Art Space News: Censorship? Pornography?... You Make the Call

A photograph from a controversial art collection owned by Sir Elton John has been seized by police in a child porn inquiry. Sir Elton's website declared that he owned the controversial piece and that it was on loan to a gallery. The photograph was seized by detectives the day before an exhibition of the musician's private collection was due to go on public display at the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead, Northern England. The rest of his collection was displayed as planned. Ironically, the photograph was reported to police by the management of the Baltic.

The Baltic management has declined to comment since reporting the photograph-- aside from a spokeswoman who stated, "We are working alongside the police and are not in a position to comment further". A spokesman for Northumbria Police said: "We attended the Baltic last Thursday at the invitation of management who were seeking advice about an item from an exhibition prior to it going on public display. This item is being assessed and Northumbria Police in consultation with the CPS are investigating the circumstances surrounding it".

The photograph, entitled Klara And Edda Belly-Dancing, depicts an image of two naked young girls and was taken by controversial American photographer Nan Goldin. The girls in the photo are laughing and playing-- one is on her back with her knees bent under her and the other is wrapped in fabric. Police and Crown Prosecution Service lawyers must decide whether the image owned by Sir Elton is pornography or art. It is now being examined by Northumbria Police to see if it breaches UK pornography legislation.

Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing, which was purchased by Sir Elton from the White Cube gallery in London in 1999, is one of 149 images that comprise Goldin's Thanksgiving Installation. The collection is said to document Goldin's life between 1973 and 1999. It has been widely published and has been exhibited throughout the world. In the past the photograph has been offered for sale at Sotheby's New York. Based on what I've read there have never been any objections to the photograph in the past-- even when it was exhibited in London.

Insiders have stated that the Northumbria Police are focusing on who may have been involved in the production of the image-- which would include Nan Goldin and anyone involved in the images development-- and anyone who has previously owned or displayed the photograph as a part of their investigation. Others have stated that the police are focusing on Goldin's past heroin addiction and the fact that her work has been involved in past child-porn inquiries.

What do you think about this case? Should all artists feel threatened by this censorship? Is this just a sign of our times? Is it justice? Should Sir Elton John, Nan Goldin, White Cube gallery, Sotheby's and any other individual or organization that has possessed Klara and Edda Belly-Dancing-- either the photograph itself or a reproduction-- be held responsible if it is deemed to be child pornography? Will this charge hold up if it is brought to court? Is Nan Goldin an artist or a criminal? Is Elton a collector or a criminal? Did the management of the Baltic stab the artworld in the back? Do fine art photographs like this one give pedophiles an excuse for having child pornography? Could this be a form of publicity stunt? Discuss.

Art Space News: Will Mass MoCA Display Installation Without Consent?

A part of an installation is hoisted into a warehouse for a Christoph Büchel exhibit-- but is it really a show of his work?

A Federal Court judge has ruled that the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art can display materials assembled for Christoph Büchel's unfinished 'Training Ground for Democracy' installation. U.S. District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor issued his ruling following a hearing on motions filed by both Christoph Büchel and Mass MoCA. In granting Mass MoCA's motion to allow the museum to display the installation, Ponsor also denied Büchel's motion to prevent the piece from being displayed in the museum's football-field size Gallery 5 (one of the largest gallery spaces in the United States). Ponsor's decision was due to the amount of space needed for 'Training Ground for Democracy' to be adequately displayed.

Büchel's design for 'Training Ground for Democracy' was indeed large-- both in size and cost. The installation, which cost the museum over $160,000 to assemble, is based on a mock village used for U.S. military training. Staff members were to obtain the items Büchel needed for his design. His list of required items included a leaflet-bomb carousel, a two-story Cape Cod cottage, an old bar from a tavern, a vintage movie theater and various "banged-up" vehicles. The artist had requested nine full-size shipping containers and had planned to design a re-creation of Saddam Hussein's hiding place-- commonly referred to as the 'spider hole'. However, Büchel's plans were scrapped due to disputes with the museum in January.

By the end of January, well past the scheduled Dec. 16 opening of the exhibit, Büchel departed from the project-- which resulted in several negative exchanges between the artist and museum officials. Büchel claimed that the incident has damaged his reputation and refused to have his name associated with the unfinished project because museum workers had continued to work on the installation without him -- the museum argued that it has a responsibility to deliver a show to the public and that its reputation is on the line as well. Both parties ended up in court over the issue and critics have stated that the ruling, which favored the museum, is a blow to artists’ rights in general.

During the case Büchel accused the museum of un-professionalism and went on to state that the museum had interfered with his work and had wasted his time. The museum claims that Büchel agreed to a $160,000 budget and that the project had cost more than twice that by the time Büchel had left the project. However, Büchel claims that an amount was never agreed upon and that the installation should not carry his name or be displayed in public since he did not oversee its completion. The court ruled that Büchel's work was not protected under the (VARA) law and that the museum can display the installation as long as they mention that it is not complete.

Many artists, art critics, and art advocates have proclaimed that the museums actions are not in the best interest for art as a whole (which conflicts with the museums mission statement). The debate has opened the door for discussions on ethics in the art-world since Büchel is being forced to exhibit work that he does not consider finished or acceptable for public viewing. There is strong concern that this case will allow future works to be shown without consent and that the ruling has created a loop-hole in laws that have been created to protect artists and their work.

In my opinion the financial loss the museum endured was a poor business expense on their part. I don't feel that Christoph Büchel should be punished since there obviously was not a clear contract involved with the work situation. This case has made a villain out of the artist, but I would think that the museum is in the wrong as well since they should have made things more clear. It is crazy to throw that kind of money around without a contract. It appears that the project was flawed from the start.

Büchel conceived 'Training Ground for Democracy' and oversaw the installations construction until his departure in January. The key word is 'departure'-- Büchel left the project! So how can this piece be considered his work? Especially if he does not want his name associated with it? Is it his fault that the museum threw money at him left and right and that they tried to force him into deadlines? The fact that the museum lost thousands over this project does not matter to me... the fact that an artist has been forced to put his name on something that he does not see as finished does! Both sides should have cut their losses and moved on.

I'm not the only one annoyed by this ruling. Many people feel that the museum has broken trust with the artist, the viewing public, and art in general. There are real fears that this case could lead to more troubles for artists and exhibit spaces in the future. What do you think? Was the ruling fair? Should Büchel accept it and move on? Would you be OK with your art being exhibited unfinished? Is this a blow to artists’ rights in general? Do you think Mass MoCA should go on with the show? Discuss.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: Naomi Kasumi's MEM: Memory Memorial

Photo by Punchlist Design

Two parts of Naomi Kasumi's MEM: memory memorial installation series are on display at the Simmons Visual Arts Center at Brenau University. The exhibit deals with the artist's experience with having an abortion. "I know I am not alone in dealing with this experience", proclaimed the Seattle based Kasumi-- recalling the procedure and psychological aftermath.

