Carol Bove describes that in the last several years, everything dear and personal to us has been co-opted for use in the public realm for corporations that has been in artwork. Do you agree with Bove in her statement that, “we should preserve the taboo against the direct engagement with mysticism, and you don’t depict the thing you are trying to communicate?” Is this statement valid in your own practice, how if so, or do you disagree?
I think the preservation of the mysticism taboo relates to the dominance of a (western perspective) patriarchal, eurocentric, christianity laden normative that privileges what information is seen and not seen. I'm not saying I like the aesthetic of new-age artwork; Bove distinguishes mystic art as such, but, I wrestled for an example of how one could artistically engage with mysticism by clearly depicting it in contemporary art. It would seem incredibly pertinent to have a referential. Then I thought about Aboriginal art and how in the '70's the Papunya people were encouraged to paint their stories on canvas. And even closer: to Native American cultures, and how there still remains a divide on what is considered contemporary art, folk art, indigenous art, craft, etc. If there is a rule, I think eventually it can and probably should be broken. Otherwise our minds are being colonized by the dominant culture, our consumption of visual stimulus is only a slice of what is out there, and we live in a world that reifies silencing most view points. In terms of mysticism, which has had fluidity in definition, one viewpoint could be that the act of painting itself could be a mystic experience.
Carol Bove's statement about preserving the taboo against mysticism - against directly depicting the thing you are trying to communicate" as a means to protect the thing from being co opted corporately, goes further than mysticism, this is also just generally what make art interesting, particularly painting. first, in regards to something that represents the "spritual' or "mystical" to us- Ie: things that can represent your religious affiliations, such as, statues of budha, crucifix, actual activities- going to church, the bible, morning prayers etc, worry beads, mudra etc-- those are pictures that we know = spiritual, like a symbol we know = tree, or know = heart= love etc- and so, we know those things very quickly, and, just like a drawing of a sun in a corner and a little curvy mark standing in for a bird, we index it and move on, or accept it. It's a label. But this is not a questioning or, actually being in touch with the something "mystical" underlying that. Its the "underlying that" which is the important thing, and I think, once we move from romantic to political = ( from discovering art to being in it- emotional into rational- uneducated into educated- consciousness raising into theory- all of those dichotomies/binaries) it is built in for us to question the underlying ( non rational/ emotional/non-pindownable ) as well as the method of presentation. if the presentation is known ( a painting of ganesh, or rainbows, or even just a still life) we don't have to connect to anything. If the presentation is surprising, we have to stay and question, we can't dismiss it right away, and in that "hiding/sneaking in" this kind of mystical or spiritual content, or emotional, genuine sincere intentions, one might be surprised by the existence and possible or even actual importance of the sublime/love/even maybe god? the "unpindownable" the irrational, the thing which we can not name, underneath everything.
Abstract art represents itself- it's what said a painting can be about being a painting and also about things intangible- now we know abstract painting though, because we know what painting is, as an object, materially, and that it can represent its objectness and also the intangible.
I don't know if Molly is asking me or everyone, but I am going to say that I do agree with Carol Bove when she talks about the taboo. I think it is a rule that you don't communicate the 'thing' by depicting the 'thing'. Jeff Koons depicts 'love' but, at least in how I experience his work, he never communicates love. I think that's how the taboo of mysticism and romanticism affects art, as she talks about, and I think it's both a rule that we make and one that we never escape. I don't think Jeff Koons would be considered the artist he is if people actually felt love from his sculptures.
Is it just me, or did Laura Owens feel like the only one being really honest and transparent in how she felt about Jeff Koons' work? She said (in a nut shell) that she hopes he isn't a mirror of our society and that she expects better, perhaps even higher level thinking conceptually and in execution from artists. I just really appreciated her thoughts on sleeve approach to the discussion. Her rejection of the work is perhaps exactly what Koons was going for though?
