Posted by Rex Crockett
Karl kindly invited me to post on his blog, and within moments of receiving his invitation, I had an idea, and here I am with it. Except after writing what’s below, I went, “Well, this is more of an article than a post. I’m not really asking questions; I’m making statements. I don’t see how this really invites a return response.”
But after writing it, I couldn’t see how to turn it into something more interactive and less assertive without turning it into something it wasn’t and thus losing the whole flavor, and I don’t really want to mess with this post because it’s from the heart.
Karl had a comment regarding one of mine on The Fall of the Art World. He said, “But I do hope some more critical comments come in. We don’t want to get into some silly artist group-think here, do we?”
I agree with that; moreover, it got me thinking about that whole group-think thing.
I was reminded of a comment of Claude Monet’s regarding his development as an artist. He said that at a certain point his career, rather early actually, he found it counter productive to hang about in cafés talking endlessly over absinthe or coffee under clouds of pipe smoke with the various artists and hangers on in the Parisian art scene. He decided he needed to spend more time painting, and painting in his way at that — outside, in the fresh air, with nature as his teacher.
I’m neither an anthropologist nor a psychologist, but I do enjoy people and am endlessly fascinated by their social dynamics. As a perpetual student of said, it is fairly obvious that there is a certain liability to only talking about things, whatever the subject, with only a certain group. Groups evolve their own agreements, but those agreements may not accord with widely held perceptions. At times such cohesions may be inspired and elevating, at other times merely serve to make for inclusions and exclusions of memberships, and at other times can serve to render the group completely out of touch with reality.
You see that kind of thing in all the arts. In jazz, if you use any chords that have less than four notes, you’re “not doing jazz,” so you hear (in bad jazz) only a lot of weird chords. Musicians will make jokes about the “jazz police.” In certain art circles if you do any recognizable representations of anything, you’re being “literal.” “Kitsch” takes on a special meaning. Among certain groups of computer programmers, the hostility to ordinary computer users is palpable; e.g., non programers are called “lusers” — a variation on “nuser” for “new user.”
On and on. Group think. The deadliness of this is that it can knock you out of touch with your audience. The jazz policing ends up costing you any audience but some real creepy cats. Fear of literality and kitsch makes for paintings that are indecipherable without a book that explains them — an irony lucidly and humorously put in Tom Wolfe’s _The Painted Word_. Contempt for ordinary users makes for programs that no one can figure out how to use and documentation that is so technically nomenclatured as to be useless, and so, no work.
Now here is another irony. It so happens that I did that Monet thing. I actually traveled around the mountains of California for several years, living on the road, doing these brush and ink paintings specifically calculated to be do-able from a backpack. It was a rejuvenating and enlightening experience. It was very good for my work. I would not trade that time for anything I’ve ever done in life. It was not a lonely time. I still sold my work in lot of ways, on the street, craft fairs, various personal contacts, and so on. I met all kinds of interesting people. There is a whole nomadic culture in the Western US. The lifestyle worked. I made money. Not a lot, but I didn’t need much. Yet at a certain point, only about eight months ago, I started to yearn for the kind of patter I’d grown accustomed to at other times of my life when I had other artists
to talk with.
So on the one hand, while I see Monet’s take on things as a very wise move on the part of an intrepid explorer, I think I’ve gotten to some stage in my life where I feel a certain responsibility to other artists as well as students. I could not fulfill my social responsibility with the nomadic life. I know Monet had a hard time of it too, and he eventually settled down. To see the guest lists for his mature era parties is to see the who’s who of French culture and politics of the time. So he evidently reached the same conclusion. Certainly he managed to find a way to “keep his vision pure,” as he liked to say, and still be a social person.
With other artists, it’s possible to explore really new ideas before you take action on them. Other artists are likely to be more willing to experience edgy work. They can see through the rough edges to the inner jewel. A little (or a lot) of wackiness is tolerated or amusing. The strong passions that artists feel are well understood by others with such feelings. When I’m doing a show or speaking to an audience of collectors, buyers, or customers, I’m definitely putting on a show. I’m acting, and I’m acting more conservatively than I really am, but around other artists? Well, I remember this one group show I was in. I was looking at the other exhibitors all laughing and yucking it up, and I thought, “These are my kind of birds. They’re all crazy, and I love them.”
“Group think” refers to the situation where a set of people adopt or pretend to adopt a certain outlook. With “group think”, there is a lack of critical analysis of the assumptions, and also hostility to ideas that fall outside of the “group think.”