Kasumi has stated that the creation of art is like a cathartic ritual experience. The Japanese-born installation artist stated that her process of grieving and healing began nine years ago after she, as a young college student, chose to abort a pregnancy-- "Coming from Japan, I have a different cultural background and perspective. Abortions are considered taboo and such events must be kept secret. Through my art, I found that I could share my concealed emotions and personal experiences in public. Sharing the truth of my experience with others..." Kasumi explained.

One part of the exhibit features 108 slip casts of Kasumi's hands, open and extended. Another part features 5,000 egg shells from which Kasumi removed the white and yolk-- a process that spanned the course of 18 months. The artist stated that visitors sometimes place a gift or message in the hands. In a sense, the audience builds upon the space that Kasumi has provided-- making the installation a very interactive experience that enforces positive dialogue.

Controversial themes, like abortion, are often viewed in a negative manner by onlookers and the media when it comes to artistic expression. However, Kasumi has had positive reactions in regards to her work. One would think that an installation like this would stir political debate, but the MEM: memory memorial installation has yet to polarize anyone. Viewers have focused on Kasumi's experience rather than politics when viewing the installation.

In my opinion, works like this are important because they allow people to see a different side of issues that are often the source of political bickering. MEM: memory memorial provides viewers-- no matter what their political agenda --with an experience that allows them to discuss a tough issue on common-ground. In a sense, Kasumi has made an aspect of her private life public in order to help others who might be dealing with the same struggle and to foster peaceful conversations about the issue of abortion.

What do you think about this exhibit and the intentions of the artist?

(The exhibit runs through October 7th at Brenau University's Simmons Visual Arts Center in Gainesville, Georgia. www.brenau.edu)

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: Controversy at Waikato Museum (New Zealand)

Waikato Museum (Hamilton, New Zealand) is expecting public outcry over the display of a controversial work of art. The piece, 'Better Work Stories' by Emil McAvoy, is inspired by the recent police sex trials in New Zealand. 'Better Work Stories' features three aluminum batons with phallic-shaped ends. Museum curator Leafa Wilson says, "while nudity is often criticized, the subject matter is likely to cause the most controversy".

Emil McAvoy has made the finals of the Trust Waikato National Contemporary Art Awards with his controversial piece. McAvoy has stated that he is aware that people may be offended by the work but says, "the ugliness of the work is only the ugliness of what it's about" and that he wants people to be empowered by the artwork so that they will have the strength to speak out against future acts of police brutality and corruption.

It has been hard to find information about 'Better Work Stories' due to the fact that several images of the piece have been removed from various New Zealand websites- I was able to find a cropped version of 'Better Work Stories' (Image at top). I can't say if I will defend this piece or not since I have been unable to view it. However, I will say that it is admirable that McAvoy has given the proceeds from selling small-scale copies of the piece to charity.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

The Danger of Defining Art

(The text in the above image reads: This Is Not Art. I suggest that it is art... though it may not be a good example of art.)

First, I want to say that the definition of art that I'm discussing is not the definition of art that can be found in a dictionary. As we all know, the dictionary does not always give the best definition of a word and its meaning. Find an older dictionary and read the definitions of certain aspects of society and you will know what I'm talking about.

The dictionary is not a Bible of Language, so to speak. It can be just as flawed as any other text. I'm discussing the definition of art that we use when discussing the validity of certain forms of art in contemporary society. A definition that is often backed by artspeak and enforced by art from the past. This definition tends to exclude certain details- such as the fact that a lot of the art that is accepted today was often not accepted in the past.

With the above text in mind- I keep going back to this issue of defining art. This is important an important issue. It is my opinion that a solid definition of art is restrictive in that it instills a degree of fear as far as artistic exploration and growth is concerned. Art is supposed to be free, free from what I'm not exactly sure, but it is often referred to as free and I think that is the best definition- Art = free.

My view is that art should suggest that people are free to explore surfaces and materials with their work, free to manipulate, free to ponder... free to create in a manner that is desired by the individual- and those desires should be accepted as art upon their creation. This freedom is attacked when only certain forms of expression- certain forms or styles- are accepted as art. That form of intolerance tends to lock artists in a bubble of security. It is a dangerous view and will only serve to hold people back.

The view that only certain forms of art can be accepted as art is amusing when you consider that the majority of people creating today work in a manner that was not accepted 100 years ago. Thus, to deny a contemporary artist- to say that his art is not art- is to reveal a lack of knowledge in regards to art history and the struggle of those who came before. It suggests that certain living artists utilize a selective history of art in order to back what they do... while degrading the works of others.

So many contemporary artists seem to have a set definition of what art is and what art can be. This is often based on selective aspects of recent art history (recent meaning one to two hundred years ago). This view shelters the artist in the security (the bubble) that others before him or her have established through their own struggle for acceptance in the past.

Contemporary artists who use this charge often do not consider the struggle that those past artists had for acceptance. They just take the face-value of the fact that it is now accepted- so their art should be accepted as well. Thus, some contemporary artists deny that their form of art was once questioned- yet they question the creations of others openly. This either reveals ignorance or cowardly behavior... and I will never tolerate it.

Those hard fought struggles over 'can this be art?" from the past are now an accepted norm. The majority of people living today will not question if Van Gogh's paintings are art nor will they question the validity of Monet's art. However, both artists were questioned in their time. So many of us seem to forget that when we tell another artist that his or her art is not art.

People embrace the art of the past because it is easy to embrace something that has already been established. It is easy to be selective in what you choose from art history in order to back your own work. This does not leave room for growth, especially when so many people deny artists who go beyond the norm of what has already been deemed acceptable.

Thus, to define art on the norm- the already accepted - the selective history- is to halt the growth of the individual artist and the future of art as a whole. That is why I say that art should simply be defined as visual freedom. We should accept all art as art... this does not mean that all art is good- some art is obviously bad. However, the bad art is still art and should be accepted.

To define art- to decide what is and what is not art- in any other way is to foster an environment that leads only to stagnation- both cultural and visual. The end result of this often has the same result. There will eventually be a huge shift in opinions about what art can be. It is at that time that art that is not considered art now will be stamped with approval by future generation. I say... why wait? Why can't we accept all art now so that art continues to advance in our generation? Do we want to be remembered as another generation that oppressed the vision of others?

We do not need to define art by the norms of expressivity- art should be open... free. We need to have a definition that goes beyond the sheltered box of specific rules, social grace, and the already accepted. To do otherwise is to reveal a fear of change, of exploration, and a clear denial of those who struggled before us so that the majority of art we create today is acceptable.

How can a contemporary artist claim that another contemporary artist is not creating art? This is a charge that has long puzzled me. Especially since the majority of artists living today create art that would have been judged harshly 100 years ago. How can Artist A say that Artist B is not creating art when most likely Artist A's form of expression, the mediums used, and form were once degraded in the same manner? To me that is like standing on the bones of the artists who came before- stomping on everything that they had fought for.

