[NetBehaviour] Response to Sandler
In Irving Sandler’s “Art Criticism Today” in the Brooklyn Rail, there were a number of issues put forth, including the death of polemic, the “molecularization” (Guattari) of discourse about art away from any sort of movements, and laid out a number of questions about the state of criticism in today’s art ecosystem. First, I salute the mention of Artforum’s original mission in combating the emergent cycle of art-capital as the “art industry” became the gluttonous frenzy of fairs, galleries and countless sycophants banging at the gates. Don’t misunderstand me. I am not a “sour grapes” artist who is discounting the art market because I have had no successes. I have either shown in or been involved with projects for the Whitney, Venice, and Maribor biennials, and am in several permanent collections. But I don’t drive a Lexus either, and this is not why I left a lucrative job in engineering to pursue art, either. I did it for love and for the fact that I was supposed to be blind by 30, and now at 50, am blessed with having made the best decision of my life. Also, I am a “New Media Artist/Curator” which made Hyperallergic’s “Top 10 Most Pathetic” list this year, so if I were truly concerned with being a blue-chip darling, I should have gone and slit my wrists long ago. That being said, I’d like to reply to Mr. Sandler’s article, and then to his answers. Mr. Sandler mentions Jerry Saltz’ derision of “art fair frenzy, auction madness, money lust, and market hype” and whether it influences criticism. Let’s just say that it does, and set that aside. Sandler then says, “that as critics we should investigate the art industry’s values, infrastructure, and practices.” To that, I say, “Well, that’s just great.”, as I wrote in a recent entry of the blog RealityAugmented that curation, and might I say criticism as well, is no longer a pyramid, but a logarithmic “power curve”. Here, the pyramid’s sides sag into a steep saddle where power is concentrated amongst the metaphorical 1%, then to a eroding group of “Lower-upper and Middle-Class” critics, curators and gallerists. They fight to stay above today’s sea of pop-up, residential, and independent spaces, which sit upon an even larger sea of online content. At first, it might seem a bit depressing, but I think there is a silver lining that ties back to Artforum, and to a seminal book by activist art scholar Gregory Sholette. The point is that there is too much made of the art market, and to be perfectly honest, that isn’t where the best art is. In Sholette’s book, Dark Matter, he describes that like dark matter comprises 95% of the known universe, the majority of art practice is unseen by the magazine critics, gallerists and the lot. Much of the activist work he describes is largely uncrecognized by the institution, although the PAD/D archives is at the MoMA, and Marc Fischer, et al’s Temporary Services projects has been featured globally. My contention is that the bulk of art is at the bottom of the “long tail” of the sagging pyramid that I speak of, with its pop-ups, apartment shows, and the like, and in some ways, it reminds me of the 1960’s where studio events, Happenings, and so on proliferated much art of the time. However, it is also important to note that the Internet has totally changed the landscape, and has produced abysses of art across the gamut, along with the abject curatorial gesture of the “like” and funding methods like Kickstarter and stores like Etsy. This is not the 60’s, nor do I intend to imply it is. I also believe that the “art world” to wonder about its primacy in this age is also akin to the recording industry’s worries about downloads and independent distribution. And with self-curated image sites like Pinterests and tumblrs (realizing these will become anachronistic in the next five years), curatorial practice is upended and possibly even banalized, even though quasi-movements like The New Aesthetic use these technologies for dissemination of its ideologies. Bottom line: the ‘art world’ currently only matters to a given body of people, and those people are of Sandler’s ‘art industry’; but that is to ignore certain things. The first of these is a larger definition of Sholette’s ‘dark matter’ that culture is awash with to include all the grass-roots art production that happens today which is off the tabloid radar. This assertion also makes visible the idea that art is only as good as its value in the art world ecology of capital, which becomes less and less accessible as the pyramid sags, and more power concentrates in the hands of fewer people. The work, in following, affects fewer people. Therefore, I want to frame my response to Irving Sandler’s questions in saying that as the art world becomes smaller and more concentrated, it becomes more irrelevant to culture and the importance of ‘dark matter’ starts to take over. In the online forum of the Brooklyn
