Asynchronous Seminar (drawn from issues raised in Krzysztof‘s lecture) - CW
When Monday, 7 Jan 2019 Description Via LMS, written contributions over two weeks
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 05:17:35 UTC+4, Jo Nichols wrote:
Is it the artist not the art that drives its value? If we look to the Vermeer fake this certainly is true. The gate keepers of the art world, the institutions and the gallery owners certainly seem to hold the power as they can set the price, push the sale, hype the artist. Therefor if one chooses to work out side of such institutions the struggle for financial success is much grater and artists are not necessarily good business people able to push their own works worth. The artists however who make the artwork hold the top trump cards as the institutions would have no currency to trade without them.
My first response on seminar was to Jo's point (see above quote): To reply to Jo's point, regarding whether it is the artist, not the art that drives its value, I would agree with this and take it a step further. The art market works to trends as do almost all markets. This leads to gallerists, curators and institutions seeking artwork made by a particular group of artists who are in favour at the time. Does this lead us to a point where the work isn't as important as an artist might like to think it is, but rather their gender, race, biography, struggles etc speak more to the consumer than the work itself does? Would the work still be in favour if it was produced by an artist coming to the art market with a more 'privileged' backstory?
Second response purely to lecture: Does removing oneself from the art world simply bring about isolation and loss of confidence or does it feed integrity? - I've recently discussed this question with a group of artists in the studio I am a member of. We discussed the aspect of visibility, and what would it mean to be invisible, how could we become invisible and let the artwork speak for itself? There is an element of creating 'dead art' by removing oneself from the art world. If work is not seen than can it be classed as professional work or merely an act to pass the time? Does the work itself have more integrity if the bias surrounding artist biographies is removed? If all artworks could be viewed in neutrality would it lead to purer/truer readings, literally allowing the work to speak for itself? - hide quoted text -
Elaine's response to me: interesting question Katie, I guess for me it depends on your audience. I think bios, statements etc can be helpful in giving the audience some kind of ‘in’ into the work, I remember in college for our degree show our department advocated for no statement, title, name but audience were frequently asking some kind of information on the works. I also remember writing a paper on anonymous artists where I found that anonymous artists were really playing the same game only without a name re publicity, even inviting press to talk and write about the work.
My third response, this time to Elaine: I agree Elaine, regarding the anonymous artists, we all have to play the same game regarding publicity and getting work out there. The one thing is that an anonymous artist really has to make sure the work speaks for itself if they don't have the additional resource of biography for insight. On the other hand, it may allow them to comment on issues that they may otherwise be criticised for if their identity was in the public, ie: white artists commenting on race relations, or male artists commenting on feminism. In these situations, the strength may be in the fact that the artist is an unknown and that work is viewed for its narrative. If the artist's identity was exposed they may be criticised for coming from a place of privilege or domination regardless of whether their work had a strong and positive impact. - show quoted text -
Mozhdeh response to me and Elaine: @Katie, ‘Yes’ a good art speak but as you and Elaine mentioned publicity is important in the contemporary world of art, it seems in the art today 'the artist is a part and it's not a part' of its work of art.
Although the intention of being an anonymous artist has some interesting aspects and differences for some artists and the curiosity of being an unnamed artist maybe grab attention, the success of that is still conditional and very much depend on 'anonymous publicity'! @Elaine as Elaine points out.
In the other hand I think the form of art play the main role in this matter, as for some art forms it not possible to be unknown, as the artist is the main element in the existence of artwork, and also the artist location and geographical, cultural ability, knowledge, and understanding of art and this concept is something to be considered!!
Talking about the geographical matters and possibilities bring to my mind this question ‘who is the anonymous artist? the artist who chosen to be behind her/his work of art or who has been forced to be a kind of 'muted artist' under regional, political, cultural, race, gender, identity etc. sensitivity and or pressure of its surroundings!! How much these issues effects on artist activities and or limited the ways and choices for the artist and or being an artist?