How easy it is to say that your own art is art when those who came before were the ones who had to endure the suffering of hard criticism. In that respect, some contemporary artists become like the 'spoiled child' in that they accept the claim of 'this is art' that they have been 'born' into, but deny the roots of those creative endeavors. They deny the wealth of knowledge and experience that past artists had when they shaped the principles that contemporary artists now embrace in order to define their own art as art. They are not aware of their roots.

In that respect, a contemporary artist who questions the art of others also questions the validity of his or her own art based on the history of art in general. He or she accepts the attitude that certain art is not art. In that darkness, he or she unknowingly accepts that the art of the recent past is not art- which in turn means the art that he or she creates is not art.

In other words, a hard definition of what art can be only leads to people back-tracking. These artists degrade their own work by questioning the validity of the work of others. Is it so hard to judge art as good or bad? Why must some artists boldy state that certain art is not art? I think it is time for us to go beyond this. We should step forward instead of stepping back.

Again, it is my opinion that defining art on set terms only serves to halt the growth of individual artists and the artworld as a whole. The more perfectly it is defined, the less active artists become and the less likely that new forms of expression will be accepted as art.Thus, for art to have an impact and to allow exploration and growth- it must never have a definition that is set in stone. Defining art is dangerous. For good or bad... art should be free to define itself.

(Side Note: It is clear that my view is that all art should be accepted as art... good or bad... it is art. To think otherwise is to accept that groups like the Art Renewal Center (ARC) are correct. In their opinion hardly anything is art unless it is a traditional oil painting that embraces classical themes.

ARC supporters have stated that 99% of the art created today is not art at all. The 1% that is art is only art because it holds to the academic traditional of classical realism and refuses any suggestion of surreal influence. Thus, if you deny that certain forms of contemporary art is art you are unknowingly upholding their views. That is dangerous. That is why it is important to accept all art... that does not mean you have to say that all art is good.

A few months ago I contacted Brian Yoder from ARC for an interview. He accepted, read my questions, and gave several excuses for why he had not yet answered my questions. He has not responded from that point on. That is why I feel that people like Mr. Yoder are dangerous to the artworld and to the acceptance of all art in general. You can learn more about ARC by visiting their site: http://www.artrenewal.org/)

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

The Art Market is Burning: All Art is HOT... Can it go Out?

It has been said that the current art market is on fire- that current art sells can be decided by the strike of a match. I've expressed my opinion about the dangers of this hot art market in the recent past (a crash could send younger artists who are selling for high prices into total obscurity and could chip away at the careers of more established artists). However, in regards to the hodge-podge of art that is selling at this time, I must say that it is not really a bad thing... or is it?

The fact that so much art is selling for high prices has me concerned, but the fact that all types of art can thrive in the current market is a nice change from a market that often seems extremely selective. The galleries of today seem to be taking more of a risk with emerging artists in that they are opening their doors- doors that would have been slammed shut just a few years ago when the market was cold.

Emerging artists have been able to get their 'foot in the door'. This has lead to a variety in art styles and forms. Need proof? Attend any major art fair throughout the world and you will observe what I'm talking about. The fires are burning bright for young talent! ...How long will it continue?

This shift in the art market has allowed a wide range of art to be displayed and purchased. Young collectors, which are increasing in number, have embraced this diversity. These aspects of the current art market come together in order to offer artists a more balanced foundation to work from as far as success is concerned. However, the foundation is a rocky one. I don't believe it is stable.

'Rags to riches' stories are plentiful- the overall acceptance of art as a whole has increased sharply. Though I believe it is wise to be cautious of this market I must say that I enjoy the diversity. I hope the diversity continues no matter what happens with the buying market. The art market of today has increased the acceptance of all artistic forms. That is one positive aspect of the current hot market.

At the heart of the market there is a sense that no art is better than another form of art. In 2007 we have seen traditional and conceptual works sell for millions. Photographs and installations have sold for high sums of money alongside traditional oil paintings. Collectors, dealers, and curators are all switching to a form of diversification as far as their collections are concerned. All art is hot at the moment... every artist has a chance to ignite his or her career.

People are embracing a wide variety of art instead of focusing on one area or notion of art. This is great for the acceptance of artists and their work as a whole as it tends to trickle down to the rest of the populace. However, it is wise to keep a wary eye on the market as far as high pricing is concerned. A match can be extinguished by a simple gust of wind, true?

I view the current market as a box of matches- a box of matches that has been thrown upon the floor. People are grabbing every match up and each match happens to be unique from the other in shape and design. Each has a different colored flame when lit- all are accepted as equal. Thus, there is something for everyone.

With that said, what happens when the match sticks no longer fall? When the floor is piled with them and people no longer care to pick them up? When eyes no longer gaze at the lure of the flame? What happens when the box is empty? The flames will die out. That is something to think about... right?

I'm concerned that the acceptance of art in general will be 'put out' if indeed the currents art market 'burns out' at some point. Are any of you concerned about this? Or do you feel that the high interest in art at this time will continue to burn for many years to come? I want your opinions and concerns.

As for me... I'm attracted to the fire... but I fear the flame.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: Controversial Sculpture of Pope is Pulled From Exhibit

Organizers of an exhibition on the relationship between homosexuality and art said Wednesday they were removing a controversial sculpture depicting Pope Benedict in drag. The sculpture has caused public outcry. However, the censorship of the piece has also caused a stir.

The sculpture, titled "Miss Kitty" by Paolo Schmidlin, portrays the Pope wearing nothing but thigh-high stockings, a pair of panties and a stole.The sculpture, which is adorned with a blonde bob wig, offended the Catholic Anti-Defamation League, which threatened to seek charges against the organizers and exhibit promoters for defaming a head of state.

The exhibit in Milan, Italy, drew harsh protest from the Catholic Anti-Defamation League and others who found the sculpture of the Pope in drag to be unacceptable. In an official statement, the Catholic Anti-Defamation League declared that the controversial sculpture is a "vulgar offence against Christ's vicar and the feelings of Roman Catholics,". However, others have stated the censorship of the sculpture is another example of "Organized religion dictating the role of art." and that "This type of censorship should not be happening in 2007!".

Eugenio Viola, the curator of the exhibit, has postponed the opening by three days and is in the process of reprinting exhibit catalogues in order to remove "Miss Kitty" and another controversial piece that depicted Premier Roman Prodi's spokesman talking to a transvestite, whose face is superimposed with an image of Jesus Christ.

Viola has stated that the exhibit was intended to be provocative and to question the perceptions of viewers in regards to religion within the context of secular culture. Viola charged that "The value of art from the period of the avant-garde onward has been to free oneself from the dogmatic and ecclesiastic censors,".

In an interesting twist the sculpture has been purchased by Milan's top culture official, Vittorio Sgarbi for an undisclosed price. The exhibition, which is backed by Sgarbi, opens Thursday in the Palazzo della Ragione and runs through Sept. 16. Organizers have been asked to ban children under 18 years of age from observing the exhibit.

What do you think about this censorship? Should artists and curators be free to exhibit art that displays a controversial stance against political and religious leaders? Is some art not meant to be seen by the general public? What is your opinion?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

The Conceptual Question: Is it Art?

