It’s a lot of fun being an artist these days. Only a tiny percentage makes any money, but there is a big consolation prize in the form of attitude. Back in the late 19th century, many aspiring French artists were out to “épater le bourgeois.” The great problem going forward was that almost all artists were themselves part of the much-maligned group, the bourgeoisie. How, then, to amaze and startle oneself?
Early in the last century, Marcel Duchamp pioneered the two main strategies: the boring and the bizarre. To the first category belongs such “ready-mades” as “In Advance of the Broken Arm,” a “work” that consists of an ordinary snow shovel which, because Duchamp had the wit (or was it only the effrontery?) to exhibit it in an art gallery, suddenly achieved the transfiguring nimbus of Art with a capital “A.”
Duchamp’s second innovation aimed not to anesthetize viewers but to shock them. “Fountain,” an ordinary urinal displaced from the bathroom to the exhibition hall, was the founding gesture of that large gift to perpetual adolescents.
We’re much more sophisticated — at least, we’re much coarser — nowadays, so we are no longer shocked by the exhibition of a plumbing fixture. But in its time “Fountain” was every bit as shocking as (e.g.) Andres Serrano’s photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine.
There were plenty of titters, and probably other, less agreeable, sounds when Duchamp pulled his pranks, but what a large opening he created for those coming after him!
So you want to be an artist without, you know, actually mastering any art? No problem. See that Buick? Crush it and call it a work of art (that’s John Chamberlain). You’ll be hailed as a genius. Or hide under a platform in an art gallery while masturbating and broadcasting filthy language to the gallery goers. That’s Vito Acconci, another genius. And on and on. And on. Those two examples go back to the prehistoric age of the 1970s. It would be a simple matter to continue the story up to the present moment with scores, indeed hundreds, of figures who traffic in the banal, the repellent, or some combination of the two.
One thing that unites these various artists — besides, I mean, from their universal lack of any genuinely artistic talent — is the utter uniformity of their political attitudes.
Some are left-wing feminists. Some are left-wing environmentalists. Some are left-wing pacifists. All are proponents of what Frederick Crews, writing about a kindred development in literary criticism, identified as “Left Eclecticism.” In the art world as well as the world of academia, left eclecticism is less the name of a definite position than an attitude and style of (if I may adopt the Heideggerian formula) “being in the world.”
In short, while one proclaims one’s admiration for everything “transgressive,” everything that claims to “challenge” the status quo, one in fact is scrupulously careful to direct one’s transgressive, challenging gestures only to those conventions which are not part of the artistic community’s self-understanding. In challenging conventions, you do not, of course, challenge your own conventions. In celebrating diversity, you do not, of course, celebrate anyone who dissents in any important way from The Narrative. You respect the diversity of all those who agree with you. As for the rest, they are “offensive,” “divisive”; they contribute to “a climate of hate,” or whatever is this week’s favored term of opprobrium. In the name of diversity, they must be silenced.
How ironic! Charles Pratt, founder of the school, was one of the early greedy capitalist Oil Barons who joined Rockefeller in forming Standard Oil. He must be in centrifugal state in his tomb. I’m surprised that they haven’t dropped Industrial Design and Package Design ( Probably DeQuattro’s course ) from their curricula as fostering right wing apostacy.
Further support of VDH’s perspective of adolescence rampant in academia.
Every time I see liberalism equated with stagnant adolescence, I remember an episode of the classic TV show “Lost In Space” where Will Robinson winds up in an evil society ruled by teenagers who grow younger with each passing day. Even old Dr. Smith grows an afro and talks all “groovy” with his clipped British accent.
A whole generation of people deserve to be put across the knee of Lady Liberty and given a good spanking. And believe me, I’m being VERY charitable here with that metaphor since I do not want to be banned from further comments, IYKWIMAITYD.
Heh.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/23803/lost-in-space-the-promised-planet#s-p2-so-i0
They’re using poor Charlie to power the new wing…
Is this really true? Here in England Pratt is a term of abuse; perhaps it ought to be one in the United States.
Only one “T”.
The English word prat (dating from the sixteenth century), as in pratfall, means buttocks.
What’s funny is that Mr. DeQuattro is closer to Duchamp than any Burden or Barney or Acconci could ever dream. Duchamp said something like, “I threw the bottle rack in their faces as a challenge..”. So where’s the challenge in having your world view echoed and affirmed? This may be the first artist to challenge anyone in the Ny art scene since Philip Guston started painting cartoons.
