Symptomatic Non-Art
by Robert C. Morgan
I was having lunch the other day with another critic whom I highly respect in one of West Chelsea’s 10th Avenue restaurants when the topic of conversation suddenly turned to what is "hot" in the market today. He cited the work of Jeff Koons who is known for his highly superficial, cynically detached paintings and related ephemera–produced en masse in editions by first-rate craftsmen–and exclaimed: "I used to think he was a bad artist, but now after the events of 9/11, I’ve decided he is good."
"Why?" I retorted in amazement.
"Because he captures the superficial aspect of things in our time!" he said.
It occurred to me that this is indeed a prevalent belief: because an artist mirrors or echoes the times that the work is automatically assumed to be "good."
I considered the following: Isn’t this what cultural anthropology is about? Visual research shows us what is symptomatic of a particular culture at a particular moment in history.
Another, even more preposterous idea occurred to me–that perhaps most of what was being promoted, bartered, and sold on the market today as "contemporary art" was not really art at all. It was a new form of cultural anthropology or, let’s call it, visual anthropology.
Since the rise of the market in contemporary art a quarter of a century ago, certain kinds of art began to function primarily in terms of their commodity value under the rubric of being "conceptual." These images, objects, and events were fueled through the market-driven necessity of advertising and promotion. In such an environment, criticism was hardly the issue. It simply didn’t matter. What mattered was how the artist’s work was driven, not whether it was significant. This was not true of all art, but it was true of much of the work that posed as art in order to appeal to a market.
Most marketing is based on trends, and the removal of the personal aspect of art in favor of the detached image accelerates the market into overdrive.
Now that this market is in a hiatus (not necessarily a decline), perhaps it is best to reflect on what art is trying to do. Is it merely a matter of miming what we already know through commercial media and fashion, or it is a more about how we feel and understand ourselves in the world as human beings?
If we choose the latter, art has no competitio, but itself. But if we are willing to settle for the notion that art is merely a mirror of reality, then art will surely lose. Why? Because commercial media and fashion will always prove greater and more efficient. The seduction of the commonplace is ultimately greater than the kind of art that signifies a purpose beyond the infinite boredom of the repeatable present. What the alternative to the present looks like is impossible to say–but somewhere it exists. I see it regularly as I travel to artists’ studios throughout the world.
Put another way, what is symptomatic of one’s time is not always significant.
