Comparing Internet Art to Art Since 1960

Now that I’m in school mode again I’ve been studying up on my art history. I’ve gone back to basics, returning to the Thames & Hudson “World of Art” series to try and get a broader understanding of recent art practices. I really like the no nonsense format of these Thames & Hudson books; the short length and survey style tends to reel in the art theory hyperbole and get to the point. For example, Michael Archer’s one paragraph sum-up (no diagrams!) of Rosalind Krauss’s “Sculpture in the Expanded Field” on pgs. 96 - 97 of Art Since 1960 is breathtaking. Way to go, dude!

In Art Since 1960 this brevity keeps things moving and gives the reader a real sense of progression through a period of art history usually viewed as hopelessly complicated. Personally, I found it really refreshing to get a linear narrative of recent art, without all the “end of history/postmodernism” talk that usually muddies the waters of contemporary art history. I mean, a pretty convincing linear narrative can be constructed from the past 40 years of art making. For instance, although Sherrie Levine’s photos might signal the theoretical “death of originality,” her work wouldn’t have been possible without the photo/text conceptualism of the 70’s. Like, although history or our experience of reality isn’t objective, the (North American/European) art world’s characterizations of “art” have unfolded in a well-documented and somewhat coherent manner, right? Blasphemy!!!

Anyways, in my reading I also went through Rachel Greene’s Internet Art, a survey of the past 15 years of online creativity. It’s pretty good, although kinda pretentious. Like where Art Since 1960 covered 40 years of massive change in 200 or so pages, Internet Art covers its 15 years in the same space. This creates some awkward equivalencies between the two texts, like when you compare (the excellent) Alighiero e Boetti’s name check in Art Since 1960 to the pages upon pages devoted to net artist Heath Bunting or the similar amounts of space devoted to Michael Fried’s brilliant “Art and Objecthood” and Wayne Bremser’s jokey essay on the similarities between Cremaster 3 and the video game Donkey Kong. These discrepancies might point towards a lack of critical perspective in Greene’s text, the “emerging” nature of internet art and its short list of quality work and criticism, and/or a need to fill out this Thames & Hudson book to the standard length. Whatever the reason, the brevity and clear trajectory achieved by Archer in Art Since 1960 is not present in Internet Art.

Nevertheless, Internet Art is an interesting read and made me see my usual concerns (What’s art? What’s innovative?) in a new light. Like, although there is no question that many of the projects in Internet Art are innovative, I took issue with people classifying some of these works as art. For example, in the last chapter entitled “Art for Networks” Greene outlines several works which are freely distributed visual maps documenting relationships between powerful institutions (financial, religious, political, etc.). Greene (via Brian Holmes) classifies the projects as art because they anticipate the eventual dismantling of these relationships through activism and “tactical media” (181-182). In this case, Greene assumes viewers will use the maps for the “good” (i.e. the destruction of capitalism) even though this information is also now available to more conservative concerns including the target institutions themselves (who are, no doubt, also online). I don’t want to get into an argument about the paradoxes of political activism here, but I do think that when work is classified as art its form better live up to its stated intentions.

And why do we have drag “art” into this argument anyway? I have no problem calling this work interesting and exciting activism, “tactical media,” whatever, but it doesn’t seem like art to me. Maybe it’s a readymade, but that’s the best I’ve got. I mean, why don’t the "artists" call this stuff political activism? Why consign it to the nebulous and politically neutered realm of “energy potential[s]” and “signs pointing to a territory that cannot yet be fully signified” (182)?

I’d track this misunderstanding back to online art’s (mis)reading of artists like Hans Haake and Marcel Duchamp, but whatever. I suspect it also has something to do with the money and institutionalized separation the art world bestows (“I can be pretty abnormal without having to isolatedly receive society’s contempt or punishments.” – Lucas Samaras), but whatever. In the end, I think my rejection of “art” works like these is due to my hesitation to jettison names like Picasso, DeKooning, and Nauman (all absent from Internet Art’s index) from our understanding of contemporary art. But, let’s face it, when Thames & Hudson says it’s art, it’s art. So, face your destiny and read these books. Like I said, they’re pretty good.

