Recently, I attended a local lecture by the New York City painter Alexis Rockman. Although his lecture touched on a number of subjects, one he kept returning to was that of the artist’s emotional commitment to her work. He started the lecture by giving a somewhat rote presentation of the historical development of his own paintings. This development was fed by myriad cultural influences, resulting in what appear to be richly allusive and iconographicaly dense landscapes. (I’ll admit to being only superficially familiar with the actual work, which isn’t my main subject here). Artistic influences that Rockman cited include Thomas Cole’s well-known Course of Empire series, the dinosaur artist Charles R. Knight, Goya’s war etchings, Diego Rivera’s murals, and The Planet of the Apes. In addition, the artist has been interested in the natural sciences, in particular evolutionary biology, geology and climatology. The intersection of nature with both science and art has been a central concern. As you can imagine, taking on all of this withing the landscape painting genre has required both erudition and considerable forethought in terms of draftsmanship and painterly execution.
In an exhibition last April however, Rockman showed–along with his usual oils on wood panels–a series of five oil on paper paintings. While treating analogous themes of disaster and apocalypse, they appear to be much rougher and more painterly in their execution. (I didn’t see the show, so I’m relying on the gallery website, as well as the artist’s own descriptions.) Significantly, they show destruction directly, while the panel pieces depict its aftermath. The importance of this new direction dominated the second half or so of the lecture. He stressed that this greater physical involvement with his working material went along with, and was intended to signal a more spontaneous, playful and emotional approach, one less detached and intellectual. He also described this as a return to his long-buried roots in Surrealism and Abstract Expressionism.
This change of direction and the personal and cultural conflicts it reveals and addresses are of interest to me, both as a (lapsed) artist and as a fan and critic of other people’s art. I come from an intellectual background, and while my relationship to formal schooling has been hit or miss, I do value “book-learning” as a way of understanding both visual art and the culture more broadly. I believe that its important to be aware of art’s history and philosophies and the ways in which these relate to other things. Most of the works of art that I value the most have more than strictly visual or expressive value, they connect to ideas and to history. Not everybody shares my values of course, but they do have wide currency in the contemporary artworld (in fashionable art galleries and magazines, for example). Alexis Rockman is as much a symptom of this as I am. For example, he stressed the need for the contemporary artist to “position” himself and his artistic approach, an injunction seemingly in contrast to his praise of emotional authenticity. The result of all of this is that work not sharing in these values often comes off as being naive, or provincial. No matter how well-done or beautiful, it can seem besides the point.
However, this kind of cultural and philosophical awareness can be dangerous, as anybody who has spent time browsing fashionable big city galleries hopefully recognizes. As I’ve been saying, an artist should be aware of his cultural environment and its history. Being a naif is usually a recipie for boring, cliched art (there are exceptions). But to merely reflect the culture in a passive, unreflective way tends to result in something distinct but similar. And to respond to it in an solely academic way usually results in “innovations” that are tedious and ultimately predictable. What Alexis was trying to get at, and what I’m trying to get at is that there needs to be a genuine personal commitment and that this needs to be evident somehow in the work. His solution has been to return to the materiality of paint; no doubt many other approaches exist.
In terms of radical formal and conceptual innovations, it appears that art has gone about as far as it can go, at least for the time being. The twentieth century was a period dominated by such innovations, done under the myth of moving art forward, of making progress. This effort (and its sustaining narrative) have largely collapsed, but some artists appear to be in denial. Tying your individuality or your ego to radicalism for radicalism’s sake doesn’t work any more, at least not for most young people. A lot of things don’t work anymore (or they never worked in the first place).
What does work, although of course not always, is a tricky balancing act. Irony, intellect, and detachment need to be somehow reconciled with sincerity, passion and love of life and art. On one hand, we have the image of the cool, calculating conceptual artist, a figure who doesn’t like to touch things (literally and/or metaphorically). On the other, we have that of the wild expressionist artist, driven solely by is instincts and feelings, largely oblivious to the world around him. These are crude stereotypes of course, but they help give shape to our picture of the field. There are also plenty of artists to which they are more or less applicable. Neither of these seems to work anymore. At any rate, they don’t work for me, and they don’t seem to be working for the majority of artists I respect most. (Which artists are these? Look around my blog and find out.)
