On Public Service Programming And Instruction Manuals For Art

Letter

In Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature is a list of six observations about art by the art philosopher Denis Dutton. They are:

1. Expertise or virtuosity. Humans cultivate, recognize, and admire technical artistic skills.
2. Nonutilitarian pleasure. People enjoy art for art's sake, and don't demand that it keep them warm or put food on the table.
3. Style. Artistic objects and performances satisfy rules of composition that place them in a recognizable style.
4. Criticism. People make a point of judging, appreciating, and interpreting works of art.
5. Imitation. With a few important exceptions like abstract painting, works of art simulate experiences of the world.
6. Special focus. Art is set aside from ordinary life and made a dramatic focus of experience.

Here is my reaction.

1. EXPERTISE OR VIRTUOSITY.

As far as art goes, I'm pretty sure Dutton's first point is just about passé. It's not that expertise and virtuosity have become irrelevant, but we've long since acknowledged the value of other qualities in art and artists. Nowadays, we recognize and appreciate art forms for which technical and artistic virtuosity are not pivotal. One example is the work of James Turrell, where nature is central to the experience of virtuosity. Conceivably, 21st Century artists in the Western World don't work to cultivate their expertise and virtuosity anymore, at least not in the classical sense. Maybe the focus is instead on the naturalness so central to other cultures' art? Isn't it easier on an emotional level to admire the natural, as opposed to expertise and virtuosity? And isn't nature simple to recognize, identify with and value? Is art unnatural?

2. NONUTILITARIAN PLEASURE.

Ars gratia artis, art for art's sake — one of my pet hates. Nonutilitarian pleasure leads to devaluation. Point 2 is pointless, and like art for art's sake is a clever-sounding but perfectly useless idiom. Deriving pleasure from something is a function, and a constructive one at that, because pleasure is motivating. Art for art's sake and nonutilitarian pleasure reek of a trip to the library to enjoy the spines and covers of books, for their own sake — an inane exercise. Should one inspect the binding work, the craftsmanship, the materials, venture a contemplative thought or allow one's curiosity to be awakened? Should one open a book and travel with its content? No, halt! Art is for art's sake! Read no further, and remember: Art is a nonutilitarian pleasure! Humbug!

3. RULES OF COMPOSITION AND RECOGNIZABLE STYLE.

To my mind, a term like recognizable style is no more than a superficial interpretation of a field's history and of painterly traditions.

Resorting to rules to create a style would be futile. What, then, of innovation? The result would be the reproduction of redundant works. An essential part of painting is working toward new ways of regarding what we recognize. Recognizability is an inherent part of a painting's nature, and breaking free from all tradition is arduous, so rules can be useful.

My own experience making use of rules has nothing to do with achieving recognizability. But I do appreciate being able to see a correlation. To an outside observer, the repetition of pretty much the same thing might seem like a style. But rules are not made to be followed faithfully, quite the opposite! Rules are there so that we can forever do something new within certain parameters. In part, rules provide an impetus, and in part they compel us to go all the way to the outermost edge, which is quite literally an essential part of painting.

4. CRITICISM, JUDGING, APPRECIATING AND INTERPRETING ART.

As extroverted activities, criticism, judgment, appreciation and interpretation serve one purpose: to tell one another who we are. But that's not unique for art; we do it with more or less everything — it's small talk for parties and gatherings and when we're out on the town. It's social and it's entertaining, but trumpeting who we are all of the time is also piddling nonsense.

Extroverted criticism of art is, in my opinion, the least interesting way to use the visual arts. I believe that one has to cultivate the ability to be receptive to art. Instead of being right, one has to soften up one's intellect and pack one's ego in the backseat to start using art to broaden one's horizons.

If we turn criticism inward, however, things start to get interesting. There's something reassuring about knowing who we are, and who we are is perhaps most clearly defined by what we do, not what we like or don't like to do. We can use a work of art to determine how critical we are or aren't, how much we analyze, rationalize, enjoy or appreciate; even how creative we are and how many different ways we can use a work of art to get to know ourselves better. Dutton may be on to something here.

5. IMITATION AND SIMULATION.

Dutton's point number 5 quite possibly corresponds with point 1's expertise and virtuosity; every well-executed representative rendition contains a certain degree of expertise and virtuosity. But as Dutton himself suggests, imitation is not much of a criterion. Many central elements in the visual arts today are quite liberated from imitation.

In my own studies, I've learned that a foetus finds resonance in the rhythm of its mother's heart and the flow of her blood while in the uterus, and only later as an infant begins to react to its surroundings and imitate the sounds it perceives. So it is with visual arts; (cardio)rhythms and harmonies resonate within us. Oftentimes imitation is a direct obstruction for a visual experience of rhythm. To simulate experiences of the world is a vast heading. Let's let point 5 be for a moment, calling instead to mind the works of art not eligible for the category Simulates experiences of the world.