Art In The News: Picasso Ownership Dispute

Julius Schoeps, a descendant of a former owner of a Picasso painting, recently sued to recover the canvas. The painting, ' Portrait of Angel Fernandes de Sota' was scheduled to be auctioned Wednesday. The lawsuit prompted Christie's officials to withdraw it from sale.

The painting, valued at more that 60 million dollars, was publicly withdrawn from the auction by Christie's and the Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber Art Foundation (Current owner of the painting) during a joint decision. However, a court decision may grant the auction of the painting if Schoeps suit is denied.

Julius Schoeps filed the lawsuit Wednesday in Manhattan's state Supreme Court. Mr. Schoeps claimed that his ancestor, a wealthy banker, was intimidated by members of the Nazi party and forced to sell the prized painting in the 1930s. Schoep demands ownership of the painting or compensation of $60 million from the Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber Art Foundation.

The Andrew Lloyd Webber Art Foundation had hoped to auction the painting (Which has been on the art market for 50 years.) in order to finance actors' scholarships and other theatrical endeavors. It seems that they may not be able to sell the painting anytime soon. There will certainly be further legal hassles over the ownership of this painting.

Does Wealth and Fame Cause Artists To Decline in Their Artistic Endeavors?

We have all heard stories about famous artists who struggled in poverty yet continued to create art that was outstanding. Names like Vincent Van Gogh and Amedeo Modigliani come to mind. Art spanning the length of their careers has continued to inspire others decade after decade. However, there are also famous artists who became very wealthy during their lifetime from the sell of their art who seem to have lost their artistic flare for exploration. While their wealth increased their skill seemed to deteriorate. The question at hand... did their approach to artistic creation decline as their fame and wealth increased? Or is it just an issue of their personality and work ethic.


'Apparition of the Visage of Aphrodite of Cnide in a Landscape' Salvador Dali

Take Salvador Dali for example. During his years of 'struggle' he created images that have continued to speak to observers from one decade to the next. He had a great passion for his work during his early career. However, most critics agree that his later work, after he became extremely wealthy and concerned with financial gain, seemed to decline as far as the artistic message he was conveying. I've even heard people suggest that his work became stagnate or dull compared to his pre-wealth art. If this is so, do you think it was due to him feeling overly comfortable with his financial situation? Or was it simply a matter of personality and work ethic.


'Two Doves with Wings Spread' Pablo Picasso

After all, artist like Picasso continued to develop in new directions long after becoming overly wealthy. The same goes for Monet. Were these artists more interested in artistic exploration than artists who seemed to pursue wealth over the direction of their art? Or were they simply not blinded by the wealth they had acquired?


'Hymn' Damien Hirst

I'm sure you can discover contemporary artists of wealthy status who have started to repeat themselves or who have revealed a lack of direction with their art. For example many have stated that Damien Hirst has lost direction with his art (Though some would say he never had one.) Critics have claimed that his recent work is nothing more than 'throwaway one-liners'. So what do you think? Is wealth linked to a decline in artistic endeavors? Or is all this negative press simply the work of critics who strive to bash any wealthy artist they can in order to advance their own careers?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art In The News: Picasso Poked... or Rude Awakening

Picasso's 'The Dream' was rudely awakened when current owner, Las Vegas casino magnate Steve Wynn, accidently gave the multimillion dollar painting an elbow. Mr. Wynn was preparing the painting for a $139 million sale to another collector when he accidently hit the painting.

The damage occurred when Mr. Wynn backed his elbow into 'The Dream' while showing his collection to a group of friends. The force of the blow left a hole in the middle of the painting.

Needless to say, Mr. Wynn backed out of the sale agreement with the other collector. How is that for a sleepless night?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin