OR is Innocence is Questionable, questionable? Thoughts on "artspeak" and the presumed innocence of the California Center for the Arts, Escondido.
"WHY is so much curatorial writing so dreadful?... My first assumption is that there's a generation of curators who went to college and grad school in the 1980s and '90s, when the congested language of Deconstruction, Critical Studies and so on still seemed important, intrepid and even a little glamorous."
--Richard Lacayo, critic, TIME magazine. The Decline and Fall of Western Civilization, April 1, 2008.
"Turgid"
Main Entry: tur·gid
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin turgidus, from turgēre to be swollen
Date: 1620
1: being in a state of distension : swollen, tumid [turgid limbs]; especially : exhibiting turgor
2: excessively embellished in style or language : bombastic, pompous [turgid prose]
--Merriam-Webster
"Noyer le poisson" (lit. "to drown the fish")
French slang
1: to cloud or dilute, blend. hide truth [fish tale]
Egyptian; Lisht North - Gold, beryl - ca. 1981–1640 B.C., The Metropolitan Museum of Art
"Ancient Egyptians called fish amulets like this nekhau and gave them to young girls to wear as a charm against drowning."
FACT #1: I've been hesitant to tresspass upon an exhibit, that, I am simultaneously involved in as public spectator (art critic, if you will) and unpaid participant, insomuch as my participation is not related to the show's organization, but its support.
FACT #2: I haven't picked up a copy of TIME magazine in over 10 years. I stopped reading TIME - I never read the whole magazine anyway, just the art reviews - when Robert Hughes left his outpost as the magazine's art critic. Born in Australia, Hughes, among other professional and literary activities inbetween, moved to New York in 1970 to become TIME magazine's leading and most influential critic of the arts. He is an obvious hero of mine, a major influence, and a consistent inspiration to this day. I still recall, screening The Shock of the New on VHS, in the University's (UCD) lecture hall during a class entitled, Art Since 1945.
FACT #3: Ignorance is bliss, and so, I have not read anything by TIME magazine's (new?) critic Richard Lacayo, until now. I'm going to start though, if his recent article, The Decline and Fall of Western Civilization, and the quote referenced above, are any indication of the commentary I'll be viewing.
First, you can learn how that supportive role is defined in FACT #1 here, and in what context I'll be performing, my critical duties. Apparently, I'm getting a head start with this article, but, why now? I'll be frank, I debated the validity and worthwhileness of protesting, what seemed obviously, a glaring example of "artspeak" and a major verbal and visual disconnect between the works on view, the "title," and the curatorial statement. After visiting the show, this became even more self-evident. Does anyone really care? I wondered. Good art sells itself. Was it a framing device, used to generate a little public interest? Afterall I declared, it's just an exhibit, no?
Putting the artwork on view aside for a moment, that is to say, if I had to make a very cursory judgement now, Iana Quesnell is exhibiting some of the most poetic and sublime drawings in the show. However, my primary disatisfaction with the exhibit, has been from the outset, its curatorial statement. Far from jumping onto the proverbial bandwagon of curatorial bashing, and specifically, interrogating the verbage that accompanies most recent shows in the news - timing is everything, right - the recent article by Richard Lacayo in TIME magazine, stirred up misgivings that I've had and up until now, supressed, about the curatorial statement that accompanys the California Center for the Arts, Escondido's exhibit, Innocence is Questionable. I thank Mark Staff Brandl, Swiss artist and frequent blogger on Sharkforum, for bringing Lacayo's article to my attention.
Here is the curatorial statement, in its entirety, from the Escondido show:
Conceived to promote and encourage dialogue, reflection, and social interaction about San Diego's artistic and cultural life, the exhibition, Innocence is Questionable, will celebrate the accomplishments of six renowned local artists: Jean Lowe, Ernest Silva, Raul Guererro, Iana Quesnell, May-Ling Martinez, and Yvonne Venegas, all recipients of the 06/07 San Diego Art Prize. By bringing awareness to the contemporary landscape and our place within it, each artist struggles with time and its impact on community, place, and the individual. By looking at historical precedents, mapping the physical environment and documenting the interconnectedness of all things, each artist explores one’s own history—how it’s constructed, where it begins and ends. Using the familiar, and sometimes the banal, to draw the viewer in, they make reference to the subtle complexities of an idealized image of the past in the face of the reality of the present. Ultimately, what each of these artists question is whether or not the folly of the world is the responsibility of man?
Compare this to Lacayo's observation of the opening curatorial statement to this year's Whitney Biennial:
Many of the projects presented in the exhibition explore fluid communication structures and systems of exchange that index larger social, political and economic contexts, often aiming to invert the more object-oriented operations of the art market. Recurring concerns involve a nuanced investigation of social, domestic and public space and its translation into form — primarly sculptural, but also photographic and cinematic.
and you'll "get the picture" as he says. Turgid, right? And almost comical...
The curators of "Innocence is Questionable," might very well be guilty of "congested language," but not anymore so than the artist's themselves, if you read a recent review of the exhibit in the Union Tribune, by Emily Vizzo here. In all fairness to Vizzo, she wrote an article, an overview of the exhibit's content, and not an in-depth critique of the show. Several passages in the article however, certainly had the feeling, of pattened answers and descriptions of artworks, gleaned from biographical and press release materials. There is certainly nothing wrong in doing this, except that it adds another layer of illusionary meanings and insights, to a body of work that may not be in sync, with that line of prospecting. It also repeats, what has been said before - out of sight, out of mind with no additional clarifications. Since having been written in the public domain for the public domain's consumption, it is perfectly adequate to incite the general curiosity of a potential museum goer. But does it help? Meaning, does it gives us a better understanding of what the show is about, the artist's work, anymore so than a curatorial statement that "fall back on cliches that stand in for thought without furthering it" as Lacayo states in his article. Isn't looking at art and the subsequent writing on it, supposed to do just that - futher thought?
