In reading Ben Shahn’s “the shape of content”
I find it is difficult to remain optimistic. I actually thought at one point I
was an optimist, or at least capable of optimism. Art is truly about chaos.
This world, as it stands, is incapable of allowing ANY chaos. That is why more
now than ever (even more so than in the old model bohemian early modernist
times) the artist; the true artist cannot survive in this society. One is
required to compromise to fit. If one does not they will be relegated to the dustbin.
This was the fate of my brother. He was an uncompromising artist. He catered to
no one and was confined to the outskirts of society. His poems are raw,
unorganized and condescend to no one. I have all of the original poems my
brother made. He refused to send copies of his poems. He would read his poems to
me over the phone. I invariably asked him to send copies. He would not send
copies. He would only re-write the poems. The words were not always the same
because he believed it was a different moment. That is the real shape of
content. My brother, Paul is the perfect model for this particular reading. Paul was
invested in nothing more than the “lived”. He went inward and in doing so I
know that he knew that was where the universal resided. No school on earth
could teach that. His poems were like sledge hammers. What if Goya got a grant
and a “cozy” teaching gig? What would have become of his art? Would it have the
fire in the belly? No one can be sure. I think regardless, it is a salient
question. Art is and often should be an assault on the collective. When art
became cool it became strictly a reflection of a boring machine stamping out
more. Art shouldn’t be anything in particular but I prefer a commitment of
flesh. Shahn addresses the art teacher as “former artist”. I would like to
teach art but I must remain cognizant of its trappings. Or, however, maybe
there is really no authentic out. If one finds it necessary to make art that
thaws frozen souls; one must remain outside of the spectacle. Is art supposed
to be about good taste?! Or should it be a form of guerilla warfare? Some may
ironically succeed using this as a model for their practice. Now what? Most are
reduced to dabblers. These artists become dilettantes reproducing (repeating)
an idea that needs no repetition. They provide expensive, dead artifacts to the
rich. Interesting, I have often fantasized about approaching all my projects as
a virgin. Afraid each and every time I attempt a work. I’m not sure I have the
stuff. That to me is freedom. A real artist should make, write and live as if
it is the apocalypse. Melodrama? Hmmm, I believe it is becoming exponentially
easier to create melodrama in a world where everything is subsumed into an
equivocation. Ben Shahn was a
successful artist in all ways. Is this possible? Are artists and success
antithetical? For today I’m saying yes! My brother’s work made one hurt
physically. Yes, because I am his brother and I read it. But this is art being
experienced in the real! In this case it took no prisoners. I guess it is/was
not my job to see if it functions in the broader contexts of humanity. But
maybe this is cause for contemplation.
How about art without aura? How about propagating art that does more
than reflect the “real”. How about art made by all within their own world (the local). I
propose an art that is direct, non-qualitative but with a genuine voice that
does not only connect; it pierces because it is WE. I often suspect that whenever an artist puts their work into
the tomb that is the museum they remove art just one more step away from the
people they purport to serve. Part of the reason I write this is because I
haven’t the stones to be like my brother. I want to succeed. I am a coward.
Shahn says that the genius discerns patterns within the confusion of details. His
pronouncement is only one half of the equation. He must be WILLING to put his
idea forth into respectful society. I propose that it is rather easy to discern
patterns within the confusion of details. It is difficult to confront society
with that truth. There is a price for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes
that few are willing to pay. I hear a lot about brilliance but very little
about a willingness to risk all for propagating said brilliance. Brilliance
does not come easy in art because brilliance is inexact.
I guess, as Shahn addresses in his book, I am
not interested in having the perfect ground for making art. That’s really the
point. The ground is never right for making art. One must use the ground as a
sort of anti-canvas. The ground is a space off of which to react and mediate.
Regardless Shahn seemed to an artist who occupied a kind of cusp between the
universals of modernism and the equivalency of postmodernism.
Form as the shape of content. I agree with
Shahn’s ideas about form , in a sense fitting function. I can’t help but wonder
if it may be the very frameworks of art that genuinely lend the form to
content.
Shahn does investigate the idea of detachment
in art making. This may be perhaps where it can become more complex. Yes, to see large cultural movements
one probably must be a bit removed. However , it seems this “way” is so easily
corrupted into institutional forms of expression. Can “high” art not function
locally?
More thoughts on Ben Shahn's, "The Shape of Content" :
One of
the interesting passages that stood out for me was Shahn's observation
that both The Soviets AND Americans are technocracies. This rings very true to
me and I believe to a large extent it may be the source of our demise.
Technocracies are hard and rigidly wired. When the going gets really tough (as
it is now) there will be little bend, only break. Our country is in crisis and
decline and I believe this is largely due to our (as Shahn describes it)
"art blindness".
It is also interesting to see Shahn
pointing out our significant similarity to the Soviets while they seemed to
represent the core of all we fear and despise. Is there such a thing as
collective self hatred?
As a country, why are we not creative? Or
maybe better yet, why are we afraid of it? Chaos is a central component of the
creative process which is in turn antithetical to the American industrial and post
industrial project, right? Precise control of all variables and risk management
are the hallmarks of successful capitalist practice. That idea is burnished
into our overarching value set.
Mimicry is the core value. Theoretically, mimicry is frowned upon while it is our defining characteristic. Nonconformity
is our battle cry but it flys in the face of all we are about in act.
Nonconformity is celebrated until someone employs it.
Shepard Fairey
I am and have been very interested in the
social realist's intention to prevent their work from becoming
"ingrown" as Shahn writes. I have been interested in George Grosz's
work for several years and recall his feelings about the need for accessible
art. I'm interested in how this may be relevant in contemporary art and culture
in general. What may serve as relevant examples of contemporary social realism?
Would Shepard Fairey serve as an adequate example? Has the zeitgeist of
contemporary art become too "ingrown"? I wonder what the consequences
are when the hub of the art world (so to speak) separates itself from the
masses. Does this underscore and inspire the masses to become even more of a
technocracy? I've been around many current commercial artists (many trained in
two year technical art schools) who resent the fine art world and many others
who pay virtually no attention at all to what contemporary fine artists are
doing these days. Should people from both ends of the spectrum try to build a
few bridges or is a further uncompromised divide ok?
I guess the nonconformity piece in this
book may be about an artist's provocations about broad issues that have no
perceived urgency to the public. When those viewing the work realize that their
hair is not in flames as a result of some malady or social ill an artist brings
to light they figure they can ignore it for now and later it may never arrive.
I am interested in the idea of repression
and restraint shaping content. I have found a few interesting paradoxes since
coming to grad school last year. I find myself in a studio "free" to
do as I pleased after years of being lead by the nose in my work. Without
realizing it I started to feel myself building my own traps and restraints. A
self imposed prison would/could be built if I let it. To indulge in
"freedom" without restraint is possibly the ultimate trap. I need to
build some restraints on occasion.
No comments:
Post a Comment