Paper #2:

The Artist in Context

    The current definition of an artist, according to Dictionary.Com is, a person who works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria. Aesthetics as pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality. Whether or not we accept this as accurate or not we are subject to this definition. As artists in culture we are subject to our ever evolving definition. Where, when, and how we make art is dictated by or in response to the confines of our historical context.
    In “Believing is Seeing”, Author Mary Anne Staniszewski illustrates the concept of historical context with a discussion about Michelangelo’s, “ The Creation of Adam”. This fresco is  recognizable to most as a master work of art. Staniszewski argues, “However magnificent and beautiful the Sistine Chapel frescoes may be, they are not art as we know it. They were instruments of religious and political Authority.” She makes this claim because Michelangelo did not choose to paint the Sistine ceiling, he was ordered to do so by his patron. The concept of choice and autonomy is ingrained in how we define the artist in modernity. The artist  as genius. “In Modernity , Art has traditionally understood as something not learned but created, and created by someone gifted with genius. One does not decide to become an artist and then learn how to do so. Artists in modernity are born.” (Staniszewski, 112.) Staniszewskis draws attention to an interesting aspect of how we should view and engage art. No matter where an artist or artwork falls on the art historical timeline, it is important to understand the intention of the work in relationship to the social perception of art at the time.  To go as far to say that Michelangelo was not an artist because he didn’t posses the luxury of artistic license, is a stretch. He may have been commissioned by the Catholic church, but that doesn’t mean he lacked the same magical gift that we currently attribute to artists. I don’t believe this is the argument the author is trying to make. Rather, she is shedding light on the simple fact that, “All forms of representation, whether they be pictures or words or gestures, are dependent upon cultural languages.”  These cultural languages play a very significant role in how we see art in general. For example, Islamic geometric art has significant differences to the art of the Roman Catholic church. However, in the cultural spaces in which they exist, they are considered standard. There is a generational hierarchy of images in every culture that dictates the norm. Each and every artist needs to be aware of that legacy and be mindful of the ways it filters into there own work.
    It is important, not only to understand that this exists but be aware of who gets to say what images are  important. In Linda Nochlins, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artist?” we are made aware of the overwhelming odds that were stacked against women born with the same talents as their male counterparts. The cross cultural subjugation of women made luxurious pursuits,  like art , to be near impossible until very recent history. Nochlin draws attention to one key limitation placed on women, that may have stricken them from art history. One of the most fundamental skills to becoming a great artist, whether in the days of the academy or in contemporary art institutions, is being able to draw, paint or sculpt, from a nude model. Unfortunately throughout most of history, because of their social status, women were unable to work from a live model, limiting there ability to compete on the same level as male artists.  “Always a model but never an artist”.  With the examination of social changes in  modernity one can further understand the dynamics of the masculine and the feminine. Art at this point was made primarily by men for an audience comprised mostly of rich white men. In Grieselda Pollock’s, “Modernity and the space of femininity”, we are introduced to the Flaneur and the male gaze. “ The flaneur symbolizes the privilege or freedom to move about the public arenas of the city observing but never interacting, consuming the sights through a controlling but rarely acknowledged gaze, directed as much at other people as at the goods for sale. The flaneur embodies the gaze of modernity which is both covetous and erotic” This visual and physical consumption of the feminine that Pollock describes still reverberates in contemporary gender dynamics.
    There is an interesting shift historically  that becomes apparent in the readings from, “Artist, Critics, Context” by Paul F. Fabozzi. Durring the late fifties and early sixties a group of artist emerges called the “New Artists”. These artist are responsible from some forms of art that we now think of as just another word in our artistic Language. For example, Allen Ginsbergs beat poetry, Allan Kaprow’s Happenings and Claes Oldenburgs Store. This is where art history leaps off the canvas, out of the gallery and into the mind. The role of the viewer changes dramatically in the way they interact and view art, sometimes become part of the artwork itself. These new artists, “Want us to share with them their pleasure and excitement at feeling and being, in an unquestioning and optimistic way.”
    So what  is happening now? What is the contemporary artists context? What does this mean for me, a white middle class male artist in 2012. It means that everything is up for grabs. As long as we are educated about the way that art has evolved, we will be able to place ourselves within its evolution. The readings from critical theory one have outlined the enduring importance of the way that art responds and contributes to cultural languages. Also, that historical context is necessary to understand these languages and their exchange with specific moments in art.   Many would say that art is dead, that nothing is shocking anymore and everything has already been said.  I would argue however that because our artistic language is so large, we are in a place historically where anything goes. In reading these text we become aware of the importance of the political and social climate of curtain periods in art. The birth of the modern city, the voice of feminism and the emergence of the “new artist” were all in one way or another  a product of their socio-political climate. Presently, the weather is looking pretty turbulent. As a society we are fascinated with calamity. Biblically, our generation is supposed to be responsible for the war that will end all wars, the end of civilization as we know it. What if it becomes something else that is beyond our current comprehension? To me it means that in no way is art dead, that the potentially a new avant guard is only beginning to be realized. A perfect example is the Youtube video that has sparked chaos on the streets in the middle east. To me it means that contemporary art not only has the potential of changing the artist community but the social and political fabric of the world in general. So for me, “The adventure is everything; the tangible goal is not important. The Pacific coast is farther away than we thought, Ponce De Leon’s Fountain of Youth lies beyond the next everglade, and the next, and the next…meanwhile let’s battle the alligators.” (Kaprow)

Works Cited

1.) Fabozzi, Paul. Artist, Critics, Context: Readings in an Around American Art Since 1945 (Prentice-Hall, 2002)

2.) Griselda Pollock, “Modernity and the Space of Femininity” (online)
3.) Linda Nochlin, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? (online)
4.) Staniszewski, Marry Anne. Beliving is seeing: Creating the Culture of Art (Penguin Books:1995).