Having just read the Kissick article, I'm somewhat (not?) surprised by the wider response. His critique is of the mildest sort. Fascinatingly, the art world of his youth that he mourns for is one that I thought (at the time and still do) was utter garbage. He seems trapped in the "novelty as progress" or "novelty as goodness" narrative that defines the way Western art history has been contextualized since modernism.
The hyper-identity art of today elicits little more than yawns of indifference from me, and I mostly avoid writing about it for fear of being accused of sexism, bigotry or ___phobia. But the identity-art style-checking that Kissick finds so unimaginative and symptomatic of art's decline has, in many cases, yielded a level of formal and technical excellence in contemporary painting that was completely absent from the art of his miraculum decennium.
The last point you make seems to be lost on him. I haven't seen Fratino's work in person but it looks promising. This - "While modernism was a conscious break with the past, Fratino’s paintings are something like a conscious break with the future; they are representative of today’s culture of spin-offs, remakes, quotations, interpolations, and revivals" - is surprisingly indifferent to the stakes of painting. If Kissick is tuned into Pivi, then his frame of reference is art that effectively doesn't have a style. Consequently he doesn't see anything in Fratino except pastiche, when in fact fairly serious work is going on there. No wonder the thrill is gone for him.
Yes, even though I agree with many of Kissick's arguments and he is right to call the hyperconceptual art about visibility boring, I also agree with you that Fratino is indeed promising, albeit a bit old fashion in the surface. He also dismissed Dana Schutz in his essay about zombie figuration only saying she is cubist. Well, you go and try to make something formally new within painting... Good luck with that, no? I believe innovation in painting can only come from subject matter and concept at this point, because of all avantgarde formal exploration. Then yes, we can overcome talking about "woman sitting" or "still life with a fish". But formally... I'm not sure a Julie mehretu has something further than what Pollock gave, and I don't believe Lou Fratino will give something further than what Picasso gave. At the end of the day we are talking about filling up a 2dimensional surface. It's kind of limited. And hey, nothing wrong with it, I'm a painter myself. What do you think? Is stagnation of formal explorations the reason why everyone explores new subject matter or concept?
Basically, the planet has grown sufficiently populous and rich for a lot of people to go into art and explore the possibilities to death. The problem is just as bad for installation art as painting. Good thing we're motivated by love!
Yes! Also, the most innovative works of art in the history of humankind are the first ones we know about, cave paintings😂 so searching for innovation in the arts at the end becomes synonymous of either new technological inventions or having tons of money to conquer inhuman sizes, hahaha
I may not get around to looking any of these people up but apparently Kissick does appreciate—alongside the “transgressive” postmedia stuff—some figurative painting. At least when it has “violence, terror, lust, and perversity” in it. He seems conflicted regarding the virtues of style and craft in such work.
Do we even want capitol-A "Artists" to be "household names"?
Maybe this is the sorta thing we can expect when people expect to "consume" art without making it. Better to have a million kids drawing smiley faces in the sand than one Artist selling Art t-shirts to a million households.
Onwards ho -- Bring on the good TV & comics --
Looking forward to the onset of the Pre-Post-PostCritical interegnum!
Except for the ancient Athenians of a certain period and tribes that were too small to need more than tribal governance, art history in both hemispheres up to the 18th century took place under actual or de facto monarchies. That includes the formation of the basic syntax of comics if not comics itself. Sure, onwards, because we have no choice. But just because democracy is good for many things does not mean it's good for everything.
Seriously, though -- How much Good Art comes from creators sucking up to monarchs for money? Impressive art, sure... Sometimes. But New Ideas in art? I guess maybe the concept of "Art" itself, as in, "big shiny things etc." ... So maybe you're talking "Art" as imposed by "Civilizations" & I'm talking "Human Creativity" as manifested in day-to-day individual innovations (linked to ongoing survival).
Not all art made under a monarchy required sucking up to monarchs. The Dutch still life tradition, to pick something, was painted for the newly established bourgeoisie. But they had a king or queen for the whole run.
But they were also in the process of establishing a very early constitutional republic. And besides, half those still lifes were like, dead fish & birds with fruit!? 🐟🍗🍎🎨
I mean literally everything that might be reasonably considered an art object. Michelangelo's drawings. Yuan landscape scrolls. The sculptures on the facade of Chartes. On and on.
I'm just bitter b/c nobody's inducted my democratically-produced "SECRET BACK PAGE DOODLES / 8TH GRADE HISTORY NOTEBOOK" into a museum collection (yet). 📓😡
It's... really long. I'm sorry about that. The more I elided the more pressure there was on the reader to scan other articles in their entirety. Thanks for sticking with it.
Yes, art must be art first, and it must succeed as such first, before any other consideration is worth entertaining. For visual art, that means it must succeed visually, apart from meaning (intended or not), let alone message or "relevance." Otherwise, it may be artsy, and it may serve as a means to some end, but it is either a perversion or simply failed art as Art.
Since my natural/default inclination is to mistrust (if not reject outright) anything that smells like fashion victimhood, in any field, I have a kind of built-in immunity. It has served me well, though it does not make for fitting in or going with the flow, but I'm quite used to that by now. It certainly facilitates objectivity and self-determination, and there is both freedom and security in it. Of course, I am not an artist nor in any way beholden to the art establishment, which obviously helps.
Having just read the Kissick article, I'm somewhat (not?) surprised by the wider response. His critique is of the mildest sort. Fascinatingly, the art world of his youth that he mourns for is one that I thought (at the time and still do) was utter garbage. He seems trapped in the "novelty as progress" or "novelty as goodness" narrative that defines the way Western art history has been contextualized since modernism.
