What's Your Motif, Baby? (Autumn 2007)
Hi,
I'm not there.
That's the title of a film I saw last night, but it really
resumate why and how I've been abandoning blogging for a while.
I just ain't there. I think I need to let things go by a little
until the artworld is able to charm me again. For the moment
I am less interested by art when I see it, than everything that
surrounds it. I am obsessed by the behind-the-curtains
of how we've come to set up and stage these things that we call art.
In most of what I experienced recently I could resumate it in 3 words:
absurdity, money and aggressivity. Most art piece now that I meet now
I see it as a bully. Yes, it is a big bully and it's trying to kill me.
No, seriously, what art piece of recent is not seriously attempting to damage
the significance of the viewer? Which curator, gallerist, or artist even
care about the viewer anymore? The artworld is a wheel of its own.
There is no dialogue, everyone does their own little thing, and festivals
happen, a few critics write about them, and most people are obliveous to all
this like curators are obliveous to, say, whatever some Cedric Caspesyan
would have to say about their darn PR on some forgotten blog. It's
this whole "this is MY program, baby" culture that I am growing very wary of.
I don't understand why art happenings are not curated by a mass, by vote,
by groups of 20 people and more. I am tired of events that are programmed by
the same unique voices since so many years and are presented as the official
cultural voice representing how things of cultural significance and
impact shall be remembered within a certain geography because that is
all the civilization in that same geography could ever afford: the means of selecting 3 or 4 candidate artkings or artqueens who will decide what goes on in national museums or important national-international art events for a certain number of years.
This is why I don't feel like writting about what I feel anymore.
I have nothing to say about Mois De La Photo, Festival Du Nouveau
Cinema, and all other-related art events I have attended in recent months.
It would be just pointless. Just like criticizing the museum
shows that I've seen. The people in these institutions practically own
these places. They've been in seat since years and years.
Who would pull Marie Fraser away from programming the Month
Of La Photo? Or...Why??!! "Oh so you didn't like our program? Oh that's ok, Marie will surely have some fine good ideas next year". (please understand I use Marie as an example, I don't mean to attack her personally).
Actually I'm not trying to accuse or make anyone lose their job.
It is perfectly understandable that people keep their position for
a long time. It is in fact much more weirder when you see the employees
of a institution or festival completely change year after year
(Festival Du Nouveau Cinema was almost all new people this year).
So there is comfort in recognizing the people sometimes, especially
when they are able to recognize that you've been a longtime client
of their events (they rarely care in subventioned Quebec, to be honest, but in New York people in a gallery will recognize you while there is no way anyone at Montreal
Skol gallery would ever recognize me as it's filled with newbies every second year,
and who cares what shows I've seen there back in 1988? Or what show was there anyway?).
So I'm not really sure what it is I am after here, I'm not about
people loosing their jobs more than concerned about developing stages
where more voices are jointed to decide of cultural events AT THE DEVELOPMENTAL stage. Sort of a pre-fest public vote. Let's see who the public think should be invited in your biennial? Or what theme it should be proposing to the invited
artists? "Expand" your jury. Make it 12, more than 5. And gosh, make it hard for artists.
Because indeed life is either hard or easy for artists these days depending of how
they manage to interact with the very few people in power to show them in institutions. In Canada, if a curator in high position likes you very much, they
can make your show travel a dozen place, and make you sound like a much more
important artist than you truly are, simply because there is that little means
to get more of curators in place (it's all government paid jobs, follow me).
It's a bit dramatic when you see these choices being made by people you are,
for one simple non-significant amateur, able to judge as having little to no pertinence, this decipherable by them being constantly out of loop or a couple years late with the criticism the same you-amateur has observed happening in other spheres of the world. It is scarier sometimes when you learn more about the people on administrative boards who decide what curators will be in place ("what bank did you say you work for, again?").
And then there is art, and what the artist is trying to say...
