I read yesterday in the New York Times about a show called “NeoIntegrity” at the Derek Eller Gallery, curated by the painter Keith Mayerson. What caught my eye was the charming manifesto Mayerson created for the show (not included in the article). It touches on many points often discussed here on A&P (but apparently still not settled!). Here’s the manifesto:
1. Art should be reflective of the artist who made it, and the culture in which it is produced.
2. Art is aesthetic, and whether ugly, beautiful, or sublime, it should be interesting to look at and/or think about.
3. Art is not necessarily commodity, and commodity is not the reason to produce or appreciate art.
4. Art is about ideas, the progression of ideas, the agency of the artist to have ideas, the communication by the artist to the world of their ideas because agency and ideas are important and what art is.
5. Art communicates via its own internal language, and by the language the viewer brings to a work of art. But this language is not entirely textually based, and being an aesthetic object (or image[s], idea[s], comic, or happening[s]), the work communicates in such a way to be transcendent beyond language, and traditional constructs of textually based ideology. Therefore the work of art remains a deep communication between artist and viewer, and withholds the possibility of the sublime.
6. Art is rather than tells, it is about itself; it shows itself to be about what it is rather than being an illustration of what it isn’t.
7. Art is important because it reminds us that we are human, and ultimately, that is its function.
8. Art can be, and should be sublime, in that it is able to produce images directly from the mind and imagination of the artist, producing tangible realities from the fertile imaginings of the conscious and unconscious of the artist, triggering responses from the same in the viewer via form and light and color, that transcends language and received ways of looking at things, that, while ideological, comes closest to directly communicating from one animal to another in the most broad, base, but considered aesthetic language possible.
9. Art should be alive, have a life of its own, transgress intended meaning or hand or wit of the artist in that it arranges, via form, light, color, and space, other worlds that are optical and transmit cognitive reactions in the mind of the viewer that cause an ineffable schism between belief and reality that cause the work as to appear to be breathing life.
10. Art can indeed be windows onto other worlds, windows into the soul, able to capture dream space/time unlike any other medium because they are produced by the mind, gesture, hand and intellect of the artist, who consciously or unconsciously cannot hope to ultimately control the meaning, interpretation, or event described by the hand and mind of the unconscious.
11. Art should be experienced: a good work of art cannot be successfully reproduced or explained, indeed, that is ultimately the only reason art is important in the age of corporate commodity culture: it has an aura that cannot be contained-it is a result of a peculiar man-made alchemy that comes closest to recreating the soul.
I disagree with the reviewer, Holland Cotter, that “each definition comes with a modifying, even contradictory statement.” For example, there’s no contradiction in my mind for an art work to reflect both artist and culture. But Cotter’s right that “there’s something here for almost everyone to accept or reject.” And I also agree that this manifesto, whether it takes itself seriously or not, is more inclusive than exclusive.
What I found most interesting were the implicit definitions of aesthetic (#2) as “interesting to look at and/or think about,” and sublime (#8) as, essentially, communicating without using language. Perhaps my favorite is (#9) that an artwork should have a life of its own, potentially even undercutting the artist’s intentions.
Would you sign on to this statement? What do you like, dislike, or have a comment on?
Steve:
You just hijacked my entire day! This manifesto is a balloon begging to be popped. Perhaps with a Cotter pin.
I tend to object to the term “should” as it appears in a number of places. To me, Mayerson is interjecting his own personal insistences into what is otherwise a recitation of broadly accepted principles. His own demands as a central theme would be fine, but he’s mixing modes. Before going any further, I must go upstairs and don my schoolmarm outfit, complete with wire frame glasses.
It would be fun to boil this manifesto down to its smallest size, while keeping the essentials.
This one, I need to think. I read about the exhibition yesterday (not the manifesto). Now that we have the manifesto, I would like to sit down to dinner with this. Good post, Steve.
Blech.
I definitely would not sign this manifesto, which seems to have been written by an overeager first year art student.
Too many “shoulds.” Too many basic ideas.
Boring!
1. Art should be reflective of the artist who made it, and the culture in which it is produced.
How painful to read this.
Darn. And I was having such a good morning. Now I’m so cranky…
DAVID’S MINI-FESTO:
Artists who write manifestos should have a sense of humor.
Last year about this time I instigated an Art Movement contest over on Ed Winkleman’s site. A bunch of us submitted movement names and manifestos. Here was mine:
Fundaminimalism
slogan:
“art by the rules”
manifesto:
1.) All art must follow the rules.
2.) Art that doesn’t follow the rules isn’t art.
3.) Not knowing the rules is no excuse.
4.) The rules may change at any time.
—–
PS – Birgit, please don’t worry about me :)
David,
Totalitarianism in art religion.
Even I got that.
Gaaaa, Steve, aaaargh,
I guess I could sit down and try to suss out what, if any, of this stuff might be meaningful to me right now, but I think I’ll have another cuppa, instead.