Dear Mr. Kimball,
I am glad that it is you, not I, who keeps tabs on the zanies. I, having not taken much interest in the arts until my recent retirement, have been curious about its influence on us common folk. In response to my subtle inquiries almost all say “Norman Rockwell!”. That includes my sister who has a degree in art history from UCLA. Restores my faith in the wisdom of the people.
Regards,
Roy
An Artwork Thought to Have Merit
“In a summer show at London’s Royal Academy of Arts, “Exhibit 1201″ is a large rectangular tablet of slate with a tiny barbell-shaped bit of boxwood on top. Its creator, David Hensel, must be pleased to have been selected from among some 9,000 applicants for the world’s largest open-submission exhibit of contemporary art.”
(But, the judges praised what was the support pin, while passing over the actual artistic submission.)
This disqualifies the “art world” from the use of the term art. It’s really just an annex of the political Left. And its behavior gives a new, deep meaning to an old cliche: They don’t know anything about art, but they know what they like!
The distinction between Good Transgression and Bad Transgression depends on whose ox is being transgressed.
Even a freshman at Pratt should be aware of this distinction. I have no idea how DeQuattro ever made into the senior class, but its clear he has no business being at the Institute.
Your comment is vaccuous by res ipsa loquitur.
Last year I wrote an essay about fine art photography that addresses that genre’s issue of left-wing politics and lack of talent. It is here:
http://www.jamesmaystock.com/Contact/NewPage/FineArtsSubversionTemplate.html
Part 1 is about the photographer Robert Frank and the dawning of self-loathing in America in the 1950s and the second part about the issue of no-talents hijacking the genre and the childish stereotypical anti-Americanism that goes with it.
The essay is very long because it is the culmination of decades of anger I have for the destruction of the fine arts in America and the smug high-toned morality and political correctness that goes with it. To me, these artists are nothing more than stupid no-talent hacks ashamed of anything that pre-dates themselves. Needless to say I am persona non grata in this community and damn proud of it.
When people caught spray painting buildings with their gutter slang argued that it was “art,” is when I just knew Art was dead.
Of course he was a Refusé. Imagine what would happen should he be allowed to participate, artists might start to question the moral order. They might start doing things like observing the world as it really is, making and expressing their own deductions, or (Gaia help us) learning how to draw. What then? Who will then be able to lead the flocks into socialist bliss? Who will provide images to help the illiterati join the great Oneness? And most critically, who will pay the professorial pensions? Scary indeed….
“Question authority” was yesterday. “Don’t you step outta line!” is today.
Its a pity that conservatives have so little understanding of the power of art (aside from Mr. Kimball, The New Criterion, Roger Scruton, and others). I have actually read articles in conservative pubs that seem to view artists (even those practicing traditional styles) with deep suspicion. I believe this is a terrible fault. I think visual artists are somehow either supposed to tow the party line or are blamed for progressivism.
Young artists are going to gravitate to what they think is “cool.” They always have and always will because that’s where they think the money is (and hot babes). How many of you commenting here listen exclusively to rock and not more abstract or classical music? Why should artists be any different? Only very strongly grounded young people like DeQuattro are able to resist the pull of Modernism. We live in a Dionysian Age. Art will reflect this.
Modern art emerged in the 19th century (bohemians) because the rich, writers, and gallery owners rewarded them. Rather than being repelled by art and artists I wish more conservatives would show the kind of understanding Roger Kimball expresses for the dilemma young artists face. Getting angry and blaming artists, especially young ones, is not the answer and will only encourage them to play it safe and politically correct.
I’m sorry but who is angry at modern artists. Frankly I don’t like most of it and think much of it is a put-on. In fact, the family refuses to attend MOMA with me because I’ve been known to laugh-out loud at the pretension exhibits and exclaim that some are just junk. However, you have to admire anyone who can con well-educated people lawfully out of their money.
Now as for DeQuattro he is just one of the first line of new “out of step” artists to shock the current art masters. Since shocking the establishment is their job and vulgarity is no longer a big deal they will need to go to the opposite extreme.
Ha. If you think art students are older Damiens and their school a Village of the Damned it might suit your emotional needs but it isn’t real.
Artists are supposed to think outside the box, rather than toe the party line, which, it seems, is exactly what the young jackboots at the Pratt are doing here. What despicable conformists they are, while parading as rebels. Fie on them!
And yet, propercharlie, you say we’re not to get angry with or blame these small minded censors. Why ever not? In fact, it’s because the so-called adults have thoroughly indulged these kids all their lives that they’re such insufferable, spoiled brats, who believe they’re entitled to what they want, when they want it. Someone else’s toes get stepped on? ‘Too damn bad.