More importantly: their motivations. Because in the end an artist
always speak about his/her motivations.
Some motivation:
"I want to be loved, AKA Please make me popular: I think I'm good and deserve it, and what I have to say hopefully have some importance because my survival depends on my need to feel pride"
"Pouah: I'm the best, period. Just admit it"
"Darn I hope I'm going to make a lot of money...so tired to live in a pithole"
Sometimes when you're lucky, it's:
"I hope this art responds to this art or issues well. I need to tell this (these) artist(s) that I admire him (them) very much (I'm the groupie, afterall)"
"Wow, this is amazing, people should see this"
"hey what the fuck, I'm only here to have some fun! Wanna play?"
(I deleted the other motivations, it was just grotesque).
It's like this: I find art to be a pretext for hidden artists psychological
motivations. Maybe things are interesting because they're not so obvious,
but I feel a profund distrust of most art proposals these days.
I think I'm hitting the nail of sincerity. I don't know.
My personal motivation is probably "hey! I'm stupid!" these days.
But I just keep asking myself "Why do they do this? Why did they do that?
Why?". I think the Why has drastically replaced the What and the How in
my recent interpretations of art, and the answers, or my presomptions of these answers, got most of the time too boring to give me reasons to write about it. Luckily I'm not up to the Who yet!!! Most people you talk art with will run to the Who fast enough !!! "Ahh...Rembrandt". I read press art articles that are mostly about which personalities attended which art fairs. And that was the only substantial art articles they had in a while (La Presse, last thursday or friday, article about Frieze and billionarism). We should call these festivals the Who Fests, they're not really art fairs. Art has less and less to do with them. The last Art Review magazine had hollywood-star looking Pierre Huygue and Matthew Barney on the cover: it's all about the Who now.
So, Who's Cedric?
Cedric's been to New York lately, and yes, has seen quite a few art shows.
Mostly 3 names made the season: Richard Serra, Keith Tyson and Mike Nelson.
I'm purposefully namedropping because that is what you want. So dig the rest
of the info yourself, you don't need me. Chris Offili had also 2 sculptures that will stand out, I think.
I've been visiting about half of Mois De La Photo in Montreal (selected merely the best spots (that is, architecturally, I meant what I said about "art surrounds"), but also many were showing old stuff I already saw, so I skipped). Grosso-modo: thought too much of it was pretentious no-cinema cinema. Cineasts pretending to be visual artists, (or vice-versa in the worst cases) and curators obliveous to an age-old experimental scene in cinema. Mind you some of my art would have fit perfectly with this theme, in a Sam Taylor-Woodiesque way. But I think they all forgot Sam Taylor-Wood there. The Video Room in St-Henry looked like an imaginary great gallery space, but was quite uncomfortable and cold as a cinema.
Speaking of cinema: I missed a good portion of Festival Du Nouveau Cinema, though I had bought the festival pass as usual (I attend this festival since 17 years!). I had
a week of medical exams. My creatinine is going up too fast. I even missed
the technological art part of the fest which is usually my favorite part
(but now curated by people I never heard from). No films this year at FNC impressed me as much as David Lynch's "Inland Empire" that everyone hated a couple months back. I kind of hope it was a bad year just to feel less sorry for not having wholly been there. I made the mistake of trusting the big names and they all disappointed me. The surprises were all from the newbies (find the list of this year's fest's winners and you will see).
Artefact at Ile-Ste-Helene (Montreal) was one of the best art moment of the year. A lot of the art was ordinary, but the show had guts, felt ambitious, and set in fantastic settings. All future art shows should look like this one.
I visited a couple other places too. Who wants to hear about Renoir in Ottawa?
Didn't think so.
I'm in the process of finding a new place to live, pending on what goes on with my health (I feel somewhat in shape, there is just some checking to be done, but no
doctors are running to call me so I am guessing nothing too urgent).
I sometimes comment on Edward Winkleman's blog these days.
