Today is voting day in South Carolina.
As I voted I was reminded of an ongoing and highly emotional debate happening on Aesthetics-L. Some have argued that Thomas Kinkade’s work is art because a large group of people think of it as art.
What if we had art elections?
You could go into a small booth, flip through a booklet and poke a little pin through the hole marked Edward Hopper or Nick Bantok. This would make the work of the duly elected artist art and no one could argue against it.
Of course that would mean that, unlike the two page South Carolina butterfly ballot, there might be thousands of artists to check. That might be too difficult so maybe you could just vote for movements. You could vote a straight cubist ticket – or you could approve all the artists who call themselves deconstructionists. This would save a lot of time.
Still, you might like most neo-geo or minimalist paintings but you might not think much of their sculpture so perhaps you could also choose mediums. You could vote to allow all new-media installations into the artistic pantheon.
The difficulty comes when you look at the ballot and you see a lot of unfamiliar names like Yoshi Abe, Radu Aftenie, and Mark Beam. A few voters would carefully look up each artist , evaluate their work and message and they would make informed decisions about who should be considered and artist. Others would find someone whose opinion they trust to evaluate the artistic candidates for them. Most people would vote for the first guy on the list or whatever name they recognize. That’s the easiest way.
Some artists could get people to vote for them by using publicity to make their names familiar to the voters. Other artists who spend all their time working wouldn’t have the time and money to generate buzz so organizations of people who were sympathetic to their style could work for them. Of course previously recognized, incumbent artists would have an advantage over lesser known artists.
Artists whose message focused on serious problems in society would always be at a disadvantage. On the other hand, an artist who reinforced popular values would be a shoe-in for the artist position.
Why shouldn’t common people have the same say about what is or isn’t art as academics and theorists?
You tell me?
Maybe we should just skip Florida though.
(Jason now removes his tongue from his cheek)
Your voting analogy is interesting. In a sense the museums and galleries are the ones who declare what is or is not art. Most people will accept a work of art if it is in a museum.
Posted by: Drew at June 16, 2004 08:12 PMThere's still a lot of chatter about this on Aesthetic-L. The question is: who decides which works will be considered art. If you say "the experts" you are an elitist. If you say "general consensus" you are a populist. If you say "the artist" you're a subjectivist. Some people claim that the open market, or patron, or the culture, or...... You get the idea.
I don't think any one of these can be depended on as a reliable judge of art.
The interesting thing is that even those who believe that art has no definition still want some kind of authority to validate their choices.
Posted by: Jwaggone at June 17, 2004 08:10 AMUnfortunately, "Art Elections" would reflect general consensus, educated or not... hence what is "popular" would be elected as art and what might be insightful, reflective and very accomplished,, yet not collectively understood would in turn be rejected as "not art". But then, that kind of happens anyway, does it not.
I do not think the museums, per say, dictate what is popular (I hate that term) as much as what is reflected... primarily thorough critical analysis, usually by those that tend to over analyze... however, there are insightful curators that can get around that and actively seek the variety of voices/visions now dotting our world. This fluctuates greatly from region to region, naturally the established "MAJOR"p museums (i.e. MOMA, LACMA, Whitney, Walker, et. al.) greatly reflect what the current international markets dictate (A.K.A. $$$$$). Smaller regional museums tend to be more in tune with their community (A.K.A. the real world), and often reach out to a combination of successful regional art makers, artists gifted in the art of self-promotion, and occasional genuine gems found in the darndest of places. Well... at least that is how "I" think they should be operating.
Posted by: Allen at June 17, 2004 10:18 PM"Unfortunately, "Art Elections" would reflect general consensus, educated or not... "
I guess one of the problems with satire is that someone will take your statements at face value. It was my goal to point out the problem of this approach.
Without saying that only a select group of people should be allowed to make decisions about art, I do believe that the opinions of those people who have some expertise in the art field should be given more serious consideration than the opinions of people who don’t care enough about art to think about it.