Re: [NetBehaviour] Response to Sandler
Looks like a few months worth of themed discussions here for empyre or CRUMB. best Simon On 14 Dec 2012, at 15:13, Lichty, Patrick wrote: In Irving Sandler’s “Art Criticism Today” in the Brooklyn Rail, there were a number of issues put forth, including the death of polemic, the “molecularization” (Guattari) of discourse about art away from any sort of movements, and laid out a number of questions about the state of criticism in today’s art ecosystem. First, I salute the mention of Artforum’s original mission in combating the emergent cycle of art-capital as the “art industry” became the gluttonous frenzy of fairs, galleries and countless sycophants banging at the gates. Don’t misunderstand me. I am not a “sour grapes” artist who is discounting the art market because I have had no successes. I have either shown in or been involved with projects for the Whitney, Venice, and Maribor biennials, and am in several permanent collections. But I don’t drive a Lexus either, and this is not why I left a lucrative job in engineering to pursue art, either. I did it for love and for the fact that I was supposed to be blind by 30, and now at 50, am blessed with having made the best decision of my life. Also, I am a “New Media Artist/Curator” which made Hyperallergic’s “Top 10 Most Pathetic” list this year, so if I were truly concerned with being a blue-chip darling, I should have gone and slit my wrists long ago. That being said, I’d like to reply to Mr. Sandler’s article, and then to his answers. Mr. Sandler mentions Jerry Saltz’ derision of “art fair frenzy, auction madness, money lust, and market hype” and whether it influences criticism. Let’s just say that it does, and set that aside. Sandler then says, “that as critics we should investigate the art industry’s values, infrastructure, and practices.” To that, I say, “Well, that’s just great.”, as I wrote in a recent entry of the blog RealityAugmented that curation, and might I say criticism as well, is no longer a pyramid, but a logarithmic “power curve”. Here, the pyramid’s sides sag into a steep saddle where power is concentrated amongst the metaphorical 1%, then to a eroding group of “Lower-upper and Middle-Class” critics, curators and gallerists. They fight to stay above today’s sea of pop-up, residential, and independent spaces, which sit upon an even larger sea of online content. At first, it might seem a bit depressing, but I think there is a silver lining that ties back to Artforum, and to a seminal book by activist art scholar Gregory Sholette. The point is that there is too much made of the art market, and to be perfectly honest, that isn’t where the best art is. In Sholette’s book, Dark Matter, he describes that like dark matter comprises 95% of the known universe, the majority of art practice is unseen by the magazine critics, gallerists and the lot. Much of the activist work he describes is largely uncrecognized by the institution, although the PAD/D archives is at the MoMA, and Marc Fischer, et al’s Temporary Services projects has been featured globally. My contention is that the bulk of art is at the bottom of the “long tail” of the sagging pyramid that I speak of, with its pop-ups, apartment shows, and the like, and in some ways, it reminds me of the 1960’s where studio events, Happenings, and so on proliferated much art of the time. However, it is also important to note that the Internet has totally changed the landscape, and has produced abysses of art across the gamut, along with the abject curatorial gesture of the “like” and funding methods like Kickstarter and stores like Etsy. This is not the 60’s, nor do I intend to imply it is. I also believe that the “art world” to wonder about its primacy in this age is also akin to the recording industry’s worries about downloads and independent distribution. And with self-curated image sites like Pinterests and tumblrs (realizing these will become anachronistic in the next five years), curatorial practice is upended and possibly even banalized, even though quasi-movements like The New Aesthetic use these technologies for dissemination of its ideologies. Bottom line: the ‘art world’ currently only matters to a given body of people, and those people are of Sandler’s ‘art industry’; but that is to ignore certain things. The first of these is a larger definition of Sholette’s ‘dark matter’ that culture is awash with to include all the grass-roots art production that happens today which is off the tabloid radar. This assertion also makes visible the idea that art is only as good as its value in the art world ecology of capital, which becomes less and less accessible as the pyramid sags, and more power concentrates in the hands of fewer people. The work, in following, affects fewer people. Therefore, I want to frame my response to Irving Sandler’s