I'll be back,
Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com
I'm not there.
That's the title of a film I saw last night, but it really
resumate why and how I've been abandoning blogging for a while.
I just ain't there. I think I need to let things go by a little
until the artworld is able to charm me again. For the moment
I am less interested by art when I see it, than everything that
surrounds it. I am obsessed by the behind-the-curtains
of how we've come to set up and stage these things that we call art.
In most of what I experienced recently I could resumate it in 3 words:
absurdity, money and aggressivity. Most art piece now that I meet now
I see it as a bully. Yes, it is a big bully and it's trying to kill me.
No, seriously, what art piece of recent is not seriously attempting to damage
the significance of the viewer? Which curator, gallerist, or artist even
care about the viewer anymore? The artworld is a wheel of its own.
There is no dialogue, everyone does their own little thing, and festivals
happen, a few critics write about them, and most people are obliveous to all
this like curators are obliveous to, say, whatever some Cedric Caspesyan
would have to say about their darn PR on some forgotten blog. It's
this whole "this is MY program, baby" culture that I am growing very wary of.
I don't understand why art happenings are not curated by a mass, by vote,
by groups of 20 people and more. I am tired of events that are programmed by
the same unique voices since so many years and are presented as the official
cultural voice representing how things of cultural significance and
impact shall be remembered within a certain geography because that is
all the civilization in that same geography could ever afford: the means of selecting 3 or 4 candidate artkings or artqueens who will decide what goes on in national museums or important national-international art events for a certain number of years.
This is why I don't feel like writting about what I feel anymore.
I have nothing to say about Mois De La Photo, Festival Du Nouveau
Cinema, and all other-related art events I have attended in recent months.
It would be just pointless. Just like criticizing the museum
shows that I've seen. The people in these institutions practically own
these places. They've been in seat since years and years.
Who would pull Marie Fraser away from programming the Month
Of La Photo? Or...Why??!! "Oh so you didn't like our program? Oh that's ok, Marie will surely have some fine good ideas next year". (please understand I use Marie as an example, I don't mean to attack her personally).
Actually I'm not trying to accuse or make anyone lose their job.
It is perfectly understandable that people keep their position for
a long time. It is in fact much more weirder when you see the employees
of a institution or festival completely change year after year
(Festival Du Nouveau Cinema was almost all new people this year).
So there is comfort in recognizing the people sometimes, especially
when they are able to recognize that you've been a longtime client
of their events (they rarely care in subventioned Quebec, to be honest, but in New York people in a gallery will recognize you while there is no way anyone at Montreal
Skol gallery would ever recognize me as it's filled with newbies every second year,
and who cares what shows I've seen there back in 1988? Or what show was there anyway?).
So I'm not really sure what it is I am after here, I'm not about
people loosing their jobs more than concerned about developing stages
where more voices are jointed to decide of cultural events AT THE DEVELOPMENTAL stage. Sort of a pre-fest public vote. Let's see who the public think should be invited in your biennial? Or what theme it should be proposing to the invited
artists? "Expand" your jury. Make it 12, more than 5. And gosh, make it hard for artists.
Because indeed life is either hard or easy for artists these days depending of how
they manage to interact with the very few people in power to show them in institutions. In Canada, if a curator in high position likes you very much, they
can make your show travel a dozen place, and make you sound like a much more
important artist than you truly are, simply because there is that little means
to get more of curators in place (it's all government paid jobs, follow me).
It's a bit dramatic when you see these choices being made by people you are,
for one simple non-significant amateur, able to judge as having little to no pertinence, this decipherable by them being constantly out of loop or a couple years late with the criticism the same you-amateur has observed happening in other spheres of the world. It is scarier sometimes when you learn more about the people on administrative boards who decide what curators will be in place ("what bank did you say you work for, again?").
And then there is art, and what the artist is trying to say...
More importantly: their motivations. Because in the end an artist
always speak about his/her motivations.
