I Refute You Thusly!

I don't usually respond to reviews critical of shows I'm participating in as it's generally a bad policy decision. However, I noticed an article this weekend for which I can make an exception because it brings up a broader issue worth discussion. (Also, I'm not mentioned directly by the offending party which excuses me from being accused of blatant, self-interested whining)

Collector and UT Ph.d. candidate, Till Richter believes Austin is suffering "from an acceptance of art that is whimsical, comic inspired, not well-made or well thought out, nonsensical but so wryly and superficially funny that it must be either brilliant or bad." He continues by insinuating through the example of Matthew Rodriguez that this work, is in fact, bad.

I'll acknowledge Richter's dismissal is probably applicable to many artists working in the language of comics and cartoons, but not all. As one who makes art that could be described as "whimsical" and "comic inspired," I feel the need to chime in and address his glib remark. In my experience, the only people "suffering" from this type of work are reactionary academics still invested in the modernist/post-modernist project - those who champion biennial-friendly internationalist work as the new avant-garde, and are befuddled by the popularity of the Okay Mountain set. I believe there is something to be said for an artistic production that addresses our specific cultural landscape in a way that internationalist works (often directly tethered to the aesthetics of 60s and 70s avant-garde conceptualism), do not. This is not to deride those artists in 20 to Watch and elsewhere working in a mode similar to that which Richter supports. Without this "international style" we wouldn't have the work of our Olafur Eliassons, Anish Kapoors, or Janet Cardiffs. It's also important to point out that the international art market Richter not so subliminally champions as the measure of what is Good or Valuable is an artificial, economic construction. It functions to fulfill an enormous demand in emerging markets for the New, and should not necessarily be used as a gauge of what is ultimately culturally valuable to us. Nor should we be led to believe that the work catering to this market is evidence of a continuing avant-garde (the impression I get from Richter's positioning). Avant-gardism is over. It died with Modernism.

This is at the heart of what bother's me about Richter's comment. It smacks of the restrictive and elitist Modernist rigidity most of us have no desire to revisit. Those of us who may appreciate and create cartoon/comic inspired work do so because, when done well (and, yes, much is not), it's immediately personally identifiable and resonant with our own American cultural experiences. This idea is especially important to me in the face of a globalized art market that celebrates the outdated philosophy of universalism (Coming from a believer in the relative and the subjective). It's important to recognize that not all artists who should be acknowledged are interested in competing in this homogenized, globalized marketplace. I know that, personally speaking, I'm making work to have a conversation with my peers who are artists, writers, scientists, musicians and filmmakers here, not in India, China, Belarus or Kazakhstan. Although my work may be recognized as an object of art in these places, it may equally have zero relevance with audiences in those countries. That's just fine with me - I'm certainly not pretending to create work that speaks in some kind of artistic esperanto. It's easy to pejoratively label this attitude as narrowly regionalist, but not when the trend Richter attacks extends through a generation and across a continent. This may be a case where if you did not grow up in this culture you just don't get it, and, to me, that's perfectly acceptable too. Hooray for pluralism!

 

(Image courtesy of Kavi Gupta Gallery: Adam Scott, Wait For It, 2005, acrylic on canvas, 70 in. x 76 in.)