On Art & Perception we don’t have this problem. But it is helpful to imagine ways to avoid the dangers of “group think” for the future. One that Rex refers to has to do with the audience — say, the public looking at art, or the people reading a blog. It seems to me that to avoid “group think,” Rex is correct in saying it is important to keep in mind the contact with the audience.
An alternative to “group think” might be “group goals”. For example, the participants on Art & Perception tend to have a common goal of wanting to become successful (or even more successful) artists. A critical discussion of how to achieve this goal should be an antidote for “group think.” Achieving a goal in the real world requires realistic thinking, whereas “group think” tends to be relevant only for the group.
Rex, welcome to A&P.
For me the antidote to group think is to travel in a variety of circles. I have one or two close friends that are visual artists, but my other friends operate in other fields: musicians, filmmakers, engineers, scientists, novelists, businesspeople, even a lawyer or two. I don’t really think of them as my audience, though at times they are, so much as people to learn from. I don’t mind talking with them about art, but I’m generally more interested in learning about what they do.
I find the same thing applies to my reading, which covers the gamut from art history and literature to science, business, and philosophy. For me switching between these different languages keeps me from getting too stuck in one mode. The diverse input informs my artmaking, and also keeps me learning about the world.
Rex’s Monet analogy works great here, “group thinking” might turn into “group affected thinking” quickly, unless one has a firm grip on their “self” and their “ideals”. Monet was smart to flee or lead, depending on how one views it. Surely, the benefit of having critical input should be to challenge and catalyze ones personal views and approaches, by having “peers we respect” offer input for our consideration. Aside from our peers, the “public audience” is a very important comodity to an artist as well, alienating them will surely not help in becoming successful, but could guarantee ones lack of it. Furthermore, learning to “read and listen” to the public audience as an actual tool, a meter of sorts, by helping to target ones chosen people,(and seeing when we are off target), helping us to avoid trying to “sell our steak to hamburger customers, and selling our hamburger to steak customers” and so on.
David’s reference to travel, diverse and educated friends, “cross-field” reading and study are so important to feed and enlighten the minds of the creative,(how many have felt raised to action by some great music, artwork, or words). One need not look far to see some of the world’s greatest achievers, and how broad their scope of interest and study actually was, and how rich their associations.
An artist must stay true to themselves, while simultaneously avoid becoming hardened to the world outside. Afterall, we have judged the great societies of history based on their art and creativity almost exclusively.
One suspects there would be no hostility to an idea outside the ambit of this discussion so far, but besides that there is a case to be made for an already emerging core of group think here. Hostility, being a strong word, one might find group think both in (a) a general resistance to alternative ideas, and (b) the mis-renaming of people’s points so that they can be incorporated under the group think umbrella. Thus, my comments are advanced, not to broadside the identifiable consensus visible here, but to make the discussion centrifugal instead of centripetal.
At a minimum, one has to say the considered avoidance of group think is an instance of group think, i.e., it is a dogmatic point, unexamined for why it must be. How does group think come about then? Off the top of my head, I can think of two ways; I am sure there are more. (1) Someone considered a leader, for whatever reason, is essentially the growing group’s culture hero, and dictates how things should be; (2) Group think emerges as a way to protect an already existing success, or what is perceived as a success. Thus, a successful theater company, founded on (1) the ideals of their culture hero, continues to produce plays in the same vein, same style, same format in order to (2) protect the niche it has carved out for itself. One might even say that group think spawns almost inevitably, and that one can see a tiny instance of it accreting around the culture hero of Rex’s article.
As such, it is difficult to draw a distinction between the insular group that doesn’t pay attention to the world, audience, or other artists anymore, and the insular, successful theater group that keeps doing its thing, regardless of the audience as well. The main distinction, in fact, is the success of the latter.
So, it seems clear that avoiding group think can be a strategy for failure in certain instances. What is the distinction then? Or, more precisely, instead of demonizing group think, how can its positive elements be identified.
At a minimum, one certainly sees that “vision” is little different than group think–the apparatus that Woody Allen has built up around himself over the years has led to a tremendous artistic output. At an even more stellar level, Tarkovsky always worked with “his gang” and, in Soviet Russia (as in Russia still, I would imagine) having “a gang” highly committed to a particular vision is seen as necessary to success. This would seem to describe Karl’s “group goals” but still provides no distinguishing description from group think itself.
David notes that different kinds of cultural contact are enlivening to art. This is very true. Where the negative influence of this comes in is not so much from endless sips of absinthe and pipe smoke and discussions, but from a population doing so who are not committed artists. I have a number of friends who claim to be writers, and never write. Etc. I’d tag these as the group think perils, from which Monet was quite correct to separate himself–simply to go and actually get something done. I’ve hung out with groups of working artists (working meaning, people actually doing art), and it has never been non-enlivening, even when we aren’t talking about art.