Some motivation:
"I want to be loved, AKA Please make me popular: I think I'm good and deserve it, and what I have to say hopefully have some importance because my survival depends on my need to feel pride"
"Pouah: I'm the best, period. Just admit it"
"Darn I hope I'm going to make a lot of money...so tired to live in a pithole"
Sometimes when you're lucky, it's:
"I hope this art responds to this art or issues well. I need to tell this (these) artist(s) that I admire him (them) very much (I'm the groupie, afterall)"
"Wow, this is amazing, people should see this"
"hey what the fuck, I'm only here to have some fun! Wanna play?"
(I deleted the other motivations, it was just grotesque).
It's like this: I find art to be a pretext for hidden artists psychological
motivations. Maybe things are interesting because they're not so obvious,
but I feel a profund distrust of most art proposals these days.
I think I'm hitting the nail of sincerity. I don't know.
My personal motivation is probably "hey! I'm stupid!" these days.
But I just keep asking myself "Why do they do this? Why did they do that?
Why?". I think the Why has drastically replaced the What and the How in
my recent interpretations of art, and the answers, or my presomptions of these answers, got most of the time too boring to give me reasons to write about it. Luckily I'm not up to the Who yet!!! Most people you talk art with will run to the Who fast enough !!! "Ahh...Rembrandt". I read press art articles that are mostly about which personalities attended which art fairs. And that was the only substantial art articles they had in a while (La Presse, last thursday or friday, article about Frieze and billionarism). We should call these festivals the Who Fests, they're not really art fairs. Art has less and less to do with them. The last Art Review magazine had hollywood-star looking Pierre Huygue and Matthew Barney on the cover: it's all about the Who now.
So, Who's Cedric?
Cedric's been to New York lately, and yes, has seen quite a few art shows.
Mostly 3 names made the season: Richard Serra, Keith Tyson and Mike Nelson.
I'm purposefully namedropping because that is what you want. So dig the rest
of the info yourself, you don't need me. Chris Offili had also 2 sculptures that will stand out, I think.
I've been visiting about half of Mois De La Photo in Montreal (selected merely the best spots (that is, architecturally, I meant what I said about "art surrounds"), but also many were showing old stuff I already saw, so I skipped). Grosso-modo: thought too much of it was pretentious no-cinema cinema. Cineasts pretending to be visual artists, (or vice-versa in the worst cases) and curators obliveous to an age-old experimental scene in cinema. Mind you some of my art would have fit perfectly with this theme, in a Sam Taylor-Woodiesque way. But I think they all forgot Sam Taylor-Wood there. The Video Room in St-Henry looked like an imaginary great gallery space, but was quite uncomfortable and cold as a cinema.
Speaking of cinema: I missed a good portion of Festival Du Nouveau Cinema, though I had bought the festival pass as usual (I attend this festival since 17 years!). I had
a week of medical exams. My creatinine is going up too fast. I even missed
the technological art part of the fest which is usually my favorite part
(but now curated by people I never heard from). No films this year at FNC impressed me as much as David Lynch's "Inland Empire" that everyone hated a couple months back. I kind of hope it was a bad year just to feel less sorry for not having wholly been there. I made the mistake of trusting the big names and they all disappointed me. The surprises were all from the newbies (find the list of this year's fest's winners and you will see).
Artefact at Ile-Ste-Helene (Montreal) was one of the best art moment of the year. A lot of the art was ordinary, but the show had guts, felt ambitious, and set in fantastic settings. All future art shows should look like this one.
I visited a couple other places too. Who wants to hear about Renoir in Ottawa?
Didn't think so.
I'm in the process of finding a new place to live, pending on what goes on with my health (I feel somewhat in shape, there is just some checking to be done, but no
doctors are running to call me so I am guessing nothing too urgent).
I sometimes comment on Edward Winkleman's blog these days.
I'll be back,
Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com
posted by Cedric at 3:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home