I say, let these “artists” know “we’re mad as hell and are not going to take it any more”! It’s high time for these arrogant cry babies to join the real world, as in including the thoughts and feelings of those not involved in their utopian groupthink.
Where did you hear artists are supposed to think outside the box? Artists (as in so-called gallery artists) hold up a mirror to the people and class who support them. They reflect this zeitgeist through images. No more, no less.
If you are in a culture war you should try to enlist cultural warriors for your side, i.e., artsy-fartsy types. In a cold-blooded way you could say it’s a tactical position.
Artists aren’t going to be any better than the market. The market is rich liberals. It doesn’t do any good to scold art students anymore than it does to scold their parents. If anything, you are playing into their hands.
Try and look at this reasonably.
‘Where did you hear artists are supposed to think outside the box? Artists (as in so-called gallery artists) hold up a mirror to the people and class who support them. They reflect this zeitgeist through images. No more, no less.’
One cliché followed by another.
How about this one? Ignorance is bliss.
If you say so.
“Conservative” is not always or exclusively a political term.
Whatever you want to call people who hate art and artists. My point is: liberals seem to do better exploiting art and attracting artists while the other types (whatever designation you want to call them) don’t. Assuming you are of this type, you moan and complain but do nothing about it. In the meantime, lefty’s control the arts establishment and academia and keep brainwashing more generations.
There are liberals who hate art and artists. My suggestion (see below) is to do nothing for 10 to 20 years. Ignore so-called art and so-called artists. Don’t subsidize them or write pseudo-criticism and their so called art. True artists making real art will begin to emerge.
This is lifted from the artist’s statement of a photographer who defines herself as a fine artist and wrote about how white people should think:
“Recognizing and disavowing whiteness concurrently may appear contradictory. Both are strategies necessary for the creation of white identities capable of acknowledging the gross historical injustices carried out in their names and accepting ongoing culpability in the maintenance of historical inequalities…”
A pretty typical attitude and one that is apparently unaware of its own racism in the name of social justice. This article is right on the money as the hypocrisy within the fine arts community in America is monumental; the same community that is dedicated in large part to ferreting out hypocrisy and not worshiping it. Google artist statements and you’ll find an awful lot that talk about ‘social justice’, as if they were the Fantastic Four.
In the 60s, artistic genres were taken down wholesale – film, literature, commercial art, design. The modern intellectual expression in the fine arts is the only major genre of artistic expression that has simply never bounced back. To say that such artists are self-righteous prigs who probably voted 95% in favor of Obama is an understatement. They are in fact overweening hypocrites whose supposed goal is to lay bare the truth by a form of social satire but if the same thing is practiced on them they start whining and crying and, as this article shows, boycotting; they are no more capable of thinking outside the box than a cat.
The modern fine arts are one of the most conservative loose coalitions in America. Look at that supposed example of utter creativity, Laurie Anderson. She’s had the same spiked hair cut for 40 years. Even her ostensible and to be laughed at opposite, Doris Day, didn’t have the same doo for 40 years. Cary Grant took more LSD than some hippies. All is not as it seems. Modern artists would seem more like they really are if they wore uniforms.
I couldn’t agree with you more and you even write better than me. So what can we do about it? Cut off government funding. Buy sane art and excellence. Home school? Get off the grid? I don’t watch TV myself. In the 80s I didn’t own a television for eight years. Didn’t miss a thing. Modernism is everywhere really. Deconstruction. Irony. Nihilism. Its all gone mass transit. Do so-called conservatives even know this?
I don’t know that there is anything you can do about it; these people are truly brainwashed and in my own personal experience some of the stupidest people I have ever met considering their level of education and exposure to culture; there is literally no light of reason behind their eyes and the 4 years at art school were for me an eye opening/closing experience.
No surprise that modern art is the ultimate form of creative socialism in so far as no one being better than the other. Modern expressions of intellectualized fine art torpedo the notion of having scope for failure but of course the problem there is that without scope for failure there is none for success.
This is possibly motivated because many of these people simply lack any kind of demonstrable talent and so perhaps we should not be surprised that they subvert and circumvent the entire issue of ‘talent’ in favor of politically correct and approved political stances.
Here’s another little gem from a fine art photographer’s artist’s statement that show to what extent they are nothing more than sleight of hand artists:
“…created with Type 55 Polaroid film in a 4×5 view camera. The Polaroid negative is saved and washed, then drum scanned, and the final image is archival piezo printed on watercolor paper. The remaining prints are dual toned archival silver gelatin prints, created from 120mm negatives.”
