The Jacksonville Contemporary Arts League:: A sounding board for developing contemporary art and culture in Jacksonville, Florida.
Monday, August 20, 2007
There are going to be times when we can't wait for somebody. Now, you're either on the bus or off the bus. If you're on the bus, and you get left behind, then you'll find it again. If you're off the bus in the first place—then it won't make a damn.
Ken Kesey as quoted by Tom Wolfe in The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (1968) Ch. 11
I have enjoyed reading everything here along with the other posts, inclucing the white paper. Been a wonderful trip down memory lane. I have been doing a lot of thinking about what the Cultural Landscape looks like/would look like/should look like in Jacksonville. I know what I would like to see, I don't know if it is possible or even probable.
First thought, from my pragmatic side, is that we shouldn't give up on our cultural institutions. We should inventory institutions, not just venues, that have staff, budgets, and space. Then we should inventory participants, such as the way it is being considered with the white paper concept. Then we should look for opportunities for matches, institution ro individual/project to see it things can be done without reinventing the wheel. Think on this for a while and I will write more.
Jim- I like what you said about inventorying institutions in addition to venues and possibly down the line seeing if we could pair artists up with those institutions.
Its all about baby steps. If the White Paper is ongoing (which I think it will be) after the actually show, that might be something we could facilitate.
The next thing we need is a critical authority. There needs to be some voice, somewhere that looks at shows, productions, work, film, pieces, books and provides a critical analysis. That voice does not have to be a singular person nor does it need to come from one place, but it needs to realize that a critique is based upon first an intellectual response, looking objectively, then it is followed by subjective comments.
ahhhhhhhh yes the voice.............. very important. a voice of quality how do you build that in? how do you ensure quality and do you define quality how is quality enforced, measured, implemented. yall know what i am saying
I think that there are standards for critical analysis and that the formula defines the quality of the voice more than the credentials of the writer. Madelein knows more about art criticism than most, I would like to hear her imput about this subject. I know from teaching how to set up an analysis, but that was a long time ago.
First off, thank you Jim. Secondly, I think that it is quite timely that this discussion concerning the merits of a piece of art has come around. Lately I’ve been doing some thinking and some research into why more aesthetically accessible pieces are typically embraced by a wider audience, and I’ve come across some interesting insights (hello Ruskin).
As to the critical authority…that’s a sticky-er wicket because in looking a work, you don’t simply consider its plastic qualities, but the context, and the artist him or her self…I would suggest that in the context of the White Paper project, we already have a tacit agreement to let the facilitators of the project act as the voices of authority.
Madeleine, You are right on the white paper, for sure. As a community, though, going forward, I would like to see some form of organized criticism. I am not sure what that is. I would like to have an open forum discussion about aesthetics in general, and aesthetically pleasing art in particular, and audience popularity of art and artist. My emotional jury stays out on that one. There are so many perspective points, so many attitudes, so many opinions. Have you read any articles on Ruskin and his attitude toward photography, specifically the use of mechanical optical tecniques in the transference of an image to a support? I was looking at Eakins today and thinking that so many of those paintings could well be photos that were overpainted. I know we are talking two different periods, but I do think that some Victorian painters used photo quite freely. Also, has the accessibility of the photographic image over the last 150 years changed modern aesthetic sensibilities? Does the viewer read photographic space as more pleasing than say the narrative space used in the late gothic period?
For the most part, I believe Ruskin was oppossed to more "modern" (even then) forms of art. I'll dig around in my notes though, and see what I find...I was reading him as the progenitor of contempoary art theory/discussion (and let me tell you he's obtuse).
He's also personally kind of creepy...did you know that he was divorced from his first wife because thier marriage was never consummated? Then he met the "love of his life," and recognised her as such when she was just nine, and he a man of over thirty...so I try to take his theories with a pinch of salt...perhaps that is me being too moralistic. But I can't divorse the two.
Oh, and FYI, he never married the nine-year-old, his proposals went unanswered.
Byron, The show went very well, thanks. There were (good faith estimates) between 400 and 500 people there. Yes, people give me a lot of good comments. I had many good conversations about water, food, wetlands, economics, production, painting as craft, human ecosystems, indigenous and alien specie, even met someone who was Choctaw and probably not too distantly related, tribal situations, etc. So, those are some of the topics I want to talk about, along with sprawl. I am glad to move on for a while though.
