Organizing Artists
in a Post-Utopian World
Noah Simblist
What does it mean for artists to organize? Its the kind of thought that would give Karl Rove the shivers. For many, the idea of the artist in contemporary society holds the same associations it did throughout the rise and duration of Modernism; in other words, artists are still assumed to be leftists, progressives and rabble-rousers, ever ready to push against the grain of society. But does this really hold true today?
From Diego Rivera to Picasso, Modern artists were linked to Socialism, Communism, Maoism, Trotskyism and other countercultural utopian ideas for a good portion of the twentieth centurythus the infamous blacklist of the McCarthy era. This period also produced revolutions in philosophical thought, psychoanalysis and linguistic study, all of which had powerful implications for the way we regard identity: as a nexus between the personal and the cultural. Writers such as Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucaultand the visual experiments of artists from Marcel Duchamp to Andy Warhol challenged many longstanding beliefseverything from individuality to originality.
The Atlas Group / Walid Raad, Sweet Talk File (Plate 577), 1991-2005
Digital Print
46 x 46 inches
Copyright the artist, courtesy Anthony Reynolds Gallery, London
There are a number of modernist conceptions of identity that persist, despite the fact that many strategies of artmakingfrom materials to subject matterhave been overturned in the past forty years. (For those of us who experienced the waves of influence that theory has held over academia and curatorial practice, this might seem surprising.) Not everyone will get this off the bat.
For instance, the concept of the artist as one who works alone in a garret still persists, and art is still a solitary activity for many. This tendency reaffirms the idea of the artist as geniusa kind of quasi-mystical shaman who reveals either truth or beauty to the masses. Maybe this has something to do with the deification of the rich and famous who, like the gods on Olympus, we look to as stand-ins for our own fantasies. Separated from us, they seem stronger, wiser and more beautifulat least, thats how the myth goes. This might seem to suggest that we may well be stuck in the past; however, the acceptance of multiple contemporary artmaking strategies that dont compromise the holiness of the artwork is a promising sign. This may be symptomatic of a wider melding of mythologies, in which both the secular and religious icons of art have evolved. Even within this structure, however, ambivalent distinctions between high and low art and commerce persist.
The Atlas Group / Walid Raad, Sweet Talk File (Plate 412), 1991-2005
Digital Print
46 x 46 inches
Copyright the artist, courtesy Anthony Reynolds Gallery, London
The hierarchy of pricing is a great barometer of value. Paintings are more expensive than drawings, and drawings more than prints. Size is also a determining factor, as is rarity: the smaller the edition, the higher the price. Some recent auction prices of prints and photography challenge this structure, but it has, more or less, remained the same for years. Matthew Barney, a sculptor who works seriously with film, has embraced the collaborative aspect of that medium, working with cinematographers, costume, sound and set designers to produce his elaborate Cremaster Cycle. A photograph from Cremaster 1 (1995) sold recently at Philips for $228,000; such a price for a photograph would have been unheard of ten years ago. Two other recent sales of work by Richard Prince illustrate the discrepancy of value based on medium and multiples. His painting A Nurse Involved (2002) was bought in for $1,024,000, while a photograph of a similar size bought in for $198,000. I mention this because of theoretical revolutions that seem like ancient history nowWalter Benjamins challenge to the idea of originality, for example.
Benjamins sentiment, echoed in part by Duchamp, has also been reiterated in the work of Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons, Mike Kelley and Haim Steinbach, among others. Interestingly, Hirst, in talking about his most recent series of paintingsexecuted from appropriated source materials by an army of assistantsfelt the need to defend the fact that he actually touched each work. The market perpetuates the inferiority of prints and photographs based on their mechanical means of production. But the very concept of Duchamps readymades allowed art to be found in the industrial, freeing it from the necessity of the artists touch. By capitalizing on the idea of a workshop and at the same time insisting on the importance of his touch, Hirst tries to have it both ways; in doing so, he undermines both the authority of his touch and the adamant refusal of absolute authorship.
The Atlas Group / Walid Raad, Sweet Talk File (Plate 445), 1991-2005
Digital Print
46 x 46 inches
Copyright the artist, courtesy Anthony Reynolds Gallery, London
Deification is not necessarily reserved for the wealthy and unquestionably famous. At a recent panel discussion at the Rachofsky House, the home of prominent collectors in Dallas, Eric Fischl discussed a painting of his with a psychoanalyst. Fischl spent a great deal of time speaking about how he paints himself out of the painting; at the same time, he talked about his childhooda tendency that the psychoanalyst, ironically, was less interested in than questions of interpretation. Fischl was acting out the classic deification of the artist, where every detail of life influences work; where, magically, the work becomes an embodiment of the selfall this in the wake of The Death of the Author!
Now, I know that, following postmodern methodology, the idea of unilateral progress is suspect. Im also aware that there are many schools of thought that function within the art world, and I do think at least an acknowledgement of a diversity of opinion could foster a more productive and rigorous intellectual environment.
