Curator - Elitist/Populist - Plumber
Zane Fischer, a columnist for the Santa Fe Reporter, has a small piece posted on the Santa Fe Center for Contemporary Arts' website under the artMuse heading. It puts an interesting twist on elitist vs. populist debates and partially undermines our own arguments around art professionals.
Fischer's main argument is that the idea that judgment and opinion are arenas preserved for a cultural elite is false:
"There's a false dynamic in the world that suggests that judgment and opinion is meted out by the elite, while Joe Public is more tolerant and less picky. But in fact it's not elitism that breeds judgment, but familiarity. Who resists praise or critique of NFL or NASCAR?"
Fischer moves on to a comparison of a plumber evaluating an artwork and a curator evaluating plumbing. The notion is that each can learn from the other, and that neither should feel like they can't express their dissatisfaction with a particular work be it plumbing or painting.
She closes:
"Contemporary art is everyday, equally important, equally banal, plumbing for the soul. If it refreshes, say so. If it cleanses and renews, say so. If it smells bad, leaks or has inadequate pressure, say so. No special skills required. If no one complains, nothing improves. Be judgmental."
We admire the attempt to radically flatten the discursive fields between these two occupations, but there's a bit of trickery here. While it's true that the world of sports talk radio is radically populist in its acceptance of all manner of opining by "Joe Public," the art world does not share this sensibility. We wish there was an art world equivalent to the Jim Rome show - "Have a take and don't suck." Maybe LeisureArts will host a Jim Rome style "Smack-Off" in the future. The argument abruptly drops the sports analogy and takes up plumbing seemingly in order to make a comparison between two professional fields, although certainly differently positioned in terms of cultural prestige.
This leaves us with two more problems. The first problem is that we are no longer comparing a lay person's opinion vs. an expert's, but two experts of different fields commenting on each other's work. The second particularly devious problem is comparing an opinion about water pressure, to one about art. Although what level of water pressure is pleasing is subjective, the actual pressure is objective. In fact, most plumbing problems that a lay person can offer dissatisfaction with, are objective issues - the toilet either flushes or it doesn't. The same is not true of art, and thus the insidious comparison leads us to accepting that the curator, by virtue of their professional training, can offer "deeper understanding" of an artwork in the way a plumber can concerning water pressure. Unfortunately, Fischer's argument perpetuates the mystique of professional judgments issued by curators rather than really challenging it.
To summarize, LeisureArts believes a plumber can be a curator, but a curator can't be a plumber.
Fischer's main argument is that the idea that judgment and opinion are arenas preserved for a cultural elite is false:
"There's a false dynamic in the world that suggests that judgment and opinion is meted out by the elite, while Joe Public is more tolerant and less picky. But in fact it's not elitism that breeds judgment, but familiarity. Who resists praise or critique of NFL or NASCAR?"
Fischer moves on to a comparison of a plumber evaluating an artwork and a curator evaluating plumbing. The notion is that each can learn from the other, and that neither should feel like they can't express their dissatisfaction with a particular work be it plumbing or painting.
She closes:
"Contemporary art is everyday, equally important, equally banal, plumbing for the soul. If it refreshes, say so. If it cleanses and renews, say so. If it smells bad, leaks or has inadequate pressure, say so. No special skills required. If no one complains, nothing improves. Be judgmental."
We admire the attempt to radically flatten the discursive fields between these two occupations, but there's a bit of trickery here. While it's true that the world of sports talk radio is radically populist in its acceptance of all manner of opining by "Joe Public," the art world does not share this sensibility. We wish there was an art world equivalent to the Jim Rome show - "Have a take and don't suck." Maybe LeisureArts will host a Jim Rome style "Smack-Off" in the future. The argument abruptly drops the sports analogy and takes up plumbing seemingly in order to make a comparison between two professional fields, although certainly differently positioned in terms of cultural prestige.