Lionizing Monet’s flight, however, is disingenuous. I’m not sure if he didn’t recreate later in his parlor what he fled from in previous years. That’s a task for biographers to illuminate. But to the extent that group think (or “vision”) as the “negative” and “positive” versions of the phenomena help to crystallize various movements, genres, aspects, techniques, or some other element of an art or arts, this “defining” (Bakhtin would say centripetal) tendency, even when it devolves to dogma, serves as a point of departure for the next considered wave of art. Arguably, part of the problem with art, in its socially transformative sense, these days is that there are almost no traditions to push against. Postmodern self-consciousness has pushed the domain of the experience of art largely into the background, and the dialogue about art (being less about the art itself) is more about how various individuals (sometimes critics) observe the art. In other words, the discourse about art is more at the metalevel of description, than at the level of the experience of art itself–a tendency not limited to the field of art, but found across all levels of U.S. culture at this point. (I’m speaking only of my impressions of the United States, by the way.) I apologize also for how sketchy that sounded; I’d elaborate, but I’m going on long enough as is.
So the difference between “visionaries” and “cliquish bastards” is frequently little more than a response to the attitude of the group-think group. Sometimes, it’s even so simple as those who will let one in, versus those who won’t. This is hardly a supportable distinction, since it’s entirely ad hoc. One thinks that group consensus, as a reflection of the values of that group, cannot simply be tarred as negative. Similarly, it is facile to say that the rejection of an idea that is contrary to the group consensus or values constitutes hostility; if our group is interested in the possibilities of representative pointillism, someone with the opinion “that sucks” is not a welcome or necessary factor. One rarely encounters such refreshingly honest exclusiveness of the “We’re in, you’re out. Ha!” sort, such that to characterize that most group consensus and value-systems function in that light is merely rhetorical.
On a personal note, as an artist (writer, and composer) I would dearly love a group of like-minded individuals, who were willing bash, weigh, toss around, dissect, eviscerate, laud, and examine under a microscope my works in attentive detail. I would dearly love as well associating with a bunch of other people similarly inclined, and who were producing works that demanded such attention from me. Figuring out how to get audiences (and especially today’s audiences) to sweat the details of works is a major challenge. I’d like to induce appreciation, not just sensation. In other words, I’d love a group that group thinks that way. Maybe the implicit openness of such a group implies it’s not a case of group think, but I’m entirely prepared to be dogmatic about “Anything goes!” so long as the commitment to art and each other is maintained.
Lastly, Jon notes the power of great works to inspire. Indeed, truly great works (Shostakovich’s symphonies for instance) do awe me, but he composes so far beyond my abilities that it never crosses my mind to attempt what he does. Inspiration to write for me more frequently comes from much less stellar material—anecdotes from daily life, newspaper articles, badly written stories, merely passable plays. In the gloopy clay of poorly executed art, I often find the fertilizer for my imagination.
Snow Leopard, Thanks for this comment. I have all day been regretting my statement “On Art & Perception we don’t have this problem [i.e. group think].” What could be more a symptom of “group think” than denying it? At the same time, without some common basis for thought, it is not possible to have a discussion.
Blogs are often too warm and fuzzy to provide useful critique of artwork (“Love this new picture, Joe!”). News groups like rec.arts.fine are great for getting harsh criticism, but sometimes they seem like a place to vent aggression more than anything else.
Unfortunately, when I at last have time to write, another obligation has intruded. I promised a friend of mine I’d put together his computer. This will be followed by the inevitable re-install of the operating system, followed by the inevitable need for updates, requiring the computer to be networked without a working operating system…
Honestly, I think would rather roll around in broken glass right now.
And this after a day busting up concrete with a jack hammer followed by loading and unloading a big truckload of building supplies…
So I’ll have to get back to these fine posts with some comments in the morning.
Cheers,
Rex
I think would rather roll around in broken glass right now.
If you do, be sure to post some photos :)
Well, just like I thought, my sore back and cranky attitude and all these dumb technical glitches combined to prevent me from finishing that computer, but here it is morning, and I’m determined to write a little before I finish the job, and I will do THAT before I exhaust myself physically. I am not 22 any more. *sigh*
***
Karl,
Thanks for providing the precision definition. I’d pretty much intuited that. One suspects that when group think occurs, the last people that recognize it are the ones doing it.
***
David,
Thanks for the welcome.