Arthur,
What you have called the balancing act — “irony, intellect, and detachment … reconciled with sincerity, passion, and love of life and art” seems to me to be a bit too simple, or maybe just a tad old-fashioned, in its dichotomies. It was, after all, Yeats who said “The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” But that was in Ireland in 1920, 84 years ago.
Irony as an American “intellectual” trait, it seems to me, was pushed to the forefront by Vietnam, when we realized that we weren’t omnipotent or even all that virtuous (a realization that no longer surprises but is still with us). However, irony as a intellectual tactic has now become the refuge of the sophomoric — she who wants to appear intelligent while evading issues,or even evading art making.
Intellect, however, is different from irony, and I would argue, also from detachment. The best intellects I know are passionately attached — some to ideas, some to ways of living, some to visions about art. There are, of course, ironic philistines and persons who love life who are also detached about it.
I think the choice to be an artist who deals in irony could very well be the choice of an artist who feels passionate about his subject matter, but sees irony as a style that works for her. Or one who is thoroughly intellectual about her art could find that an expressionist style is what projects her ideas best.
I’m not sure what I’m trying to say, except that the dichotomy you set up might well be a straw critter, something to be knocked down rather easily. Why wouldn’t a person of sincere intellect, whether artist or banker, be ironic in today’s culture, be it an artistic, political, economic or environmental culture that’s being considered? But that ironic stance doesn’t preclude passion, or sincerity, or love of life — or intellect, for that matter.
I guess I think the categories you cite are already way beyond passe; if “they give shape to our field” then I fear I might be in the wrong field…..
Of course, as I think further, I also wonder if the extrapolation might not be from the art to the person — if the art is detached and/or ironic, then the artist must also be so. The wildly expressionist work must come out of the unconscious interior of the artist. And sometimes, of course, artists find their identity from what they appear to produce.
So in my fumbling around here, I would ask if you are characterizing art — or artists, if you are conflating the two (the art is the artist), or just trying to knock down some old shibboleths?
And of course, I’ll have to follow along with your blog, just to test out my queries.
Arthur, I think there are two distinct issues going on here.
The first has to do with the artist’s genuine outlook and ideas, the things they truly want to explore, their understanding of cultural context, and the intelligence and originality to do something innovative and substantial. In this regard I don’t think there’s much of a balancing act needed. Intellect and detachment can quite easily coexist with passion and sincerity, and enhance each other.
Irony, on the other hand, has become a cliche of contemporary art. Irony is very different from humor. It can be summed up by saying “I’m doing this, but of course I don’t really mean it.” Many people, it seems to me, are getting bored with it.
The real balancing act, I think, is between doing something because you truly care about it, and doing it as part of a positioning strategy. I find the former much more interesting than the latter.
The form of irony that Arthur opposes to sincerity, and that David disparages as passe cliche (sounds like a French verb form), is not the only one. I think there are also artists who point to irony in the world, by which I mean juxtaposition of incongruities, or coexistence of seemingly incompatible things. Any sincere intellect that views the world can see such ironies, and any sincere heart can feel the need to respond artistically. An example that comes to mind from photography is Robert Adams , one of the early photographers to point his camera at suburban developments, industrial landscapes, etc, and show them in their complexity and contradiction, not simply as obscenities to provoke a kneejerk reaction. That can be a hard balancing act for both artist and viewer.
Steve, I agree. Many of my favorite artists and authors use irony in exactly the way you describe. The irony that I’m bored with is the kind you see coming out of art schools, and at this point throughout the art world – sort of a smirky cleverness.
Arthur,
Interesting post and a subject I care about a lot.