I like David’s manifesto, myself. And Tree, don’t get cranky, just think how good it makes you feel to know Mayerson’s Manifesto is manifestly foolishness.
Sorry, Steve. Some of what is here is what we used to call “truisms” — that is, true statements so basic that they carry no meaning: ie # 1, to which I say, duh, how can art not be reflective of the artist and the society?
Some of it is contradictory (“Therefore the work of art remains a deep communication between artist and viewer, and withholds the possibility of the sublime (# 6)”…”(# 8) Art can be, and should be sublime…)
And of course there’s the tiresome sexism:”a peculiar man-made alchemy”
I think Mr.Mayerson thinks too much while he paints.
But thanks for getting my dander up so early in the AM — a little adrenaline mixed with some Peets Coffee sets me up for the rest of the day <snort>
Sorry I ruined everyone’s day! But hey, don’t squat with your spurs on. I think there’s something to be learned from even a provincial New Yorker’s statement. Maybe that there’s a lot of muddled thinking out there and basically we’re all in the dark? At least when it comes to putting it into words…
David, can I get into your show if I sign your manifesto? Hmmm, which brings up another point: is there really zero correlation between one’s professed ideas about art and one’s ability to be productive, get into galleries, become famous?
Even June riled up! Be careful who you’re with today, I just read that mental arousal for ANY cause makes you more susceptible to falling in love.
David, can I get into your show if I sign your manifesto?
As long as you follow the rules.
…is there really zero correlation between one’s professed ideas about art and one’s ability to be productive, get into galleries, become famous
Professed ideas are different from actual ideas.
Actual ideas are the ones that inform your work, and if you’re excited about them they can only help your productivity. Professed ideas are what you say in public. It’s probably good if they provoke controversy and are entertaining. Warhol and Damien Hirst are good examples. But then of course you could take Jasper Johns’ approach, and just do great work without saying much about it.
mental arousal for ANY cause makes you more susceptible to falling in love
I’m going to be very careful. The last thing I want to do is fall in love with a zombie vampire.
Steve
“Be careful who you’re with today, I just read that mental arousal for ANY cause makes you more susceptible to falling in love.”
This worries me as I am going to be spending the day visiting pizza parlors to find the right sized boxes to contain pleine aire paintings. I’m not sure I want to become enamored of the pimply-faced pizza baristas — too young and they smell like pizza! Of course, it might account for my (long-departed) checkered youth…..
And of course again, professed ideas are different from actual ones — you, Steve, are working hard on actual ones.
June, I’m trying only now I’m depressed that this made it into the NYTimes while I slave away in obscurity (hand to pale forehead)
Ah, Tree, I understand the wan hand to pale forehead. Are you on the proper (horsehair) chaise lounge? It’s always good to do penance for the NY Times.
Hey, I just went to the Derek Eller Gallery website and looked at the link for the NeoIntegrity show. There are 184 artists listed! There are artists whose names begin with “a”, artists whose names begin with “z”, and a whole bunch in between. Kind of like the phone book.
I’ve stopped reading the art reviews here in L.A. When you’re working 6 days a week on a blockbuster zombie vampire movie, you have to make choices about your time.
June, oh yes indeed, whenever the vapors strike, I make a graceful backwards swan dive on the divan.
David,
Six days a week? I thought that you chose a job that interferes with your art as little as possible.
I thought that you chose a job that interferes with your art as little as possible.
I guess I f*cked up.
Can’t wait seeing your zombie vampire images.
If you go to see the movie, let me know how it is.
David:
Checked into the Derek Eller site myself because your report seemed preposterous. I didn’t count the number, but yes, there’s one passel of people in that show. Do you think that they can all be up at once? I would think that the NYC fire marshal’s office would post limits on how many artists can exhibit in one venue.
Sunil, if you’re available and have time and inclination, could you please report on what’s going on there? 184 for Pete’s sake! Thanks in advance.
Yes, they’re all up at once. You can see photos of the walls in the NY Times article.
Steve:
There they are. The sheer paperwork involved here must be huuuge! (That’s my Tiny Elvis impersonation)
Steve, thanks for the link to the NYT article. One line, “In planning it Mr. Mayerson ransacked his address book and memory bank,” explains the a-z list. Mayerson seems to have done a fine job of representing the alphabetic diversity of the NY art scene.
David:
That’s a-z for you to say.
This manifesto fails because it is a anti-textual manifesto. Art is about something other than what we talk about when we talk about art. Art is difficult to describe if it is art and if it is made to be talked about than maybe it sucks as art. Anyway, that’s my summary.
David,
Does Gerhard Richter’s statement have a meaning?
.
Does he refer to medieval madonnas, Rembrandt’s fat burghers, Toulouse-Lautrec’s prostitutes…?
How come I get all the hard questions?
Too bad, you are suffering to be my mentor.
There may be a lesson in Erle Loran’s disregard of many of Cezanne’s statements?