You have most likely heard this charge before, "Conceptual art is not art!"- now I ask you, if it is not art- what is it? How should we define it? Why can't it be art? The negative views of conceptual art stems in the fact that most people simply do not know what it is. I've given some thought to this. Thus, I've decided to write a small article about conceptual art that will hopefully answer a few questions about the art form. Hopefully it will stimulate a debate as well.
The problem facing conceptual art is the fact that the majority of people do not understand it. It would be my guess that many artist who work in this manner are also guilty of not knowing the foundation of the art form. How can you appreciate a form of art if you do not comprehend the thoughts behind it? How can you judge a form of art if you don't understand the principles of it? These are questions that deserve an answer.

Conceptual art is a form of art that involves materials just like any other artistic endeavor. However, these materials are the very "concepts" that go into the piece. This is how a conceptual artist should view his or her work and how we, as the viewers, should observe it.

Conceptual art is not about the physical materials that are used to give form to the piece. The process should not be concerned with the finished product. Conceptual art is instead focused on the 'ideas' that go into the piece. In other words, conceptual art is a form of art that is founded on the idea of concepts.

The items used to construct the concepts in physical form are not the primary focus of the work. If they are the piece is no longer a work of conceptual art. Thus, the concept is art from the moment it enters the artists mind. This can be hard to grasp since we view art as either being physically finished or not.

In conceptual art the idea of concept is vital and must be the focus of the work. This is the strongest aspect of conceptual art as an art form. Without it the strength of the conceptual piece as a whole loses validity and becomes a work of art that is more perceptual than conceptual. In other words, without a pre-determined idea the art is no longer conceptual. Instead it would be perceptual.

Perceptual art, like classical paintings or drawings, are created from one idea to the next making changes in between to suit the over-all piece visually. Conceptual art should remain true to the original idea- the concept that stem from it. The appearance of the final product is not a point of concern for the conceptual artist. It is instead a by-product of the idea. Again, this goes against much of what we are taught in the early years of our education and is a key reason why people find it hard to accept conceptual art for what it is.

One must remember that conceptual art is not about the sensation of the eye. As mentioned, works focused on capturing the eye are perceptual- conceptual art is not focused on this endeavor. Thus, it is important to not judge perceptual and conceptual art on the same terms because they are contradictory in nature. This is where the problem with accepting conceptual art as a form of art can be found.

Viewing perceptual and conceptual art equally is almost like accepting past, present, and future as the same value of time. This is will not work unless your name is Marty McFly and you happen to be friends with a mad doctor. Thus, we need to know the foundation of these works in order to understand how they can be considered art.

Most of us are conditioned to view only perceptual art as art. We are raised to enjoy the emotive works of Van Gogh, Picasso, and the Old Masters. Thus, we define the beauty of art based on that conditioned stimulus- anything else is not accepted because it goes against years of assumed knowledge of what art should be.

For example, conceptual art is rarely mentioned in the average high school art class and most art books for children and teens involve works that are based in emotion. The popular media image of the artist is of a man or woman who works in an emotional manner- the tortured artist slaying his or her demons with artistic expression. Conceptual art should be void of emotion- thus it goes against our conditioned view of art. The image that the public school system and movies have created for us.

Many of us are raised to think that art should have an emotional message for the viewer. Thus, we do not accept works that lack a clear message as being art. We expect a work of art to have a message and for it to pull at our senses. Conceptual art is at a disadvantage due to this. This is due to the fact that conceptual art is purely intuitive and is purposeless based on the words of the artists who founded it in the first place.

I must repeat: Most of us do not accept conceptual art as art because we were raised not to accept it. Conceptual art has been caught in the cross-fire of our education... through school and by the media. We can't see this form of art as art because it contradicts the idea of art that we were raised to know and accept. So in order to enjoy conceptual art one must place everything that he or she has been taught on the back-burner. That can be very hard to do.

I would like to stress that one form of art is not any better than the next. I personally feel that all works should be equally accepted as art. I actually think it is harmful to art as a whole when once form of art is degraded. However, that does not mean that I have to like one form compared to another.

There can be good art and bad art... some bad art can be good art... and so on. In other words, I'm not suggesting that conceptual art is better than other forms of art. I do not work in a conceptual manner. I'm suggesting that the artists who work in that manner deserve to have their work accepted as art without being constantly questioned by their peers. Remember that many of the forms of art we utilize today were once questioned and degraded in the past.

With that knowledge in hand... let us rethink how we should view the non-emotive art form that is conceptual art. What are your views of conceptual art? Did this text help to give you a better perspective about conceptual art? Do you still feel that conceptual art is not art? Let me know what you think.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: Is Banksy for the People?

The latest artwork thought to be by guerrilla artist Banksy has appeared on the streets of Glastonbury. An outhouse served as the 'canvas' for this latest work- which depicts a life-size image of a police officer frisking a young girl. The local police office was swamped with complaints about the piece. However, nothing can be done about it since the image is on private property.

Derek Balmer, from the Royal West of England Academy had the following to say about Bansky: "He has received publicity as no-one knows who he is". Mr. Balmer suggests that the popularity of Banksy is only due to his mysterious persona. However, hundreds- if not thousands- of people in England and throughout the world would disagree with that charge.

Many observe the work of Banksy as a form of 'visual voice' for the people. In that sense he has become a political underdog offering his own blend of social commentary. The question is... does Banksy want that role? Does he want to be a voice for the people? What do you think?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: Video Art: Problems, Potential, and Future

(Collectors are not buying video art today, but the children of tomorrow will embrace the video art of the not-so-distant past.)

It is no secret that video art is one of the hottest mediums of our times. Perhaps the popularity of video art is due to the fact that it is a reflection of our technology-driven lives or maybe people relate to it because the pieces often demand the viewers attention. However, video art has many problems and a lot of potential regardless of the reasons it is enjoyed.

Attend any major art fair or biennial and you will observe that art involving technology is becoming very popular. However, popularity does not mean that the work is selling. The simple truth is that collectors are reluctant to buy video art. It has yet to earn that form of acceptance. This is the major problem facing video artists today- acceptance.

This Year's Art Basel had a plethora of plasma screens and art utilizing high technology. As always, the video work attracted crowds and was awarded praise by onlookers. However, on the secondary market, video art does not fair (no pun intended) so well- selling for far less than it would elsewhere. In other words, if video art does not sell at a major art fair it may stand little chance of selling at an art auction.

Another problem for video art is the very thing that attracts people to it. Unlike traditional art forms, which are still and silent, video art is often alive with noise and rapid visual movement- moving art that attacks the senses. The average collectors enjoys observing these works, but are not apt to purchase video art due to the fact that the piece will "Invade the environment of the collection", as one anonymous collector put it.

The strongest supporters of video art are primarily museums. This is partly due to the fact that they have more room to exhibit video installations. Another key factor is the fact that museums can purchase video art for their collections at a relatively cheap price compared to other forms of art- including photography, which for the longest time struggled in the art market.