THe kind of empty irony Davis seems to be pointing to is indeed tiresome. I would say that he is referring to a superficial irony, or maybe just bad art! I notice a lot of young artists and students using it as a shield, and as a way to try to show their intelligence and “hipness,” without much else going on behind it. Hopefully they grow out of that impulse…
I always think that if the artist is honestly engaged in whatever they are making – from the most conceptual intellectual piece to the most physical, gut wrenching one – then I will likely be engaged as well. That energy is that mysterious element that compells me to look more, read more, etc…
For me, irony can be a way into the work, a portal, an opening, especially for those who are relatively inexperienced in the arts, visual language, etc. I am thinking that irony can be accessible in the way that pop culture can be accessible and can lure the viewer into thinking about something more deeply. Irony does not have to equal lack of sincereity or passion, but it certainly can if it becomes a one liner.
Arthur,
I looked at all the links in your post. I wanted to familiarize myself with Rockman’s work and the context of it.
But I suspect I’m a complete naif.
It’s very difficult for me to take him seriously. His figures are awkwardly posed, stiff, and contrived. His handling of tone in the highlights is amateurishly exaggerated; that is, a little too bright and excessively blended in a failed attempt to compensate. His colors are childishly garish. Actually gross. Those fussy details and almost completely undifferentiated depth perspective are only slightly overcome when he copies photographs.
I can’t imagine hanging this stuff on my walls. It’s actually irritating to even look at. His work, in general, looks like bad illustrations in a high school textbook.
But again, I’m probably naive to think that just because someone can’t paint very well, doesn’t mean they don’t have something to say; still, my perceptions are colored by my distaste for his modern art school ineptitude. I’d hate to be this guy’s agent.
So the irony here is the use of hack technique to describe what appears to be a sincere attempt to deal with edgy subjects.
Frankly, I found the ideas in your post to be more interesting than the work.
June,
I would ask if you are characterizing art — or artists, if you are conflating the two (the art is the artist), or just trying to knock down some old shibboleths?
I was trying to suggest that I saw a distinction between the artist and the work. For example, I wrote of “a genuine personal commitment…that…needs to be evident somehow in the work”. To elaborate, I believe that while a work art is not a transparent or neutral reflection of the artist’s ideas or temperament, it does represent the artist in some sense. We respond to artworks as things created by people and we try try to infer what sort of decisions lead to the making of the work. Irony could be an example of this, although Steve points to a different kind, one that (perhaps) reflects on the world more than the author.
I guess I think the categories you cite are already way beyond passe
I’ve heard this line before; in fact, I’ve uttered it. But I don’t think its true. I don’t think that irony is something that “dies”, although it does go in and out of fashion and though it does take on new inflections. What exactly has replaced it?
More generally: Yes, its sincerity/irony is a simplistic dichotomy. That was my point. But people tend to be guided by simplistic dichotomies, even the clever philosophical types who like to sit around and prentend they’ve gone beyond it (for example me and you.)
Rex,
Yes, I agree that his colors are garish and the figures are overly mannered and contrived. This, I believe, is not simply a matter of the ineptitude you describe (although it appears to be that as well), but of the kind of “bad irony” that most of us seem to believe exists in one form or another. I suspect that the allusion to bad textbook illustrations is deliberate. I believe that he is also alluding to Mannerism, which also has some of the features that you can’t stand.
Anyways, this is why I pointed to his recent oil on paper pieces–the top row on the first page I linked to–as a welcome change of direction. This sentiment echoes ones conveyed by the artist himself in the lecture, as well as by many of the audience members.
That said, from what little I’ve seen of his work in reproduction, most of his work as interesting details. These are generally flat, not in deep perspective. And yes, I do find the ideas interesting. So as far as I’m concerned, the work is worth paying some attention to.
At any rate, my ideas were intended to be more interesting that the work as I presented it.
Yes Arthur,
His oil on paper works had some bravura to them, so perhaps he’s not revealing his true strengths.
But I’ve been thinking about what you’ve said here since last night. This is another of those posts that inspires thought but is heard to respond to in any quick way; the enjoyment is in the thoughts, not the writing back, so thank you.