contemporary monkey

“…It provides a means for understanding the contemporary world, and, potentially, for making it a better place.”  You’d be mistaken if you thought this ambitious phrase was lifted from an exhibition programme at a contemporary art gallery, or an expensive brochure at a museum of modern art.

It would be a good guess though.  People in the art world certainly throw that kind of thing around like it’s part of the badge, and it sounds like a focused aim of contemporary art.  Those That Know Best proclaim that contemporary art confronts us with purpose, and questions our angles and viewpoints in daily life.  Contemporary art tackles the tough problems with a smack on the head and makes us think about our choices.  It’s supposed to change our perception, make us think differently, get us to move in a new direction.  The position of contemporary art in our lives, however, is being usurped by a a new leader.  Ladies and Gentlemen of The Arts and Letters, Distinctive Guests, and Biennial Buddies, you’ve just been lapped.

The quote above was taken from the About Us section of The Design Museum’s web site.  Contemporary Art, over the last century, has had its chance to make friends and influence enemies.  Instead of addressing the everyday man, however, it chose to address the marginal few - in many cases, the very few - those that have bags of money, or the simple gullibility to create a market in a vacuum.  Contemporary Art has created it’s own No Girls Allowed Club.

Most of us have a bigger commitment to design than we do contemporary art.  Not that we haven’t tried the latter.  But design is more affordable, available, and intelligible.  It solves problems, makes us aware of ourselves, forces us to act, makes our heart beat faster.  It becomes part of our personal statement to our fellow Earthlings and probably beyond.  Design is our individual and collective branding.  It builds network-like organisation across imaginary lines of religion, geography, politics, and arguably solves a lot of the world’s problems right there.  Two parliamentarians, or members of Congress, could easily throw verbal blows across the room, but they could just as easily be seen later in the day exchanging applications on their iPhone, or talking about the design of the city’s new symphony hall.

Contemporary art, on the other hand, struggles to get noticed.  I often ask this question of people I know or just meet: Do you understand contemporary art?  Close to everyone says no, but they certainly mean to comprehend it one day.  How many countries, religions, industries have that apologetical clause at the end of of a statement, they mean to.  It’s like flossing your teeth, or joining a gym.  We know it’s the right thing to do, and we’ve been meaning to for the longest time, but…

Contemporary Art goes out of its way to make enemies, to confound, confuse, berate, annoy, mis-fire, even put to sleep.  Very few of us are buying what they’re selling.  However, most of us can talk about Ferraris, iPods, Prada, great CD covers, well thought out gardens, art deco skyscrapers, the latest hair style, cool night clubs and modern restaurants with contemporary takes on French cuisine.  We can go on about skateboard graphics, impressive graffiti, luxurious handbags, sleek running shoes, even Italian inspired salt and pepper shakers.  And  we don’t have to own or experience any of them.  We’d be happy as Larry aspiring to a level of just talking about it over pints, or browsing over shelves.

Jennifer Northrop is the Director of Communications and Marketing at America’s Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum.  Cooper-Hewitt is the American equivalent to the British Design Museum, only more thorough in history (they seem to like collecting there).  She had this to say about the 2009 National Design Awards, and the effects of design in our lives.

“Design is intriguing to the public,” says Jennifer Northrop, director of communications and marketing at the Smithsonian’s Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum, “because design isn’t art.”

Ouch!

In the June 2009 edition of Icon magazine, the Swiss architect Valerio Olgiati responds to a question regarding his working method.  Olgiati claims he begins every project by talking.  The people in his firm discuss a project and its specific needs and environment for hours, sometimes days, until the focus has revealed itself.  During this time, nobody draws or sketches anything.  He likens his process to exactly the opposite of art, with its highly engaged system of the process.  Artists simply paint or draw and hopefully something comes out of the studio.  Olgiati doesn’t bother with all that, and waits until the essence is argued, wrestled, or cajoled into existence.  Then someone goes away and draws the ideas onto paper…presumably in a cloistered room, far far away.

Someone in art should give this a go.  In their heads, artists tend to stay jailed inside their own points of view, even though they may have unearthed a mass of data on a subject.  But as most of us know, living in the wide wide world of different lifestyles and opinions ensures that, at one point, our points of view change as we live our lives.  Wouldn’t this be a productive method for art as well, where supposedly people with talent (artists) engage with supposedly people who have less talent (us) to create, at first, a discussion, before the artist feels well and truly prepared for a first attempt.  I’m not such a process-driven person that my life could always function like this, I wouldn’t get anything done otherwise, but somebody should try this.  Give and take happens in the real world anyway, and artists are in no position to fortify themselves in a tower for critical acclaim.

The architect Adolph Loos thought along the same lines, stating, “Good architecture can be written.  One can write the Parthenon.”  And if one had honest colleagues, one could plan a city.

Two quotes I thought would help build a solid foundation for any Contemporary Monkey for understand art developed after the invention of the camera.

Tony Cragg, a British artist living in Germany suggests a difference between art and design.  I work on design projects in addition to writing for Contemporary Monkey, so for me this has particular resonance.  “…the designer always has a recipient in mind, but an artist has a different, non-utilitarian agenda and it opens up enormous possibilities for new language.” (from Art World, April/May 2009).  A designer might say something differently, but artists see themselves as striving for a higher goal, using a different tool than the agreed upon standards in visual communication.  However, a “new language” sounds about right to me.  If artists can pull ideas out of their heads, or hearts, and make a difference somewhere beyond their own skin, success would certainly have a chance.  All it would take is just one other person to “get it”. The important point though is for artists to get beyond themselves.

Another quote originates from the film industry, and picked up from The Times (UK) quoting Charlie Kaufman.  A completely original screenwriter, Kaufman is the pen behind “Being John Malkovich” , “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind” and “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”.  If you know Kaufman’s work, the following quote makes complete sense that it would come from his mouth.  Answering a question about his latest film, “Synechdoche”, he responds, “I mean it means what it means, and it means what you think it means, and it means what somebody else thinks it means.” If you can get your head around all of that, the point should be taken for art generally. If an artist means to communicate one way, you and I, separately, could take on completely different meanings, and still we would all be correct.  Or I guess the word would be “satisfied”.