For example, a museum can purchase video art by a famous artist for as much as three times less than what they would pay for a painting by the same artist. How long will those great buys last? Each new generation embraces technology more than the last. Remember, many people thought that television would never 'take off'.

Video art has the potential to 'take off' as well- with each new generation that embraces it. I'm certain that future works of art that involve technology may struggle as video art has in recent years. However, the children of tomorrow will be far more accepting than the adults of today. That is something that the collectors of today must remember!

That is the biggest issue for video art, the fact that it can take decades for people to accept new forms of technology that are used in artistic creation. Take photography for example, people questioned the validity of photography as an art form for the longest time. There are still some people today who do not accept photography as art, but it is far more accepted than it was 50 years ago.

The torch of 'is it art' is now being passed to video artists and will continue to be passed to artists who further utilize technology for their artistic endeavors in the future. However, like photography, video art will be far more accepted by future generations. History tends to repeat... collectors need to acknowledge that now or regret it later.

The strong foundation that video art has today occurred during the 1960s and 1970s. Artists like Nam June Paik, Fred Forest, and Andy Warhol rooted the art form where others had failed. However, video art will continue to have an uphill battle for acceptance no matter what famous names are attached to it. That is a fact that collectors must consider, but I don't think it should hold them back from making a purchase.

Think of it as a 'ladder of acceptance'- one form of art involving technology takes the next step toward acceptance once a new form of art involving technology takes the very first step- that first step can have a very long fall! It may take a decade or two for video art to gain the level of respect that photography has at this time. Collectors will flock to purchase video art once that acceptance is gained.

A savvy collector would be wise to collect video art now while the prices are so cheap. I have a strong feeling that many collectors will have big regrets twenty years down the road for having not bought into that market today. Collectors should consider the purchase of video art as an investment in a form of art that has the potential to become a major influence in the art world in the near future.

Will video art replace the value of traditional art? I doubt it. However, it is obvious that future generations will embrace art that utilizes technology. Think about how photography is accepted today compared to 50 years ago. Think of the number of children today who know more about computers and other forms of technology compared to the knowledge of their parents. Think about how computer media has influenced the youth of our time. It only makes sense that their children will will fully accept high technology as well... even if it is in the form of art.

The children of tomorrow WILL embrace the video art of today.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: Fisk University Blocked From Selling O'Keeffe Painting

(1927 painting by Georgia O'Keeffe, 'Radiator Building -- Night, New York.')

A judge judge recently declared that Fisk University cannot sell any of the 101 works of art — some worth millions of dollars — donated by Georgia O'Keeffe in 1949. The university had planned to sell two of the 101 works of art in order to raise money for their financially drained endowment.

The ruling has caused a stir in both the academic community and certain circles of the art world. Is it wrong for schools to sell the donated art? Does this mean that people can't make a profit off of a work of art if it has been donated? What about art that has been donated to an institution by someone other than the artists who created it?

Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle ordered the Nashville university not to sell any of the works in the Alfred Stieglitz Collection. Chancellor Lyle noted that the works of art were donated to be used for art education.The problem with this is that most artwork is donated for that reason. Thus, schools may now be dead-locked when it comes to selling donated art in order to raise money for their endowments- which has long been a practice in the academic community.

Fisk University has been fighting a legal battle since 2005 over whether it could sell two works from the collection. The collection, which was compiled by O'Keefe's photographer husband, Alfred Stieglitz, includes works by Picasso, Renoir, Cezanne and Toulouse-Lautrec, as well as two O'Keeffes. The judge decided that "Dividing the Collection destroys the identity and effect of the charitable purpose since the collection was donated as a gift from O'Keeffe.

The Georgia O'Keeffe Museum in New Mexico, which represents the late painter's estate, has filed suit against the university. Museum representatives claim that the university has violated the terms of the late artist's bequest. It is assumed that the museum may try to obtain the collection due to this violation of terms. The case is set to go to trial on July 16.

I'm not suggesting that I agree with the moral decision of Fisk University in their attempt to sell the two paintings. However, morality really has nothing to do with this. Their decision was based on business savvy. Thus, they felt they were doing the right thing for their institution. This form of fund raising has went on for years in the academic community. Why are people upset now when so many other donated works of art have been sold before without question?

What do you think about all of this? Is it legal for a judge to tell someone (or an institution) what they are allowed to do with their donated art collections? Should the request of the artist matter once the art is in the possession of another person? Does this mean that art collectors or dealers who have donated art in their collections- which is common- can no longer make a profit on it?

What if the art is donated by someone other than the artists who created it- does that mean said art is 'dead' on the market even though the artist had nothing to do with it being donated? This issue is now a legal can of worms!

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: What is art?

(Is this art?)

What is art? It is obvious that we can't simply run to a dictionary to find the answer. People have already made their minds up as to what art is and what it is not. However, for every person who claims to know what art is there are another 1,000 people who would boldly disagree. In a sense, art can't be defined- yet people continue to try. It is becoming more apparent in the news.

(Is this art?)

Artist Tracey Emin recently said this about her hotel room bed in Venice. "This bed isn't art, it's just a bed and I'm laying in it," declared Tracey. "It's a different bed from the bed I showed at the Tate Gallery." She went on to say, ""The fact that I took it mentally and put it into another space, that's what made it art. Art is up to the artist. If the artist says something's art, then it is.". Is Tracey right? Can each artist define art for him or herself?

(Art?)

(Is this art?)

(Maybe this is art?)

(What about this?)

What about all the people who do not agree with the artist? The people who say, "Your art is not art!"? In this sense, art is a disagreement- a disagreement against the nature of what other people feel art should be. Thus, it is still art because it contradicts the views of those who disagree- art can be a form of manipulation. Confusing, eh?

So what is art? Can you give me your definition? One definition of art goes like this, "Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.". Another, "High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.". It would seem that we can't come up with a single definition. Each definition of art often contradicts the rest. Thus, I would say that art is meant to break boundaries. It can't be defined.

Some try to answer the question by pointing in an aesthetic direction. However, one persons view of beauty may appear ugly to someone else. Different cultures have different ideas of what is beautiful. Sub-cultures within a culture have their own aesthetic views. Thus, art can't be defined by aesthetic principles alone unless we do it with only one culture in mind- and that is one of the greatest forms of prejudice. Correct?

(Art?)

(Is this art?)

(Maybe this is art?) (What about this?)

Honestly, which cultural view of beauty do we use to define art with if we are to break it down in terms of aesthetic principles. Do we choose western aesthetics? My art is influenced by several cultures. If art is defined by a single cultural view of aesthetics my art would no longer be art. Right? What about your art or the art you admire? Would it still be art if broken down in this manner?

(Art?)

(Is this art?)

(Maybe this is art?)

(What about this?)

Tell me your view of art. What is art in your mind? Should one form of art be considered less based on definitions of what art should be? Should some art not be considered art all? Who should determine these definitions? The artist? People who observe works of art? Or should we see art as something that is defined, but really has no solid definition? The question is timeless and the answer is never set in stone. Tell me what you think.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: Blair Depicted Naked Over the Shame of Iraq- Here is the Naked Truth As I See It.