I was confused by what Bove was saying; maybe someone can elucidate her statement. She referred to Koon's work as mixed messages (power/domination, love/ecstasy). Bove states "Koons Work contains contradictory, mutually exclusive positions without ambivalence. It asks us to think non-dualistically." My question is what did Bove mean by this; How does Koon's work in the Banality show succeed in doing this? I was confused because she uses dualist terms to describe the work, refers to the work being non-dualist, and then doesn't explain how the work is non-dualistic. ------------------------- What would Koons work, or any work for that matter, look like if it depicted the "thing" you want to communicate? Bove used the example of "new-age" artwork. Is that the only analogy?
Maybe I'm missing the mark of what you're asking, but I think that if any work depicted the "thing" the artist wanted to communicate, all art would function as extremely minimal and emotional symbols. I feel like anything about love would be a heart, happiness would be some kind of smiley face, and so on. Maybe like emojis, where pictures are stand-ins for words and feelings? Again, I'm not sure if I'm missing the mark or not, but this is the only other analogy that came to mind.
Erin touched on this in her first comment, but I agree with what she said about painting in itself being a mystical act. I think that even if the taboo against mysticism in painting itself is preserved, the mystical act of creating something new and bringing it into the world can never be removed. Erin's first comment in general changed the way I was going to comment at first. I had never considered looking at mysticism outside of a white, western context until I read what she had to say, and I think that's something that needs to be brought into the conversation as well.
Laura Owens nailed it on the head, it is too big to fail. Koons work is extraordinary in the fact that it is irritating to so many people. I agree with Jordan though in the fact that he is human, but his vision probably has been clouded with drama, and large amounts of money. I enjoy a lot of his work but I was critical at first until I saw his work in person. There are a few artists work that have impacted me in that way, you don't know really what it is until you see it. I guess shouldn't be blinded by how I feel about an artist and let that affect how I view the work.
Carol Bove describes that in the last several years, everything dear and personal to us has been co-opted for use in the public realm for corporations that has been in artwork. Do you agree with Bove in her statement that, “we should preserve the taboo against the direct engagement with mysticism, and you don’t depict the thing you are trying to communicate?” Is this statement valid in your own practice, how if so, or do you disagree?
ReplyDeleteI think the preservation of the mysticism taboo relates to the dominance of a (western perspective) patriarchal, eurocentric, christianity laden normative that privileges what information is seen and not seen. I'm not saying I like the aesthetic of new-age artwork; Bove distinguishes mystic art as such, but, I wrestled for an example of how one could artistically engage with mysticism by clearly depicting it in contemporary art. It would seem incredibly pertinent to have a referential. Then I thought about Aboriginal art and how in the '70's the Papunya people were encouraged to paint their stories on canvas. And even closer: to Native American cultures, and how there still remains a divide on what is considered contemporary art, folk art, indigenous art, craft, etc.
DeleteIf there is a rule, I think eventually it can and probably should be broken. Otherwise our minds are being colonized by the dominant culture, our consumption of visual stimulus is only a slice of what is out there, and we live in a world that reifies silencing most view points. In terms of mysticism, which has had fluidity in definition, one viewpoint could be that the act of painting itself could be a mystic experience.
Carol Bove's statement about preserving the taboo against mysticism - against directly depicting the thing you are trying to communicate" as a means to protect the thing from being co opted corporately, goes further than mysticism, this is also just generally what make art interesting, particularly painting. first, in regards to something that represents the "spritual' or "mystical" to us- Ie: things that can represent your religious affiliations, such as, statues of budha, crucifix, actual activities- going to church, the bible, morning prayers etc, worry beads, mudra etc-- those are pictures that we know = spiritual, like a symbol we know = tree, or know = heart= love etc- and so, we know those things very quickly, and, just like a drawing of a sun in a corner and a little curvy mark standing in for a bird, we index it and move on, or accept it. It's a label. But this is not a questioning or, actually being in touch with the something "mystical" underlying that. Its the "underlying that" which is the important thing, and I think, once we move from romantic to political = ( from discovering art to being in it- emotional into rational- uneducated into educated- consciousness raising into theory- all of those dichotomies/binaries) it is built in for us to question the underlying ( non rational/ emotional/non-pindownable ) as well as the method of presentation. if the presentation is known ( a painting of ganesh, or rainbows, or even just a still life) we don't have to connect to anything. If the presentation is surprising, we have to stay and question, we can't dismiss it right away, and in that "hiding/sneaking in" this kind of mystical or spiritual content, or emotional, genuine sincere intentions, one might be surprised by the existence and possible or even actual importance of the sublime/love/even maybe god? the "unpindownable" the irrational, the thing which we can not name, underneath everything.
