Much as I hate “tribes” or theory based around tribalism, regionalism or globalism, it is interesting to think that a more wholistic or systemic model is finally starting to trickle into the chatter of grand narratives. Totalizing though they may be, making sense of disparate developments, parallel discoveries and affectations is a daunting task for one person.
I propose an epidemiological model for art history - where opposing camps can contrast their “disease” with competing models. The overlapping territorial pissing could be mapped in subtractive color at the museum, thus giving the lay audience a more accurate picture of how a museum collection is affected by ideologies such as capitalism, marxism nihilism and hedonism.
You know I know, you know.
Re: The Now Museum. This is how it will happen, there will be an artist that will come from the internet with a following, with an education, and who’s art speaks the truth that he or she has found. It will resonate, connect and expand ones sense of possibilities. The audience will see this work long before the museum does. The Museums and Galleries will seek this artist, not the other way around. The owners of this art will purchase the art directly from this artist. Far-fetched? Consider this: The Internet is changing how people experience art. The way an artist shows his or her work is changing. The way people buy art is changing. The way an artist sells his work is changing.
The way an artist gains exposure to the “global now” has already changed. When I say the “global now” I mean contemporary artists can see other artists work from all over the world, real time-right now. In a previous life one had to go to New York, or Paris. Not so anymore. Great art is being produced all over the world. Right now, in real time. The Museum/Gallery model would do well to look at the music industries demise. See the Starfish and the Spider. www.starfishandspider.com/
Although Ms. Siegel review of The “Now” Museum" conference imparts a fairly opinionated and concise summary, I must take her to task for her tabloid journalism introduction. Not only does it seek to grab any reader for reading's sake, it provides a discomfiting sense of involvement with the conference's clear essay in working at the edge of art history. Although Ms. Siegel well makes up for this as her text continues, I can't help but wonder what the NYC and the extended art world chirped about this morning after seeing her piece in Scene and Heard. For anyone who wasn't there, reading Ms. Siegel's silly documentation of actually harmless extra-curricular side notes establishes the conference as nothing other than an excuse for contemporary art historians to get together to have a chat in front of a guaranteed audience.
As for invoking the canon of 1960s Western art, criticism and theory, while I am among the first people to look for pithy examples outside of the canon (as an aspiring academic in the Art History Ph.D. program at the Graduate Center, like any young scholar I require novel works to consider / reconsider vis-a-vis established scholarship), stating that the avant-garde art historian present at the conference was simply reciting litany undermines any thought for new contemporary art practice. Isn't it standard practice to foreground an argument with evidence and practice that is recognized with consensus? Quite unlike Ms. Siegel's introduction.
From above: “...nothing other than an excuse for contemporary art historians to get together to have a chat in front of a guaranteed audience.”
What is wrong with being nothing other than? Also, if it isn't, then what is it? Presumeably reading is more efficient than panel discussions with long suffering audineces (who may be as qualified as the panelists on many of the topics covered)
It is interesting that art historians don't have a clue as to what is going on in the cities (with highest density of contemporary cultural collaboration), instead relying on second hand accounts, inference and conjecture.
How many art historians do as the ethnobotanists do? No, I'm more inclined to trust my peers than some cannon obsessed academic. The cultural currency of those canonized waxes and wanes, and with each tide we see new flotsam and jetsom - surely these artifacts are as valuable as established known knowns?
Also, reiterating past orthodoxies does not make you smart, it makes you a sheep. Even when you are right, you may still be wrong wrong wrong.
Sounds like a real drag. Glad I couldn't go.
But Katy's right to indicate in her opening how trivial the whole pursuit has become for the panel of pundits. They're all just going through the motions, notching up another 'paper', monopolizing the discourse, denying the wolf pack at the gates.
I can't wait for more museums to go broke, for their huckster administrations to be revealed as philistines drunk on privilege, ripe for deportation.
I can't wait for more academics to be turned out on the street, reduced to busking with old Doobie Brothers tapes.
To John's “The Now Museum” post aboveThe Internet will serve to enhance art sales and hopefully drive more traffic to the museums as well!
It is a forward development that artist's work can be glimpsed online to get a flavor and feel for style and expression. Some may feel comfortable actually purchasing online, others may want to see the work first hand, whatever the case, the internet joins us all and can be used to showcase artists just starting out or those with expansive collections/bodies of work. www.buildbackusa.com