This leaves us with two more problems. The first problem is that we are no longer comparing a lay person's opinion vs. an expert's, but two experts of different fields commenting on each other's work. The second particularly devious problem is comparing an opinion about water pressure, to one about art. Although what level of water pressure is pleasing is subjective, the actual pressure is objective. In fact, most plumbing problems that a lay person can offer dissatisfaction with, are objective issues - the toilet either flushes or it doesn't. The same is not true of art, and thus the insidious comparison leads us to accepting that the curator, by virtue of their professional training, can offer "deeper understanding" of an artwork in the way a plumber can concerning water pressure. Unfortunately, Fischer's argument perpetuates the mystique of professional judgments issued by curators rather than really challenging it.
To summarize, LeisureArts believes a plumber can be a curator, but a curator can't be a plumber.
Issued from Dilettante Ventures control room at 13:01
5 Comments:
Yes!
Just to twist the perspective on this a little bit:
At the park, I talk to a lot of regular visitors (mostly dog people or fishing enthusiasts) about the art installed there. Most of them are much more flexible and dynamic in their thinking than insiders, but are often frustrated by the park's curatorial emphasis on post-conceptualism and reality-based nonsculpture. It can require a lot of explaining, and there often isn't didactic signage.
The park's curators are asserting a professional stance: they get it because they read the whole proposal. But they don't share all that information with every single park visitor. So these regular viewers, who have insightful criticism about what actually gets perceived, just wind up feeling stupid and excluded.
This creates a relationship that is strangely hostile. The park regulars really do bend over backward trying to get it, but there is often very little to get if that piece of information that "unlocks" the work is left unspoken.
Could part of the problem be an expectation that curators should be able to be plumbers?
PS If you have a Smack Off, can I play?
Curators:
We're worried if curators became plumbers, we'd end up using outhouses and chamber pots with toilet paper addenda explaining why.
Smack-Off:
Of course you're welcome to participate. We figure ten people are the minimum necessary to make it a viable project. Maybe recruiting from other bloggers? Know of anyone else who wants to come into the jungle?
We really want to have an Art Smack-Off in the form of a podcast. We might try to get something going with Bad at Sports (what a perfectly named venue), but any suggestions for another host would be appreciated.
Something that I think is sorely lacking from either your or Fischer’s arguments: quantitative vs. qualitative measures.
The plumber: As a cultural collective consciousness (and apparently alliteration) we decided that we preferred, even needed, water pressure. We decided that plumbing is necessary for our way of life so training manuals were written for the plumber. We decided what plumbing should do. If we expect art to do something, as in providing a service or needing to fulfill as specific function, then we can identify the quantifiable aspects and judge whether it fails or succeeds. However, since much of art is qualitative, it becomes more difficult to measure what it actually does, similar to measuring the metrics of success for entertainment. If one can tell me what art is supposed to do and what curators are supposed to do, then I can actually take their arguments seriously and then take them to task. The sports analogy does not support Fischer's claim in any way; if anything is makes it more problematic. However, I havent quite worked out an arguement of my own for that angle.
As for the curator, well…Im still thinking about it.
Thanks for bringing up these issues Leisure Arts; its good to hash things out.
Fischer used sports as an example of a field in which average people can express heated opinions alongside "experts" with relatively little marginalization. All manner of sports programming asks the "common folk" what they think about any number or sports questions from the naming of teams, to trade talks, who should be drafted where, to the analysis of a quarterback's throwing motion. Of course, there are not really sanctioned arenas of discussion like that in the arts. The Whitney has very little interest in what the average Biennial attendant thinks of the placement of work, the curatorial selection process, etc. This holds true at so-called alternative venues as well, although there are occasional attempts at engaging the "average Joe."
I'm not sure I understand what is "sorely lacking" from my post though. I touch on qualitative vs. quanititative when I mentioned subjective/objective issues. The problem, of course, is that there really are no quantitative/objective standards in art...There may be agreed upon standards, but those are arrived at, and measurable, in VASTLY different ways than plumbing standards...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home