Deletehow does this apply to abstract work? or does it? so the artwork would have to represent something...anything tangibly identifiable in the world..
DeleteAbstract art represents itself- it's what said a painting can be about being a painting and also about things intangible- now we know abstract painting though, because we know what painting is, as an object, materially, and that it can represent its objectness and also the intangible.
DeleteI don't know if Molly is asking me or everyone, but I am going to say that I do agree with Carol Bove when she talks about the taboo. I think it is a rule that you don't communicate the 'thing' by depicting the 'thing'. Jeff Koons depicts 'love' but, at least in how I experience his work, he never communicates love. I think that's how the taboo of mysticism and romanticism affects art, as she talks about, and I think it's both a rule that we make and one that we never escape. I don't think Jeff Koons would be considered the artist he is if people actually felt love from his sculptures.
ReplyDeleteIs it just me, or did Laura Owens feel like the only one being really honest and transparent in how she felt about Jeff Koons' work? She said (in a nut shell) that she hopes he isn't a mirror of our society and that she expects better, perhaps even higher level thinking conceptually and in execution from artists. I just really appreciated her thoughts on sleeve approach to the discussion. Her rejection of the work is perhaps exactly what Koons was going for though?
ReplyDeleteNot just you, she was being sincere, and that is a rare and beautiful thing.
Deletefavorite quote from her, "It's irritating to because I'm an artist, maybe..." but then she says: "its a great show." I love that.
ReplyDeleteYes :)
DeleteI was confused by what Bove was saying; maybe someone can elucidate her statement. She referred to Koon's work as mixed messages (power/domination, love/ecstasy). Bove states "Koons Work contains contradictory, mutually exclusive positions without ambivalence. It asks us to think non-dualistically." My question is what did Bove mean by this; How does Koon's work in the Banality show succeed in doing this?
ReplyDeleteI was confused because she uses dualist terms to describe the work, refers to the work being non-dualist, and then doesn't explain how the work is non-dualistic.
-------------------------
What would Koons work, or any work for that matter, look like if it depicted the "thing" you want to communicate? Bove used the example of "new-age" artwork. Is that the only analogy?
Maybe I'm missing the mark of what you're asking, but I think that if any work depicted the "thing" the artist wanted to communicate, all art would function as extremely minimal and emotional symbols. I feel like anything about love would be a heart, happiness would be some kind of smiley face, and so on. Maybe like emojis, where pictures are stand-ins for words and feelings?
DeleteAgain, I'm not sure if I'm missing the mark or not, but this is the only other analogy that came to mind.
Erin touched on this in her first comment, but I agree with what she said about painting in itself being a mystical act. I think that even if the taboo against mysticism in painting itself is preserved, the mystical act of creating something new and bringing it into the world can never be removed.
ReplyDeleteErin's first comment in general changed the way I was going to comment at first. I had never considered looking at mysticism outside of a white, western context until I read what she had to say, and I think that's something that needs to be brought into the conversation as well.
Laura Owens nailed it on the head, it is too big to fail. Koons work is extraordinary in the fact that it is irritating to so many people. I agree with Jordan though in the fact that he is human, but his vision probably has been clouded with drama, and large amounts of money. I enjoy a lot of his work but I was critical at first until I saw his work in person. There are a few artists work that have impacted me in that way, you don't know really what it is until you see it. I guess shouldn't be blinded by how I feel about an artist and let that affect how I view the work.
ReplyDelete