Marina Abramovic's shit don't stink??

For the longest time I've had a difficult time understanding the assemblage that is Modern/Post-Modern Art. It came from a severe lack of understanding and therefore was projected antagonistically as "I hate, can't stand, loathe, 'this shit is retarded' modern art." Well yes, I was antagonistic, but I had a strong natural frustration, not necessarily opposition, but frustration with the medium and the artist. And when consulting those who had taken affinity in the genre, I was greeted with the responses of "There is no meaning," or "It's just simply beautiful/cool", or even "I just like it."

I have had for the longest time a strong respect for Classical Arts. This being through the lineage of the Western European Renaissance; and a product thereof. I respected it, because upon seeing it you were looking at the beginnings of a modernity. An understanding of line of sight, perspective, and construction. The images, as the gradually changed, grew more and more real. And yet subtly, hinted through iconography and other means, would tell subplots. These little gems hidden from plain sight, allowed the viewer, given there being time to study, a little glimpse of the artist(author's) vision or even version of the story. However, the simplest facet of the work that made it so valuable to me personally, is that it managed to make the art look real. There is a definite mastery in the work.

And then there's the historical shift into the realm of the Impressionists. I would say most love this time period and the artists that created this genre. And what made it even more impressive, at least to me, was that the bulwark of the art came as a shift. These acclaimed artists as Van Gogh and Monet and so on was that they knew the school of the Classical. They were well practiced and if needed be, could they themselves be masters of the previous genre. However, the challenge had shifted and moved to a different realm of approach when it came to painting, and that was to remove the object and insert the environment. The subject being viewed was no longer a face or an image or a relationship between characters, but rather the environment, the haze of ambiance of the setting of a piece became more the subject. And there was value in that because those artists, in their phallocentric places in history, were valuable for adapting their skills and their knowledge.

My immersion into this modern spectacle of the "Modern Art" has been slow. I only recently have shifted my antagonistic angst. I am slowly starting to understand the values of the genre. Now to allude to the aforementioned responses of those prior who initially liked this "Post" genre. It's hard to say that their responses were "wrong" in a sense because relying on that strict of a binary of right and wrong is counter intuitive to the genre and its supporting artistry. But I will say that giving pieces in this genre the quality of good or valuable based simply on the bright colors or the jarring elements of the pieces is cheapening it. It's taking value away from both the pieces themselves as well as the artists.

The climax of my shift in understanding came today while at the Guggenheim. It was simple enough that all I needed was an Audio guide which is provided freely at the museum. (A great format for any museum tour in my opinion) And with this tour I was allowed the opportunity to get a first hand understanding of both the motivation of the artist/author and also the supposed qualities that "should" be gleaned from the pieces. This ability to hear the qualitative understanding for each individual piece, removes the wall of misunderstanding. Now again, however, it is still up to the viewer, it is their, in this case mine, responsibility to see if those "should" properties are valuable or even readily plausible.

A couple of the pieces that I saw at the Guggenheim were of artists I actually knew. Meaning a real person, who lives now, and with whom I have shared a conversation or two with. Also there a few Christian Boltanski pieces there, and in the case of this artist, I was able to participate in one of his pieces as a performance artist. So with these kind of experiences, again the wall of separation between artist and piece and viewer is removed. It allowed me the ability that in each piece there is a pursuit by the artist. And that pursuit is worth vesting in.

In this genre of modernism and it's "post" counterpart, the pursuit or journey is a dynamic one that maybe the most valuable part of the art itself. Because with each piece, I won't necessarily guarantee, but I do believe that there is meaning. So to say a piece of art has "no meaning" is a wrong hypothesis. Ask the artist, and you will find no matter how disfigured the art or how scattered or even removed it looks, there was predetermined meaning. And that meaning in this day and age works in relationship to the idea of the Classical. This is the simple social critique of power that Michel Foucault brought to our attention. The works themselves being almost so "anti"-art in their appearance or aesthetic is a value. Well that is somewhat obvious. But that antagonism in the piece is only the first level. That's when you must really consult the artist. You must see that the artist is dealing with other severe power relations. This genre of art is very difficult because the challenge is to try to understand. The process takes time. It is an investment by the viewer, who is used to the beauty and aesthetics of normal Classical art, and see past that to see the reality and struggle that the artist is trying to purvey. There becomes a real relationship, a strong dynamism between the artist and the viewer through the channel of the piece or pieces. The artist is communicating something, through a medium that maybe terribly un-artistic or even extremely vulgar, but that piece that has those characteristics is in and of itself more the communication and less the truth.

And these artists are coming from real places. These artists of this genre are producing art that is less hierarchical and less grandiose but relying definitely on more spectacle. But why? It could be that art in this age of civilized luxury can only be spectacle. It has been slowly and methodically removed from the taxonomical hierarchy of status. Now, more than ever, a person, any person, as an artist can communicate. But what is the communication? These impractical alleys of communication rely on the discussion of speculation; speculation and social theory. However these two realms of speculation and social theory are not far off vestiges of social capital, because when engaging the real artist/author you realize, at least partly, even it be a small part, that the communication comes from something personal. The best artists are communicating themselves through the means of the Modern in the channels of speculation and social theory while allowing the theoretical and the esoteric the sincerity of the humane.

It's not that I think all Modern Art is good. I still think a majority of it could be easily written off as sensational trite bullshit where most of this shit survives in the superfulous cloud of social capital. I mean fuck Marina Abramovic and her staring contest. But maybe if I got to know her, and know where her communication comes from, then I may say her shit don't stink.


Without Relent,
Peace
Remoy