May 13, 2022·edited May 13, 2022Liked by Beautiful Eccentrics
I always love your writing even when I sometimes disagree but altho all you write is true in an ideal world, what is left out are questions of access and privilege. Relatively few people who identify as artists can both attend the "party" and have adequate studio time. In most cases that's a question of access to time and money. Increasingly, particularly in this country, that's restricted to a class of the privileged that has nothing to do with talent or will to do conscientious research.
Speaking as an artist who was pushed out of NYC by costs, couldn't get a regular teaching job, has health and age disabilities, I resist this prescription for research that conflates historical success, visiiblity and material stability with careerist value. When I was a young artist in NYC, everything you describe was available: cheap housing and a job were a given making everything else possible. That is no longer true. I can't help being grateful for the internet. It is an inadequate platform for research and one that wasn't mentioned. And my experience of limitation is a pale version of what single mothers for example face- a group that will undoubtedly explode after the Row vs Wade battle is won by fascist fanatics.
The decentralization of the artworld redefines how any of us can and must do research. What is within walking distance for example in Manhattan during prime time is just not an option for many, many terrific artists and THAT's a problem. I think the emphasis should be less on what the privileged must do to refine their practice and perhaps more, on how we can make access more equitable, to include value that goes beyond the flavor of the day amongst the elite.
The artworld always reflects the greater culture. In this case, the criteria to engage in the artworld you have described is a gross exaggeration of the grotesque privilege and entitlement of a small group we see reflected in the tragic income disparities that are escalating worldwide. My suggestion is that you take into account how the present culture of privilege has become an ever more insurmountable gatekeeper for artists to participate in the research you describe over the past fifty years. In fact, without that caveat, I think research can only reinforce the status quo that we as artists are always tasked to question.
Thank you so much for your comment Aviva. Certainly there is practically nothing we can say about the art profession without having to address issues of privilege and access in the art world. I was merely trying to point out the realities of research in our practice, which is separate from what ought to be— so I would argue that what I write is true precisely because we do not live in an ideal world. You are also right that not everything is accessible to everyone in Manhattan, but you need to also recognize the fact that important exhibitions and events are more accessible to you than if you lived in a remote village elsewhere in the world (which is why so many artists move to large cities with great cultural activity). I often think of Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz who is widely regarded as a genius and as the greatest Mexican poet who ever lived, yet had to live in a convent in 17th century Mexico, a place largely isolated from the world where access to, and understanding of things like, modern science, was very difficult. She produced her monumental work in spite of that cultural isolation and the brutal censorship that the church applied to her work and which eventually marked her end. I suppose we are lucky that we are not encloistered in a 17th century convent in Mexico (although I for one also recognize that I completely lack her genius!).
Thank you for your response. You articulated the ideal practice very well but it does revert to privilege and access and perhaps it's impossible to have the practice you describe without predicating our research on prioritizing those two realities. I am now on an island 15 miles out to dea, with access to great beauty and the internet but not the Whitney, not the special frisson of standing before real art in a real location, ie., at the Met. I loved your reference to So Juana Inez de la Cruz. There is a cascade at scale, however, that we all yearn for between production, access and affect and arguably, we need more than ever now. Like climate change, I think we are in the fast phase of that need.
In this often chaotic mass of opinions on art I always find your essays to be intelligent and to the point. As an artist of nearly 80 I have navigated many dubious roads, often without like-minded individuals with whom to converse about this strange world of making things. Thank you for your writings.
I always love your writing even when I sometimes disagree but altho all you write is true in an ideal world, what is left out are questions of access and privilege. Relatively few people who identify as artists can both attend the "party" and have adequate studio time. In most cases that's a question of access to time and money. Increasingly, particularly in this country, that's restricted to a class of the privileged that has nothing to do with talent or will to do conscientious research.
Speaking as an artist who was pushed out of NYC by costs, couldn't get a regular teaching job, has health and age disabilities, I resist this prescription for research that conflates historical success, visiiblity and material stability with careerist value. When I was a young artist in NYC, everything you describe was available: cheap housing and a job were a given making everything else possible. That is no longer true. I can't help being grateful for the internet. It is an inadequate platform for research and one that wasn't mentioned. And my experience of limitation is a pale version of what single mothers for example face- a group that will undoubtedly explode after the Row vs Wade battle is won by fascist fanatics.
The decentralization of the artworld redefines how any of us can and must do research. What is within walking distance for example in Manhattan during prime time is just not an option for many, many terrific artists and THAT's a problem. I think the emphasis should be less on what the privileged must do to refine their practice and perhaps more, on how we can make access more equitable, to include value that goes beyond the flavor of the day amongst the elite.
The artworld always reflects the greater culture. In this case, the criteria to engage in the artworld you have described is a gross exaggeration of the grotesque privilege and entitlement of a small group we see reflected in the tragic income disparities that are escalating worldwide. My suggestion is that you take into account how the present culture of privilege has become an ever more insurmountable gatekeeper for artists to participate in the research you describe over the past fifty years. In fact, without that caveat, I think research can only reinforce the status quo that we as artists are always tasked to question.
Thank you so much for your comment Aviva. Certainly there is practically nothing we can say about the art profession without having to address issues of privilege and access in the art world. I was merely trying to point out the realities of research in our practice, which is separate from what ought to be— so I would argue that what I write is true precisely because we do not live in an ideal world. You are also right that not everything is accessible to everyone in Manhattan, but you need to also recognize the fact that important exhibitions and events are more accessible to you than if you lived in a remote village elsewhere in the world (which is why so many artists move to large cities with great cultural activity). I often think of Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz who is widely regarded as a genius and as the greatest Mexican poet who ever lived, yet had to live in a convent in 17th century Mexico, a place largely isolated from the world where access to, and understanding of things like, modern science, was very difficult. She produced her monumental work in spite of that cultural isolation and the brutal censorship that the church applied to her work and which eventually marked her end. I suppose we are lucky that we are not encloistered in a 17th century convent in Mexico (although I for one also recognize that I completely lack her genius!).
Thank you for your response. You articulated the ideal practice very well but it does revert to privilege and access and perhaps it's impossible to have the practice you describe without predicating our research on prioritizing those two realities. I am now on an island 15 miles out to dea, with access to great beauty and the internet but not the Whitney, not the special frisson of standing before real art in a real location, ie., at the Met. I loved your reference to So Juana Inez de la Cruz. There is a cascade at scale, however, that we all yearn for between production, access and affect and arguably, we need more than ever now. Like climate change, I think we are in the fast phase of that need.
Muy lindo ensayo Pablo!
In this often chaotic mass of opinions on art I always find your essays to be intelligent and to the point. As an artist of nearly 80 I have navigated many dubious roads, often without like-minded individuals with whom to converse about this strange world of making things. Thank you for your writings.