The hyper-identity art of today elicits little more than yawns of indifference from me, and I mostly avoid writing about it for fear of being accused of sexism, bigotry or ___phobia. But the identity-art style-checking that Kissick finds so unimaginative and symptomatic of art's decline has, in many cases, yielded a level of formal and technical excellence in contemporary painting that was completely absent from the art of his miraculum decennium.
The last point you make seems to be lost on him. I haven't seen Fratino's work in person but it looks promising. This - "While modernism was a conscious break with the past, Fratino’s paintings are something like a conscious break with the future; they are representative of today’s culture of spin-offs, remakes, quotations, interpolations, and revivals" - is surprisingly indifferent to the stakes of painting. If Kissick is tuned into Pivi, then his frame of reference is art that effectively doesn't have a style. Consequently he doesn't see anything in Fratino except pastiche, when in fact fairly serious work is going on there. No wonder the thrill is gone for him.
Yes, even though I agree with many of Kissick's arguments and he is right to call the hyperconceptual art about visibility boring, I also agree with you that Fratino is indeed promising, albeit a bit old fashion in the surface. He also dismissed Dana Schutz in his essay about zombie figuration only saying she is cubist. Well, you go and try to make something formally new within painting... Good luck with that, no? I believe innovation in painting can only come from subject matter and concept at this point, because of all avantgarde formal exploration. Then yes, we can overcome talking about "woman sitting" or "still life with a fish". But formally... I'm not sure a Julie mehretu has something further than what Pollock gave, and I don't believe Lou Fratino will give something further than what Picasso gave. At the end of the day we are talking about filling up a 2dimensional surface. It's kind of limited. And hey, nothing wrong with it, I'm a painter myself. What do you think? Is stagnation of formal explorations the reason why everyone explores new subject matter or concept?
Basically, the planet has grown sufficiently populous and rich for a lot of people to go into art and explore the possibilities to death. The problem is just as bad for installation art as painting. Good thing we're motivated by love!
Yes! Also, the most innovative works of art in the history of humankind are the first ones we know about, cave paintings😂 so searching for innovation in the arts at the end becomes synonymous of either new technological inventions or having tons of money to conquer inhuman sizes, hahaha
I may not get around to looking any of these people up but apparently Kissick does appreciate—alongside the “transgressive” postmedia stuff—some figurative painting. At least when it has “violence, terror, lust, and perversity” in it. He seems conflicted regarding the virtues of style and craft in such work.
GOOD. May the postcritical era in the arts die.
Thanks for all this --
But sir, surely you jest --
When I think Monarchism, I think Versailles.
"Art"? Um, yeah, I guess.
But not for my household.
Do we even want capitol-A "Artists" to be "household names"?
Maybe this is the sorta thing we can expect when people expect to "consume" art without making it. Better to have a million kids drawing smiley faces in the sand than one Artist selling Art t-shirts to a million households.
Onwards ho -- Bring on the good TV & comics --
Looking forward to the onset of the Pre-Post-PostCritical interegnum!
Except for the ancient Athenians of a certain period and tribes that were too small to need more than tribal governance, art history in both hemispheres up to the 18th century took place under actual or de facto monarchies. That includes the formation of the basic syntax of comics if not comics itself. Sure, onwards, because we have no choice. But just because democracy is good for many things does not mean it's good for everything.
PS. I like your title -- It got me to click & read!
Seriously, though -- How much Good Art comes from creators sucking up to monarchs for money? Impressive art, sure... Sometimes. But New Ideas in art? I guess maybe the concept of "Art" itself, as in, "big shiny things etc." ... So maybe you're talking "Art" as imposed by "Civilizations" & I'm talking "Human Creativity" as manifested in day-to-day individual innovations (linked to ongoing survival).
Not all art made under a monarchy required sucking up to monarchs. The Dutch still life tradition, to pick something, was painted for the newly established bourgeoisie. But they had a king or queen for the whole run.
But they were also in the process of establishing a very early constitutional republic. And besides, half those still lifes were like, dead fish & birds with fruit!? 🐟🍗🍎🎨
Oh okay by art you mean "big shiny things that we can lock in museum-fortresses for affluent idlers to ogle"? (Not to put words in your mouth!) 😎
Then yeah, totally, Art for His Majesty's Sake. 🤘😜
I mean literally everything that might be reasonably considered an art object. Michelangelo's drawings. Yuan landscape scrolls. The sculptures on the facade of Chartes. On and on.
I'm just bitter b/c nobody's inducted my democratically-produced "SECRET BACK PAGE DOODLES / 8TH GRADE HISTORY NOTEBOOK" into a museum collection (yet). 📓😡
Yet!
Lengthy, but on target. You're back to your old brilliance, whip-hand aiming the lash at the obvious. Bad boy, how dare you? Stop it and get in line.
It's... really long. I'm sorry about that. The more I elided the more pressure there was on the reader to scan other articles in their entirety. Thanks for sticking with it.
Yes, art must be art first, and it must succeed as such first, before any other consideration is worth entertaining. For visual art, that means it must succeed visually, apart from meaning (intended or not), let alone message or "relevance." Otherwise, it may be artsy, and it may serve as a means to some end, but it is either a perversion or simply failed art as Art.
Since my natural/default inclination is to mistrust (if not reject outright) anything that smells like fashion victimhood, in any field, I have a kind of built-in immunity. It has served me well, though it does not make for fitting in or going with the flow, but I'm quite used to that by now. It certainly facilitates objectivity and self-determination, and there is both freedom and security in it. Of course, I am not an artist nor in any way beholden to the art establishment, which obviously helps.