nature
Joel Garreau

“Today, living in what I like to refer to as the “future-present,” our sense of what makes something “old” has been shaped by our exposure to advances in technology. We expect the next thing now; 2.0 with our downloadable upgrades; systems with built in obsolescence in mind.”

Is it true, that with the advances in technology, that we expect the new (newest) now? Or that we will be happy with short term upgrades and built in obsolescence with everything in our lives including art?

As humans we can accept the changes in technology and even the built in obsolescence of technology; but we challenge any suggestion that life, our individual lives will change radically and that we are in any way to become obsolete. It is an axiom that past a certain a certain age rather than transience we seek and need a term of permanence: in that being human we will seek to establish meaningful careers, families of our own and will thrive on peaceful surrounds. Put another way; we come to value what we do, relationships and permanence over rapid change. And from art we want depth of perception and sense of purpose, a reflection of shared experience that enhances our lives rather than mere excitement. This is the only up-grade humans desire and make and for which there is no plan of obsolescence.

All work on this site © 2004 by Andrea Gomez, all rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, reproduction, republishing, posting or duplication of any of the material on the web site is prohibited without express written permission from Andrea Gomez. The artist reserves to herself all rights of reproduction and all copyright of her work.

Artsramble Archive