How about taking a good photo? This is my response to that in my own essay:
“If as much work were put into the simple initial execution of a body of work there would be no need for such defensive/offensive weaponry. It’s like the old Monty Python joke about a man crossing the Atlantic Ocean on a tricycle – the ‘tricycle, specially adapted for the crossing, was ninety feet long, with a protective steel hull, three funnels, seventeen first-class cabins and a radar scanner.’ Fine art photography has become a very, very special tricycle.”
“. . . that without scope for failure there is none for success”. Money?
Also, in your original post you are talking about photography (with the black girl). I was referencing painting. I assumed DeQuattro was in a painting class.
But you see, they do tow the party line. As the article spells out they are vindictive to those who don’t tow the party line.
Still the vast majority of “art” now a days is not worth looking at because the “artists” haven’t mastered any actual fundamentals of art. Of course that often took decades for many of the real masters. Quick and easy does it apparently.
I didn’t make clear what I meant in that sentence. I was trying to say that I’ve noticed hostility in conservatives towards artists and that this hostility may arise from misconceptions. That this hostility might be a tactical error at the very least and that in a cultural war you need cultural warriors on your side. I think conservatives need to see there are shades of gray here.
Has Pratt shown their “prat,” or just continued to prattle?
The young man is the only true artist at the whole school. A good work of art should shake up people, disturb them, make them think. Obviously the students and administration of this school are tucked cozily into their soft comfort zones.
For my part in the push back, I’ve just sent the following to Peter Barna, the Provost of the Pratt Institute. (I titled it “Winning the Future: NOT”):
“Mr. Barna, I’m sending you this message. I’d appreciate it if you would pass it on to those involved.
“To the Staff at the Pratt Colluding in Censorship:
“I’ve just read an article by Roger Kimball about your institute’s caving to the collective, adolescent tantrum of some of your immature students, who want everything to go their way—or else. These idiots need to grow up and smarten up. And so do you.
“Mr. Kimball writes, ‘It is no secret that this is business as usual among the politically correct, that is, among the custodians of almost all of our cultural institutions. The familiarity of the response should not inure us to its despicableness. Pratt should be ashamed of itself. Let’s hope that there is some serious push back on this latest instance of academic broadmindedness.’
“As a conservative, Christian, pro-life Canadian, I was delighted with Steve DeQuattro’s art. What a pleasure it is to see the left lampooned for a change! And, hey, isn’t ‘dissent the highest form of patriotism’? Whoops: I forgot that patriotism has now been downgraded by the perpetual adolescents on the left. (As a wascally wabbit used to say, ‘What maroons and ignoranimuses’!)
“Pratt’s appeasement of the forces of small minds and censorship is utterly shameful. The up side is that Mr. DeQuattro’s art will now get far more exposure than it would have if it hadn’t been blacklisted. ‘The law of unintended consequences’ seems to be something ‘progressives’ just don’t get—and it keeps hitting them in the prat: this couldn’t happen to a more deserving group.
“You’re supposed to be adults. Get over your minuscule selves, smarten up, and do your jobs, which means being inclusive—I’m sure that’s one of the Pratt’s goals—and supporting students who have the guts to think outside your suffocatingly tiny, politically correct box.”
I’m an artist and art historian. “Good” art may certainly be political, but the true purpose of art is to communicate to non-artists what the artist sees, i.e. the beauty of the universe.
This is a subset of the crusade to silence dissenting opinion at private schools. You might google LeMoyne University, which expelled a student for writing a paper advocating corporal punishment in education. Syracuse University has also made the news – evidently their law school is not a bastion of free speech. That’s just one small city.
This essay sounded awfully familiar to me, and then I recalled that G.K. Chesterton had already written this piece back in 1919. In Chesterton’s short story, “The Conversion of an Anarchist,” The Pratt Institute is “The Liberty Hall Club” and Steve DeQuattro is Lady Joan Garnet and her fiance, Andrew Home, a perfectly serious anarchist. The story sets up with Andrew first rocking conventions and causing a controversy with her family, not because he’s an atheist or a parvenu, but that he refuses to be married in a church.