Re: [NetBehaviour] Response to Sandler
Hi Simon, patrick others, I've just finished writing a paper about DIWO, which relates to the subject being discussed in detail. Currently wondering where to put it - perhaps on P2P FOUNDATION WIKI... Chat soon. marc Looks like a few months worth of themed discussions here for empyre or CRUMB. best Simon On 14 Dec 2012, at 15:13, Lichty, Patrick wrote: In Irving Sandler's Art Criticism Today in the Brooklyn Rail, there were a number of issues put forth, including the death of polemic, the molecularization (Guattari) of discourse about art away from any sort of movements, and laid out a number of questions about the state of criticism in today's art ecosystem. First, I salute the mention of Artforum's original mission in combating the emergent cycle of art-capital as the art industry became the gluttonous frenzy of fairs, galleries and countless sycophants banging at the gates. Don't misunderstand me. I am not a sour grapes artist who is discounting the art market because I have had no successes. I have either shown in or been involved with projects for the Whitney, Venice, and Maribor biennials, and am in several permanent collections. But I don't drive a Lexus either, and this is not why I left a lucrative job in engineering to pursue art, either. I did it for love and for the fact that I was supposed to be blind by 30, and now at 50, am blessed with having made the best decision of my life. Also, I am a New Media Artist/Curator which made Hyperallergic's Top 10 Most Pathetic list this year, so if I were truly concerned with being a blue-chip darling, I should have gone and slit my wrists long ago. That being said, I'd like to reply to Mr. Sandler's article, and then to his answers. Mr. Sandler mentions Jerry Saltz' derision of art fair frenzy, auction madness, money lust, and market hype and whether it influences criticism. Let's just say that it does, and set that aside. Sandler then says, that as critics we should investigate the art industry's values, infrastructure, and practices. To that, I say, Well, that's just great., as I wrote in a recent entry of the blog RealityAugmented that curation, and might I say criticism as well, is no longer a pyramid, but a logarithmic power curve. Here, the pyramid's sides sag into a steep saddle where power is concentrated amongst the metaphorical 1%, then to a eroding group of Lower-upper and Middle-Class critics, curators and gallerists. They fight to stay above today's sea of pop-up, residential, and independent spaces, which sit upon an even larger sea of online content. At first, it might seem a bit depressing, but I think there is a silver lining that ties back to Artforum, and to a seminal book by activist art scholar Gregory Sholette. The point is that there is too much made of the art market, and to be perfectly honest, that isn't where the best art is. In Sholette's book, Dark Matter, he describes that like dark matter comprises 95% of the known universe, the majority of art practice is unseen by the magazine critics, gallerists and the lot. Much of the activist work he describes is largely uncrecognized by the institution, although the PAD/D archives is at the MoMA, and Marc Fischer, et al's Temporary Services projects has been featured globally. My contention is that the bulk of art is at the bottom of the long tail of the sagging pyramid that I speak of, with its pop-ups, apartment shows, and the like, and in some ways, it reminds me of the 1960's where studio events, Happenings, and so on proliferated much art of the time. However, it is also important to note that the Internet has totally changed the landscape, and has produced abysses of art across the gamut, along with the abject curatorial gesture of the like and funding methods like Kickstarter and stores like Etsy. This is not the 60's, nor do I intend to imply it is. I also believe that the art world to wonder about its primacy in this age is also akin to the recording industry's worries about downloads and independent distribution. And with self-curated image sites like Pinterests and tumblrs (realizing these will become anachronistic in the next five years), curatorial practice is upended and possibly even banalized, even though quasi-movements like The New Aesthetic use these technologies for dissemination of its ideologies. Bottom line: the 'art world' currently only matters to a given body of people, and those people are of Sandler's 'art industry'; but that is to ignore certain things. The first of these is a larger definition of Sholette's 'dark matter' that culture is awash with to include all the grass-roots art production that happens today which is off the tabloid radar. This assertion also makes visible the idea that art is only as good as its value in the art world ecology of capital, which becomes less and less accessible as the pyramid sags, and more power concentrates in
