I wanted to give all of those who may be interested in the upcoming book ‘Art Is Dead’ a small excerpt from one portion of the book. If you are re-publishing this somewhere like a blog or online publication please use proper citing. Visit artisdeadbook.com to learn more about the book, see video interviews, meet the contributors, and pre-order the book!
“When poker boomed in the early 2000’s, we saw a rise in poker players becoming celebrities. Gamblers that are in many ways interesting and strange made their way to the top of the field and are now household names. These were everyday average people who happened to love poker and possibly have a gambling addiction. They were very loose with their money which made it fun to watch when they lost a large chunk of it. Generally though, they were just like everyone else. Society could easily relate to these players. One reason is because the game of poker is easily understood and in many ways respected for those who are talented at it. Another reason is that these characters are making large quantities of money and therefore we as on-lookers are envious, but admiring, of their success.
So, strange characters making a lot of money. Sounds a lot like contemporary art. The only difference is the ability to understand what is being done, and to relate to the characters. If people could understand why a bag of garbage is worth several thousand dollars and considered to be brilliant art, perhaps living artists would begin to be household names. Or perhaps that bag of garbage should never have been accepted as brilliant art in the first place.
Not everyone in the art world agrees that bags of garbage should treated as amazing art. The debate over modern self-expression has raged on for decades. Today we accept splatters of paint and abstract concepts as art but this was not always so. The modern debate began in the 1940s when abstraction expressionism hit the art scene, but it was really sparked by the debate between Clement Greenberg and Harold Rosenberg. Both were relatable to be the Ebert and Ropert of art critics in their day. They had severely different opinions on art becoming something that anyone could do. Greenberg argued that abstract expressionism should be praised. That it involved the spirit and emotions of the artists instead of a simple picture for recognitions sake. Rosenberg on the other hand fiercely opposed the idea that art could be dubbed down into simple mindless actions. Seen only for the result of the action and not for the image that was intended to be painted. This opposition was to the likings of Ali and Frazier. Two heavy weights who in many ways would shape the future of modern art.
Perhaps that previous statement is a bit bold. I am not sure anyone besides the artists could have stopped the direction art was going. Needless to say, the likes of abstract expressionism won the fight and Greenberg knocked down Rosenberg. This meant that many forms of art would begin to separate themselves from what had always been traditionally known as ‘art’. In otherwords, classical painting and sculpting. It was a great thing for people who liked to express themselves and for all visual artists in general. Suddenly you could put feces into a jar and call it art (See artist Piero Manzoni). However for everyone else that was not involved with art, it left a bad taste in their mouth, which thankfully had little to do with the previously mentioned feces. Suddenly anything was possible and anything could potentially be considered to be incredible by its very concept. Since concept had trumped product, those with an inability to grasp said concept were left out in the cold. Product is far easier to appreciate and understand. It is what America has been built upon. A painting of an elephant for instance is easy to see and appreciate it as being an elephant. You can see how detailed it is, what setting it is placed in and you can understand the whys and whats. Granted, it does not go beyond the original image in terms of concept but it really doesn’t need to. However, a large granite cube representing the strength and size of an elephant is far more difficult for the average person to appreciate through concept. Instead, it is often met with disgust and subsequently a turn away from art altogether. Perhaps as artists we never educated society properly, or the transition to the modern art movement was too fast. I think neither are true. Instead this art by its very nature is contrary to what society would rationalize as appreciative. It lacks universal definition and without definition it stays an ‘it’.
It boils down to understanding and recognition. Many artists would argue that forcing their work to be recognizable or understandable in a universal way is a fallacy and that art is whatever the artist wants it to be. Thank god there are other artists out there to agree with you. For everyone else, being able to recognize what they are looking at is something that is key to appreciating and admiring the work. Next comes understanding, which can be separated from recognition but only if the concept is very obvious. Or unless you are speaking with the artist who can explain the concept. Gallery goers often have fun going to exhibits and figuring out concepts but then again I am speaking to the general public, not gallery goers. It is the artists who bridge the gap between understanding and recognition in their work that can be truly appreciated by society as a whole. That is not to say that the other work is not valuable or worthwhile but it tends to cater to only one crowd. The art crowd. Which many would argue is good enough. However I say that is simply not good enough. Why should only one crowd be able to understand and partake in something that is public? Perhaps if conceptual art were taught right alongside the classical masters, kids would grow up to universally appreciate art which is not outwardly understandable or recognizable. The actual art that is considered to be truly ‘abstract’ should not go away, but instead should begin to be universally taught and thus, appreciated.”
That being said, I think it is obvious that the seeker element of David is right on point. His eye for natural beauty is one that is keen on artistic spirituality. Whereas I dislike the word ‘artist’ being associated with the word ’seeker’, it matters not. Regardless of what chisel work goes into a piece it is only a subtle manipulation of what nature has made. And this is OK.
I applaud Davids finds and alterations. I believe them to be absolutely worthwhile and simply gorgeous to look at. After taking the time to review his collection and seeing his work in person in the past, I cannot help but associate his work with that of sculptor Isamu Noguchi. It is of a far different medium and spiritual overtone but it is in fact spiritual. A naturalist, pacifist take on fine art. However, I am always weary on giving too much praise to an individual largely seeking beautiful objects. Whereas they are in fact beautiful, they are often not the work of the artist.