Another example of art mocking political figures and the influence of the cult of celebrity can be observed at the Royal Academy of Art's annual Summer Exhibition in London. Michael Sandle's "Iraq Triptych" was unveiled last Wednesday to the media. The triptych depicts British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his wife, Cherie, as Adam and Eve.

The figures appear as if they are struggling to cover their nude forms outside their Downing Street home. However, there is a deeper meaning to this piece as it seems that Blair is struggling to 'hide' from the controversy over British involvement in the Iraq conflict.

The two figures stand before their door with a scene from hell surrounding them. A soldier beats a hooded and naked prisoner in one corner while a pile of corpses- one with tape covering its mouth- give a deathly gaze at onlookers. Does this piece suggest that Blair can't escape the horrors of Iraq even in the comforts of his own home? Or does it suggest that the war could very well come 'home'- to the streets of London? Does the image of Blair and his wife as Adam and Eve hint at this conflict being more about religion than oil, safety, or anything else? Are the central figures supposed to reflect a sense of clam from the surrounding storm? I'm not certain- but lately I tend to feel that any piece that involves individuals of 'supposed' status is nothing more than kitsch- a cheap way to strike at the hearts of viewers. I'm sick of it.

While using images of the powerful, wealthy, and popular is nothing new in the art world, I see a trend lately that seems to focus on said use in order to gain media attention for the artists- nothing more. After all, the media was invited to view the piece before anyone else (It will be open to the public on Monday).

This is a common practice, but this piece is supposed to reflect a public view- those who are upset with Blair's policy. I would think it would have been better to allow the public to view it first. In my eyes this piece has lost a great deal of integrity before it has even hit the eye of the public.

True, it might be good business practice for an artists to work in this manner- due to the exposure- but I'm to the point that I can't respect artists who exploit the cult of personality, celebrity, or whatever you wish to call it. Can't the Daniel Edwards and Michael Sandles of the art world think of a better way to express the struggles of our time? Or do they have to rely on such images in order for their art to have an impact with the public?

It seems that the trend of artists using popular images to 'enhance' the meaning behind a work of art is growing. It goes beyond anything Warhol set out to do. This practice is leaking into the academic community as well and it is a practice that I'm starting to loathe. This is the 'naked truth' as I see it.

Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I appreciate viewing art that conveys a strong message without having to resort to such imagery. What do you think? Do I need to open my eyes? Or am I viewing this work for what it really is?

Keep in mind that Sandle's piece is among 1,200 works in the Royal Academy exhibition. Why is it that out of all of that art this piece gains media attention? True, the media loves controversy, but I'm sure there is ample supply of controversial art at the exhibit that does not involve the image of a politician or celebrity.

That is what leads me to think that certain artists are creating work like this in order to gain media exposure- they know it will be covered in the media. I think they are gaining it for themselves rather than for the message they are spinning. Again, that is the 'naked truth' that I've observed as of late. Open my eyes- if you can.

Take care, Stay true

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: I'd Hate to Burst Your Bubble

Art Basel Director Samuel Keller, who has directed the fair since 2000, will step down this year as head of the world's biggest contemporary fair. Keller has seen the fair through some difficult times and is the mind behind the sister fair- Art Basel Miami Beach (established in 2002). Keller's successor will be named shortly before the Basel fair opens. He is one of several noted art market leaders who have created a protective 'bubble' around current art sales.

For the first time in three years organizers have released a sales estimate. It is expected that over $500 million dollars will be spent this year on works ranging from Pablo Picasso to Damien Hirst.The fair serves as another example of how well the art market is doing. However, what happens if the bubble bursts? Where would it leave younger- less establish artists who are involved with this current market?

Art Basel is scheduled to open on June 13. Over 300 dealers including Doris Ammann and Larry Gagosian will be in attendance- along with an expected 56,000. Hot artists at the show include Cy Twombly, Ed Ruscha, Tom Friedman, George Condo, Jim Lambie, and Elizabeth Peyton. However, there will also be a sale boom in works by younger artists born in the late 1970s and early 80s, artists who have yet to truly establish themselves- that is my concern with the current market.

True, there has been record-breaking sales of art in 2007. It seems that the art market has finally overcome obstacles that had left the market in question for several years. However, I'm nervous as to how much longer this can occur before there is another slump. Slumps in the art market tend to trickle down the chain of art sales. When the market is good it is good for every artist- when it is bad... it is bad. When it is bad... even the most established artist can have a hard time selling his or her work.

Many younger artists, who are not really established yet, are fetching up to $20,000 for their works according to collectors who frequent fairs like Art Basel. This is due to the market at this time. If the art market were to fall it would cause many of these younger artists to get caught in the process- which could lead to young careers being stamped out before they even started. The current market is reminding people of the bubble of the 1980s market and history teaches us that it can burst at any moment.

I'm not suggesting that a young artist should not price his or her work high. However, young artists need to think in the long-term about their careers. Fetching a few high prices now is great, but what if the 'bubble' around the current art market were to pop? Where would that leave them? It is hard to go from fetching $20,000 to just a few thousand per piece. One would do that at the risk of offending collectors who had purchased their work for higher prices. In other words, I'd hate to burst your 'bubble'... just be careful.

The art market looks great at this time. A young artist can throw caution to the wind, right? Just remember that in the wind a bubble can only be carried so far before it finally pops. That is a situation that leaves a young artist who is not established with only one direction to go- Down. Don't get caught in the 'pop'.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: Damien Hirst and his Diamond Skull

('For The Love of God' by Damien Hirst is currently on display at the White Cube gallery in East London.)

Controversial artist Damien Hirst is at it again. He has unveiled his latest work - a £50 million diamond skull titled 'For The Love of God'. The skull is the most expensive piece of contemporary art ever created. Hirst has stated that the skull (encrusted with 8,601 diamonds) is a "celebration against death". However, art critics feel that it is more of a celebration of Hirst's hefty bank account. Others have mentioned that it is a 'celebration OF death' due to the history of blood diamonds and the diamond trade in general.

Hirst, 41, is no stranger to creating work that critics observe as being audacious- at best. However, the multi-millionaire artist has captivated several major art collectors and has a huge following of supporters throughout the world.

Strong support for his work has not protected Hirst from people questioning the validity and merit of his new piece. Many have stated that the skull is nothing more than a publicity stunt. Critics have also lashed out at Hirst for being a 'wannabe Warhol' in that he often does not take part in the physical creation of his work.

The skull is a platinum replica of a human skull purchased by Hirst two years ago in a London taxidermy shop. Hirst has stated that he hopes it "makes the people who see it feel good, that it’s uplifting, that it takes your breath away". I think the only breath being taken away is from the gasps of viewers when they discover the cost of the sparkly skull. Hirst went on to say, "I wouldn’t mind if it happened to my skull after my death.".