The conversion in the title begins when Lady Joan is being considered for membership in the Liberty Hall Club, a place where “you can say anything … you can defend any view, Anarchist or Atheist or – or whatever’s supposed to be worse. They include all, yes, all the opinions in the world – and then they talk.” Andrew the obliges these champions of free speech by saying “suppose I express the opinion that the police ought to raid this club?” As you can guess, Andrew’s little exercise in free speech was bad enough, but when he has the audacity to state his belief in “an indissoluble church marriage, celebrated in a church before three o’clock,” well, it suddenly seems that “the vacancies in the club are so few.” I won’t spoil the rest of the story for you, but you can find it in vol. XIV of Chesterton’s collected works, Ignatius Press.
Stevo, thanks for the tip.
G.K. Chesterton also wrote, “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” That’s our secular, relativist society in spades. And the secular, relativist copy cats think they’re being original. Kyrie eleison.
Thanks Lookout, your response captures the spirit of Chesterton, but the actual quote you’re probably thinking of comes from one of his Father Brown mysteries. It is one of his famous and often misquoted lines. The original quote comes from the short story, “The Oracle of the Dog,” – “It is the first effect of not believing in God, that you lose your common sense, and can’t see things as they are.”
And for those that haven’t read Chesterton – Shame on you – your education is woefully incomplete.
A young friend of mine is currently studying fine arts at the university. He claims that the cutting cutting edge is to create things of technical skill and beauty that speak with, not shout at the public. This could be his personal approach, but his works are indeed beautiful and very confusing and offensive to the art world status quo.
THANK YOU for exposing the “art” world! Excellent column.
Art is just soooo…adolescent. After Serrano’s “pee-pee Jesus” and Ofili’s “poo-poo Mary”, I’m watching for an ever-so-avant-garde statue of St Joseph made from boogers.
But a statue of Joseph would bring the tally to two men and one woman. Any progressive would recognize the inherent sexism before creating such a work.
If Mr. De Quattro had put a pile of human turds next to his art it would have been included in the exhibit. He just didn’t finish it to fit the mold.
When I owned an art gallery and frame shop a few years ago, I only allowed western or wildlife art to adorn my walls. If someone wanted something more “modern” I would order it and frame it for them but not hang it in my gallery.
I believe the ONLY way Smithsonian’s ‘Modern Art works’ get a fair amount of visitors is due to the more impressive gift shops adjoining it.
I always liked Diane Keaton’s response when overhearing Woody Allen’s praises of an art-piece in the movie, ‘Manhattan’. “I think it’s bulls hit”. CLASSIC!!!
There are too many so-called artists. There is too much support for the so-called arts — the NEA should be dissolved. People talk too much about so-called art. Too many philosophers pontificate bout art.
Viewing art made after around 1900 is simply a waste of time. I include the so-called art of Mr. de Quattro. I’m sorry he has been the butt of Pratt’s imbecility, but he ain’t no artist.
If we all ignored art for ten years or so, we might see real artist making real art again.
No one is going to accuse you of being high falutin’ and putting on airs, no siree, harris tweed.
You might be right. But how about you? Might people accuse you of puttin’ on airs?
I don’t think so. I don’t believe I’ve talked down to anyone. I’ve noticed that conservatives in particular, whether social or political, have a kind of obstinate, head-in-the-sand mindset about how the art establishment works. They blame artists. You might as well blame Lindsay Lohan or Charlie Sheen for Hollywood. I’ll wager 9/10s of the commenters here watch TV, pay for movies, buy tabloids, listen to rock ‘n roll when not drunk, etc. They are the ultimate supporters of Hollywood culture. The modern art machine is run pretty much the same way, the difference being the ultimate supporters are wives of hedge fund traders.
My other point is: if you are in a cultural war you need cultural warriors. By alienating artists conservatives are making a tactical mistake.
My point is that there are no artists — well, very few: calling yourself an artist doesn’t make you one.
You can’t “alienate” people who don’t exist. Personally, I don’t give a fig about so-called artists and their so-called art.
I don’t know! I thought the polar bear with the tear in his eye saying, “we’re all gonna die,” kinda fits the “narrative.”
Think of modern art this way: MOMA, curators, wealthy patrons, writers, etc. are the market machine (the liberal one). Pratt’s job is to create a sort of hologram – a more perfect image of the patrons, curators, writers, etc. and the zeitgeist they inhabit. It just so happens the liberal, nihilist, libertine market likes the hologram to be more artist and less artifice, unlike Norman Rockwell admirers.
You COULD say these art schools and their graduates are Bernie Madoffs bamboozling credulous pigeons, I suppose, but you could say the same about Norman Rockwell or any school of art. After all, art is fakery, illusion, a suspension of disbelief. Otherwise it wouldn’t be art.