6. SPECIAL FOCUS. SET ASIDE FROM ORDINARY LIFE AND MADE A DRAMATIC FOCUS OF EXPERIENCE.

I do wonder if Dutton should have left his list at two or three observations. Maybe he finds a weekend visit to an art museum a change from the humdrum of everyday life. For me, art is a very big part of the everyday humdrum. And yet, when art is the normal state it's because one has come far enough to know more or less what's going on.

What I believe Dutton to be saying is that it doesn't feel ordinary for Dutton to produce a work of art. But there's no need to start one's art career making Caravaggio comparisons; he can start with Michael Chang comparisons then it won't be so hard to keep up.

I wonder, too, if one can call focus on experience dramatic. I find that experience happens to all people, all of the time. But maybe he means experiences that are out of the ordinary, and while I'm waiting for the realm of the extraordinary to open its door and invite me inside so I can have some dramatic experiences, I can prime some canvasses and try my hand at photogravure.

In my opinion, working with art is rather undramatic business. I remember when I first started painting the urge to paint was a feeling of euphoria. But doggone it, working like that is just not sustainable in the long run. Some of my most cherished work is accompanied by a teensy feeling of boredom, with my hands just going on doing what they do best.

DANMARKS RADIOS INSTRUCTION MANUAL FOR THE VISUAL ARTS

Dutton's six-point list made me think of a recent conversation with a friend and colleague of mine. I had complained about the apparently low level of professional level knowledge of DR (Denmark's national public radio) when it comes to the visual arts.

She flatly replied that DR doesn't produce its programs with the professional visual artist in mind.

That's true!

Thanks to her clear-sightedness, I was reminded that public service access does not automatically mean access to expert knowledge — DOH!

Professional level knowledge within the visual arts is accessed through institutions of learning, lectures, contact with practicing artists and other professionals, professors and studio instructors, and it is part of students' daily work in the field.

Information is also available in solid form in bookstores, on the Internet and in libraries. In Copenhagen, Danmarks Kunstbibliotek (Denmark's Art Library) is especially valuable.

Then, of course, there are the studios of all practicing artists.

I can't hold DR accountable for not having their finger on the pulse of expert knowledge in the visual arts, but I can hold myself accountable if I don't.

Even if DR possesses the technology for mass communication, producing programs with superior professional content is not their responsibility. Actually, as a visual artist, it is my responsibility, as well as that my colleagues.

Now, having reconsidered the transmission of visual arts knowledge, I have found myself feeling an increased responsibility to share what goes on in my own studio.

As far as DR's broadcasting goes, of course, there are entertainment factors to consider. But as far as the visual arts are concerned, the work done by a visual artist is not meant to entertain, but rather to produce expert knowledge.

That level of professionalism is key for example for Statens Kunstfond to distribute grants to artists. Entertainment value is of little account here.

And yet a public broadcaster does strive to help educate the public, and there are many genres well suited to creating ambitious programs about the visual arts. If one considers it, one might be tempted to ask what might come out of it: an art quiz, an art review, an interview with a collector, a videotaped meeting between artists; a visit to an art trade show, a museum and a commercial gallery.

Documentaries can be an apt narrative genre for spreading expert knowledge about art. But a well-produced documentary representing various perspectives can be costly to research and produce — perhaps the reason why so few documentaries are produced about artists today?

Today though, every smart phone with even sidestreet cred has a high-res video camera. Videos are uploaded to YouTube around the clock, and producing a documentary is possible without a huge budget — so why not bypass DR? It's perfectly ok to challenge public broadcasters if we feel they're under the mark. And of course it's alright to be critical of an editorial board responsible for public service programming. Does a broadcaster's editorial board inadvertently restrict specialized knowledge? Can one with good conscience transmit something one doesn't understand?

IN CONCLUSION

Now, to sum up: I realized that in my role as a visual artist, I not only produce images, but produce and reveal the expert knowledge I have gained. My role also entails debating certain groups' view of the visual arts, but not to be contrary partout. (I do think that Dutton is right in some respects, and his observations do demonstrate how many people today view visual art.)

For that reason, I've tried to lift the lid and shake things around a bit by writing about how I view the visual arts.

My criticism of DR makes me feel a certain sense of responsibility to help people who seek out information from artists get a nuanced impression of how the visual arts are implemented. I don't have a TV-station, but I have my hands, my time, my energy, my website and the rest of the Internet. And luckily, I have you, my friends and colleagues, and your ears and eyes. (And noses?)