Vizzo states in her opening paragraph, "The familiar banality of suburban landscapes is a common thread linking collections from six San Diego-area artists in this spring's “Innocence Is Questionable” exhibit" and goes on to say, "The exhibit title loosely connects themes of suburbia, poverty and wealth, family life and commercialization." Vizzo's comments are supported by one of the participating artists, Jean Lowe, who says, “There is an element of social critique in the work of all six of us; in that regard, that's a pretty apt thread.” Well, yes a thread, a very loose thread, one of those annoying threads that you want to yank out as it taunts you, clinging to the fabricated wardrobe being worn. In it's purest form, a breathing, living, Homo Sapien, is a form of social critique that is constantly evolving - some might argue for the worse - that does not require being an artist. Finally, a recent visit to Kara Walker's exhibit at the Hammer, I believe has, enlightened my perception of what social critique in art truly means, singlehandedly and convincingly. Walker's art is light years ahead in addressing issues of poverty and wealth, and is a far cry from the attempts by several of the artists, in "Innocence is Questionable".
Lacayo refers to a lot of what is written in catalogues, press releases, and curatorial statements as "jargon" or "insider talk," and laments that no one seems to be editing these things. He feels, it is a language - like some secret handshake - designed and destined, for the consumption and understanding of those on the inside. That inside of course, is the hallowed and sacred halls of the museum. But this is only one part of the linguistical puzzle that needs rearranging.
What frustrates me is this, I have been spoiled over the years, with vast amounts of visual and credible art historical references, that it is difficult for me today, to accept at face value, "loosely" thematic curatorial endeavors, artist statements and any other form of artistic discourse, written or otherwise that hasn't undergone some rigorous filtering. I don't think you can go on, learning, experimenting, risking, and failing, if you're not willing to ask tough questions of yourself, and of others. Do the math, as they say.
Part of me wants to believe that "Innocence is Questionable" can address the social and commercial issues it claims to be doing via the curators and the artwork on display. However, the work doesn't have a voicebox attached to it, whispering sweet nothings into my ear. It has paint on canvas, crayon on paper and exists entirely on its own. That it is imbued with ideas and concepts, passion and virtuoso brushstrokes, intelligence and insight, I have no doubts. Unfortunately, its creator - speaking from a strictly public point of view - is also neither present, at least not always, which leaves me entirely on my own to decide what I see, intuitively feel, and chalk up to a shared common experience. I believe, if we continue to propagate and support the idea of the "artist," who does not speak nor write or chooses not too, (though I can think of many who have done this quite well - Smithson, Rothko, Lippard, Morris, Judd, Chicago, Martin etc.), and leave this task to poor writers, critics and curators trying to get "into the artist's head," to then put those notions to paper, in some dilution of intent and technique, then we are truly pandering to ourselves, and doing the general viewing public a great disservice. What do we owe the public as actors in the cultural domain, respect for one, and very little, if we continue to offer them lines such as, "mapping the physical environment and documenting the interconnectedness of all things." Indeed.
Is it happenstance or a collective awakening, that there is so much being said these days about curatorial writing and its present "unassuming" and non-committal role as spokesperson for the arts. Why is this, and why now? Is there a shift in the expectations of observers, critics, consumers? that are expecting a little bit more clarity, a tad bit more transparency, to be let in on the process and production by the artist - not to interfere - but to understand the language. Not every expression including art, is universal in its message, nor can it always be mutually communicated and understood. Art clearly has its own appeal to the general populace. Lacayo believes "curators and catalogue essay writers are afraid simply to say aloud and in plain English what they suppose the work might be getting at," and if this is correct, what are they afraid of, of "getting it wrong" as he suggests or as I suggest, a faulty judgement in the art chosen. There is nothing wrong in the admission or in the quest for knowledge, or for that matter, a request, a desire, a curiosity to learn more about what you're seeing or what you're producing - the error is not knowing at all.
Kevin Freitas
For more Whitney Biennial colloquialisms, I refer you to http://artvent.blogspot.com/ and the posting dated March 28, entitled, "Impenetrable prose from the Whitney Biennial"
More coverage of "Innocence is Questionable" (source SDVAN)
La inocencia en duda, mienlace.com
Escondido exhibition poignantly examines the concept of innocence lost, North County Times
HE name of this exhibit is, “Innocence is Questionable,” about which, the brochure says, “Ultimately, what each of these artists question is whether or not the folly of the world is the responsibility of man?”
From Edwin Decker's website: www.edwindecker.com Edwin Decker is a freelance writer and performance artist residing in San Diego. He regularly publishes articles in various newspapers and magazines in San Diego and around the country. His work has appeared in The San Diego Union Tribune, San Diego Reader, Modern Drunkard Magazine, Real Deal, Seattle Stranger, Tucson Weekly, Creative Loafing in Atlanta, Cleveland Scene, Exit Magazine, Smash, No Cover, Out of the Gutter, The National Pist (Canada) and his mothership magazine San Diego CityBeat.