A lot of modern art, unfortunately, is tarted-up leftwing politics and therefore, not art at all. To my mind, DeQuattro is just throwing it all back at them from the other side. But its probably not art.
Mr. Kimball,
In your citation of Duchamp, you overlook one additional point. Duchamp’s attempt to use art to shock had never been done before. Sure there were earlier controversial images (e.g., Caravaggio’s use of actual peasants and the image of a known prostitute in a religious scene) but these were part of a larger purpose (the represetnation of an actual, unidealized and familiar humanity).
Now, for so many artists to duplicate Duchamp’s shock value is like a freshman math major solving for E=mc2 and having the temerity to claim worldwide significance. It’s already been done! Thus, part of Duchamp’s revolutionary value was the shock value of the ready-made; Serrono’s jar of urine, by contrast, is just a jar of piss.
Also, modernism is a kind of priesthood. They use words and terms like “site specific” and so on. Conservatives don’t have time for it. There’s also the age-old class war but black-clad hipster artists create even more of a divide. I’ve always felt that the reason celebrities are sooo popular, its because they listen to the Beatles but not Beethoven. Or at least don’t let on about it. I believe Kennedy was the last President who had a classical musician play classical western music at the White House. Now its Motown. Or Lang-Lang playing a song from a popular Chinese movie. And even if a President does allow traditional classical music to be played at a White House concert there will – must – be rock to follow.
New mission, folks: “Epater les Camarades!”
My artist activist friend told me about this. I’m quite sick of these kids that think they know something; TREES NEED CARBON DIOXIDE! I’d say it’s time to ‘move on’ from this pandering bureaucracy and take care of OUR SELVES! with our resources.
There is “art” sold in the business of art, and then there is true fine Art. Art with a capital “A.” Art that will be eternally appreciated. Although I admire his “statement”, in my opinion DeQuattro’s piece is not fine Art just because he challenges the established art world or the status quo.
The vast majority of political art is not fine Art, it is commercial marketing – to sell a product (political view). I have yet to see political art that has much value as fine Art where, if there is a political aspect to the piece it is not essential but ancillary.
I agree with commenter #16. Reynolds Butler who says “‘Good’ art may certainly be political, but the true purpose of art is to communicate to non-artists what the artist sees, i.e. the beauty of the universe.”
I believe the best fine Art is an expression of a focused vision which uncovers beauty and immutable truths in a blindingly succinct way. It should make you exclaim, “Of course! Now I see.” Not, “I agree” or “I disagree.”
Mr. Kimball:
With all the impassioned opinion on what defines “art” I have taken a second look at Mr. DeQuattro’s submission and feel that we may have been too hasty in our conclusion that his fellow students” objections were motivated by political mindset. From a background of design and packaging, I can tell you that it does not reflect high talent – in fact is quite undistinguished. Unless he was parodying stock cliches in food packaging, it is nothing but a political statement. He may be reacting to others’ politics, but his design skills are pedestrian.
I think that the other students’ objections may be exactly that Mr.DeQuattro’s effort is seriously lacking in design merit – color, visual impact, consumer appeal, artistry – is nothing but a political statement, and therefor not deserving of inclusion in an exhibit of works of considerable artistry which do not reflect any political bent.
Ikt is good to be sure of the grounds for rejection before leaping to judgement.
\
The plain English in the article: “Mr. DeQuattro says they [his peers] recently wrote a letter to his professors, calling his work ‘offensive’ and complaining about exhibiting alongside him.” It’s the content, not the artisitic merit, that’s the issue here. So, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
one can capture the good, the beautiful, and the true. After too much sex, not so much. After rock and roll…after rock and roll???
“Last Sunday morning
The sunshine felt like rain
Week before
They all seemed the same
With the help of God and true friends
I come to realize
I still had two strong legs
And even wings to fly
And oh I, ain’t wastin time no more
‘Cause time goes by like hurricanes
And faster things..”
—The Allman Brothers—
Back in the 90′s the sacrilegious antics (if you want to call it art thats your choice)of Andres Serrano was dubbed “Violated Taboo”
I think since to Liberals and Progressives the identity itself ‘is’ a ‘religion’, I think Steve just gave it right back to em’ in his ‘own’ artistic way. I think his work could be construed in the same light as “Violated Taboo”.
