Art About Art: Pretencious Clicks, One Liners, Or Reflections of the Times

So what is going on with art about art. Sure it has existed for quite some time. Artists have been apprenticing and referencing artists before them for years throughout history. Even in the sixties and seventies with conceptualism, situationism, fluxus and many other movements artists seem to be referencing other artists before them or even artists of the same time.

So what does this all mean? Why it started I'm not really sure. Why it still exists I'm not really sure. I am so interested in it because I am able to connect to contemporary art that references, pokes fun at, or just plain works off of other contemporary artists and recent art history. If i have formally educated myself for six straight years in Fine Arts, so i can comfortably state i have build quite a vast knowledge of contemporary art and a solid art historical context of the past one hundred years or so. What conflicts me is, the notion that a plethora of the public viewers will not understand the references, then not fully understanding the work. Does this help contemporary art's cause, or hinder it? It's going to hurt it.

Unless you art about art references include Andy Warhol, Picasso, or even the super contemporary bad boys like Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst, I don't the the public understand or know the reference. I state my case by citing a visit to PS1, the wonderful space in Long Island City, NY, now operated in conjunction with MOMA. The summer of 2007, i happened upon Jim Shaw's "The Donner Party". The piece is comprised of a series of wagons are dinner place settings arranged in a circle. The piece is a reference to "the Donner Party's ill-fated 1846 journey across the Sierra Nevada mountains in which they were caught in a blizzard and resorted to cannibalism" (a direct quote from the PS1 website). So for the general viewer perhaps you'll see the bizarre weird reference, perhaps. Ok, probably, not likely, but that is fine. I probably wouldn't have gotten that, you have to know a sense of history and that is fine. It is in a way a very smart reference, perhaps in some ways literal and in other ways more abstract.

To get to my point, here is the reference that bothers me. Jim Shaw's piece is also a direct reference to Judy Chicago's 1979 installation "The Dinner Party". Chicago's piece was a series of dinner place settings at the triangular shaped table. Each place setting was a reference to an individual woman in history. In Jim Shaw's piece each place setting is a direct reference to an individual artist throughout history. Great reference, right? Sure, if you have studied art for years. One specific example in Shaw's piece, is the place setting of a furry bowl, plate, and utensil - this is a direct reference to Merit Oppenheim's "fur Covered Cup, Saucer, and Spoon" from 1936. For myself, this was wonderful to see, i get the reference, i have heard of and seen the image of Merit Oppenheim's 1936 exploration of objects and texture shift. Yet, how does this reference help the Jim Shaw piece. Well, he is referencing the history of the Donner party in 1846, then referencing artists like Merit Oppenheim in 1936, and the most recent historical reference of Judy Chicago's 1979 installation. Smart, but not accessible. Why do the constant historical references have to be so direct from art history? Not only is Jim Shaw referencing Judy Chicago, but also at least a dozen more artists with each place setting. Is this necessary. Are we truly cannibals of the art world. Do we have to stay in out pretentious art clicks? Are the art references so direct the become on liners? "Hey, a furry bowl! Great Merit Oppenheim reference!" I think to myself. Yet does it end there. Well not for myself, i have made many historical connections, but is it to obscure for the overall viewing population.

All of this brings me to a major point to make. Who is the audience here? We simply have to question who is the audience, and for what artwork. PS1 is in Long Island City, right out of Manhatten, so perhaps the location will carry a different audience than showing at the Lexington Art League in Lexington, Kentucky. As artists, we have to be aware of who are audience is, not only aware but responsible. There is a fine line between the art about art references in the New York art scene context and the lesser known "art scenes". Is Jim Shaw's work shown and noticed in the New York area simply because it is the location of the highest concentration of art galleries, art historians, curators, and artists? Perhaps, but art about art exists everywhere.

Art about even exists in Wilmington, Delaware. The 2007 MFA Biennial at the Delaware Center for the Contemporary Arts was the main catalyst in sparking my distaste for art about art in the major public art forum. The piece in particular is a multi channel audio piece by John Henry Blatter and Derek Cote two graduates of Virginia Commonwealth University. The artists installed onsite at the DCCA several speakers and audio equipment for the piece. It was inside and outside. Inside, the many layers of audio echoed and boomed city names. "New York, Berlin, Dresden, d-resden..." it would play, bounce and echo in the cavern of the DCCA lobby. Funny, witty, city names of major players in the art world. I can see that working, i have heard the city names before, most everyone has. Ok, it is still an art reference but it is accessible. The outdoor portion of audio, has a series of mock loud speaker announcements referencing artists. The only accessible name mentioned is probably Andy Warhol. "Matthew Barney you are wanted in the screening room, Matthew Barney...Roxy Paine you are needed in the sculpture garden, Roxy Paine." the audio calls out. References to Andy Warhol is one thing, but when the artists start getting less know to people in reference to the comments, it looses accessibility. Do most viewers know Barney makes epic art films and or known about the steel tree forms of Roxy Paine to get the reference. Probably not.

So who is at fault here. The city, the museum, the public. None of the above. The artist is at fault for these references. The artist must not only be aware and responsible for who their audience is in terms of accessibility. What is the point of your pretencious art references as an artist? So you and your art friends, and the museum curators will get it and no one else? An even if that is your target audience, it still becomes a quick on liner reference for us artists, art historians and curators. Even if we get it, it lacks substance.

Substance - this is my final point. I leave my self questioning if these few examples and the many many more I have stumbled upon the last few years are simply reflections of the times. I would simply say yes. We as a culture in the new century have become more and more people of immediacy. We get our information quickly on the web, we can snap a picture on our cell phones without batting and eye or even framing up a shot, and we still want it faster. I think because of this immediacy we have forgotten about substance. Books used to be sacred bodies of information, not only in substance, but in artistic calligraphy. Now, the one liner of knowledge is all we need, even as educated artists. As long as you get the reference and laugh that is enough. Well not for me, i need that reference that makes me laugh to continue to think, and hopefully get our culture back to substance.


Ron Longsdorf, October 2008