On Judging Art and Judging Others

When I first started this blog three months ago, I wrote a post entitled “Is It Good Art” which referenced the work of an artist name Kent Youngstrom.  Trying to figure out the whole blog thing, find my voice, get content up on the thing, I posted it fairly hastily without stepping back and listening to the tone of the post.  In my mind, I had liked Youngstrom’s work.  That’s why I wrote the post.  That’s what I thought was interesting to talk about – I found art in a place in which I wouldn’t have expected it, and both the website itself (Joss & Main) and the artist taught me a lesson.  There was in fact art there which I enjoyed and which I would consider buying.  That was the moral of the story.

That is clearly not how the story came across.  I wrote an addendum to address this, but which didn’t really address it adequately.  In the last several days, some exchanges with the artist have brought my attention back to this post.  Kent, for his part, wrote an incredibly thoughtful and generous response to the post — one that had a lot of good meat to chew on in it.  Some of the dialogue between me and Kent can be found at http://kentyoungstrom.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/in-response-to-is-it-good-art/ .  With the benefit of time, I do see how the post sounded and many of the problems with its content.  Taken on its own I suppose it can be seen as advocating for high art seen in conventional terms.  Within the context of the blog, the point is just the opposite.  I won’t repeat the entire statement of purpose here, but the crux is:

It seems to be a dominant trend (among intellectuals in American society at least) to see Art (paintings, sculpture, theater, etc.) and finding beauty in that Art as intellectually admirable and value, signifying substance, depth and knowledge, and to dismiss fashion (and less so interior design – both tied into a conflicted relationship to “shopping”) as superficial.  We appreciate a fine restaurant and a good meal, but turn our noses up at anyone who seems to have invested “too much thought and time” in his or her appearance.  All production can be invested with more or less craft, skill and creativity, and this effects how we respond to the objects of production.  To make choices based on seeing value in the work and creativity invested in the production of any object is not superficial.  It is the source of pleasure.  It is, perhaps, what distinguishes us from animals — the ability to consume not just what we need of the world, in a primal way, but to shape the objects that we consume to bring us a different level of pleasure and satisfaction.  Life is enriched by surrounding ourselves with objects that give us pleasure.

This blog is me sharing things which I encounter in the world which I think bring pleasure and make life richer.  That involves no small amount of internal conflict having to do with my own concerns about whether this interest is entirely superficial.  A blog is quite literally a page on which an author (or group of authors) offers his thoughts and opinions.  It does not purport to be definitive, academic or journalistic.  That it is just a forum for sharing your thoughts is the whole premise.  So as I discuss the things that I stumble upon and want to share, part of that includes sharing my thoughts about them, and those thoughts aren’t always pretty or resolved.  Generally they’re asking as many questions as they may be answering.  The last thing this blog is about is establishing the terms of an elite culture of art which is exclusive and judgmental.  I hope that is clear to anyone who has read it with any consistency.

There was an occasion when I considered writing a post on some women who made scarves which I did not like.  I decided not to write the post, because I have no interest in making someone else feel like crap.  My intention in writing the post on Kent Youngstrom was never to make him feel like crap and call him out, but was because I liked his work.  And I certainly don’t blame an artist for the venues which he chooses to sell a work.  Hell, anything that works, any way you can sell it, that’s great.  The integrity for the artist is in producing the work, not how he finds to sell it.  To some extent, I was questioning Joss & Main’s decision (and ultimately cb2’s decision) to take themselves seriously as venues for selling art.  But they proved me wrong.  As the saying goes, they’re laughing alway to the bank.  That’s great.  And even in the three short months since I’ve written the post, how art is sold online continues to change.

As the blog has progressed, I have written about a number of other artists I have stumbled across.  Some of them I have learned of through galleries.  Others I found on flipboard or someone else’s blog.  They are all artists whom I enjoy and whose work I think it would be nice to have hanging in my home.*  My tone has softened somewhat, and I have grown more confident in writing about things that I just think are fun without being as apologetic for it.  I’m certain there are still plenty of flaws in my writing.  But it’s a blog for god’s sake.  I admire Kent for his confidence that makes him so open and generous, willing and able to see that story behind the post on his work.  And hell, hats off to anyone who actually figures out how to make a friggin’ living as an artist.  That is no small feat.

* Yes, I did slam Terry Richardson and Dov Charney over the last couple of days, but I’m pretty sure that:
a.  there’s not a chance in hell either of them will see my blog post
b.  neither of them could care less what i think of him
c.  they’re both laughing all the way to the bank
d.  their sexual harassment of young women in the workplace is egregious enough that they sure as hell deserve to be called out for it on a regular basis

share this