LOLOLOL – You go Steve DeQuattro! You got guts Kid! Stand your ground! So, Refreshing…
I think the “lefty/ultra liberal hipsters artsys” AND THE PRATT INSTITUTE should show A LOT MORE CONSIDERATION to their fellow artist. Remember the operative word – “Tolerance” ??? Lets not be a bunch of Hypocrites now…
For a fascinating look into the subject of art, artists, and art creation; the collected words, teachings, and letters of Robert Henri, “The Art Spirit” (1923).
dequattro@gmail.com
I guess none of you knee-jerk reactionaries bothered to view this “artists” submission. So quick to demonize progressives, you’ve missed the elephant in the room – his design skills stink. As a graphic designer with 11 years of product packaging experience, I can say that Mr. DeQuattro is ready to design supermarket circulars. The readability of the text is non-existent. Yellow serif type with a one point black stroke? Really? His call out star looks like something done by a first year student. The designer attempts to be clever, yet his design devices are trite, over-simplified and frankly, boring. A crying polar bear? C’mon. Perhaps the admin won’t allow him to show his work because it stinks. Bellow and moan, hand wring all you want, but bad design is bad design, whether it be left right conservative or liberal.
Perhaps Pratt should be investigated for continuing to enroll a 5th year student with such poor design skills.
Chippy, it would depend on the course he is/was working in. If it was design then you are right. If it was painting or some other one that encourages the student to make a “major statement” your analysis wouldn’t work. In a painting class he would be using irony and therefore technical skill is shunned, being too sincere. I’ve read here that he’s a 5th year student so the project could be a major statement. These are the rules.
Charlie, I can only comment on the one sample I saw, which was this poorly designed piece. It has no place in a senior show, whether it be conservative or liberal. Personally, I think this is a whole lot of todo about nothing. Perhaps the gentleman is upset that his artwork wasn’t good enough to be included in the senior show, so he perceives some sort of bias. Most shows don’t include all submissions – they are juried by faculty. And since we haven’t seen any of his other work, we can’t comment on his other submissions. Also, if he doesn’t excel in design, than he shouldn’t have submitted this piece. So far, all accounts I’ve read have been comments by the artist while all other parties have yet to respond. I believe when the rest of the story comes out, we’ll find that perhaps Mr. DeQuattro has a higher opinion of his artwork than is warranted.
Chippy has a point. Conservatives do have standards, you know, whereas NO ONE expects a left-wing artist to actually have talent. I’m not qualified to judge Mr deQuattro’s serif so I’ll leave the discussion of his merit to others but thanks Mr. Chippy for the reminder.
Actors have talent. Performance artists have been around for years. You may not like them, but the art establishment loves them. If nothing else they have a talent for garnering publicity. They are famous for being famous.
Jeff Koons and Damien Hurst are actors who embody a certain look and make certain gestures (art) that many an investment banker’s wife adores.
OK, if conservatives have such high standards, than why are the majority of the knee-jerks on this thread defending this (conservative) guys crappy artwork? And if you’re not qualified to discuss the merits of the design, why did you?
(Chippy, a couple of tips: the word to denote a comparison is “than”, not “then”, and the possessive is denoted by the use of an apostrophe, as in “guy’s crappy artwork”.)
You also seem to require some assistance with the content of this thread: the topic here is not the quality of the art, but the political content—and the fact that Mr. DeQuattro’s work has been censored because his left-wing classmates don’t like his message and have requested, therefore, that it be removed from the class show. From the article, in plain English: “Mr. DeQuattro says they [his peers] recently wrote a letter to his professors, calling his work ‘offensive’ and complaining about exhibiting alongside him. Last week, the chair of the fine arts department stepped in to prevent Mr. DeQuattro’s participation alongside the other students in the group show — an unprecedented move in the history of the department, says Mr. DeQuattro, despite the fact that none of his work is pornographic, libelous, or in violation of the laws of free speech.” (Maybe it’s crappy, but that’s beside the point.)
So, I’m not sure that we “knee jerks” here are guilty as charged.
I’m not trying to insult anyone, merely stating what I stated. His artwork stinks. Perhaps my grammar stinks. Good on you for correcting me. It doesn’t change the fact the the all you have to this point is the authors words. This isn’t about liberal vs. conservative. It’s about hearsay -No one from Pratt, as of publishing time, had commented. So “Mr. DeQuattro says they [his peers] recently wrote a letter to his professors…” and “an unprecedented move in the history of the department, says Mr. DeQuattro” doesn’t make it so. I could say that you’re an a hole, but just because I said it doesn’t make it so, although i’m pretty sure it is..
Whoops. An edit of my message for Chippy: It’s “then” you wanted, not “than”, because you’re using the “if . . .then” construction.