I find it necessary and helpful to do what you do as well — keep my social and artistic circles diverse. Though my own works uses old fashioned techniques, I like, and collect, stuff very different than my own work. Furthermore, when I research and discover things in other art forms, things that were not obvious become obvious. For example, when I hear a musician practicing and practicing and practicing but never getting around to actually playing a piece with feeling and then sharply discount some piece because “it’s easy,” I see very well what’s going on with them artistically; whereas, in my own occasional obsessions with technical perfection, I have not, and my work has suffered.
***
Jon,
I probably know more about Monet than is healthy, but your comment about Monet’s “decision to flee or to lead, depending how one views it” reminded me some “Monet mysteries.” How he was so independent yet became such a nexus has not adequately explained in any bio. There are just some some cryptic comments, like Cezanne say, “Oh no! Even you!” (quoting Michelangelo talking to Leonardo after the former overheard Leonardo saying something unkind)… indicating that Monet must have said something about Cezanne in some circumstance that violated a trust. So there must have been a deep trust. They became estranged.
(My guess is that when Cezanne prostrated himself before Rodin and kissed his feet at one of Monet’s parties, Monet said something like, “Gee. You can’t take that guy anywhere.” From my reading of Cezanne’s personality, you could not say something like that and expect Cezanne to ‘get it’.)
In Monet’s letters, one sees that he was simply not a jealous artist. His capacity for admiration is quite admirable. The words he uses to describe his feelings about John Singer Sargent’s works is telling.
(I’m pretty much ga ga over Sargent myself.)
It’s pretty clear that his “leadership,” wasn’t really leadership as it’s known in business or warcraft but more communication and kindness combined with definite ambitions to push forward art while letting the chips fall where they may. His bios pretty much all say that, but there is more. I can smell it.
***
Snow Leopard,
First, it’s critical comments like yours that are just the sort that avoid group-think think. I find irony there.
But since you ARE being, in some parts of your post, purely rhetorical, I shall be so too. When you extend the definition of group think beyond the meaning as used by me and as more explicitly defined by Karl, then show that meaning to generate inconsistent, erroneous, or invalid conclusions, the classic riposte is to explicitely return the meaning to it’s original. In an argument that is poorly presented, it will be necessary to actually define a term for the first time, but in this case, I don’t need to do that.
You’ll recall first of all, that I quoted Karl as my starting point, and the phrase was “silly group-think.” That adjectival modifier does indicate a particular kind of group think. I then listed examples — a by no means exhaustive catalog — of different kinds of group think that I have seen to be destructive to relations with the rest of society. You indicated that you were aware of the pitfalls associated with that kind of group think.
There is another kind of “group thinking.” There are other terms to describe that; “group consciousness,” “esprit d’corps,” and “gestalt mind,” come immediately to the fore.
As a kid, I played a lot of soccer. I’d grown up with the guys I played with. By the time we were in high school, we were so tuned to each other, we could know just where each of us was on the field without even having to look. We played to each other’s strengths and covered each other’s weaknesses. I for example was a famous “ball stripper” (taking the ball away from the other guy), but I was a poor dribbler (kicking the ball and running with it), so my job was to get that ball and pass it quickly to one of my teammates — at least one of whom could always be counted on to be strategic and open. One of of the other halfbacks, always a little overweight, was not very quick, He could not dash all over the field like others, but man could he kick that ball! So we would set him up with some clear space and feed the ball to him in such a way that he could send it down the field to one of the awaiting forwards. Point is, as individuals, we had our problems, but as a team, we were beautiful and powerful. None of our opponents had that kind of cohesion and cooperation. We routinely slaughtered them. I went to a different college than my teammates, but my buddies pushed Fresno State to a series of national championships and started something of a dynasty.
That experience always served to inform all my future relations. That kind of group THING is one of the more exhilarating and magnificent aspects of the human experience. You express your yearning there. True that, brother.
And it got me thinking. I should do another post about THAT.
Rex, this idea of the power of a small group is in some ways similar to my experience in Walter Bartman’s art class in high school. I’m working on getting an interview with “Mr. Bartman” ready for Art and Perception. I’ve seen a lot of art communities since then, but nothing that was like what I experienced as a teenager.
Which brings us back to “group think.” If a group is doing something impressive and positive, who cares if it has “group think” or not? Or put another way, how to achieve that type of “group” think”?
I think part of it is defining the goals. In the soccer example, the goal is obvious: to win by scoring, well, goals.
Walter Bartman was also able to set big goals for his students. Ironically, the goals in the end are not what matters most, but they provided a meaningful context to interact.