Regardless of the controversy surrounding it, I will admit that the skull offers a unique vision of life and death. However, I personally do not think this is a piece that will stand the test of time. Some things are better left buried, right?

What do you think about this piece? Is it art? Is it simply an expensive stunt? Does it portray the vision Hirst desired to capture? Does it matter that his work is often created by studio assistants? What do you think about 'For The Love of God'? I look forward to reading your comments!

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: The Splasher

Street art has long been a tradition in New York. However, in recent years several now-famous artists have graced the streets with their work. Art by Banksy, Swoon, Faile and others have found a safe home on the streets of Brooklyn and Manhattan. However, these works have been challenged by an anonymous artssassin. This destroyer of the streets has been coined as 'The Splasher'- and splash he does!

Apparently he, she, or they utilizes buckets of paint as an arsenal of artistic destruction. The attack is simple enough- a quick 'splash' of colors hits the target- a task that could take mere seconds to accomplish. No one has been able to catch the Splasher even though teams have been assembled to 'guard' works that have yet to be destroyed. Also, the works that are targeted are all works by artists who are now famous- the Splasher does not target common sprawl art.

Onlookers have suggested several motives for the destruction due to the Splashers selective practice. One theory is that the Splasher a jealous street artist. Another theory is that the destruction is a ploy are street art collectors who hope to make their collections more valuable by destroying outside works. Others have suggested that Splasher might be an artists who is simply expressing himself by revealing the fact that street art is supposed to 'decay'. Those who support that theory feel that the Splasher is simply striking out against the commercialism of gallery controlled street art.

An interesting aspect of this story is that various manifestos (image above and below) have been left on many of the destroyed works. The papers are glued on the walls with a warning that injury may occur if they are removed due to 'shards of glass'. At least the Splasher has concern for the well-being of the public, right?



What do you think about 'The Splasher'? Do you have a theory about who or what it is? If you are from New York and have seen the remains of these works I'd love to read your experience- how did you feel when you discovered the destruction? Do you think this destruction is just another form of art? Is it acceptable since the work is street art?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: Banksy Strikes Again!

The controversial street artist has struck again! This time in the form of a provocative mural in north London. Banksy's image depicts a young girl being pulled into a cash machine by a robotic arm. The image was painted on a bricked-up window in Exmouth Market. It is the latest example of the artist's graffiti-style work.

Last year Banksy left a life-size replica of a Guantanamo Bay detainee at Disneyland, and decorated Israel's controversial West Bank barrier with satirical images of what life is like on the other side. Both images resulted in political unrest. He is also known for a small rock painting of a caveman pushing a supermarket trolley that spent several days in the British Museum before officials spotted it. In other words, Banksy is no stranger to controversy and will put himself at risk in order to make a statement.

Banksy's work has become sought-after in recent years. Celebrities have spent thousands to own his work. For example, Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie reportedly spent several thousand on work by Banksy at a Los Angeles sale last year. Keanu Reeves and Jude Law have also spent thousands on Banksy's work.

Not everyone is a fan of Banksy's art. An anonymous person (or group) known as "Splasher" has been destroying street art by Banksy and other famous artists in New York. The Splasher uses a simple method- he slings paint over the original art. I suppose we will soon find out if there is a London 'Splasher'... if that happens he, she, or they could be coined as Jack the Splasher!

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: Daniel Edwards 'Shocks' us again.

He shocked us with his sculpture of pop star Britney Spears giving birth- perhaps that is why she has crashed again? He awed us with his 'sexy' bust of Hillary Clinton- now I know why Bill strayed! He even amazed us with Suri's bronzed baby poop- or did that sculpture represent TomKat's media life? Regardless of any supposed meaning behind his work, Daniel Edwards is serving art viewers another round of... think Suri's bronzed baby poop.

This time Edwards has set his sights on another celebrity: Paris Hilton. Edwards has created a sculpture of the hotel heiress and socialite as a naked corpse, with cell phone in hand, legs spread and crowned with a tiara. Edwards stated that the "Paris Hilton Autopsy" is a "statement about the dangers of drunk driving just as high school prom season rolls around...". What? How noble of you Mr. Edwards... unfortunately I believe I see another intention behind his work!

"It's really kind of a wake-up call for anybody who really pays attention to Paris Hilton, close enough that they might end up emulating her," stated Edwards about the piece. I think a different type of 'wake-up call' is in order. I think it is time we cut through the bronzed Suri poop in order to discover the intentions of Mr. Edwards and his sculptures. Isn't it ironic that he decides to unveil this piece just a few days after Hilton's sentencing? Am I the only one making the connection?

In my eyes Edwards is leeching off of the lives of celebrities in order to advance his own career. Sadly, we live in a time that anyone can become famous over night by making a mockery of a celebrity, political figure, or anyone else of supposed importance. This art-stardom can occur regardless of talent, skill, or process of thought behind the work- IF the the timing is right. I will give Mr. Edwards one thing- he sure knows how to time the unveiling of his work. His strategy is flawless.

This strategy of combating the cult of popularity with absurd sculptures is really paying off for Edwards. However, he does not claim that as his intention. If he did I might actually respect his kitsch sculptures for what they are. Instead, he attempts to put deep meaning behind works that only boil down to shock.

I strongly suspect that Edwards creates work that boils down to numbers- as in the the numbers of people who will stumble upon his sculptures while doing popular searches. In other words, Edwards creates sculptures that he knows will gain attention based on the people they represent.

For example, if you do a Google search on Britney Spears you will find links to Edwards sculpture after just a few page views. The same goes for Suri- after a few pages you will find yourself in TomKat crap. Edwards is creating sculptures that demand views online. Sculptures that leech off searches that a countless number of people make every day on popular search engines.

I've observed Mr. Edwards work at the Bridge Art Fair in Chicago. His sculpture of Spears seemed to be the figurehead of the exhibit. However, there were better examples of art at the fair- art that was more deserving of that position- art that does not have to rely on media hype to make a point.

People viewing the piece did not see a deep meaning behind it. They did not see a pro-life message as Edwards has stated was his intention. They saw an absurd sculpture... a funny moment.... something to be captured from the flash of a camera while pointing at the sculpture in a sexually suggestive manner with their friends.

That is my opinion,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space Criticism: What Is Interdisciplinary Art?

Hello, my name is Nathan Townes-Anderson and I'm new to the myartspace blog. I'm a new media artist who likes to write casual criticism of contemporary and modern art. My blog entries can be found here and at my website, www.nathantown.com. Enjoy!

---

You're probably familiar with the term "interdisciplinary," perhaps you came across it tucked away in the small print of your college handbook. Well, in the art world, it's been tossed around since the 1960's (the era of the interdisciplinary academic boom!) but how it actually applies to Art is still a little murky. Today I'd like to casually/rigorously define the term "interdisciplinary" in an art context to clear up any confusion. Because there is, I think, some confusion. Let me summarize my argument first and then I'll blab about the specifics:

In the past, artists have often used an "interdisciplinary" approach to innovate in art. The disciplines these artists integrated into the field of art include both academic and vernacular subjects or processes. However, the current definition of "interdisciplinary art" refers to a specific kind of work also called "Institutional Critique." In this work artists use techniques derived from other academic fields, techniques that remain non-artistic and are not integrated into the field of art. Instead of expanding the field of Art, current "interdisciplinary art" reinforces its boundaries, contradicting historical "interdisciplinary" practices.