And another thing: for noun/verb agreement, it should read, “. . . why is the majority . . .”, not why “are”.
As your intention is clearly to insult the conservatives here, it’s not a good idea to do so using such poor English: “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
Chippy @ Comment #37 – here is my ‘knee jerk’reaction. To heck with the design! I Love the Message!! lol
I have come to ‘notice’ many comments posted (I assume they are oh, so, artsy people) have chosen to ‘not’ read ‘the message’ which, do ya think was the artists primary intent? So quit picking on the design and stick to the message!!
On design/art/ “marketing” – If a marketing/Ad team wanted to draw attention to a picture of a beautiful new expensive Car in their ad for instance, and they needed to place a model in the picture, guy or girl. Do you think the advertisers would place some beautiful eye catching model who was a ‘distraction’ to what the ad agency REALLY wanted, which was to draw the VIEWERS ATTENTION TO – THE CAR? Answer is NO.
And Steven obviously wanted the attention on the ‘message’ and ‘not’ the design. Sheesh.
What I find interesting is how a small minority of “transgressive” artists starting off living off government largesse become “transgressive” artists who have become incredibly rich on the international art market–Damien Hirst for instance.
As for John Chamberlain–he of the crushed Buicks–as a young Leftist reading an interview with him in Arts in America I was utterly shocked by the fact that he admitted to voting for Ronald Reagan.
I think that a good way to think about this whole topic is that the history of art as practiced by “fine artists,” starting in the 19th century, is merely an artifact of the industrial revolution that has come, like its ancient earthen-floored foundries and giant grunting hot metal presses, to the inevitable end of its tether, resulting in the corruption and decadence that usually accompanies the withering away of a once powerful movement.
As 19th century society started generating enough excess wealth, artists began to seek an expression of their own inner truth, unmoored from the standards and demands of the pre-industrial functions that artists had hitherto been subjected to. Without a compass, in a world entirely of their own making, artists, as individuals and grouped into theoretical genres or “schools” by their predilections, educations and the new class of intellectual critics, their talent, training and proficiency re-evaluated or discarded as irrelevant, followed ever-increasingly arcane and eventually ironic texts and subtexts, until, now, their work has become nothing but an echo of common political satire.
What will come of all of this? Of course, I don’t know. But, I do have an instinct, a feeling, born of my own experience as an entirely commercial artist. Think about the possibility of a renaissance of past modes of organization, not so much in media (which gallops ahead regardless of trends in art), but in ways of working and thinking about one’s role in the greater society. In eras past, all artists were truly commercial artists. No one painted giant murals or sculpted out marble figures just to express an idea that occured to the artist about how stupid and conventional were his audience. No, the artist was commissioned by a Prince, a Pope or a wealthy merchant to serve a purpose for that client that the client himself defined. The artist was infused with a purpose outside of himself – his patron or even his God was inspiring him to create something great within the boundaries of serving some useful purpose. These were the conditions under which, inarguably, the greatest art, so far, has been created by man. Perhaps this kind of relationship will reassert itself to inspire great artists of the future. I hope so, because the current art world, so self referential and mired in left wing idealogy as to be irrelevant now and to be unremembered in the future, badly needs to be changed. Art is important; it is too important to be left to the tiresome, underdeveloped and talentless.
Well said dafrank.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/fashion/13CurrinFeinstein.html&ct=ga&cad=CAEQARgAIAAoATAAOABA_L3q6wRIAVgBYgJlbg&cd=wLVxl7YdFoc&usg=AFQjCNEvWAGGcadUufK9g3kg0CYlI9ebXg
The above link is to an article that appears in today’s (March 11) NYT web site. It is about two extremely well-connected artists in the New York art world who somewhat contradict Roger’s thesis of left eclecticism. Near the end of the article, one of the the artists postulates a sort of inverse Mohs scale of hard-rightness, with 1 being, as I am, the hardest of the rightists and 10 being the softest of the leftists. He puts himself somewhere in the middle. He is being over modest since, to my certain knowledge, remarks he made to the author, regarding the ground zero mosque, were excised from the article, perhaps on the grounds of taste. A -2 would be more accurate.
I once saw a clever term “Sesame Street diversity” used in an article to describe the beliefs of so-called liberals. It’s where everyone is a different color, but thinks exactly the same way.
Does anyone know if he’s willing to sell this piece? If so, for how much? Chippy’s oh-so-expert opinion aside, I found the piece funny and a pointed commentary. And with regard to Stuart Williamson’s point, I think the stock cliches of food advertising were intended.