I know that Ruskin hated Michaelangelo and many of the more expressive artists who worked "in the manner of..." He had a big love of Turner and academic Victorian art in general. Didn't remember the creepiness. I also read some neo-classical art historians who did some very creepy descriptions of Greek and Roman statuary.
Okay, I take back what I said about Draper and his "Produce". I have to admit, pretty darn brilliant. He must be privately snickering. I wont go into details except to say that one had to be there at the reception to get the full effect.
Anon, Thank you. I don't know about snickering, hopefully I am neither clever enough nor cynical enough to snicker. I was pleased to see the turnout. Why are you playing catch up? Don't understand. Probably me.
Well, Draper, I began to ask myself why you had crammed so much work into that space. My first thought was, that, maybe, you were viewing it as some kind of recepticle, but abandoned that notion as perhaps a little sophomoric. You seem like a pretty smart guy and I'm assuming that you, like other artists, would try to give the viewer a little rest between paintings. And those cows, why? which led me to ask what is the nature of a cow? Why those ultra-lush green landscapes? And then it hit me, just as I was getting up this morning, My mistake was in viewing this thing as a painting show and not what it really is, an "installation" You created (and I think this is brilliant)a busy "produce" market full of hungry consumers. All that was missing was a stack of watermelons in the corner! And forgive me for saying so because I dont mean to insult, but those cows, with their quirky names, are nothing more than mirror-portraits of the patrons in there, vacant minded eating machines. And there you were among them, what a wonderfully orchestrated event! I hope you dont find my interpretation insulting because I say it with the deepest respect and new-found admiration, even if I'm totally wrong and none of this rings true. Thanks for making me think. Top Honors.
What's with Draper? Is he afraid to get on the bus? I think he may be a victim of suburban sprawl.
ReplyDeleteLOL. Not much for bus rides, more of a horse and buggy guy. Will respond more later.
ReplyDeletei am at the bus stop waiting.
ReplyDeleteI have enjoyed reading everything here along with
ReplyDeletethe other posts, inclucing the white paper.
Been a wonderful trip down memory lane. I have
been doing a lot of thinking about what the
Cultural Landscape looks like/would look like/should
look like in Jacksonville. I know what I would like to see, I don't know if it is possible or even probable.
First thought, from my pragmatic side, is that
we shouldn't give up on our cultural institutions.
We should inventory institutions, not just venues,
that have staff, budgets, and space. Then we should inventory participants, such as the way it is being considered with the white paper concept. Then
we should look for opportunities for matches,
institution ro individual/project to see it
things can be done without reinventing the wheel.
Think on this for a while and I will write more.
I loved that book.
ReplyDeleteyeah it's a great book. and I love the quote. It's used often in many ways and often misquoted.
ReplyDeleteI believe we all need to be on the bus to make this work. Let's keep it moving...
Jim- I like what you said about inventorying institutions in addition to venues and possibly down the line seeing if we could pair artists up with those institutions.
ReplyDeleteIts all about baby steps. If the White Paper is ongoing (which I think it will be) after the actually show, that might be something we could facilitate.
The next thing we need is a critical authority.
ReplyDeleteThere needs to be some voice, somewhere
that looks at shows, productions, work, film,
pieces, books and provides a critical analysis.
That voice does not have to be a singular person
nor does it need to come from one place, but it needs to realize that a critique is based upon first an intellectual response, looking objectively, then it is
followed by subjective comments.
sounds like something a contemporary art center could do?
ReplyDeleteFree the Beaver. Free it.
www.freethebeaver.org.
oh yeah...
ahhhhhhhh yes the voice..............
ReplyDeletevery important.
a voice of quality
how do you build that in?
how do you ensure quality
and do you define quality
how is quality enforced, measured, implemented.
yall know what i am saying
I think that there are standards for critical analysis
ReplyDeleteand that the formula defines the quality of the voice
more than the credentials of the writer.
Madelein knows more about art criticism than
most, I would like to hear her imput about
this subject. I know from teaching how to
set up an analysis, but that was a long time
ago.
First off, thank you Jim. Secondly, I think that it is quite timely that this discussion concerning the merits of a piece of art has come around. Lately I’ve been doing some thinking and some research into why more aesthetically accessible pieces are typically embraced by a wider audience, and I’ve come across some interesting insights (hello Ruskin).