I love you baby, Self Portraits, 2005
Documentation of live performance
OK, so back to the original question. Now that we have explored how the individuality of the artist functions, what happens when a group of artists comes together? Here in Dallas, an artist cooperative called 500X Gallery has been around for almost thirty years. These days, collectives, like the Royal Art Lodge (a cooperative in the classic sense) and The Atlas Group, (spearheaded by Walid Raad), enjoy a degree of critical sucess. New-media compendiums like Zero Degrees and I Love You Baby also seem to function much like classic cooperatives, only on a virtual plane. Collaboration and cooperation start from a simple premise: that something new and different can happenand may be already happeningas the result of a group. The most obvious function of group activity, however, is in terms of fostering ones own career: as a part of a group, one can gain exposure. This is a very important function in an art world that often uses the myth of artistic autonomy and integrity to castrate artists and hamper their ability to organize and market themselves.
Granted, some artists might participate in collective projects simply to gain the attention of galleries, curators and collectors. But if this is true, they cannot at the same time lay claim to the integrity of the artist outside of the mainstream. The very act of looking from the outside in makes one a part of the inside. Once again, weve run into another recycled idea: that of the artist as necessarily avant-gardea notion already and famously debunked by Rosalind Krauss. In this sense, there is nothing threatening about maverick artists because this notion is simply a rehashing of old ideas. But are there new ways of thinkingnew strategies that speak to what it means to make and market art today?
Royal Art Lodge (Michael Dumontier, Marcel Dzama, Neil Farber), Our Father The Forest, 2005
Mixed media on panel
6 x 6 inches
Dave Hickey has written extensivelyand a bit apocalypticallyabout the increasing institutionalization of the art world. Many artists who make installations, videos or performance work have become increasingly dependent on museums, art expos and biennials, nonprofit art spaces and residencies to gain exposure. This places artists in a matrix of curators, museum boards, corporate and government funding trapselements that all have the power to shape an artists work and, quite possibly, water it down.
Technology is also affecting the production of artwork at a remarkable level. Photography and painting have a longstanding relationship, but today the added influence of digital on traditional media, including the complicated push and pull between film and video as art or filmmaking, are redefining what we have come to know as fine art. One could easily say the same thing about crossovers between many other media: performance art, dance, theater, sound art, music, digital art and video games. In the last forty years, experimental mediums have certainly found a home in the art world, but is there a way that we as artists can actively solicit productive relationships with participants in other fields rather than remain passive receptors of larger cultural and technological phenomena? It is precisely because of the growth, organization and institutionalization of the art world that artists expect critics, curators and advocacy institutions to deal with such issues. Artists have a different investment in this scheme and should regain a sense of agencylearn to function as critics, curators and advocates of their own ideas.
Royal Art Lodge (Michael Dumontier, Marcel Dzama, Neil Farber), Untitled, 2005
Acrylic on wood
15 1/2 x 15 1/2 inches
Here we come to a larger issue: the balance between pleasure and intellect. Many artists make artwork because they enjoy it and simply want to continue making it, showing it, and occasionally reaping a bounty. There is nothing wrong with this, but a space needs to be reserved for artists who want their work to function within a larger intellectual context.
This brings me to my final point. The art world has become more global than ever, and as a result there is a tension between the extremes of two attitudes. On one hand, we can approach our globalized existence from a perspective that has remarkable similarities with a Marxist-formalist approach: we are all the same and have the same opportunities, a common language and equal access to the meaning and intention of all artwork. Or, we can approach the situation from the opposite extreme, acknowledging that our cultural, historical and political differences define us as being necessarily separate.
I would like to propose that there is a middle routeone that acknowledges that we are all implicated by one another, while at the same time accepts that we all come from a very specific perspective. American artists still function primarily within a Western tradition. It is the primary history taught in both art and art history classes. Often, when similarities are seen at art fairs between contemporary art produced in the West and East, it is tempting to believe that disparate cultures are moving in the same direction, but I would argue that these similarities are predominantly the result of cultural imperialism.
Royal Art Lodge
Michael Dumontier and Neil Farber in Venice
How do American artists see themselves in relation to the rest of the world? Does the war in Iraq and Afghanistan affect us in any way? How are we implicated, not just as citizens but also as artists? This war has increased polarizations beyond the generalities of East and West. It has pushed forward religious and social issues, such as concepts of morality and a global idea of feminism. Its odd to think that both George Bush and Shirin Neshat can speak adamantly about the role of women in Islamic culture, for example.
Religion dominated much of the history of Western art, and it has recently experienced a resurgence on a cultural level, especially in the U.S. What reactions do artists have to this? We often take such things for granted, preaching to the converted in art schools, art magazines or panel discussions about the evils of the religious right and the wrongheadedness of warmongers. But how are we, as artists, affected by the social and political currents of today? And how does our work participate in a larger cultural reality? Its best for us to talk to each other now rather than wait and see what happens.