Thoughts about elites, Flickr, and chipmunks

I love what he says about contemporary “elites,” but in general I would add three things for clarification:

that art is also about experimentations, which sometimes fails. So those chipmunks with Star Wars figurines might be necessary to ensure that playfulness;

the main thing that makes Flickr unattractive is that it is dominated by ad-educated aesthetic, by which I mean, sleek, surface-based, and impressionable with little beyond that point. That’s not to say that much of the “art” being produced today isn’t informed by that aesthetic, just that most of the best art gives you more than just that; and

I am an art critic in NY and I use Flickr ALL THE TIME, if I find something interesting, I write about it, like this or this.

conscientious:

Chipmunks are very cute. And I do dislike a lot about how art is often presented, because it can be incredibly pretentious and annoying. But to take photos of chipmunks with Star Wars figurines as an example of how to make art more accessible to “the majority of the public” (see the last paragraph; even though I need to add that I agree with most of what Jin writes before that)?

I don’t think that art is necessarily about haha effects and visual gags - even though, undoubtedly, a lot of it can be, and there’s nothing wrong with it. But a lot of art is about going beyond haha effects and visual gags, and there is a reason why art made in the past and still admired today is not just a collection of visual jokes (of course, there are some exceptions). Part of that reason is that what we find funny depends very strongly on our cultural environment; and that environment changes very strongly with time (ancient Romans were amused by things which we often only find baffling). But older art admired today appeals to the same core inside us that it did appeal to in the past (this whole complex is a can of worms with tons of other points and exceptions).

Of course, pointing this out invites people coming up with the usual complaints that I am being “elitist”. But here’s the thing: Even if we accept the assertion that art can be elitist for a brief moment, it’s important to realize that it’s not an exclusive elite. It’s inclusive. Unlike in the case of monetary elites - where if you don’t have the dough, then you simply won’t ever be part of them - art is something that everybody can experience, and everybody can develop an appreciation for it. And yes, developing an appreciation is not a bad thing - just like an acquired taste isn’t a bad thing: Remember when you had your first sip of beer? Wasn’t that a truly disgusting taste?

Seen that way, the art “elite” it’s not really an elite the way we usually understand the word, since the idea of an “elite” is usually exclusive, as a group of people who shut themselves off from the rest and won’t let anybody in. That’s how it’s predominantly used in a political context, especially when conservative politicians - who usually represent monetary elites - rail against the arts: It’s a real elite (usually wealthy white men) railing against something that is actually not an elite at all.

The role of art is not necessarily to be entertaining; it’s much more interesting when it becomes transformative, when it does something to you, when, after being subjected to it, you’re a different person - regardless of whether you smiled or laughed about what you saw or not. That, I believe, is the true essence of art, and that’s something we should aim for.

The role of curators or critics is to point this out - that’s what they’re being paid for. Of course, there’s the lingo, the “art speak”, but it’s easy to ignore that (just don’t read the press releases).

So back to Flickr (and more or less the rest of Jin’s post), there are two major problems with the usual complaints about it not being taken seriously by the art world. First of all, it’s not true. There are lots of people who use the site to find “vernacular photography”, say, or to collect images and transform them (for example Penelope Umbrico; also Joachim Schmid, etc.). Second, one of the reasons why so many critics or curators don’t consider Flickr is simply because they are looking for something else.

hragv Posted by hragv

Source conscientious

Reblogged from conscientious

Oct
28

Thoughts about elites, Flickr, and chipmunks

Notes

Recent comments

Oct 28

Notes

Recent comments

Oct
28