ReplyDeleteAs to the critical authority…that’s a sticky-er wicket because in looking a work, you don’t simply consider its plastic qualities, but the context, and the artist him or her self…I would suggest that in the context of the White Paper project, we already have a tacit agreement to let the facilitators of the project act as the voices of authority.
Madeleine,
ReplyDeleteYou are right on the white paper, for sure.
As a community, though, going forward, I would
like to see some form of organized criticism.
I am not sure what that is. I would like to have an
open forum discussion about aesthetics in general,
and aesthetically pleasing art in particular, and
audience popularity of art and artist. My emotional
jury stays out on that one. There are so many perspective points, so many attitudes, so many
opinions. Have you read any articles on Ruskin and
his attitude toward photography, specifically the use of mechanical optical tecniques in the transference of an image to a support? I was looking at Eakins today and thinking that so many
of those paintings could well be photos that were
overpainted. I know we are talking two different periods, but I do think that some Victorian painters used photo quite freely.
Also, has the accessibility of the photographic
image over the last 150 years changed
modern aesthetic sensibilities? Does the viewer
read photographic space as more pleasing than
say the narrative space used in the late gothic
period?
Jim,
ReplyDeleteHow did your show go? Anything to share? Did you get any good feedback?
I usually don't when I show.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, I believe Ruskin was oppossed to more "modern" (even then) forms of art. I'll dig around in my notes though, and see what I find...I was reading him as the progenitor of contempoary art theory/discussion (and let me tell you he's obtuse).
He's also personally kind of creepy...did you know that he was divorced from his first wife because thier marriage was never consummated? Then he met the "love of his life," and recognised her as such when she was just nine, and he a man of over thirty...so I try to take his theories with a pinch of salt...perhaps that is me being too moralistic. But I can't divorse the two.
Oh, and FYI, he never married the nine-year-old, his proposals went unanswered.
Byron,
ReplyDeleteThe show went very well, thanks. There were
(good faith estimates) between 400 and 500
people there. Yes, people give me a lot of good
comments. I had many good conversations about
water, food, wetlands, economics, production,
painting as craft, human ecosystems,
indigenous and alien specie, even met someone
who was Choctaw and probably not too distantly
related, tribal situations, etc. So, those are some
of the topics I want to talk about, along with
sprawl. I am glad to move on for a while though.
I know that Ruskin hated Michaelangelo and
ReplyDeletemany of the more expressive artists who worked
"in the manner of..." He had a big love of
Turner and academic Victorian art in general.
Didn't remember the creepiness. I also
read some neo-classical art historians who did
some very creepy descriptions of Greek and
Roman statuary.
I'd be curious to read the creepy descriptions of greek statuary....
ReplyDeleteMadeleine,
ReplyDeletei am glad to hear they went unanswered..............
yikes...........
he actually maintained contact with her through-out her short life...
ReplyDeleteOkay, I take back what I said about Draper and his "Produce". I have to admit, pretty darn brilliant. He must be privately snickering. I wont go into details except to say that one had to be there at the reception to get the full effect.
ReplyDeleteI'm always playing catch-up.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteThank you. I don't know about snickering,
hopefully I am neither clever enough nor
cynical enough to snicker. I was pleased to see the
turnout. Why are you playing catch up?
Don't understand. Probably me.
Well, Draper, I began to ask myself why you had crammed so much work into that space. My first thought was, that, maybe, you were viewing it as some kind of recepticle, but abandoned that notion as perhaps a little sophomoric. You seem like a pretty smart guy and I'm assuming that you, like other artists, would try to give the viewer a little rest between paintings. And those cows, why? which led me to ask what is the nature of a cow? Why those ultra-lush green landscapes?
ReplyDeleteAnd then it hit me, just as I was getting up this morning, My mistake was in viewing this thing as a painting show and not what it really is, an "installation"
You created (and I think this is brilliant)a busy "produce" market full of hungry consumers. All that was missing was a stack of watermelons in the corner! And forgive me for saying so because I dont mean to insult, but those cows, with their quirky names, are nothing more than mirror-portraits of the patrons in there, vacant minded eating machines. And there you were among them, what a wonderfully orchestrated event!
I hope you dont find my interpretation insulting because I say it with the deepest respect and new-found admiration, even if I'm totally wrong and none of this rings true. Thanks for making me think. Top Honors.