(If that last paragraph was confusing, don't worry, read on for the long explanation...)

Ok, the blabbing:

To begin, let's define that vague term "interdisciplinary." I'll say it's a way of working that uses knowledge from multiple fields to solve a problem. For example, if you apply interesting stuff from science and math to innovate in art, that could be called interdisciplinary art making. But while the idea of being "interdisciplinary" has become recently popular, the idea is nothing new. Interdisciplinary work has always happened, and different fields have always communicated and shared ideas. The difference now is that we've named it, institutionalized it, and made it possible to get paid (poorly) to be a professor in it. But, generally, folks with knowledge of several fields can get ahead by applying the cutting edge of one field to another field.

Our concept of the "avant-garde" and the following definition of an interdisciplinary approach are similar, since both (usually) integrate new ideas or technologies into a field. There are many art examples of interdisciplinary approaches: there were the first art photographers ("A photograph as art!? That's not art, it's engineering!"), Marcel Duchamp reading up on scientific discoveries and employing their procedures in his absurd experiments, and just try to imagine Surrealism without Freud ("I don't get it...why a hot dog chasing a donut?"). There are contemporary examples as well, such as Bruce Nauman's academic love of literature and music. In all cases, these artists expanded the definition of art to include their interests in other academic fields, making their approaches to art "interdisciplinary."

However, many times artists have integrated ideas from vernacular culture instead of from an academic field. This integration still follows our "interdisciplinary" model, but substitutes Pop for Academia. Warhol, for example, took his personal interests in business and Elizabeth Taylor and integrated them into the field of Art. Picasso, too, integrated his love of "low" or vernacular visual culture (newspapers, African art sold in Pawn Shops) into Art. The list goes on and on.

But, here is the problem: recent uses of the term "interdisciplinary art" can refer to a specific kind of art making termed "Institutional Critique" (see Fred Wilson, Hans Haake). "Institutional Critique" critically addresses the site or context it is shown in and often reveals institutions' ambivalence or hidden intentions. Take this description of UCLA's graduate program concentration in "Interdisciplinary Studio":

"The Interdisciplinary Studio specialization combines directed research and studio practice within a context which aims to provide students with a critical forum for exploring site- and debate-specific forms of institutional critique. The specialization encourages inter-area projects which involve the theoretical procedures or material processes of other academic disciplines." (from http://www.art.ucla.edu/graduate/areas.html)

A bit dense, I know, but they're using the term "interdisciplinary" to refer to the non-artistic research that usually goes into the process of creating such a work. So, in this case, their practice of academic research is not integrated into the field of art, but instead remains firmly part of another discipline.

Speaking literally, this "interdisciplinary" approach does not expand or question the limits of art, because we are immediately informed of where the field of Art ends and where the fields of research begin. Ironically, this artistic approach is the result of an "interdisciplinary" questioning of boundaries, and the hard won integration of contemporary activism into the field of art.

Such a contradiction hints at the conservative nature of such practices, and their limitations as "political" art. Artists continuing to use the "Institutional Critique" model should address this contradiction, now that the initial shock of such practices has worn off. For starters, if they are artists, why is their research considered academic and not artistic?

At the very least, this kind of work should not dominate or direct our discussion of the "interdisciplinary." Duchamp, Picasso and Warhol are way more interesting (and political) than Wilson.

Nathantown
nathan at nathantown dot com

Hype versus Talent: Which is more Important for Success in the Art World?

In the last two decades we have observed a lot of controversy in the 'art world'. There seems to be a general view that some of the biggest names in the 'art world' will choose work that 'forces an opinion' over work that is done in a more traditional manner (That is not to say that traditional art can't be shocking.). Thus, I ask this question: Do you think hype over a work of art is more important than the talent that went into creating it? Do artists need to ride the 'shock train' in order to find success in the 'art world'?

The question is a difficult one to answer if you take art history into account. I know that many of the artists I enjoy were considered 'shocking' in the past. However, the fact remains that many collectors, dealers, and artists have openly complained that 'real' art is being overlooked for work that is considered 'shocking' today. Do you think works like 'Piss Christ' will be seen for their artistic merit in the future? Will a fresh generation view these works in a different light? Tell me what you think... feel free to post links to art that you feel is 'shocking'.

Art In The News: Controversial Art By Neil Moore Exhibited At The Nomi Art Gallery

Neil Moore, a controversial artist, is in the spotlight with his new body of work. He is currently exhibiting the pieces in the recently opened Nomi Art gallery. (November 11th to December 2nd). Mr. Moore has displayed his paintings to critical acclaim across Europe and the United States. However, he has had his share of controversy during his long career as an artist.

Mr. Moore's work, which often deals with gender issues, has been refused by galleries in the past due to their controversial nature. Curators often fear what families may think upon viewing Moore's art. They put Mr. Moore's integrity as an artist on the back-burner out of fear of public outcry.

The controversy over Moore's work stems from his manner of depicting the female form in his art. Many viewers have been offended by his use of the female figure. There has also been some concern and debate over the age-range of his subjects.

Luckily for Moore, the Nomi Art gallery desires art that is considered controversial art. They see themselves as an outlet for artists who have been 'attacked' for their artistic creations. Mr. Moore's art is exactly the type of art that the Nomi wants to exhibit.

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.

Art In The News: The Venice Biennale Welcomes Tracey Emin

Photo: Simon Alekna

The British Council recently announced that Tracey Emin will represent Britain at the 52nd Venice Biennale in 2007. Emin will produce a new body of work for the British Pavilion. She will be the second female artist to represent the United Kingdom at the Venice Biennale with a solo exhibition.

Emin is known for her narrative work. One can assume that her new body of art will reveal further aspects of her personality.

Explore the following links for more information about Tracey Emin:

http://www.whitecube.com/artists/emin/

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/tracey_emin.htm

http://www.tracey-emin.co.uk/tracey-emin-home.html

Art In The News: Is Hirst A Copycat?

[Damien Hirst’s disputed 2000 work Valium, top, and the 1984 drawing by computer graphics artist Robert Dixon]

We all know that artists are known for 'borrowing' images from time to time. However, some 'borrow' more from an image than they should. This seems to be the case with Damien Hirst from the viewpoint of Robert Dixon. Dixon charges Hirst with stealing one of his patterns.

Dixon recently went public with his accusations. He claims that Hirst copied 'True Daisy', which was published in the Penguin Dictionary of Curious And Interesting Geometry in 1991. The piece in question,'Valium' (2000) by Hirst, does look like 'True Daisy' (1984) by Dixon. What do you think? Does it matter if Hirst did 'borrow' the pattern? Mr. Dixon feels that it does matter.

Dixon claims that Hirst would